text:
Chapter Three:
Ethnohistory, 1750-1880
By 1750, substantial changes were taking place in the northern frontiers of the Spanish Colonial world and those changes affected native groups. The eastern and southern portions of Coahuila were systematically settled by the Spanish during this period, and native groups found their access to lands and resources more and more tightly confined to western portions of the province (Chipman 1992). This trend of encroaching settlement and restriction continued throughout the Mexican, Texan, and United States jurisdictions over the micro- and macro-regions. Aware of the impact of these restrictions on native groups, Texas and, later, the United States each flirted with the possibility of providing permanent reservations for selected native groups in Central and west Central Texas, but this was a passing notion, lasting only a few years (Freeman 1997). By 1859, undeeded land was so greatly diminished that Native American access to resources was confined to lands east of El Paso and west of Fredericksburg, but over the next decade even that resource area diminished. After the Red River Indian wars of the 1870s, the Native American presence in the state was nearly non-existent. In November 1877, Captain Nolan of Fort Concho reported: "I here interviewed Some of the Settlers as to when Indians were last seen in this Vicinity . . . [and] they informed me that none had been Seen in the last three Years" (quoted in Brown et al. 1998:31).
Below, we provide a brief summary of each of these periods and how Native American groups were affected. Appendix 4 provides additional documentation, including notations of which native group was where and when, along with the citation for the source. Because of the efforts to co-exist with, settle, and/or remove Native Americans in Texas in the nineteenth century, notations for that period are more extensive than for the earlier centuries. Neither this chapter nor Appendix 4 is intended to be exhaustive. Rather, they are intended to be the foundations for our recommendations and a basis for discussions with Native American groups during Phase 2 of the study.
The changes during this half-century centered on boundary and jurisdictional shifts that reflected Spain's efforts to colonize more firmly its northern lands. Thus, Spanish settlement south of the Rio Grande gradually increased, as did the region's population. Despite efforts to accomplish the same goals north of that river, however, settlements there remained few, widely dispersed, and with small populations. By the close of the century, the potential threat of encroachment by Britain and/or the United States drove Spanish leaders to view their northern provinces as a defensive line to prevent loss of lands to the south.
By 1750, the Province of Texas was understood to be the lands east of what we call today the Balcones Escarpment and north of the Medina River, extending to the Gulf Coast and Sabine River on the east and north to the Red River (Jones 1996:38). Thus, Texas during these years can be included in our macro-region but its boundaries were east and north of the micro-region. Within its boundaries, settlement and colonization concentrated along an arc from San Antonio to Los Adaes, and Spain was never able to effectively control the lands or natives north or west of that arc. In fact, with the transfer of the capital of the province from Los Adaes to San Antonio in 1773, Spanish settlement and presence in the eastern part of the province gradually diminished with the exception of one villaNacogdochesfounded in 1779. To the south, the boundary of the Province of Coahuila included the western portions of the Sierra Madre Oriental and extended north to the northern bank of the Rio Grande from just south of San Juan Bautista to just west of modern Big Bend National Park (Weber 1992:207, and Map 10). These lands include the southern portion of the micro-region.
Because the boundaries between these provinces were ill defined, jurisdictional problems arose during these years. For example, the establishment of the San Saba Presidio and mission raised the legal question of whether the portion of the macro-region west of San Antonio should be under the jurisdiction of the Province of Texas or Coahuila. The debate centered on legal jurisdiction as well as military responsibility over maintenance of presidial duties, and was complicated by the potential silver mining interests in the region. The debate was never fully settled by the time the Spanish withdrew from San Saba in 1769 (Wade 1998:308-309, 346, 350; Weber 1992:187-191). Settlement patterns within the two provinces reinforced this debate. Although the villa of San Fernando de Austria (later called Aguaverde [modern Zaragosa]), Coahuila, was established in the 1750s in the southeastern portion of the micro-region to assist in protection of settlements and ranches north of Moncolva, those efforts promoted little additional migration to the northern parts of the province (Jones 1996:24-29). Several large latifundios (land holdings) were either granted or accumulated much of the land in the portion of the micro-region south of the Rio Grande. Privately held, those holdings also limited settlement and resulted in Coahuila becoming "an agrarian and pastoral frontier" (Jones 1996:37), with population increases prior to 1800 largely occurring in the urban centers of the province. For example, by the end of the century, Saltillo had a population in excess of 8,000, whereas prior to Saltillo's annexation to Coahuila in 1787, the entire population of the province was only 8,319. Given these patterns, the river was treated as a defacto border. After the withdrawal of troops from the San Saba, Spanish settlement of the region west of the Camino Real and north of the river became essentially non-existent, adding to the perception that the river itself was a border.
The Spanish population of Texas was even lower than the northern reaches of Coahuila in the second half of the eighteenth century. In 1790, the entire Hispanic population of Texas was ca. 2,510 (Weber 1992:195). Not only did the population of Texas contrast with the population of Coahuila, other aspects of Texas differed from its sister colony. Many of the differences related to the fact that Texas had come to be viewed as a defensive bastion, positioned to reject British and American encroachments, and Spanish residents of the province consisted largely of soldiers or others who worked on behalf of the military (Weber 1992:195). Jones (1996:55) has noted that, for residents of Texas:
A defining change throughout both the macro-and micro-regions during these years resulted from the 1766-1768 inspection tour of the military installations of New Spain by the Marques de Rubí. During the tour, Rubí visited the various military installations in Texas, including the Presidio de las Amarillas (on the San Saba) and the Apache missions on the Nueces River. As a result of his visit, Rubí saw Texas in pragmatic and military terms: revenue poor and too costly to protect. He recommended a series of changes and many were implemented by the Crown, including the withdrawal of Los Adaes as the seat of government for the Province of Texas. In fact, after recommending the final dismemberment of the Spanish installations in East Texas, Rubí went so far as to suggest the complete resettlement of San Antonio to the Rio Grande (Jackson and Foster 1995:183; Weber 1992: 187-191, 204). While this did not occur, San Antonio did become the new capitol of the province and East Texas was largely abandoned.
Despite such changes, "Native Americans continued to assert their own claims . . . [and] successfully maintained their political and spiritual independence" (Weber 1992:203). In part, Native American success resulted from a Spanish/French alliance. By the mid-eighteenth century, France and Spain were allied against England. This alliance operated in Texas despite the fact that each had competing interests in the province. The alliance, along with Spain's desire to maintain her northern defense in Texas, created a unique, uneasy truce in Texas that worked, over the years, to "undermine Spanish missionary efforts in Texas," giving Native Americans a choice between missionary efforts to pacify and christianize them or trade in guns and ammunition that allowed them to resist life on Spanish missions and Anglo-American reservations (Weber 1992:196).
Native groups encountered north or south of the Rio Grande could be either friend or foe, depending on the particular time of the encounter and whatever the current agreement was between that group and the Spanish. This was particularly true for the various Apache divisions who often concluded their own peace agreements with the military commanders in Coahuila or in Texas. Sometimes individual chiefs had their own agreement with a specific Spanish commander (Hadley et al. 1997:193). When Apache individuals of a particular division or band were encountered by military with whom they enjoyed a treaty, they were greeted peacefully. If they encountered a military party outside the area covered under their treaties, they were treated as enemies (Wade 1998:346, 349-351; Moorhead 1968). With the powerful military alliance between the Spanish and the Comanche in the late 1760s, the Apache in Texas found themselves more frequently treated as the enemy (John 1991; John and Wheat 1989). That alliance and an endless chain of localized peace agreements with various Apache groups, as well as relentless military campaigns (led principally by Hugo O'Connor, Jacobo de Ugarte, and Juan de Ugalde), kept the area in flux and the native groups on the move.
Within the macro-region, the supply corridor between San Antonio and the Rio Grande was the theater of many skirmishes (cf. QA 1750). Native groups needed and coveted the horses and other goods that moved along that route. The tempo of these conflicts increased over time with the presence of the Apache. Later native groups often designated in the documents (e.g., ICC 1974:42) as Norteños (Comanche, Wichita, Waco, and Tonkawa) kept these conflicts alive. Since settlement in the micro-region was almost non-existent, the Native Americans involved in the raids along the supply corridor or in the raids on settlements in Coahuila often withdrew via those lands. For example, in 1758, the friars at the Rio Grande mission reported that the Natagé, Pelon, Mezealero, Ypandi, Come Nopale, and Come Cavallo had come, arriving from the northwest (QA 1756). Elsewhere, a map from 1766 by LaFora show the Lipan and Natagee in the region of the mouth of the Pecos (UTEP, special collections), and another from 1773 indicates that the Apaches Lipans, Apaches Jumanes, Apaches Natajes, and Apaches Mescaleros occupied that same region (AME 1773).
By 1750, the involvement of the military garrison of the Rio Grande intensified, first with the establishment of the Presidio de San Luis de las Amarillas and the Apache mission at San Saba (1757) and the conflicts that emanated from the creation of those two frontier outposts, and later with the creation of the two Apache missions on the Nueces River (1761-1762). Thus, the presidios close to the micro-regionRio Grande, Santa Rosa, and later Aguaverdeplayed a crucial role in the punitive campaigns against various native groups, principally the Apache, the Comanche, and their various divisions who operated in the micro-region (Wade 1998:345).
The first half of the nineteenth century was one of turmoil and revolution across the macro-region. The period began with the Mexican War for independence from Spain, continued with the Texas Revolution, and ended with the entrance of Texas into the United States. Not only were the events of the period confused, the archival materials throughout this and the next period are vast. The interaction between new, emerging European nations in North America with the many native groups in the micro-region, as well as with groups extending to the Southern Plains was so complex that it requires that the researcher keep a score card to know who was where and at what time.
In the first decade of the century, the short love affair between Spain and the budding government of the United States, which had been several decades in the making, fell apart. As Bannon (1990:214) notes, the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 underscored for Spain the necessity of maintaining the provinces of Texas and New Mexico as defensive frontiers of a shrinking empire. The French threat was replaced by the American menace, and, in 1806, Spain again sought to defend its eastern border by reestablishing the post of Los Adaes and reinforcing its military presence at Nacogdoches. Spain feared the continuous move of Anglo-American settlers westward after the Lewis and Clark, Pike, and other expeditions had fired the American imagination and fueled the greed for land. Not only did those events affect Spanish settlements, the westward expeditions heralded a watershed for native groups west of the Mississippi River and gave impetus for Native Americans who were being dislodged from lands to the north and east to push south in greater numbers. Thus, large Comanche camps were reported on the San Saba and Colorado rivers in 1808 (Kavanagh 1996:137 and Table 4.1), and the Kiowa were pushing towards the northern edge of the Red River as early as 1790 (ICC 1974:42). By this time, Comanche were also beginning to travel to and from Coahuila, often through the micro-region (Kavanagh 1996:173). Through time, the numbers of disaffected Native Americans using the micro- and macro-regions would grow.
While these events temporarily deflected attention from the Rio Grande area, the unrest south of the river that started with the revolt led by Father Miguel Hidalgo in September 1810 spread to the north, making the Province of Texas a theater for conflicting political interests. When the insurgents finally won in 1821, Texas, whose citizens counted among the leadership of the revolution, had been deeply affected. Says Weber (1992:299): "In its last years as a Spanish Colony, Texas lay in ruins." Its Hispanic population was counted at less than 2,000 and Nacogdoches was "nearly expired."
The rebellion in Mexico set the stage and created untold difficulties in Texas both for the Spanish settlers and for Native Americans. Weber (1992:235), writing about the ensuing difficulties with the Native Americans, states:
Thus, in 1815, the Comanche killed a native residing at Mission Nuestra Señora del Refugio (MA 1815), and the Quicha living at La Tortuga (near modern Mexia) were believed to be conduits of trade goods and information to the French, Comanche, and Tahuacano (LA 1819). In his Memoria, Padilla (LA 1819) wrote that the Comanche had taken deliberate advantage of the turmoil in Mexico. Describing them as quite wealthy, he stated that the wealth of the Comanche divisions came from raids that they had made after 1811 on the isolated northern ranches of Coahuila, a time when that region was distracted by the revolution. These and other events exemplify the uneasy alliances with individual chiefs or native groups.
After the war for independence, Mexico contended with intense internal dissension. It found itself unable to cope with the increasing pressures brought to bear on its Texas territory by a motley array of Europeans and Anglo-Americans determined to make a home for themselves in Texas by seeking and winning land grants that further reduced the land available to resident and immigrant Native Americans. During these years, native groups were played against the various factions and against other native groups. As early as 1821, the governor of Texas stated that the Cherokee, Choctaw, Miami, and Kickapoo (Figure 13) should be encouraged to settle "in the country of the Comanche" as a barrier between that tribe and the East Texas settlements (BA 1821). Some chiefs of the Cherokee accepted this challenge (Everett 1990:27, 29, 71), and for several years Richard Fields, a Cherokee diplomat, led their negotiations with Mexico, traveling to San Antonio and Mexico City. By 1826, a small band of Cherokee aided the citizens of Laredo by guarding their north western flanks (e.g., the micro-region) from marauding Native Americans (LA 1826). When the community of Dolores was established 34 kilometers east of modern Del Rio in 1836, Shawnee and Cherokee aided in its protection and sustenance (Kenedy 1925). Eventually, however, the Texas Cherokee were unable to reach agreement with Mexico and turned to a new group of insurgents: the Texans, who were then embattled with Mexican troops for their independence (Everett 1990:71). In 1836, the Texas Republic signed a treaty with the Cherokee as well as with the Shawnee, Delaware, Kickapoo, Quapaw, Choctaw, Biloxi, Ioni, Alabama, Caddo of the Neches, Tahocuttake [sic Tawakoni], and Unataqua [sic Nadaco], giving them title to land north of the Camino Real in modern Cherokee, Angelina, Nacogdoches, Rusk, and Smith counties (Everett 1990:71-73).
After the revolution, Mexico did not immediately lose interest in the lands north of the Medina, and again courted Cherokee, Caddo, and other Native Americans as a means to encroach on the new republic (Everett 1990:90, 109). A small contingent of these tribes aligned themselves with Mexico, most traveling to places south of the Rio Grande, including the southern portions of the micro-region. The majority of each tribe, however, tried to maintain their lands in East Texas despite on going problems with the new Republic of Texas. Ultimately, they failed to reach accord with the Texans, and their landssituated within the rich northeastern portion of the Republic of Texaswere repossessed by the Republic in order to allow the Anglo-American newcomers to establish ranches (Everett 1990:109). After their lands were repossessed, these Native Americans were either pushed further west or relocated to Indian Territory to rejoin their kin (Himmel 1999; Everett 1990:109). Nonetheless, the efforts of the Cherokee and other resident and immigrant Native Americans in Texas to negotiate with Mexico resulted in their travel to and from northern Coahuila prior to 1840 (Tanner 1999). Some of these families settled at Musquiz, San Fernando, and elsewhere in the micro-region.
Despite all the turmoil, and largely because of that turmoil, these 10 years solidified the Apache/Comanche tension in the macro- and micro-regions. In the early decades of the nineteenth century, the Apacheparticularly the Lipan and Mescalerowere prominent residents of the micro-region. They alternately sought peace or war with the provinces of Coahuila and Texas (Hadley et al. 1997; John and Wheat 1989; AM de Monclova 1821). Late eighteenth century maps as well as descriptions by officials with long years of service on the northern frontiers strongly suggest the Lipan, Natagee, and possibly Faraon Apache considered the lands along the Pecos, between Toyah Creek (modern Reeves County) and the mouth of the Pecos to be their homelands:
After 1811, Comanche raids in Coahuila and Nueva Vizcaya increased (LA 1819), even though the Comanche considered the headwaters of the Brazos, Colorado, and Red rivers, and the Southern Plains, to be their homelands. By 1838, Lt. Irion reported that the Comanche "claim all territory north and west of the Guadalupe Mountains to the Red River to the Rio Grande" (Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 1:44). Two years later, 300 Comanche tipis were found at Las Moras spring near modern Brackettville (BIA 1840 1:143). Reports from archives in Coahuila confirm the Comanche raids to the south. For example, in 1842, officials at San Buenaventura reported that 500 had crossed the Rio Grande (in the vicinity of the Amistad NRA lands) and raided Nacimiento (AM de San Buenaventura 1842). Chiefs Moechucope (Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 4:6) and Pochanaquarhip (Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 2:110), in separate statements in 1844 to Sam Houston, both claimed all the land west of a line from the Rio Grande to San Antonio, and Chief Pah-hah-yuco (Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 4:6) informed Houston that his men were "catching buffalo" near the mouth of the Pecos. Clearly, then, the micro-region was also commonly used by the Comanche during this half century. As the Comanche intrudedraiding in the micro-region and, at times, hunting buffalo there (e.g., Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 3:43, 85; AM de San Buenaventura 1842)the Mescalero tended to be found with greater frequency in the Bolson de Mapimi while the Lipan often were encountered on the headwaters of the Nueces (BIA 1847 reel 1:42), Cibolo Creek in Bexar County (Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 3:14), and elsewhere in the micro- and macro-regions. At the same time, the Lipan were often counted among the residents of northern Coahuila, west of the area of Piedras Negras and within the micro-region (cf., AM de San Buenaventura 1838, 1843), some at peace, others at odds with the Mexican settlers. Together, these data indicate that, while the Apache continued to occupy the micro-region, the Comanche swept through it in large raiding parties and also, in statements to the officials of the newly organized Republic of Texas, claimed to own it.
Soon after Texas joined the United States, two lines of Army forts were established along its frontiers: one was a north/south line along the western frontier; the other was an east/west line established along the Medina/Nueces rivers. The latter line held for only two years, until the Mexican-American War again made the Rio Grande a river of contention (e.g., Stegmaier 1996). With the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo (1848), the river regained its status as a natural and political border, even though the perception of the Rio Grande as a demarcating boundary may not have been held by the native groups who crisscrossed its waters. Nevertheless, the history of the Rio Grande as a contested boundary since the beginning of the colonization period affirms the pivotal role of that physiographic feature in the political fate of the State of Texas.
During this same period, efforts were made to identify a safe route for non-Native Americans traveling from San Antonio to California. Initially, the route ran north of the micro-region, traversing the San Saba and Llano rivers (Riemenschneider 1996; Jones 1996). By 1849, however, a route approximating modern US 90 led travelers from San Antonio to Uvalde through San Felipe Springs (modern Del Rio), then west-northwest to Fort Stockton. A large quantity of travelers used this southern route to California and the gold fields (Myers 1999a:28) over the next few years. While there is no evidence of non-military settlements along the route until 1859, land speculation related to San Felipe Springs resulted in platting of land there by 1849 (Myers 1999b:49). A decade later, General Bliss, enroute to Camp Hudson, reported that a family named Johnson lived at the springs and suggested that a small Mexican community was present on the south side of the river (Myers 1999a:30). In 1870, a community of 160 Hispanic and Anglo-American residents were living at "San Felipe" (later called San Felipe del Rio and eventually shortened to Del Rio) and the first of the canals that make up the modern canal network had been dug. Crops irrigated by the canals were bought by the wagon trains using the trail to and from San Antonio (Myers 1999a:31).
When Texas entered the union, the United States agreed that undeeded lands would be owned by the state, not the federal government. Texas had amassed large debts during the Texas Revolution and its years as a Republic, and these lands could be sold to recoup those debts (Anderson 1976:6-7). Moreover, its citizens had no burning desire to become the next Indian Territory, its lands used as reservations for immigrant Indians. These facts notwithstanding, state and federal officials alike recognized that Native Americans resided within its borders and would need to be accommodated in some fashion. Once Texas became a state, the initial response to accommodation was the north/south line of forts. After the 1848 treaty, Anglo-American settlements along the Camino Real between Laredo, San Antonio, and East Texas increased. Those settlements pushed many Native American groupsparticularly the Comanche and Apache, and to a lesser degree northern Native Americans (Kiowa, Wichita, Waco, Tonkawa, Taovaya, etc.) who often hunted on the Southern Plains and/or raided in northern Mexicoto the west of the north/south line of forts. This line was established to divide "Indian" land from land granted to the Anglo-American and Hispanic newcomers. At the same time, the land west of the forts was regarded as a corridor through which Native Americans were allowed to travel. Since the lands of the Lower Pecos were west of the line, the line encouraged Native American passage through the Lower Pecos.
Gradually, the line of forts moved further west, and Fort Clark (1852), Fort Lancaster (1855), and Fort Stockton (1859) were established as settlement crept westward. Two outposts of Fort ClarkCamp Hudson and Camp San Felipewere established in 1857 to better defend travelers and mail along the San Antonio to California route. Closed during the Civil War, Camp San Felipe was re-activated as Camp del Rio in 1876 to protect the citizens of San Felipe del Rio from raids by Native Americans and Mexicans (Cooper and Cooper 2000:18). Camp records indicate that the post was situated ca. one-half mile from the springs but no structures were built until 1880. Seminole Maroon scouts usually manned the camp, living there for months at a time until it was closed in the late 1880s (Myers 1999a:37).
Some Anglo-Americans, however, believed that reservations were needed in addition to the forts, and that they should be established on undeeded lands, preferably in rural areas away from the Comanche/Apache corridor west of the north/south line of forts. These efforts had actually begun in 1845 with the unsuccessful effort of the Republic of Texas to establish a reserve for the Lipan and Tonkawa during the Republic of Texas era (Himmel 1999:88-90). While many agreed that reservations were needed, crafting legislation for reservations that would not be viewed an infringement on state or private rights was not facile. A letter from Pryor Lea (BIA 1852 1:1084-1087), the principal lobbyist for reservations, to his brother Luke Lea, then the Indian Commissioner in Washington D.C., expresses the general concerns and fears extant in Texas at that time:
The resolution (see below) that Lea referred to was quite simple. At the same time, however, it created a framework that allowed the legislature to deed land for the two reservations in north Central Texas. Planning for a thirdfor the Lipan and Mescalero Apache on the Pecos Riverwas undertaken, and the land was even surveyed, but the reservation was never created.
Joint Resolution Concerning Indian Boundaries
Of the two reservations Texas eventually did create, the first, known as the Lower Reserve, was established in 1854 for ca. 800 of the Ioni [Hainai], Caddo, Tawakoni, and Waco (BIA 1854, 2:890). A year later, approximately 200 Tonkawa also settled on the Lower Reserve (BIA 1855, 3:205). The second, known as the Upper Reserve, was established for some 200 of the Penataka Comanche in 1855 (BIA, 1855 3:31). The latter reserve was situated on the Clear Fork of the Brazos, in modern Jones County. The Lower Reserve was south of Fort Belknap on the Brazos River in the vicinity of modern Newcastle in Young County. The person who spearheaded the reservation effort in Texas was Robert Neighbors, a former major in the army of the Republic and member of the Texas House of Representatives (BIA 1853, 2:385-386) who was considered one of the most knowledgeable individuals in Texas with regard to Native Americans. He served as the primary Indian agent both for the Republic and the United States.
The reservations were unsuccessful. The initial two years were plagued by drought (BIA 1855, 3:319), reducing the ability of the Native Americans living there to grow crops and requiring Neighbors to increase his annual budgets. However, external pressures seem to have been more important to their failure. During the years the reservations struggled to survive, west Central Texas gradually was being settled by Anglo-Americans who failed to distinguish between the reservation Comanche and the non-reservation Comanche. The latter continued to raid in Texas and Mexico (BIA 1859, 4:1226), and their raids angered settlers, providing fodder for legislative action to encourage their removal from Texas. By 1858, the Penataka Comanche on the reservation were being harassed by non-reservation Comanche and their allies, the Kiowa (BIA 1858, 4:683), a situation that made life even more difficult for residents of the reservation. By 1859, Neighbors and his two Indian agents bowed to the difficulty of protecting the tribes settled on the Lower Reserve. A letter to Neighbors from Leeper, the Indian agent on the Comanche Reservation, summarized the concerns:
Shortly thereafter, Neighbors received permission to relocate the remaining residents of the reserves to Indian Territory. In the end, then, the reservation period in Texas was over five years after it began.
During the period that Texas flirted with the reservation system, as well as later, the number of reservations in Indian Territory increased to accommodate new immigrants to those lands. Many became the home of tribes whose original territories were on the eastern seaboard and/or the Great Lakes region of the United States. Among these were the Creek, Seminole, Seminole Maroon, Kickapoo, Delaware, Shawnee, and Potawatomi. In the 1850s, some individuals in each of those tribes became dissatisfied with life on the reservation. Many, such as the Seminole, were forced to share lands with groups that had arrived in Indian Territory two or three decades earlier and that had already settled on the prime lands (Mulroy 1993:38-40). Starvation and dissatisfaction raged. The settled groups coveted as slaves the African-American members of the newly arrived groups, increasing the resentment. While most members of these groups remained and negotiated their future with both Indian agents and other Native Americans, some sought their future in Texas or Mexico. During this same period, Native Americans who resided on or close to the Red River (Tawakoni, Tonkawa, Wichita, Taovaya, etc.) found themselves pushed in multiple directions (Wright 1986). Some accepted reservation lands in Indian Territory; others moved south into west Central Texas and/or Mexico. In 1850, a band of Tawakoni camped 20 miles below Laredo (Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 5:82). Adding to this milieu, Mexican officials were continuing to recruit Native Americans to defend their northern settlements and ranches in Coahuila and Nuevo León from Comanche, Mescalero, and Kiowa raiders (cf., Winfrey and Day 1995 vol. 5:171; CMO 1851a). Even the Lipan were recruited. Luntzel, a German who served as an interpreter for Indian agents in Texas, reported that the Lipan residing near San Fernando (in Mexico) had been invited there by the Mexican government (Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 5:170).
One Seminole chief, Wild Cat, was particularly restless under this regime and sought other means of freedom. As early as 1850, he was on the Llano River first with the Lipan, then with the Comanche (BIA 1850, 1:519); still later that year, he was on the Pecos again with the Lipan (Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 3:124), reportedly seeking friendship with each. In July of that same year, he also asked permission of the Mexican government to relocate to Coahuila with the "mascogos" (AM de Nava 1850). The following year, 18 Seminole families arrived at Monclova Viejo (CMO 1851a). Over the next several years, additional Seminole, Seminole Maroon, Cherokee Black, Creek and Creek Negroes, Caddo, and other groups would move to northern Mexico to obtain lands in return for protecting those borderlands from the raiding Lipan and Comanche. Members of at least two of these tribes (Seminole Maroon and Kickapoo) continue to reside in ethnic communities approximately 50 miles south of the Amistad NRA to the present day. Each is discussed more fully below.
The migration of Native Americans to Mexico and their subsequent employment to guard the northern limits of Coahuila, along with the push of Caddo, Ioni, Anadarko, Keechi, and other native and immigrant groups to the San Saba, Colorado, Brazos, and Llano rivers of west Central Texas did not affect the use of the micro-region by the Comanche, Lipan, and Mescalero. Crossings at Eagle's Nest (modern Langtry), the mouth of the Pecos, and Del Rio facilitated their access to either side of the border. In 1848, Mexican soldiers under Jesus de la Garza attacked a Lipan camp located on the northern bank of the Rio Grande at the mouth of the Pecos (AM de San Buenaventura 1848). In 1851, the Seminole Maroon and their allies chased Lipan and Comanche warriors from the Lower Pecos to the Bolson de Mapimi (Mulroy 1993:68, 73). These Native Americans were again encountered on the Pecos (in the vicinity of the Amistad NRA) in 1853 (BIA 1853, 2:104-106), 1854 (BIA 1854, 2:710), 1855 (Swanson n.d.:51, BIA 1855, 3:144, Fort Clark Post Returns 1855, MC617-R213), 1856 (Swanson n.d.:70; BIA 1856 3:493; Fort Clark Post Returns 1856), 1860 (Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 4:138-139), 1867 (Swanson n.d.:173, 179; Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 4:177, 229), 1873 (Swanson n.d.:237-238), 1875 (Crimmins Collection; Mulroy 1993:124; Swanson n.d.:287), 1876 (Swanson n.d.:276, 305), 1877 (Crimmins Collection; Swanson n.d.:316, 319), 1878 (Swanson n.d.:323; US Army, Pecos District, 5:92), and 1881 (Mulroy 1993:131). These and other encounters with native groups, particularly the Comanche, Lipan, and Mescalero, in the vicinity of the micro-region indicate that it remained an area used by those Native Americans. Some of them even resided there while performing duties at Camp San Felipe.
The Red River Indian Wars of the 1870s, and the increasing pressure of the U.S. Army to pacify or remove non-reservation Native Americans from Texas from the 1860s to 1880s resulted in a greatly diminished presence of organized tribes in Texas. Today, only three reserves exist within the state. The Alabama-Coushatta, originally from lands to the east of Texas, reside on a small reservation in Polk County in East Texas. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo in El Paso County is the home to the Tiguas, members of the Isleta Pueblo who left New Mexico in the turmoil of the 1680 Pueblo Revolt. Finally, a small number of Kickapoo occupy a 20 acre reserve south of Eagle Pass. None of these are tribes originally native to the state.
The lands of the Amistad NRA were not heavily traveled by Europeans during the late nineteenth century. Few settlers lived in the region of the Lower Pecos prior to 1875, and, even after that date, it was sparsely occupied prior to the arrival of the railroad in the mid-1880s (Zertuche 1985), a time well after the enforcement of the removal order that sent native groups north to Oklahoma. During the period from 1750 to 1880, the deserted and desert-like lands of the Lower Pecos, which had not yet attracted Anglo-American or Spanish settlement, gradually became a corridor of travel for Native Americans. In these years, much of the oversight of the region fell to Fort Clark and its small outposts. With the arrival of the railroad in 1882, Del Rio became the county seat of a new county (Val Verde) that was formed from portions of Pecos, Kinney, and Crockett counties.
In summary, given the movements and wars, the immigration of Anglo-American, Hispanic, and African-American groups into Texas, and a series of ever-changing political agendas, the ethnohistoric record of the Lower Pecos is dim. Our knowledge of which Native American groups have historic ties to which part of the state is, at best, imperfect. In this study, we largely rely on Spanish and English documents. While those documents offer remarkable insights into the native groups that can be tied to the Amistad NRA, their imperfections must be acknowledged. Each reflects the biases of its author, including whatever limited knowledge the author may have had of the Indians, their lifeways, and/or the environments of the Lower Pecos, Trans-Pecos, and South Texas. Such problems are detailed in greater length in the methodology section of the first chapter. The bulk of the available documents related to the Native American presence in the region largely ends after 1880. Interviews that will be conducted in Phase 2 of this affiliation study may offer new and/or supporting data. On the other hand, memories of a past in a far off land that has not been seen in over 100 years may be as dim as the ethnohistoric record.
Individual Native American Groups, 1751-1881
Below we list individual tribes with specific or possible ties to the lands of the Amistad NRA. Each group is described in greater detail than the descriptions of native groups in the preceding section because these groups generally represent the modern tribes that may be affiliated with the lands of the Amistad NRA. Additional details on these groups are arranged chronologically in Appendix 4, and population estimates are listed in Appendix 3. While some of the tribes have clear ties to these lands, others are noted because they may hold ties to the land, but the evidence is equivocal. Nonetheless, their use/occupancy of the region will be explored during Phase 2 of the study and may clarify some of the ties. A few are concluded not to hold ties to the Amistad NRA, but are included here because they have, at times, been thought to have ties to the region.
The Coushatta and Alabama nations are two of the Muskogean-speaking groups of the southeastern United States. While some of their respective tribes reside today in Louisiana and Oklahoma (Wright 1986:29), members of the two tribes moved separately into the northern portion of East Texas in the first decade of the 19th century. (Other members of each tribe moved separately into Oklahoma, and others reside today in Louisiana.) Over the next twenty years, both groups moved south toward the Gulf of Mexico, establishing fixed villages with large rectangular buildings placed around a plaza, similar to those they had occupied to the north and east. The villages of the one tribe were situated in close proximity to villages of the other tribe, and there was close communication among them. By the 1850s, members of both groups settled on a small grant of land in Polk County, Texas, and have come to be known as the Alabama Coushatta (Hook 1997:29-32). In 1853, the Texas Secretary of State wrote to Indian Commissioner Robert S. Neighbors and stated that they were among the only tribes that could be regarded as "Texas Indians" (BIA 1853, 2:274).
The Alabama-Coushatta cannot be definitively associated with the Amistad NRA lands, but they can be placed in both the macro- and micro-regions during the mid-nineteenth century. Their association with the micro-region relates to efforts of Mexico to recruit a variety of Native American tribes, particularly Muskogean-speakers including the Seminole, Shawnee, Alabama, and Coushatta (Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 1:125-127; AGEC 1831a). Their efforts to recruit Native Americans came on the heels of visits of several Native American groups to Monclova (Everett 1990:114). The purpose of those visits by the Cherokee and others was to seek Mexican support of their efforts to hold title to lands in East Texas. Since, at that time, disaffected native groups from Mexico as well as a number of Apache groups were raiding northern Mexican settlements, the Mexican government recognized a mutual need and sent officials to those Native American groups to seek their assistance in controlling the "wild Indians" south of the Rio Grande. Mexican emissaries traveled through Texas as early as 1842 (Everett 1990:113-115), and it was during this trip that the Alabama and Coushatta of East Texas were contacted. Subsequent to the pleas of the Mexican emissaries, the Alabama and Coushatta visited with the residents of the Brazos Reserve from time to time (BIA 1857-1859, 4:1099). Since individuals from that reserve were sometimes found well to the south of the reserve (Dressel 1837 [referenced in microfilms]), it is possible that the Alabama and/or Coushatta traveled with them, either within the macro-region or even south into the micro-region. Despite these facts, we found no evidence that the contacts prompted their removal to Mexico, and more definitive proof of their association with the Amistad NRA would be needed prior to contacting them.
The Anadarco were once a distinct part of the Caddoan confederacy, and were first encountered north of Nacogdoches by the De Soto expedition in 1542 (Kenmotsu et al. 1993). At that time Spanish diarists said that they were called the Nadaco. When the Caddo ceded their lands in the early 1800s and moved west to the Brazos River near Fort Belknap, the Anadarco were among them (Wright 1986:32). Over the years, however, they made tenuous alliances with a variety of northern tribes. Hence, in 1844, they were camped with the Comanche on Pecan Bayou, near the Colorado River (Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 2:23). Two years later, when the Caddo, Comanche, Tonkawa, Kichai (Keechi) and other tribes signed a treaty with the United States (Wright 1986:32), the Anadarco were among the signators. At the time of the signing, they were living in the macro-region in a village on the Brazos River, maintaining agricultural fields but also hunting buffalo in the Rolling Plains to the west of the village, likely near Pecan Bayou.
The general region of their village on the Brazos became, in the mid-1850s, the area where the Texas legislature established the Brazos Reserve for the Anadarco, Caddo, Tonkawa, Tawakoni, and Kichai (BIA 1853-1854, 2:681). For several years, these tribes attempted to establish villages, agricultural fields, and a settled lifestyle. Non-sedentary Native Americans and Anglo-American settlers made these efforts difficult and, in 1859, the Anadarco and the other reservation residents were relocated to Indian Territory. Placed at the Wichita Agency, they were initially listed among the Wichita Affiliated Tribes but in later years again counted among the Caddo population on the joint Wichita-Caddo reservation (Wright 1986:34).
The documentary data do not provide much indication that the Anadarco had ties to the lands of the Amistad NRA. Although friends with the Tonkawa and some of the Wichita groups, and a part of the Caddo nation, there was no evidence that they journeyed to Mexico or to the Lower Pecos. On the other hand, the Anadarco did, at times, serve as scouts for the Texas and United States armies (BIA 1857-1859, 4:132). That work may have led them to the lands of the Lower Pecos since the river crossings in the Lower Pecos were frequently used by Apache, Comanche, and other Native Americans raiding in Mexicothe very groups the army was pursuing. Given this history of scouting and given their close ties to some of the groups (Tonkawa, Comanche, etc.) who can be documented in the micro-region and with whom they may have intermarried, it is recommended that, as part of the Caddo, they be contacted to determine if they have knowledge of specific ties to the Lower Pecos.
The Apache are Athapascan speakers who moved south out of the northern Plains and Canada during the Late Prehistoric period. Scholars dispute the route and timing of the migration (Gunnerson and Gunnerson 1988), but there seems to be fairly clear evidence that the Querechos that Coronado (1864) met on the Southern Plains in 1541 were Apaches. In 1601 Oñate (1871) used the term Apachu to refer to a nation located on the Southern Plains of New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma. Either prior to or shortly after that notation, the Apache divided into eastern and western groups, with the eastern Apache groups generally occupying the lands and areas of the macro-region and north throughout much of the Southern Plains. Over time, these and other documents also make clear that subdivisions of the Apache existed. It is not entirely clear, however, if these subdivisions were an artifact of their movement to the south where separate bands occupied different regions, or if the subdivisions were a long-standing tradition. [1] Eventually some Apache division names began to take precedence over the variety of earlier appellations. Thus, the names Mescalero, mentioned as early as 1725 (Rivera 1945:67), and Lipan were maintained, while Pelones, Natagees, and Fararones were less frequently used and eventually disappeared from the documentary record.
Documents indicate that the eastern Apache groups began a gradual move south toward the Rio Grande and beyond during the late seventeenth century, primarily as a result of the southern push of the Comanche (Gunnerson 1974:23-25; Kessell 1979:371-401). In 1683-1684, the Apache were pushing the Jumano and their allies southward into the northern edge of the micro-region, and, at the same time, were actively engaging the Spanish in El Paso (AGN 1680, 1684a, 1684b). A few years later, documents written by Spanish military officers with years of experience on the northern frontiers and familiar with both the geography and the native groups living in the macro- and micro-regions, convincingly place the Apache in the area of the Amistad NRA by the eighteenth century. Joseph de Berroteran (Hadley et al. 1997:214), a military officer in Nueva Vizcaya and Coahuila, wrote that the Apache and Cholome Indians "came from the Rio Puerco [Pecos] where it joins with the Rio del Norte [Rio Grande]." Elsewhere (Hadley et al. 1997:199), he warned government officials that, if the presidios on both sides of the Rio Grande were not maintained, the Apache would control the Rio Grande from El Paso to San Juan Bautista. While control of these lands may or may not have been under their domain, his statements clearly indicate the presence of the Apache along the Rio Grande throughout the micro-region in the first half of the eighteenth century. Joseph de Urrutia, another military officer with years of experience on the northern frontier, confirmed Berroteran's statements, writing in 1733 that the Apache resided along the Pecos, frequently traveling east and west along the Rio Grande (Dunn 1911:266).
Through time, descriptions of specific Apache subdivisions support the presence of the Apache in the macro- and micro-regions. One document written by a Jesuit priest, who had spent considerable time on the northern frontier (AGI 1710), placed the Jila (Gila or western) Apaches in Sonora, the Apaches Fahanos (Faraone) north of the Rio Grande on the Pecos River in the area of the Stockton Plateau, and the Apaches Necayees (Nataje) east of Pecos Pueblo in the Southern Plains. By 1729, however, the Natagee had apparently pushed further south. Spanish maps (JPB 42:1729) call the Pecos, near its confluence with the Rio Grande, the "rio salado o del Natagee" (meaning the "Salty River or the River of the Natagee people"), indicating their presence in the micro-region by this time (see Figure 7). Both the Natagee and Mescalero were said to reside on the Pecos and Rio Grande, to the southwest of the Lipan (Dunn 1911:203). A year earlier, the Lipan were found on the San Saba (Dunn 1911:202). By 1750, the Lipan continued to be encountered on the San Saba River, as well as the Rio Grande and the Medina rivers (Dunn 1911: 202).
During the eighteenth century, the Apache began to align themselves with native groups, including the Jumano and Tonkawa, with whom they previously had hostile relations (AGN 1691). At first, those relations were tentative, but, over time, reports of the Apache seeking peace with either the Spanish (Ayer 1714) or native groups (AGI 1726-1728) increased. Their peace efforts with the Spanish resulted in the establishment of the disastrous Spanish mission at San Saba and, later, the two missions on the Nueces River, all during the mid-eighteenth century. The ensuing 130 years were tumultuous as the Apache variously sought accommodation or war with the armies of Spain, then Mexico, Texas, and finally the United States. By the late nineteenth century, some Apache bands had settled in northern Mexico while those in the United States were placed on a series of reservations. The Fort Sill Apache Reservation in Oklahoma mostly held displaced Chiricahua Apache (part of the western Apache) although a few individual Lipan also resided on that reservation. The Mescalero Reservation in New Mexico became the home of the Mescalero as well as a large portion of the remaining Lipan (Figure 14). Today, the New Mexican reservation is considered the "official" home of both the Lipan and the Mescalero. In contrast, the White Mountain Apache in Arizona are largely descended from the Gila Apache while the Jicarilla Apache of the Southern Plains descend from the Faraones. Nonetheless, it is likely that a few Lipan also settled with each of the latter branches of the Apache (Michael Darrow, personal communication, 1999).
When the Apache were first encountered by the Spanish, they were described as hunters and gatherers with a focus on bison hunting. In 1686, the Apache were still described as "the owners of all the buffalo plains" (Paredes 1962:475), and Fray Neil (AGI 1710) affirmed this in 1710, stating that the Apache considered their land to be along the Rio Colorado where they hunted buffalo (see also AGI 1716). Throughout the eighteenth century, documents suggest that the Apaches turned to trade in horses. For example, in 1723, an Apache woman testified (AGN 1723) that a Spanish horse herd had been stolen to take to a trade fair (cambalachi), and the Apache trade in horses with the Caddo was substantial (Gregory 1973). In the eighteenth century, however, the Apache also practiced agriculture: "Each [Apache] captain went to where he lives . . . They each sow corn and beans near where the Spaniards live" (AGN 1723). While sporadic, these efforts to grow corn continued, often focusing on the area of the Toyah Creek confluence with the Pecos River in modern Pecos County, Texas (Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 3:184-189) somewhat to the north of Amistad NRA and just north of the micro-region. When the Texas legislature briefly flirted with the idea of establishing a third reservation, largely for the Apaches, the area they considered for the reservation was along this same Toyah Creek because the Apache had a long association with that area of the Trans-Pecos and their small corn fields (BIA 1853-1854, 2:681).
The Apache, particularly the Lipan and Mescalero, had a major presence in the Amistad NRA and the micro-region (Figure 14). It began with their movement to the south and east, out of the Southern Plains, a movement that was caused by the Comanche drive into those same plains. The move, and their affiliation with the Pecos River, can be well documented in the early eighteenth century and continued throughout the historic period. By 1729, Barriero, a Spanish cartographer, placed them on the Rio Puerco [Pecos] (JPB 42). Berroteran (Hadley et al. 1997:214), one of the most experienced military commanders in northern Mexico during the eighteenth century, stated in a retrospective that the "Apaches of the Rio Pecos" leave from that river to cross the Rio Grande. He further reported that he had met a party of Apache just south of the mouth of the Pecos during his 1729 expedition. Berroteran also noted that in earlier decades Apache had resided in the Bolson de Mapimi, just to the south and west of Amistad NRA through much of the first half of the eighteenth century.
In the second half of the eighteenth century and after their mission on the San Saba was destroyed, the Apache ranged from the Bolson de Mapimi to the Rio Grande to the Nueces. In 1772, 300 Lipan Apache attacked haciendas and pueblos in Coahuila (Moorehead 1968:34), evidence of their presence in the micro-region. A Spanish military map dated 1773 continued to call the Pecos River the "Salado o rio del Apache del Nataje que la Fora lo llama del Pecho y Danville de los 7 Rios," meaning "the Salty River or river of the Nataje Apache whom [Nicolas] la Fora calls the Apache of the Pecos and whom Danville calls the Apache of the Seven Rivers" (AME 1773). On that same map, several other Apache groups are shown in or close to the micro-regionthe Apaches Jumanes just north of the Lipanes and on the east side of the Pecos, with the Natajes and Mescaleros depicted on the west side of the Pecos. Two years later, Ugarte also demonstrated their presence in the micro-region. He traveled north of Monclova some 740 miles in an effort to force the Apache away from Coahuila (Moorehead 1968:38). He failed to find them anywhere except northwest of San Juan Bautista on the Rio San Pedro or Devils River. Although the Mescalero were often cited in the Bolson de Mapimi, part of the macro-region, by the late eighteenth century they were increasingly documented in the micro-region, and Spanish armies repeatedly found them between the Rio Sabinas, Piedras Negras, and the mouth of the Pecos (Moorehead 1968:207, 235, 255), either alone or in the company of Lipan, Lipiyan, or other Apache bands. Based on these and other sources (see Appendix 4), the Apache were clearly present within the micro-region throughout the eighteenth century.
The Apache presence in the Amistad NRA region continued unabated during the nineteenth century. Pike's 1804 map shows the Mescalero Apache immediately west of the Pecos on the Stockton Plateau (Texas State Archives). The same year, Manuel Merino, a prominent government official in Chihuahua, issued a report on the Apache that supports their presence in the micro-region. He (John and Wheat 1991:148) wrote that the Apache nation "inhabits the vast empty expanse living between 20 and 38 degrees of latitude and 264 and 277 degrees of longitude . . . to that of La Bahia del Espiritu Santo." Elsewhere, Merino (John and Wheat 1991:162-163) described the territories of the various subdivisions:
The Apache maintained a presence in northern Mexico in subsequent decades, but the Lipan and Mescalero were often cited in the region of south and Central Texas, particularly on the Nueces River (Wallace n.d.:232; Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 2:166; BIA 1853-1854, 2:106), the San Antonio and Guadalupe river areas (Winfrey and Day 1995, vol. 3:14; BIA 1:43), and the Colorado River (cf., Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 3:85; BIA 1847-1853, 1:76). More importantly for this study, their presence on the Pecos River can be well documented (BIA 1847-1853, 1:104; Wallace n.d.; Sjoberg 1953; Moorehead 1968), including in the area of Toyah Creek's confluence with the Pecos (Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 3:124). By 1853, their association with Mexico was sufficiently pronounced that Neighbors, who normally was well informed, concluded that the Lipan were not native to the new state of Texas, but "were intruders from Mexico . . . They crossed the Rio Grande into Texas after the revolution in 1836" (BIA 2:283). In the same document, Neighbors stated: "a party of Muscaleros [sic] and Lipans who reside on the Pecos, [2] have been induced to proceed to the Apache camp [in the Guadalupe Mountains]." These types of statementsassociating the Apaches with the Pecos River and the Amistad NRAcontinued for some time (e.g., Winfrey and Day 1995, vol.5:170; BIA 2:669, 681, 890; Crimmins Collection). As late as 1877, they were still considered to be the dominant native group residing on the Pecos River and east to Fort Clark (Crimmins Collection). Buckelew, who was taken captive by Indians, stated (Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 4:229) that his captors took him to a Lipan camp on the Pecos River (within the micro-region). When half of the Lipan in that camp moved south of the Rio Grande, the other half of the group stayed on the Texas side in the lands that they told him they had long occupied.
The evidence, then, documents the Apache presence in the micro-region and in the Amistad NRA from as early as the beginnings of the eighteenth century and continuing into the late nineteenth century. The specific subdivisions that appear to have the greatest affiliations with the Amistad NRA are the Mescalero and Lipan. From this history, then, the Apacheparticularly the Apache on the Mescalero Reservation where both the Mescalero and Lipan were placedhave a very close affiliation with the lands of the Amistad NRA. The dispersal of a few Lipan with the various other Apache branches, however, indicates that the White Mountain, Fort Sill, and Jicarilla Apache may also have ties to the area. In addition to their presence in the Amistad NRA beginning in the early eighteenth century, the Apache affiliation with the Jumano gives them even greater cultural ties to the lands of the Amistad NRA. As noted above, they were enemies with the Jumano during the seventeenth century when the Apaches began to push into the territory south of the Southern Plains that had long been held by the Jumano (AGN 1683). Initially, the Jumano sought the protection of the Spanish as a deterrent to the Apache push. When the assistance the Jumano sought did not materialize, the Jumano name began to be linked (as it was on the Barriero map) with the Apache (see also Kenmotsu 2001; Dunn 1911:248). The historical links of the Jumano to the lands along the Pecos River (as noted in the preceding section) including the Amistad NRA, give the Apache one of the deepest roots with the region.
The Apache Tribe of Oklahoma is discussed separately from the other Apache groups (see above) because they were formerly known as the Kiowa Apache and only officially named the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma in 1972. Their former appellation as the Kiowa Apache results in others including them as a band of the Kiowa (Gunnerson and Gunnerson 1988). However, like other Apache groups, the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma are Athapascan speakers who moved south out of the northern Plains and Canada during the Late Prehistoric period. Scholars dispute the route and timing of the migration (Gunnerson and Gunnerson 1988), but generally agree that some Athapascan speakers were present in the Southern Plains by A.D. 1400. The Apache Tribe of Oklahoma believe that their band may have been one of the earliest arrivals in the south (Alonso Chalepa, personal communication 2001). By 1600, the Apache had divided into eastern and western groups, with the eastern Apache groups generally occupying the lands and areas of the macro-region and north throughout much of the Southern Plains. Over time, documents describe a number of subdivisions of the eastern Apache (cf. Rivera 1945:67). It is not entirely clear, however, if these subdivisions were an artifact of their movement to the south where separate bands occupied different regions, or if the subdivisions were a long-standing tradition.
Eventually, some Apache division names began to take precedence over the variety of earlier appellations. One of the appellations found in the document is "Ka-ta-ka," an early version of the name Kiowa Apache (Thomas 1935; Wedel 1961). Researchers believe that the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma allied themselves to larger, more powerful tribes as a means to survive in unsettled times. Thus, in late eighteenth and early nineteenth century documents, the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma were closely linked to the Kiowa, and seem to have operated as a band of that nation. Gunnerson and Gunnerson (1988:12) state that most documents fail to distinguish between the two, even though the Kiowa speak a Tanoan language (Gunnerson and Gunnerson 1988:11; Mayhall 1971:12, 154-156). Hence, when Kiowa were mentioned in historical documents, Kiowa Apache were likely to have been present as well.
The Apache Tribe of Oklahoma affiliation with the lands of the Amistad NRA is linked to their association with the Kiowa who were in the Lower Pecos Archeological Region at various times. By the 1820s, the Kiowa were found raiding into the macro-region in South and Central Texas (Gunnerson and Gunnerson 1988:14-15; Mayhall 1971:57), usually in consort with the Comanche (NMA 1810). When the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma were encountered on the Canadian in 1823 by the U.S. Army, they said that they had been in the macro-region hunting near the "Rio Brassis and the Rio Colorado of Texas" (quoted in Gunnerson and Gunnerson 1988:14; see also Mayhall 1971:57). It is possible that they were in the company of the Kiowa, who were frequently found on the rolling plains during the nineteenth century (Mayhall 1971).
During this period, the Kiowa also passed through the micro-region going to and from Mexico (see below) and may have had members of the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma with them. In the 1850s, the Kiowa presence in the area of the lands of the Amistad NRA became more pronounced. Statements about their raids, south into northern Mexico, were made by knowledgeable individuals (BIA 1847-1853, 1:340, 565). During those years, the Kiowa were often part of the cohort in Comanche raids (BIA 1854-1857, 3:551, 4:132; Wallace n.d.:394). After 1860, the Kiowa (and thus, the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma) were less frequently in the micro-region. Notable exceptions occurred in 1860, 1872, and 1873. In 1860, a member of a Kiowa band on its way to raid in Mexico was killed while attempting to steal horses near the Pecos River (Mayhall 1971:189). Then, in 1872, a Kiowa/Comanche raiding party attacked a government wagon train at Howard Wells near the Devils River, and another Kiowa/Comanche band traveled to Mexico below Eagle Pass. On their return via the Devils River, they encountered an Army scouting party that killed two of their members (Mayhall 1971:286).
Another aspect of the history of the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma also argues for their presence in the Amistad NRA: collection of peyote. Peyote was important to the tribe, and the Rio Grande represents the northern-most limits of the plant's growth. As Boyd (1998:235) notes, the Comanche and Kiowa were reported to have collected plants along the Rio Grande and Pecos River. It was and is important to the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma whose members continue to access it in the general region. Elder members of the tribe note that their fathers and grandfathers also traveled to and from the micro-region to collect peyote (Alonso Chalepa, personal communication, 2001). Based on this background, the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma was present in the micro-region and within the lands of the Amistad NRA. They need to be contacted in Phase II of this study.
The Caddo were native to East Texas, residing there from at least the ninth century (Story 1982) and maintaining their presence in the region until forced out in the nineteenth century. Long time agriculturists, the Caddo were the southwestern-most expression of the mound builders of the eastern United States. They were divided into several subdivisions or confederacies (see Story 1982) that acted with considerable independence. Although native to the areas of East Texas, pestilence, wars with European and native immigrants, and political difficulties squeezed the Caddo into smaller and smaller apportionments of their original territory. Eventually, in 1854, they entered the 'Lower Indian Reserve' a short distance south of Fort Belknap seeking a mechanism to accommodate their concerns with the land acquisition policies of the incoming Anglo-American settlers. There, they were able to maintain their independence for approximately five years. In 1859, the Bureau of Indian Affairs determined that it could no longer protect and preserve intact the various native groups on the reserve. The 244 Caddo remaining on the reservation left, journeying to Indian Territory to find a new homeland. Today, the Caddo have their tribal complex and headquarters in Binger, Oklahoma.
The association of the Caddo with the lands of Amistad NRA is tenuous and merits further discussion with the tribe. The earliest date of the Caddo in the micro-region is not known at this time (Tanner, personal communication, 2000). However, in 1838, twenty Caddo warriors traveled to Matamoros to escort Cordova and Mexican soldiers from that city to the Trinity River to help secure their lands (Smith 1993:136; Everett 1990:90). A year later, approximately fifteen Caddo families traveled to the region of Nacimiento, Mexico, ca. 50 miles south of Del Rio (Tanner, personnel communication, 2000) in the company of the Cherokee, Seminole, Seminole Maroon, and Kickapoo. Mary Inkanish (quoted in Carter 1995:280-282), an elderly Caddo, recalled some of these events in an oral interview in 1929:
Since she was a child at the time, her knowledge of the route to and from Mexico was sketchy but she recalled that the party crossed the river No-aces and also believed they had crossed the Pecos. Although most of the Caddo eventually returned, a few were later found with the Lipan on the Rio Grande and Atascosa rivers (Smith 1995:136; Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 2:166). These sporadic forays into Mexico, just to the south of the Lower Pecos, suggest that the Caddo may have ties to the lands of the Amistad NRA. Confirmation or denial of this affiliation should be sought during Phase 2 of this study.
The Cherokee are one of the Muskogean speakers of the southeastern United States who were moved into the area of Texas and Oklahoma during the early nineteenth century (Figure 15). Originally from the Ohio River valley and the modern states of Tennessee, Georgia, North Carolina, and Kentucky (Perttula 1993), the Cherokee had a long and somewhat bloody history with the United States prior to the movement of some of their nation into Indian Territory in the 1830s (Wright 1986:64-66). As early as 1807, the Cherokee visited Nachitoches, and by 1813, several large Cherokee groups were camped on the Trinity River below Nacogdoches (Perttula 1993; Everett 1990). A few years later, they occupied a series of villages on the upper Neches and Angelina Rivers and by 1833 those villages held a population of ca. 800. That same year, Duwali (a prominent Cherokee chief) traveled to San Antonio and later to Monclova to cement the Texas Cherokee's already warm relationship with the Mexican government (Everett 1990:65). Believing they held title to the lands they occupied, dissention erupted when newly arrived European immigrants began to push for their removal from Texas as early as 1834. During the Texas Revolution, some Cherokee fought for the Mexican army. In fact, between 1833 and 1840, a small group of Cherokee warriors actively traveled with and fought alongside the Mexican army as part of their efforts to obtain title to the lands they occupied in East Texas. Thus in 1838, Julian Pedro Miracle traveled from Matamoros to the Trinity River in the company of 34 soldiers, 72 Mexicans, and 20 Cherokee and Caddo (Everett 1990:90). Most eventually left the state, and in 1845, a single village, located at the confluence of the Bosque and Brazos rivers, was the only remaining locale in Texas with Cherokee. A few years later, most of those families had relocated to Indian Territory.
The ties of the Cherokee to the lands of the Amistad NRA are similar to those of the Caddo, and three separate aspects of their history merit their inclusion in this affiliation study. First, Indians called Chiraquies and Cariticas were found in the macro-region in the vicinity of Laredo (LA 1826) and along the Colorado River (Berlandier 1828) during the early nineteenth century. Little information is provided in either account, although, in the former, Gutierrez de Lara stated that the Chiraquis were assisting the Mexicans by fighting hostile Indians around the Laredo area. This fits with statements about the activities of the Cherokee assisting the Mexican armies a few years later (Everett 1990:90). Moreover, the group name (Chiraquis) used in the document is a variant of the name Cherokee (Everett 1990) and their chief was Ricardo Fields, a prominent Cherokee. Thus, it is likely that these individuals were from the villages settled in East Texas during those years. Their presence aiding the Mexicans this far south is not unusual. Small bands of Shawnee and other northern groups are also known to have hunted and journeyed through the micro-region, specifically through the lands north and just east of the Amistad NRA. Mexican settlers on both sides of the Rio Grande encouraged their presence as a deterrent to raiding Apache and Comanche bands, as did the Mexican government (Everett 1990:90; LA 1819). Thus, it is possible that the Cherokee also traveled through the micro-region during this time frame.
Second, the Texas Cherokee, seeking to obtain title to lands in East Texas, allied themselves to Mexico as early as 1831 (AGEC 1831b, 1831c). After the Mexican defeat by Texian forces in 1836, some 80 Cherokee chose to travel south to join Mexican forces ranging between San Antonio and Matamoros (Everett 1990:109). Over the next three years, many of these individuals settled with their families west and northwest of Monclova, some living in San Fernando where the prominent Cherokee chief Sequoyah found them in 1842 (Everett 1990:114). In 1845, a charge was made at San Fernando de Rosas that Cherokee had stolen horses from Mexicans (AM de Guerrero 1845). One Cherokee descendant in Austin (Margie Caballero, personal communication, 2000) has noted that her Cherokee ancestors relocated to northern Mexico in the nineteenth century, and today most family members reside in the Yucatan. Finally, the Cherokee were a slave-owning nation prior to the Civil War. This aspect of their history also links them to the Amistad NRA. Some of their slaves, known as Black Cherokee, sought their freedom by moving south away from their "owners" and out of Indian Territory in the company of Seminole and Seminole Maroon, traveling to the Llano River and then on into Mexico where they resided with the Seminole Maroon in Monclova (Mulroy 1993:56). Black Cherokee likely intermarried with the Seminole and Seminole Maroon. Moreover, it is likely that some of the Black Cherokee assisted the Seminole Maroon when they patrolled the area of Amistad NRA for the Mexicans, and US Army documents (Swanson n.d.:215) show that they later assisted the Seminole Maroon scouts at Fort Clark (see discussion under Seminole Maroon, below). The latter maintain a presence in the micro-region to the present day, and it is feasible that the Black Cherokee do as well.
None of these pieces of information proves that the Cherokee have ties to the Amistad NRA. On the other hand, their presence in the micro-region, particularly with the Seminole Maroon, their work as scouts at Fort Clark, and the small but important set of citations documenting several northern groups traveling close to the Amistad NRA, indicate ties to the area. It is recommended that during the Phase II studies an effort be made to solicit further information on their affiliation (or not) during interviews with the Seminole Maroon in Mexico and possibly with the Cherokee in Oklahoma.
The name Comanche was first used in 1706 by Ulibarri. He reported that the caciques (chiefs) of Taos had told him that the Utas and Comanchus were about to raid their pueblo (Kenmotsu et al. 1994:24; Kavanagh 1996: 178). By 1719, the Wichita were reporting that the Comanche resided near the confluence of the north and south forks of the Canadian River (John 1975:216-217), and by the 1740s this group of newcomers were pushing into North and Central Texas, forcing their Apache rivals south and east (Kavanagh, personal communication, 1993; John 1975:258-303). Their desire and intent to dominate these regions was made clear with their 1758 attack on the San Saba Missiona mission that had been established for the Apaches (Hadley et al. 1997, Vol. 2, Pt. 2:513; QA 1758). In 1786, the Spanish negotiated a treaty with the Comanche that called for a joint Comanche-Spanish war with the Apache, thereby formally recognizing the Comanche claim to the Southern and Rolling Plains south of the Arkansas River (Kavanagh 1996:66; Figure 16). Four years later the Comanche established peace with the Kiowa, a tribe with which they would be allied with for the next century (NMA 1810).
The Comanche in Texas were sometimes known by one of a series of names of large, multi-family groups loosely associated with distinct parts of the land over which they ranged, known as Comancheria. Each group came to be known by the name affiliated with that distinct Comanche band (e.g., Kotsoteka, Penateka, etc.). Membership in the large bands, however, often changed (Kavanagh 1996:49). Individuals, nuclear families, or extended families would split from the larger group as a result of internal rivalry, some forming their own large bands (Figure 17) elsewhere on the Southern Plains under new leadership. Given this tendency to split and reform, some late nineteenth century bands (and names) had a very limited history as a cohesive group.
Kavanagh (1996) places the Comanche in Central Texas (the macro-region) as early as 1743 when three Comanche were seen in San Antonio. Over the next 40 years, they were noted in this region with increasing frequency, and by 1786, they controlled a major portion of what is today Texas. Their lands stretched west of San Antonio, north to the Plains and perhaps south as far as the Rio Grande. Those lands included our micro-region. Despite control of such a vast territory, their primary territory remained the Southern and Rolling Plains of Texas and Oklahoma. The Comanche presence to the south of these lands centered on their raids into South Texas and the Mexican states south of the Rio Grande. Those raids were frequent and often more than one band was raiding at any given time. For example, in 1840 three large groups of Comanche crossed the Rio Grande in three different localesGuerrero, Coahuila, and above Lampazos. They also hunted in the micro-region. In 1844, Chief Pah-hah-yuco (Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 2:110) claimed to Sam Houston that his men were "catching buffalo" near the confluence of the Pecos with the Rio Grande. Such raids and hunts often took them through the lands of the Amistad NRA (Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 1:24, 44), but the reports do not indicate that they resided there.
The decade of the 1850s brought changes to this pattern. Although the Comanche continued to raid into Mexico (Winfrey and Day 1995, vol. 3:124; BIA 1847-1853, 1:800) and along the western settlements of Central Texas (Wallace n.d.:295-299), many of their raids took them slightly west into Chihuahua via the Big Bend (Campbell and Field 1968). At the same time, one large bandthe Penatakasbegan to reside year round in the area of the confluence of the Clear Fork of the Brazos with the Brazos River (the northern portion of the macro-region). As a consequence, that band was settled on the 'Upper' Reserve, an Indian reservation in this same area of modern Throckmorton County during the period 1855-1859 (see Freeman 1997). Throughout this brief reservation period, those Comanche residing on the reserve earnestly attempted to establish farms and grow cotton, corn, beans, and other crops. However, the Penataka found the effort difficult. They had to deal with drought and the non-reservation Comanche (often called the Northern Comanche in official correspondence) who tried to induce them to rebel (BIA 1847-1859, 4:132). When the reservation period ended, the Penataka Comanche moved north, some to the reservation near Lawton, Oklahoma, others to join the Northern Comanche and several tribes in the Red River wars of the 1870s. By the late 1870s, however, regardless of their band, all Comanche were settled on the reservation in Oklahoma.
Comanche ties to the Lower Pecos are not as strong as the ties of the Apache, but they are nonetheless substantial. The evidence indicates that the Comanche used the micro-region: a) to take advantage of natural crossings of the Rio Grande that were well removed from Anglo-American settlements; and b) to exploit important resources. With regard to the latter, Boyd (1998:234) notes that peyote in the United States is largely restricted to the margins of the Rio Grande and that the Comanche and Kiowa "collected peyote along the margins of the Rio Grande and Pecos River." With regard to the former use of the micro-region, in 1847, the Comanche informed Neighbors that the Lipan were gathering at the mouth of the Pecos because they had personally seen them at that location (BIA 1847-1859, 1:153-172). Their statements demonstrate their own movements through the Lower Pecos. Later the same year, Buffalo Hump (a Penetaka chief) confirmed those statements when he informed Neighbors that some of his band had crossed the Rio Grande at the mouth of the Pecos in an attempt to seek revenge for attacks made on them in a previous visit to Mexico (Wallace n.d.:326). A few years later, Wild Cat's Seminole and Seminole Maroon forced Comanche and Lipan raiding parties out of the border region, after finding those Native Americans just to the south of the mouth of the Pecos (Mulroy 1993:76). During the signing of the 1867 peace treaty on the Arkansas River, Ten Bears of the Yamparikas stated: "I know every stream and every wood between the Rio Grande and the Arkansas. I have hunted and lived over [all of] that country" (Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 4:271). His statements were verified when the Comanche were seen during an Army scouting expedition along the Pecos in the region south of Fort Lancaster (Crimmins Collection). The notes completed by Bullis and his Seminole Maroon scouts also provide additional substantiation of their presence in the Amistad NRA (Mulroy 1993:124). Those notes stated that the army crossed the Pecos about a mile from its confluence with the Rio Grande and that they were traveling on "an Indian trail." The army marched about six miles southeast to a cave (called Painted Cave). From there, they continued to the Eagle's Nest crossing (e.g., Langtry), where they found another Indian trail that they followed. Shortly thereafter, they found the Comanche moving a herd across the Pecos. A battle ensued, and in subsequent years, the crossing of the Pecos came to be known as the Bullis crossing (41VV1428). This incident and the other data collected during this study (see Appendix 4) indicate that the Comanche were present in the micro-region and clearly have an affiliation with the lands of the Amistad NRA.
The Creek were one of the first Muskogean speaking tribes to establish trade relations with British agents in the early eighteenth century. Long time residents of the eastern United States, they were forcefully moved to Indian Territory in the 1830s at the close of a series of long wars with the United States (Wright 1986:135).
The ties of the Creek to the lands of the Amistad NRA are similar to those of the Caddo. Their ties relate to the fact that the Creek, prior to the Civil War, were a slave-owning nation. When Wild Cat moved to Mexico with Seminole and Seminole Maroon, some of the Black Creek, dissatisfied with their slave status, moved with them. They traveled to the Llano River and then on into Mexico (through the micro-region), where they joined the Seminole Blacks in Monclova (Mulroy 1993:56). In the late nineteenth century, a number of Black Creek served as part of the Detachment of Seminole Negro Indian Scouts attached to Fort Clark. Says Porter (1996:205):
Finally, in 1870 a band of Black Creek, under the leadership of Elijah Daniel, were found camped on the Nueces Rim in Uvalde County, just outside of the micro-region. That band enlisted with the Seminole Maroon scouts attached to Fort Clark in 1871.
While this does not prove that the Creek have ties to the Amistad NRA, their presence in the micro-region, particularly with the Seminole Maroon, suggests that they likely do. It is plausible that the Black Creek intermarried with the Seminole Maroon and, given the long Maroon history in Coahuila (see below), the Creek may have adopted Seminole Maroon ethnicity. At times, the Seminole Maroon joined border patrols that took them into the region of the Lower Pecos. As the Black Creek were with them, they too would have traveled the region. They also accompanied the Seminole Maroon during their work as scouts for the U.S. army at Fort Clark (see Seminole Maroon, below). Again, those scouting patrols frequently operated in the lands of the Amistad NRA. Thus, it is recommended that during the Phase II studies an effort be made to solicit further information on their association with the Amistad NRA during interviews with the Seminole Maroon in Mexico. In the event that some Black Creek may have returned to Indian Territory, it is also recommended that the Creek in Oklahoma be consulted during that phase.
As part of the Algonquian-speaking tribes of the northeastern United States, the Delaware were residents of southeastern New York, eastern Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware during early Colonial times (Wright 1986:146-147). In the various Indian/European wars of the early eighteenth century, the Delaware chose to take a neutral stance, a stance that angered their native allies. As a result of this unpopular position they began moving away, first into the Ohio River valley, then to Kansas and Missouri, and, by the early nineteenth century, onto the Shawnee reservation in Kansas. During this errant period, small groups of Delaware moved into the Indian Territory (Wright 1986:150) and to Texas (Perttula 1993; Anderson 1990). As early as 1817, 30 Delaware were encountered on the Red River and in 1826 they were again seen in the region, in the area of Cuthand and Delaware creeks in Red River County (Perttula 1993). By 1837, the Delaware and Shawnee population in Texas had increased to 500. In the 1840s the main force of Delaware in Texas were situated slightly west in Fannin and Red River counties. By 1851, however, few remained and only 63 were known to live in the state. These Delaware were placed on the Brazos Reserve with the Caddo and several Wichita groups. When the reserve was closed in 1859, the Delaware moved with the other Native Americans living there to Indian Territory. Today, descendants live in Caddo County, Oklahoma, near Anadarko.
While the Delaware did not reside for a long period in Texas, they played a key role as scouts for the Texan and later United States armies. Indian Agent and Commissioner Robert Neighbors (BIA 1847-1853, 1:139) and military leaders alike (BIA 1853-1854, 2:752) gave them high praise for their work as scouts. In Fredericksburg, they were sufficiently well liked by the German settlement that they were allowed to establish a small village north of the town on a league of land that was deeded to them (BIA 1853-1854, 2:182). Three of their leaders, Jim Conner, Jim Ned, and Jim Shaw, were often cited in the documents as individuals who were particularly singled out as interpreters and/or scouts between 1840 and 1859.
As with other Algonquian tribes, the Delaware's ties to the lands of the Amistad NRA are unclear. In their capacity as scouts, they certainly entered the Lower Pecos lands (i.e.,the micro-region). Moreover, a few traveled with Wild Cat and his Seminole bands to seek their future in northern Mexico, a short distance below the Amistad NRA lands and within the micro-region (BIA 1853-1854, 2:111). As late as the late 1860s, a few were found living at Musquiz with the Kickapoo, Lipan, Seminole, Potawatomi, and Mescalero (Mulroy 1993:110; Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 4:283). Thus, they are included here because they traveled through the micro-region with various scouting tribes and a few actually traveled there under the leadership of the Seminole and Seminole Maroon. Phase II should seek to clarify their affiliation (if any) with the Amistad NRA.
As noted above in the section devoted to the Native American groups affiliated with the Amistad NRA from 1600 to 1750, the Ervipiame were first identified in the region in the 1670s, allied with groups south (Concho) and north (Ocane, Catujano, etc.) of the Rio Grande. The Ervipiame, however, are one of those groups that maintained ties with the micro-region in both time periods. The initial discussion above dealt with the early period; here we deal in greater detail with the later years.
The Ervipiame appear to have been among the first groups to move north from the Coahuila/South Texas area, and their presence in east Central Texas (the macro-region) was noted in documents as early as 1707 (SA 1689-1736; Tous 1930:14), typically in the area between the Brazos and Colorado rivers. Nonetheless, this movement to Central Texas was gradual, and in 1708, Fray Espinosa stated that they were again located close to the San Juan Bautista mission, attempting to recruit other native groups to revolt with them against the Spanish (AGI 1708). Yet another account places them on the headwaters of the Colorado River at about this same period of time, and states that they were among the Julimes, Zivolas, Buejolotes, Chizos, Gavilanes, and Tripas Blancasnations generally residing in the macro-region, west of the Pecos River (AHP 1716A). These large groupings of disgruntled natives (often called rancherias grandes) were not uncommon on the Spanish Colonial frontier, typically consisting of both local and non-local natives who joined forces to survive in uncertain times (Hadley et al. 1997). Together, these data indicate that the Ervipiame maintained an off-again/on-again presence in the Amistad NRA region for at least the period 1700-1750. Always hunters and gatherers, they subsisted on buffalo, deer, and other wild game, as well as on a variety of vegetal foods.
Their efforts to maintain their residence in the micro-region were not successful, and after several failed attempts to establish their dwindling numbers in a mission, some apparently opted to join with another, larger group: the Tonkawa (Newcomb 1993:26). They did so in the company of their long-time allies the Mayeye and Yojuane, initially as part of what appears to have been another rancheria grande on the Red River in the 1770s, north of the macro-region. The rancheria was made up of the Mayeye, Yojuane, Ervipiame, and Tonkawa, and was situated close to a Taovaya village. Given their association with this rancheria, their amalgamation with the Tonkawa is not surprising. While not native to Texas, the Tonkawa (see discussion below) had become one of the Native American groups present in Central Texas by the 1650s. A century later, they were part of the cultural landscape of Central Texas, even participating with the Comanche in the attack on Mission San Saba. The presence of the Tonkawa, in relatively substantial numbers in the macro-region, would have brought them into contact with the Ervipiame. Propinquity, in addition to shared hostility toward the Apache, similar hunting and gathering subsistence practices, and the joint need to establish alliances would have predisposed the two groups toward friendship. Over the next several decades, these two groups interacted together. As a result of their relocation to this region and their on-going alliance with the Tonkawa, the Ervipiame became a subdivision (clan) of the Tonkawa by the early 1800s (Newcomb 1993:26, 29). The early association of the Ervipiame with the micro-region, therefore, leads to a conclusion that the Tonkawa hold an affiliation with the Amistad NRA. This is discussed further under the Tonkawa subheading below.
While some researchers consider the Keechi to have been one of the Caddoan-speaking bands of the Wichita Tribe (e.g., Wright 1986:164), the actual language of the Keechi never has been fully defined and is generally thought to be more closely related to Pawnee than to Wichita (Chafe 1993). Newcomb (1993:30) summarizes their early history:
Despite their early connection with the Pawnee, it is generally agreed that by the early eighteenth century the Keechi had moved south and were living on the Red River in Texas. During the period between 1772 and 1830, they moved further south to the Trinity River, where they occupied a number of villages and had an estimated population of 300 (Perttula 1993:176). In 1840, the Keechi were occupying the terraces of the Brazos River northwest of Comanche Peak. They remained in this general area (part of the macro-region), eventually settling on the Lower Reserve with the Caddo and several Wichita groups. Throughout this period, they were closely affiliated with one or more of the Wichita bands, including the Taovaya, Iscani, Waco, Tawakoni, and the Wichita proper, and eventually settled with those bands as part of the Wichita and Affiliated tribes when they removed to Indian Territory in 1859.
Any affiliation of the Keechi to the lands of the Amistad NRA would be tenuous. However, they are mentioned here because in 1854 they were among the tribes gathered at Fort Belknap, and some of those tribes were known to have at least traveled to the Rio Grande within the micro-region (BIA 1853-1854, 2:366). Since traveling Native American groups nearly always included members of more than one ethnic affiliation, the Keechi may have also traveled to the Lower Pecos. Moreover, later that same year, Indian agent Hill told Neighbors that they were one of the tribes that had hereditary ties to all of Texas. Although Hill was incorrect, it suggests that they were intimate with much of Texas and may have been more widely traveled than the documents indicate. While these individual documents do not clearly place the Keechi on the Lower Pecos in the micro-region, they do suggest that they may have affiliations with the region and that they should be contacted during Phase II of this study.
The Kickapoo are one of the Algonquian-speaking tribes that originated in the region of the Great Lakes, specifically in Illinois (Wright 1986:166). Agriculturalists, the Kickapoo also hunted buffalo on the Plains. By treaty in 1819, they ceded their lands in Illinois, some moving south to Missouri and Kansas. In later years, some of the Kansas and Missouri Kickapoo relocated to Oklahoma. However, other Kickapoo moved as far south as Texas and aligned themselves with the Cherokee who were then occupying East Texas (Wright 1986:167). By 1828, 110 families were reported in Red River County, and Stephen F. Austin's map of 1829 shows them on the upper Trinity River (Perttula 1993:168). In 1834, the Comandancia General de Coahuila and Texas reported they had made a peace treaty with the Comanche (AGEC 1834). They continued to be documented on the Trinity through 1838. In 1839, the Texas Kickapoo retreated to Indian Territory. They remained in these northern lands until 1850 when they were again in Texas, this time traveling to Mexico with Wild Cat, the Seminole leader (Mulroy 1993:56; AM de Nava 1851). Traveling through the region of Fort Clark and then Eagle Pass, 572 Kickapoo settled at Tuillo near modern Guerrero, Coahuila in the southern part of the micro-region (Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 5:50-51).
Relations among the Seminole and Seminole Maroon were uneven during the Kickapoo's stay in Mexico, however. At first the Kickapoo participated in joint efforts to repel the raids of Comanche and Apache but, in 1851, when returning from raids against the Comanche, they absconded with the horses that the combined group had taken from the raid and crossed the Rio Grande into Texas without the Seminole (Mulroy 1993:68; CMO 1851b). This move generally soured the remaining ties they may have had with the Seminole. Later that year, most of the Kickapoo (see Figure 13) in Mexico returned to Oklahoma, passing through the Lower Pecos Archeological Region into the San Saba drainage and then on to Indian Territory. Juan Manuel Maldonado (CMO 1852) reported that a group of Kickapoo "had robed horses of the Seminoles and six steer of Colonal Maring Rodrigues, evading detention by crossing the frontier in the area where the Arroyo de la Vaca [(Pecos River] and the Rio Grande confluence." There, the Kickapoo allied themselves with other Algonquian-speaking tribes in Indian Territory. Later, in 1857, one of the Indian agents reported that a camp of Kickapoo dissidents had moved southwest and were on the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River in Texas (BIA 1857-1859, 4:114). The band continued to be monitored by the Texas Indian agents, and in the late 1850s and 1860s, Kickapoo were again noted in the southern part of the micro-region (AM de Nava 1857; AGEC 1865; AM de Morelos 1867). By 1867, Kickapoo from Musquiz were again aiding Mexican armies (AM de Monclova 1867).
The association of the Kickapoo with the lands of the Amistad NRA began with the 1850-1851 movement of Kickapoo into Mexico. During that period, they traveled through the micro-region prior to turning southeast to Fort Clark. For most Kickapoo, their stay in Coahuila lasted only about two years before they returned to Indian Territory. However, as noted above, a few remained and another group of Kickapoo came to the region in 1866 when Mexico granted 8,676 acres to the Kickapoo and Potawatomi. Unlike the earlier Kickapoo who briefly resided in Mexico, these individuals came from the Kansas Kickapoo, a band who had enjoyed a long relationship with the Potawatomi. The Kickapoo/Potawatomi band settled on land located at Muzquiz in Coahuila. This land is in the southern part of the micro-region and on the headwaters of the Sabinas River. They generally remain there to the present day. Goggin (1951) notes that the various groups of Kickapoo in Oklahoma, Coahuila, and Kansas maintain relatively frequent communication and continue to visit each other to the present day. Yet another group of Kickapoo moved south to Mexico in the late 1890s, attempting to obtain additional land near Muzquiz (Goggin 1951:316). The Mexican government denied their claim. Some of these individuals returned to Oklahoma, others were reported to have moved to Chihuahua. The Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas, who own a small reservation on the Rio Grande just south of Eagle Pass, descend from the Kickapoo who moved to Musquiz from Kansas and maintain ties with that community in Coahuila (Goggin 1951).
Other links of the Kickapoo to the lands of the Amistad NRA date to 1870s. In 1873-1874, U.S. troops attacked Kickapoo near Remolino (AM de Guerrero 1873). Then, in 1875, the commander of the Rio Grande reported Kickapoo near the crossing of the Rio Grande at the Pecos confluence (AM de Morelos 1875). In 1878, Captain Kennedy of the U.S. Army, Pecos District, reported that his scouting party had found 'wickeyups' (U.S. Army, Pecos District 5:92). The structures were seen amongst a copse of trees at Geddes Spring on the Devils River. A grave was also present. Kennedy stated in his field notes that: "It is assumed that the location had been a resting-place of the Kickapoo who had crossed the head of the Concho in their move from Mexico in 1871." Together, these statements indicate that the Kickapoo have affiliations with the lands of the Amistad NRA.
The Kiowa are a northern Plains tribe that moved south into the Southern and the Rolling Plains, a movement that was relatively late. [3] The Kiowa, like other Plains tribes, were semi-nomadic, moving in relatively large groups and frequently in the company of one or more tribes with whom they were allied. By the early eighteenth century the Kiowa were living in the area between the Platte and Kansas rivers, and from there they slowly began to move further south, eventually becoming associated with the lands north of the Canadian and Red rivers in Texas and Oklahoma (Mayhall 1971:14, 221). In the late eighteenth century, a few captive Kiowa were identified in New Mexico, likely captured during Spanish or Apache forays to the Arkansas River valley where the two groups were then located. Over the ensuing decades, they began to raid south into the macro-region, allying themselves with the Comanche and other groups, but not moving from their primary residence along the Arkansas River.
The Kiowa affiliation with the lands of the Amistad NRA is not as strong as that of the Comanche or Apache groups, but the documentary evidence indicates that they were in both the macro-region and the Lower Pecos Archeological Region at various times. One early report that appears to document the Kiowa in the macro-region is a list of the various groups that were present at Mission San Antonio de Valero in 1784 (QA 1784). The list of names largely indicates groups typically found in Central and South Texas, but also includes the Yutas (Ute) and a group called the Sciaguas. While the name may be an aberration of one of the many groups from Coahuila, its spelling, together with the presence of the Ute, suggest that the name is a variant of the word Kiowa (Caigua). A few years after this meeting (in 1790), this tribe reached an agreement with their allies, the Comanche, to remain north of the Red River while the Comanche would remain to the south of that river (ICC 1974:42).
By the 1820s, however, the Kiowa were again found raiding into the macro-region in South and Central Texas (Gunnerson and Gunnerson 1988:14-15; Mayhall 1971:57), usually in consort with the Comanche (NMA 1810). As the nineteenth century continued, the two groups (Comanche and Kiowa) were often encountered in the Southern and Rolling Plains regions of Texas. For example, they fled to the Llano Estacado when smallpox broke out among many of the Plains tribes in the winter of 1840 (Mayhall 1971:172). Josiah Gregg's 1844 Map of the Indian Territory, Northern Texas and Mexico, showing the Greater Western Plains depicts all of the Texas Panhandle as well as Central Texas to be the territory of the Comanche and Kiowa (Gregg 1844). When the Kiowa Apache were encountered on the Canadian River in 1823 (Gunnerson and Gunnerson 1988:14; see also Mayhall 1971:57), it is assumed that the Kiowa were also present. The Kiowa were again found on the southern edge of the Southern Plains in 1834-1835 and 1866-1867, on the headwaters of the Brazos and Colorado rivers in 1841, and raiding settlements and forts between Shackleford and Menard counties during the 1860s (Mayhall 1971).
Throughout this period, they also passed through the micro-region going to and from Mexico. Although the Kiowa signed a treaty with the Mexican government at Camp Mason in 1835, they apparently felt that the treaty was voided by the Texas Revolution since, by 1840, they were again raiding in the micro-region in both Texas and Mexico (ICC 1974). Later, in 1844, the Texas Indian commissioner was told that while the Kiowa lived well to the north, when the leaves fell, they would be found in the vicinity of San Antonio (Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 2:45). Neighbors reported encountering them in 1847 and 1848 between Pecan Bayou and the San Saba, stating that, with their allies, "they number [sic] 5,000 strong."
In the 1850s, the Kiowa presence in the area of the lands of the Amistad NRA became more pronounced (Figure 18). During the Butler/Lewis peace commission of 1847, statements about their raids south into northern Mexico were made by knowledgeable individuals (BIA 1847-1853, 1:340), as well as by Neighbors in 1848 (BIA 1847-1853, 1:565). A map in the National Archives shows that the Kiowa and Comanche continued to be the principal tribes ranging from the Rio Grande to the Red River and between the Pecos and Laredo (Wallace n.d.:369), including the Lower Pecos Archeological Region. During those years, the Kiowa were often part of each cohort in Comanche raids (BIA 1854-1857, 3:551, 4:132; Wallace n.d.:394). In 1858, a large party of Kiowa camped just outside the Upper Reserve in Texas, trying to induce Ketumsie and his Comanche to rebel (BIA 1857-1859, 4:681). Failing in that mission, they attacked a wagon train near Fort Lancaster in Crockett County (BIA 1857-1859, 4:674). Their presence in the southern regions of Texas (including the Amistad NRA area) waned in the succeeding decades. After 1860, the Kiowa appear to have rarely ventured into the micro-region, remaining further to the north in the lands for which they are better known. Notable exceptions occurred in 1860, 1872, and 1873. In 1860, a member of a Kiowa band on its way to raid in Mexico was killed while attempting to steal horses near the Pecos River (Mayhall 1971:189). Then, in 1872, a Kiowa/Comanche raiding party attacked a government wagon train at Howard Wells near the Devils River, while another Kiowa/Comanche band traveled to Mexico below Eagle Pass. On their return via the Devils River, they encountered an Army scouting party that killed two of their members (Mayhall 1971:286). Turpin (1989) believes that this battle is immortalized in the rock art at 41VV327, a site located on a tributary of the Devils River and within the micro-region. Another aspect of Kiowa history also argues for their presence in the Amistad NRA: collection of peyote. Peyote was important to the Kiowa, and the Rio Grande represents the northernmost limits of the plant's growth. As Boyd (1998:235) notes, the Comanche and Kiowa were reported to have collected plants along the Rio Grande and Pecos River. Based on this background, the Kiowa were present in the micro-region and within the lands of the Amistad NRA. While their presence appears to largely date prior to 1860, they need to be contacted in Phase II of this study.
The Potawatomi represent another of the Algonquian-speaking tribes who have ties to the Amistad NRA. Their original territory was along the eastern shores of Lake Michigan. As a result of Iroquois and Anglo-American movement to the west during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the Potawatomi gradually moved south from Lake Michigan, splitting into several bands (Wright 1986:215). By the mid-nineteenth century, Potawatomi bands were residing in Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas. Shortly thereafter, a small enclave, known as the Citizen's Band, relocated to central Oklahoma and, while the majority of the band soon followed, a small group remained in Kansas allied with the Kickapoo (Wright 1986:216).
The association of the Potawatomi with the lands of the Amistad NRA is relatively late. This tribe originated in the same general area as the Kickapoo and had a long-time connection with that Native American group, both in the Great Lakes region and on their reserve in Kansas. After the Civil War, the Kickapoo from Kansas, along with some of their Potawatomi friends, migrated, in part, to Coahuila and the southern part of the micro-region. Hence, while the Potawatomi are not mentioned in any of the documents that we accessed for the early period of Kickapoo in Coahuila, they are mentioned among the Kickapoo at Muzquiz in 1866 (Mulroy 1993:109) and 1868 (Mulroy 1993:110). Since the Kickapoo who went to Mexico in the 1850s with Wild Cat and his Seminole were part of the Oklahoma Kickapoo, it is unlikely that any Potawatomi were among that group. Instead the Potawatomi who relocated to Coahuila in the 1860s were accompanying their friends, the Kansas band of the Kickapoo (Mulroy 1993:109). Situated so close to the Lower Pecos, it is feasible that the Potawatomi also traveled through the Amistad NRA lands on their journey(s) to and from Indian Territory, in an effort to avoid the growing Anglo-American settlements between Eagle Pass, Uvalde, and San Antonio. Since the Kansas band of Kickapoo continued to travel to and from the Muzquiz area, it is likely that the Potawatomi are also affiliated with the region. Phase II of this present study should seek to better understand the presence of the Potawatomi in the region.
The Seminole are Muskogean-speakers whose name was first applied in 1765 to the Alachua group of Upper and Lower Creek (Figure 19). These Creek had, for some time, been moving southward to escape the English. In northern Florida, at that time part of the Spanish colonies, they found a homeland. There, they created a buffer for the Spanish against the English settlements to the north (Mulroy 1993:6-8). In that location, their ranks gradually swelled as Creek and other dissidents fled south. These groups established a "loose organization of towns enjoying a great deal of local autonomy and displaying a large measure of cultural diversity" (Mulroy 1993:7). While they came from different language groups, eventually all came to speak the same language, use a communal land system, and enslave other Native Americans and African-Americans who were required to offer a levy to their chiefs. Over time, the subservient towns came to enjoy a degree of autonomy (except for their annual levy) while acting as consorts to the Seminole in their activities. Both Seminole and their slaves had similar lifeways and lived in "cabins of palmetto planks lashed to upright posts and thatched with leaves" (Mulroy 1993:19).
In the opening decades of the nineteenth century, two Seminole wars with the United States altered the course of history for this Native American group and their allied African-American communities. While the Seminole leaders agreed at the end of the first engagement to remove to Indian Territory under that act, their 'slaves' the Seminole Maroon (see below), did not favor relocation. When relocation lagged, a second war ensued. The second war was costly to both sides and took place after the passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 (Mulroy 1993:27). This second Seminole war, ending in 1842, cost the United States in excess of twenty million dollars, but also resulted in the requirement that the Seminole and their Maroons move to Indian Territory. When they arrived at Fort Gibson, Oklahoma, however, they were not given a separate reservation as they had expected, but were placed on the Creek reservation because they spoke the same language. The Seminole resented this inclusive decision; they had enjoyed their freedom from the Creek for nearly a century. Over time their resentment grew. Because they were not assigned to their own reservation and were unable to grow crops on their own land, starvation raged (Mulroy 1993:39). Seminole leaders expressed dissatisfaction with the situation. Their dissatisfaction resulted in the division of the Seminole into two main factions: one that remained in Indian Territory and another that left in May 1850 to seek a future in Mexico. It is the latter group that may have ties to the lands of the Amistad NRA.
Led by Wild Cat, a charismatic leader of the Seminole, about 172 Seminole, along with a number of Seminole Maroon, Kickapoo, Creek Black, and Cherokee Black arrived in northern Coahuila, in June 1850, ca. 50 miles south of Del Rio and within the micro-region (Mulroy 1993:56; AM de Nava 1852). Since Mexico had invited the Seminole to settle in their northern lands to help repel Comanche, Apache, and other Native American groups, Wild Cat's people, and especially the Seminole themselves, expended a fair amount of effort to rid their adopted land of these "wild tribes." These efforts placed them in and close to the lands of the Amistad NRA. For example, in early 1853, they patrolled the border from Eagle Pass to the Laguna de Jaco in the Bolson de Mapimi, forcing hostile tribes to move north of the Rio Grande (Mulroy 1993:76; CMO 1852). The Seminole continued to try to fulfill this role for their host country from 1854 through 1857. During this period, they patrolled the vicinity of present Del Rio (BIA 1853-1854, 2:614; Mulroy 1993:87) even pushing them as far north as Bandera (Mulroy 1993:79). However, the Seminole Maroon and Kickapoo were less diligent in those military efforts. There is also some evidence that Wild Cat may have been involved in efforts to organize forays from Mexico into Texas, crossing the Rio Grande southwest of Fort Clark and traveling northeast below that installation:
Neighbors noted in his report that Wild Cat was, at that time, in the vicinity of San Fernando, Coahuila.
With the death of Wild Cat a few years later, and the establishment of lands for the Seminole in Indian Territory in 1859, the reasons these Seminole traveled so far from their relatives were gone. As a result, 50 began a return trek to Indian Territory in 1859 (BIA 1853-1854, 2:111; Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 5:329) and, by 1861, nearly all Seminole had returned north (Mulroy 1993:89). Given this background, the Seminole presence in the lands of the Amistad NRA was between the years 1850 and 1861, and likely consisted of intermittent forays into the region to convince "hostile" tribes to push north of the Rio Grande. While this is not the strong presence the Apache had in the micro-region, it was certainly real and they should be contacted during Phase II.
Like the Seminole, the Seminole Maroon are Muskogean-speakers who developed as a unique ethnic group in the southeastern United States. However, unlike the Seminole, these peoples are descended from freed or escaped slaves who made their way to Spanish Florida. There they adopted the Muskogean language, established settlements separate from the Indian Seminole villages, and prospered. Although they were "enslaved" by the Seminole, "Seminole slavery typically translated only into the giving of a small annual tribute to the Indian leader" of the Seminole town (Mulroy 1993:2). When the Seminole were forced to relocate to the Indian Territory in the late 1830s and 1840s, the Seminole Maroon accompanied them (Mulroy 1993:37).
For the Maroon, however, Indian Territory was particularly unsettling. They were placed near Fort Gibson in the area occupied by the Cherokee and Creek nations. At that time both nations owned slaves. This fact led to hostilities. Not only did some members of both nations seek to enslave the Seminole Maroon but also some of the Creek Black fled to the Maroon. The situation was further complicated when the Seminole, who had yet to receive their own allotted lands and were destitute, tried to win favor with the Creek settlers by selling their "slaves" to the Creek (Mulroy 1993:37-40). Hence, when several Seminole and Seminole Maroon leaders proposed moving to Mexico, the Seminole Maroon agreed to relocate south to Mexico. Mexico had sent emissaries among these and other tribes as early at 1843 (Mulroy 1993:52) to recruit native tribes from Texas and the Indian Territory who would actively repel the Apache, Comanche, and other tribes who were actively raiding south of the Rio Grande.
In the spring of 1850, 234 Maroon, some 200 Seminole, around 100 Kickapoo, and some Cherokee and Creek Black (and possibly some Caddo) began their trek under the leadership of Wild Cat, a Seminole chief (Mulroy 1993:55; AM de Nava 1850). The trek took a relatively south-southwestern course, moving from southeast Oklahoma, arriving on the Llano River in May 1850. There they established a temporary village to plant corn and to await Wild Cat's negotiations with the Mexican authorities. The following month, Wild Cat had garnered 70,000 acres for them, located between 50 and 90 miles south of modern Del Rio (Mulroy 1993:56). Within the southern portion of the micro-region, then, the Seminole settled at San Fernando de Rosas (modern Zaragosa), the Seminole Maroon at El Moral or Monclova Viejo, and the Kickapoo at Tuillo (modern Guerrero).
Over the next two decades, the Seminole Maroon gradually distanced themselves from the Seminole and Kickapoo. First, they distanced themselves physically to avoid slavers from Texas. In the later part of 1850 they moved to Nacimiento, then to Parras in 1859, and finally back to Nacimiento and other locales in 1870 (Mulroy 1993:78, 88, 111). Second, social distance was achieved by gradually dropping out of the retaliatory military actions against the Lipan, Comanche, Kiowa, and other Native American nations who were at that time raiding between Laredo and the Big Bend area. Although they were accomplished fighters, the Seminole Maroon apparently chose not to fight (Mulroy 1993:110). Finally, when the Seminole decided to return to Indian Territory in the 1861, the Seminole Maroon refused to accompany them because the United States continued to allow slavery (Mulroy 1993:89).
With the abolishment of slavery and the renewed presence of the U.S. Army in the region in the 1870s, the Seminole Maroon ventured out of Parras to Nacimiento and other parts of northern Mexico. Soon, they began working with the U.S. Army at Fort Duncan and later at Fort Clark where they served as scouts for the next 40 years (Figure 20). Although the Seminole Maroon had been invaluable to the Army during the decades that they served, their jobs were terminated in 1914 and they were told to abandon their homes on Las Moras Creek near Fort Clark (Porter 1996:209; Mulroy 1993:169). Rather than return to the Indian Territory, a body of Maroons returned to Nacimiento while the others moved to nearby Brackettville (AGEC 1880). Both populations maintain their identity today (Mock 1994).
Given this history, the Seminole Maroon affiliation with the lands of the Amistad NRA is stronger than that of the Seminole, largely because of their continued presence in the region. While they did not reside in the Amistad NRA, they certainly spent time in it. As early as 1854, Seminole and Seminole Maroon chased the Comanche and Mescalero Apache, who were raiding along the Rio Grande from Eagle Pass to Big Bend, to Chihuahua (Mulroy 1993:76; BIA 1853-1854, 2:793). In 1856, the Maroons again patrolled the Rio Grande from Del Rio to the Big Bend country for their adopted homeland (Mexico), pushing the Comanche, Kiowa, and Tonkawa north of the river (Mulroy 1993:83). The Seminole Maroon repeated this effort when Lipan Apache stole their horses in 1858, recapturing the horses on the Rio Grande (Mulroy 1993:87).
During the same time period of time, the Seminole Chief (Wild Cat) elected to attack settlers on the Medina River with the help of the Lipan and Tonkawa (BIA 1853-1854, 2:614), and the next year attacked a band of Texas Rangers near Bandera (Mulroy 1993:70). It is likely that the raiders crossed the Rio Grande in the vicinity of the Amistad NRA to avoid Fort Clark. While it is unknown if Maroon were present in these two raids, it is possible that they were since they mixed freely with the Seminole during Wild Cat's leadership in Mexico.
After the Civil War, the Seminole Maroon were courted by the U.S. Army as scouts. At first, a few families moved to Elm Creek, just north of Fort Duncan (e.g., Eagle Pass). Then, in 1872, nearly all Seminole Maroon moved to Fort Clark. During the period that they served at Fort Clark, a number of their engagements took them through or into the lands of the Amistad NRA. In 1875, the scouts took part in a battle with the Comanche at the Eagle's Nest Crossing (Mulroy 1993:124), and in 1877, they trailed a party of Comanche from Gillespie County to the mouth of the Pecos (Mulroy 1993:124, 129). In later years, this crossing was known as the Bullis Crossing and has been recorded as site 41VV1428. The Seminole Maroon, in yet another activity, assisted in establishment of a wagon road from Uvalde to the Pecos that roughly followed the trajectory of modern US 90, crossing through the Amistad NRA lands from east to west. And, as a last, perhaps fitting chapter on their involvement with these lands, the Seminole Maroon trailed the Lipan from the Devil's River to the Mouth of the Pecos, then into Mexico. That was in April of 1881, and the ensuing battle was decisive and represented one of the final major raids of Native Americans into Texas (Mulroy 1993:131). Given these events, an affiliation of the Seminole Maroon with the region of the Amistad NRA can be documented. It is recommended that groups in both Mexico and Brackettville be contacted during Phase II of the study.
Part of the Algonquian-speaking tribes of the northeastern United States, the Shawnee lived along the southeastern seaboard during early Colonial times (Wright 1986:241), but later migrated slightly north to form an alliance with the Delaware. During the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the Shawnee participated with the Potawatomi and other tribes in a variety of wars and/or treaties. During this period, they began moving, first into Kansas and Missouri, and, by the mid-nineteenth century, onto a reservation in Oklahoma along with some of their old allies, the Delaware (Anderson 1990:232; Wright 1986:150, 244).
Shawnee are shown on the Sulpher River of Texas on the 1828 Teran map. Known as the 'Absentee' Shawnee, they had settled south of the Red River in 1822 (Anderson 1990:233). Over the next decade, the Shawnee traded in Nacogdoches and San Antonio, often in the company of the Delaware, Cherokee, and Kickapoo. In 1832, they attacked a large Comanche band at Bandera Pass (Anderson 1990:234). Recognizing that this tribe had knowledge of the geography of Texas and knowledge of other Native Americans, the Shawnee (along with the Delaware) were frequently chosen as scouts for the Texan and United States armies, and from 1840 to 1860 the two groups were "virtually omnipresent on the Texas frontier" (Anderson 1990:247).
While only a small number of the Shawnee or the Delaware resided for a long period in Texas, several aspects of their history give them possible affiliation with the lands of the Amistad NRA. First, in the early 1830s members of the ill-fated Villa Dolores colony stated that the Shawnee hunted game and beaver for pelts on the Rio Escondido and at Las Moras Creek (Kenedy 1925:411-418) just east of the micro-region. Because of their skill and because of the colony's fears of Native American attack, they were hired as hunters for the colony. While there are no statements in the documents that these duties actually took them to the Devils or Pecos rivers, they were in close proximity to the micro-region and the possibility that they were in those drainages cannot be ruled out. Second, in 1838, Jack Hays, a Texas Ranger, encountered them on the Pecos and traveled with them to the Rio Grande in a joint pursuit of Comanche (Anderson 1990:242). This journey was through the micro-region. Additionally, their role as scouts for the Texan and later United States armies suggests that they traveled through the Amistad NRA area. Although General Smith accused them of waging war against Texas in 1842 (Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 1:125-127), the proof was not forthcoming and they instead served as scouts and interpreters for long periods and were praised by Indian Commissioner Neighbors (BIA 1847-1853, 1:141). In Fredericksburg, the Delaware were allowed to establish a small village north of the town on a league of land that was deeded to them (BIA 1853-1854, 2:182), and it is likely that some Shawnee were among them. When the Delaware entered into the Lower Pecos lands as part of their duties, the Shawnee may have accompanied them, given their earlier presence in south Texas. Finally, some Shawnee traveled with Wild Cat and his Seminole bands to northern Mexico, a short distance below the Amistad NRA lands (BIA 1853-1854, 2:111). As noted in the discussions of the Seminole and Seminole Maroon (see above) it is likely that these groups traveled through the micro-region, again linking the Shawnee with the region. We, therefore, recommend that the Shawnee be contacted in Phase II of this study.
The Tonkawa resided in North, Central, and, to a lesser extent, South Texas after the mid-seventeenth century and remained there until several relocations forced their removal to Indian Territory in 1859 (Newcomb 1993; Johnson and Campbell 1992). There is, however, a common misconception that they were native to these regions (cf. Hickerson 1994:203; Newcomb 1961:133-152; Sjoberg 1953). The misconception stems from Bolton's (1910) brief summary of this tribe and his statement that they were indigenous to Central Texas. His more widely read book Texas in the Middle Eighteenth Century (Bolton 1915) continued to convey this interpretation and other researchers have erred by continuing this misconception. Research by Newcomb and Campbell (1982), Newcomb (1993), Johnson and Campbell (1992), and Prikryl (2001), has shown that they were actually from north central Oklahoma. [4]
In 1601, the Wichita-speaking Aguacane who lived on the Arkansas River called the Tonkawa the Tancoa (Oñate 1871). At that time, they lived north of the Arkansas in a number of large villages. By the late seventeenth century, they were called the Tanquaay and were listed among the enemies of the Caddo of East Texas despite their close relationship with other Caddoan speakers. Their hostilities with the Caddo were eventually resolved, and, during the subsequent century, they were often mentioned in documents as being with that Native American group. During the late eighteenth century, they were often with one of the various Native American groups in Central Texas, ranging from the Red River to the area of present Waco (Newcomb 1993:27-29), and, at times, even further south in the macro-region. For example, they were among the hostile forces that attacked the San Saba mission along with the Comanche and Caddo (Hadley et al. 1997:513). Their alliance with the Caddo, Tawakoni, and other Wichita-affiliated tribes was a long one. Much of what we know of the Tonkawa during this period comes from documents written by De Mezieres who visited them on several occasions in the 1770s, often in their camps just south of the Red River. He estimated their population at ca. 500 (see Newcomb 1993:28). During his visits, they generally were located on or near the Brazos River in the Waco area, but were known to move through a larger portion of North and Central Texas. Described as hunters and gatherers living in tents, they hunted buffalo and deer both to eat and to obtain the animal skins that they traded (Figure 21).
During the late eighteenth century, the Tonkawa absorbed several other Native American groups. These groups became clans with the larger Tonkawa nation (Newcomb 1993:29). These groups included both Caddoan speaking Native Americans like the Yojuane and groups from other linguistic stock such as the Mayeye, Sana, and Ervipiame nations. Unlike the Tonkawa, some of these nations were native to Texas: the Mayeye were residents of east-Central Texas (Campbell 1988:73) on the fringe of our macro-region. However, the Sana were originally cited in the Lower Pecos and the micro-region (Johnson and Campbell 1992), as were the Ervipiame and Yorica (see discussion above).
At the close of the eighteenth century and the opening decades of the nineteenth century, the Tonkawa gradually moved south, displaced by the Comanche and Wichita (Newcomb 1993:28). In 1819, Padilla (LA 1819) reported that they often traveled to the margins of the Guadalupe, San Marcos, Colorado, and Brazos rivers. By the early nineteenth century, the Tonkawa were also found with increasing frequency along the eastern and southern margins of the Edwards Plateau in the company of the Lipan Apache. During the period of the Republic of Texas, the Tonkawa "serve[d] as valuable scouts and able fighters for the Anglo-Texans, [and] they also served as shock troops in the war of terror between the Anglo-Texans and their American Indian enemies" (Himmel 1999:83). The Tonkawa military assistance did not prevent an overall reduction of their territory on the Colorado River in Central Texas and the macro-region, but it did afford them a measure of protection that enhanced their ability to survive Texas' entrance into the United States. Neighbors, the Texas Indian Commissioner, reported finding a camp of Tonkawa on Cibolo Creek in 1845 (Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 2:166), and later stated that they lived between the San Antonio and San Marcos rivers (Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 3:14). However, they continued to maintain a presence on the Brazos River as well, attacking the Tawakoni on that river in 1851 (BIA 1847-1853, 1:800) and frequently approaching the area of Bernard's Trading Post (BIA 1853-1854, 2:755).
The years from 1851 to 1856 saw great shifts in their territories as well as in their associations with other tribes. In 1852, the Tonkawa were at Fort Mason for a number of months, along with a group of Lipan and Mescalero Apache (BIA 1847-1853, 1:1048). They also maintained a village on the Colorado River during those years, in the general area of Pecan Bayou, but on more than one occasion were driven away by other (usually Comanche) tribes (BIA 1847-1853, 1:1070; BIA 1853-1854, 2:194). In contrast, they were with the Comanche near the old San Saba mission in 1854 (BIA 1853-1854, 2:274). In this same year, they attacked several German families and fled to the Nueces River, then to Fort Inge and then to Fort Clark. They remained in this general area for over a year while Neighbors and the Texas legislature sought to establish a reserve for the use of several tribes including the Tonkawa. During that same year, Army personnel at Fort Clark reported that this nation was starving, and provided them beef when they could (BIA 1853-1854, 2:614,793). During this period, the Tonkawa were variously reported on the Nueces, Frio, Sabinal rivers, and, less frequently, on the Pecos River, usually in the company of the Lipan. While in that area, the Tonkawa attempted to raise corn until they were finally driven away by the Comanche (BIA 1853-1854, 2:622). Finally, in mid-1855, the Tonkawa were assembled at Fort Clark to make their way to the Brazos Reserve with an Army escort (BIA 1854-1857, 3:240). They remained on the reserve, enjoying some success in growing crops until the reserve was forced to close in 1859. At the close of the reservation, they moved north to Indian Territory and today live in the vicinity of Tonkawa, Oklahoma, although some settled near Sabinas in northern Coahuila in the 1880s (Johnson 1994:378).
The association of the Tonkawa with the lands of the Amistad NRA is based on three separate aspects of their history. First, when they resided in the vicinity of Fort Clark and Fort Inge they were especially close to the Lipan, who traveled those lands with regularity. It is probable that the Tonkawa traveled to the Amistad lands with their Apache friends. Seminole scouts reported routing a group of Lipan and Tonkawa north across the Rio Grande in 1857 through territory that would have included the micro-region (Mulroy 1993:57). Second, during the latter part of the eighteenth century, the remaining members of the Ervipiame, Yorica, Mayeye, and Sana nations apparently joined the Tonkawa, organizing themselves into clans (Newcomb 1993:29). Three of these nations (Ervipiame, Yorica, and Sana) had close ties to the Lower Pecos (as well as other parts of South Texas). In turn, this conveys an additional tie of the Tonkawa to the Amistad NRA lands. Finally, during and after the Civil War, some members of the Tonkawa returned to South and Central Texas where they were regarded as renegades until finally, in 1879, they were gathered at Fort Griffin for their return to Oklahoma (Wright 1986:251), although some returned to northern Coahuila, near Sabinas, in the 1880s (Johnson 1994:378). Given their historical movements in central and south Texas, it is possible that they again traveled in the micro-region along the Lower Pecos during this final period of their stay in Texas, further cementing their ties to this region. However, we would add the caveat that this final presence is speculative and should be part of the discussions with tribal members during Phase 2 of this study.
The Tawakoni frequently were cited in letters, manuscripts, and diaries dating to the late eighteenth and throughout the nineteenth century as residents of Central and north Central Texas. They were one of the Caddoan-speaking groups that moved into Texas during those years and eventually became a subdivision of the Wichita Tribe (Newcomb 1993:7). In the mid-sixteenth century, however, they apparently resided well to the north near the great bend of the Arkansas River. A populous village described in the accounts of the Coronado expedition to the Plains was called Teucarea (Coronado 1864). Newcomb (1993:7) and Wedel (1988:121) believe that this name is synonymous with Tawakoni.
Their next contact with Europeans was in the eighteenth century when they were repeatedly visited by a string of French traders, first on the Arkansas and later on the Red River in the vicinity of Wichita Falls County, Texas (Newcomb 1993:33-34). At about this same time, some of their people moved to the vicinity of the Trinity River and, by the 1770s, some were living in villages along the Brazos River near modern Waco. In the early nineteenth century they continued to reside in this area as well as around La Tortuga near modern Mexia, Texas (Newcomb 1993:41). At times, they traveled south of the Waco area, such as in 1829 when they raided Berlandier near San Antonio. Nonetheless, the Tawakoni maintained their residence in and around the Waco area, even entering the Brazos Reserve where they resided side by side with the Waco, another Caddoan-speaking group (BIA 3:205). When the reserve was abandoned in 1859, the Tawakoni traveled north to Indian Territory and settled with the Wichita as part of the Affiliated Tribes.
Given their history, the Tawakoni, one of the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes, do not appear to have any direct ties to the Amistad NRA. Given the amount of movements of Native American peoples in Texas during the period, however, it is recommended that they be contacted during Phase 2 to solidify this conclusion.
The Waco are today a part of the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes and have long been closely linked with that Native American group (Wright 1986:253-255), particularly with the Tawakoni. Some researchers (Newcomb 1993:42; John 1982-1983) believe it possible that the Waco were once a large band of the Tawakoni based on the fact that a prominent chief in the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century was named Awakahea (or Awahakei). Following the death of this chief in 1811, the Tawakoni dispersed and the band remaining in the vicinity of modern Waco retained, according to those researchers, the name 'Waco.' Wedel (1988:8) and Wright (1986:254), however, suggested that the Waco were a distinct Wichita band as early as 1601 during Oñate's acrimonious visit to their villages in 1601. Their conclusions are based on the fact that Adeco and Huanchane were among the names used for the various groups described in the documents.
By the mid-eighteenth century, the Wichita tribes, including the Waco, had moved south into Texas and were residing in a series of villages on the Red Riversome in fortified villages (Bell et al. 1967:80-95). There, they engaged in active trading with the buffalo-hunting Comanche to the west and with the enterprising French to the southeast in Louisiana (Newcomb 1993:35-36; Gregory 1973). By 1779, the Waco and other Wichita affiliated groups were found in the vicinity of Waco. It is generally believed that the Vinson archeological site (41LT1) was a Waco or Tawakoni village (Smith 1993:73-75). Historic maps dating from the late eighteenth through the mid-nineteenth centuries (Figure 22) show a series of Waco villages along the Brazos River and its tributaries in the general area of modern Waco and the northeast edge of the macro-region. Like the other Wichita groups, the Waco grew corn, melon, and beans although they were also known to hunt buffalo and deer during the winter and spring. Their established presence in the state resulted in the 1853 pronouncement by the Secretary of State that they were one of the "Texas Indians" (BIA 1853-1854, 2:274).
In 1855, the Waco were among several tribes that moved onto the Brazos Reserve, a small reservation established by an act of the Texas legislature and under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA 1854-1857, 3:205). There, adjacent to their Tawakoni friends, they successfully raised corn and other crops until 1859 when the unrest caused by Anglo-American encroachment forced them to relocate along with the other tribes to a new reservation in Indian Territory (BIA 1857-1859, 4:1099). Once there, they became part of the Wichita Affiliated Tribe.
The association of the Waco with the lands of the Amistad NRA is tenuous and needs to be verified through oral interviews and continued research. As early as 1842, General Smith (Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 1:125-127) informed the state that they were among several tribes (Kickapoo, Shawnee, Delaware, Coushatta, and Keechi) that had been persuaded by the Mexican government to wage war against Texas. While there is clear evidence that some of the other groups, such as the Kickapoo, did so, the evidence for the Waco is weak. Moreover, the only other Wichita band among the named tribes is the Keechi, a tribe that they knew and had friendly relations but rarely acted with. On the other hand, in June 1849, Neighbors (BIA 1847-1853, 1:430) reported that the Waco were among a large group of Wichita, Lipan, Comanche, and Apache that had been through the Lower Pecos region as an avenue to raid northern Mexican ranches. Neighbors made this report after traveling the region. These travels, plus his superior knowledge of both Indians and the geography, suggest that some Waco may have at least traveled through the Amistad NRA. They should be contacted during Phase 2 of this study.
The Wichita are another of the Caddoan-speaking groups that imigrated into Texas in the historic period. Originally from the Arkansas River valley of Kansas and Oklahoma, they include a number of sub-divisions such as the Waco, Taovaya, Tawakoni, Yscani, and the Wichita proper (Wedel 1988:2). These groups were first visited by Europeans in 1541 during Coronado's journey to the Plains and in 1601 by Oñate; both were seeking Quivera (or Quivira). At that time, Wedel (1988:5, 15), who has done extensive study of the Wichita, believes that they were living east of the Great Bend of the Arkansas where they practiced "horticulture... supplemented by extensive bison hunting." By the early eighteenth century, La Harpe was reporting some Wichita sub-divisions living near modern Tulsa but it is difficult to determine which sub-divisions had moved south and which remained in the area of the Great Bend (Wedel 1988:22). While they continued to raise crops, their hunts were now facilitated by use of the horse.
Although several of their close relativesthe Taovaya and Tawakonihad established villages on the Red River in the vicinity of modern Montague County in the early 1750s, the Wichita did not arrive until 1765 (Newcomb 1993:35). There the Caddoan-speaking tribes began to serve as a link in the French trading network that led from the Plains to their villages to the French in Natchitoches. Despite a relatively lucrative trade that resulted in a series of letters and reports documenting the trade, few of these contain mention of the Wichita, suggesting that they remained somewhat to the north of the primary villages. Some of their warriors, accompanied by Taovaya, did, however, raid in San Antonio in 1784.
In 1844, some Wichita were living among the Tawakoni in the villages on the Brazos near Waco (Winfrey and Day 1995, Vol. 2:48). A few years later (1849), Neighbors (BIA 1847-1853, 1:154) found a camp of 550 warriors under the Comanche chief Santa Anna 40 miles downriver from El Paso. The Wichita were among the groups named. While this might suggest they were extending their geographic range, this may instead indicate the presence of dissidents since they were not mentioned south of the Red River until 1854. In that year Indian agent Stem found the Wichita chief Ko-we-a-ka chief near Fredricksburg and reported that they (the Wichita) were on an expedition against the Lipan residing in Mexico (BIA 1853-1854, 2:384). The agent, familiar with most of the native groups, also noted that the Wichita had not previously been reported raiding that far to the south. Nonetheless, Neighbors (BIA 1853-1854, 2:762, 749) reported that by that date they were raiding as far south as Fort Inge and Fort Mason and that they had been with the Waco when they attacked a homestead on the Medina River below San Antonio, all within the macro-region. Apart from the raids to the south, another Indian agent (Hill) reported (BIA 1853-1854, 2:862) that they continued to be more closely connected with regions to the north of Texas:
An affiliation of the Wichita with the lands of the Lower Pecos and the Amistad NRA is tenuous. Originally from lands well to the north of Texas, they did not arrive on the Red River until the late eighteenth century. Although they moved south, the Wichita maintained an association with the Wichita Mountains throughout the remainder of the historic period. Nonetheless, they did raid south into Texas where they are documented to have been present into at least the area of Fort Inge, and some settlements in northern Mexico felt their sting. Thus, it is possible they do have some affiliation with the Amistad NRA and should be contacted during Phase 2 of the study.
Another of the Caddoan-speakers from the Arkansas River area, the Yojuane were first noted by the Spanish in the diary of the 1601 Oñate expedition in which they were called the Yuhuanica (Newcomb 1993). Over the ensuing century, the Yojuane apparently were among the first of these groups to move south as the Espinosa/Olivares/Aguirre expedition encountered them in 1709 on the Colorado River in modern Bastrop County (Campbell 1988:63-64). During the remainder of the eighteenth century, the Yojuane frequently were found on the Brazos, Colorado, and Trinity rivers (our macro-region), often in the company of the Coco, Cantona, Simaomo, and Mayeye. There they continued to hunt bison and other meat; fish, roots, tubers, and fruits were also mentioned among their food resources (Newcomb 1933:19).
The Yojuane appear to have not hunted with great frequency on the Southern Plains prior to the mid-eighteenth century. This was likely due to their antipathy with the Apache. When the attack was made on the Apache's mission at San Saba in 1758, the Yojuane were among the list of attackers, along with the Tonkawa, Comanche, and others (Newcomb 1993:20). Some Yojuane were captured in the Spanish response to the attack and these captives led the Ortiz Padilla force to the Red River. By the late eighteenth century, the Yojuane were more frequently encountered with the Tonkawa, and by the end of the century became one of the Tonkawa clans at about the time that their population dipped to ca. 100 individuals (Newcomb 1993:29). Because they joined the Tonkawa, their individual name is not found in the documents related to the lands of the Amistad NRA. While it is likely that the Yojuane were present in the region sporadically, that presence occurred after becoming a clan of the Tonkawa, and it is recorded under the latter name.
The Yscani are another of the Caddoan-speakers who were first visited by the Oñate expedition of 1601 in the Spanish search for Quivera. According to Newcomb (1993:9), at that time they were living in north central Oklahoma. While the Spanish called them Escanjaques, "their collective name for themselves was Aguacane" (Newcomb 1993:8; Newcomb and Campbell 1982). They lived in a number of large villages and their population reached several thousand. Like the Wichita, with whom they always have been closely linked, they both grew corn and other crops and hunted buffalo and other animals on the Plains.
At some point in the late seventeenth century, the Yscani and the other Wichita tribes (Taovaya, Tawakoni, and Wichita-proper) began moving well south of the place where they were found in 1601. The move seems to have been prompted by pressure from the Pawnee and Osage from the north and by the promise of French trade and bison to the south (Newcomb 1993:33-39; Wedel 1988:5-24). Benard de la Harpe and Claude-Charles Dutisne each visited their villages in 1719, then located close to modern Tulsa. By the 1750s, a fortified Taovaya village (the Longest site) was situated on the Red River just across from Montague County, Texas, and an Yscani village (known as the Upper Tucker site) was situated on the south side of the river. In 1760, Yscani and Tawakoni villages (described as separated by a single street) were located on the Sabine River and on the Trinity River during the following decade. Newcomb (1993:41) believes that the long time Yscani friendship with the Tawakoni resulted in the coalescence of the Yscani with the Tawakoni in the late 1770s and that, after this date, the Yscani name is seen very infrequently in documents. Hence, the relationship of the Yscani to the lands of the Amistad NRA would be subsumed under that of the Tawakoni.
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo
The Ysleta del Sur Pueblo is located southeast of downtown El Paso, a city that has grown to surround this southern enclave of Tigua Indians. Originally residents of the Isleta communities situated to the north along the Rio Grande in what is modern New Mexico, the Tigua were moved south out of their homes during the Pueblo Revolt of 1680. They arrived in two distinct groups, one in 1680 and another in 1682, and were initially settled close to Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe del Paso, in modern Juarez. However, by 1685, the Tiguas were moved southeast of Guadalupe and a pueblo established just for them, eventually called Ysleta del Sur, as it was south of their old home in the Isleta pueblos of New Mexico. Although many Tigua returned north in subsequent decades, Ysleta del Sur remained a viable pueblo and continues to the present day.
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo has close ties to the lands of New Mexico where their ancestors resided and where relatives continue to reside today. However, their presence in El Paso, which has been a melting pot of multiple ethnic groups since the Spanish first established the settlement, led to frequent intermarriage between Tigua and non-Tigua. Marriage books from the several missions in the El Paso area record intermarriage with Piro, Manso, Suma, Apache, and others as early as 1707 (Gerald 1974). Infrequently, Tigua married Juman (i.e., Jumano). These marriages, as well as a few with Mescalero Apache, may indicate an affiliation with the Amistad NRA. We would note that marriages with Jumano, Lipan or Mescalero Apache were rare whereas marriages with Piro, Suma, or other groups that were more commonly present in the El Paso area were recorded on a regular basis. More frequently, the Apache, including the Jumano Apache, were viewed as hostile to both Spaniards and the Native Americans of the El Paso area. Apache conflicts with the Tigua were well known (Greenberg 1998:223-225). Given their Apache conflicts and given the association of the Jumano with the Apache as early as 1720 (see Jumano, above), the affiliation of the Tigua with Amistad NRA is unclear. Nonetheless, we recommend that the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo be contacted during Phase 2 to determine if they have information about any affiliations with the Amistad NRA.
1. A later description by Manuel Merino (John and Wheat 1991:148) in 1804 states: "They can be divided into nine principal groups . . . The names by which the former are known in their language . . . Vinienctinen-ne, Sagatajen-ne, Tjusccujen-ne, Yecujen-ne, Yntugen-ne, Sejen-ne, Cuelcajen-ne, Lipanjen-ne, and Yutaglen-ne. We have replaced these naming them in the same order: Tontos, Chircagues, Gilenos, Mimbrenos, Faraones, Mescaleros, Llaneros, Lipanes, and Nabajoes, all of them under the general name of Apaches."
2. Here Neighbors was referring to the area of the Pecos in the Amistad NRA.
3. We are aware of linguistic evidence for their relationship to Tiwa- and Tano-speakers in New Mexico (Hale and Harris 1979:171). However glottochronologists generally conclude that the languages have been separated for at least 2,600 years, a period of time too old for further consideration here.
4. It should be noted that the history of the Tonkawa on their tribal web page tends to follow Bolton's summary of their early history.
Last Updated: 24-Apr-2007