San Juan Cultural Study2

The linguistic overview provides information necessary for determining cultural affiliation according to NAGPRA regulations. A review of the linguistic literature pertaining to south Texas contributes to the establishment of a comprehensive foundation of basic information on what is currently known about the Coahuiltecan Indians. This information will be used by the National Park Service and the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park in evaluating cultural affiliation issues pertaining to NAGPRA.

Coahuiltecan Language

The languages spoken by the Coahuiltecan Indians are poorly known. The only known dictionary of a possible Coahuiltecan language was compiled in 1732 by Gabriel Vergara for the language spoken of the Pajalates of the Rio Grande and Mission Concepción in San Antonio. No dictionaries were created for the Indians of south Texas before their native languages fell out of use. Neither were linguistic studies conducted with native speakers before their languages were lost. Consequently, all contemporary linguistic studies on the languages of the south Texas Indians are based on a sparse written record. Identifying the languages spoken by the hunter-gatherer groups who lived in southern Texas and northern Mexico is a task that has intrigued researchers since the middle of the nineteenth century.

The most extensive written evidence for the linguistic affiliation of these peoples was compiled in 1760 by Fray Bartolomé García as a church manual designed to aid communication between Spanish missionaries and their indigenous converts (Campbell and Campbell 1996:16). García’s manual documented the language spoken by the Alasapas, Borrados, Chayopines, Manos de Perro, Mescales, Orejónes, Pacaos, Pacoas, Pacuaches, Pajalates, Pamaques, Pampopas, Pausanes, Piguiques, Sanipaos, Tilijaes, Tacames, Venados, “and many other different ones that are in the missions of the Rio de San Antonio and Rio Grande” (Goddard 1979:364). Notes on the language of the Pajalates of Mission Concepción, by Gabriel Vergara and dated 1732, were found in a manuscript that had been used as part of the binding of an early version of García’s manual (Schuetz 1980b:44). Vergara’s notes are an important additional source of information of the Coahuiltecan languages, and indicate that the dialect of the Pajalates of Mission Concepción was different from that spoken by those recorded on the Rio Grande by García (Goddard 1979:365). The Rio Grande missions referred to by García have been identified as San Juan Bautista and San Bernardo (Goddard 1979:364, citing T.N. Campbell, personal communication, 1979). This language, and the peoples who spoke it, or were thought to speak it, was first given the name “Coahuilteco” in the middle 1800s by Mexican linguist Manuel Orozco y Berra (1864).

Dialects of the Coahuiltecan language were once thought to have been spoken widely, if not exclusively, throughout the region under study. For decades, this presumed linguistic homogeneity was assumed to reflect an overall cultural homogeneity as well, a view promoted by Ruecking in the 1950s. In the early 1960s, Newcomb (1961:29-30) stated

all the peoples of this tremendous region in Texas and Mexico apparently spoke dialects or languages of a common linguistic stock, Coahuiltecan…there were numerous minor cultural differences distinguishing various Coahuiltecan subgroups from one another.

That south Texas was rich in a diversity of languages became increasingly evident by the late 1970s. Only a modified version of the former view is now accepted, which concedes that Coahuilteco may have been widely spoken, but largely as a secondary language. Campbell and Campbell (1996:69) note that when Bartolomé García’s manual was published in the middle of the eighteenth century, “some of the Indian groups who originally spoke other languages could have become Coahuilteco speakers because Coahuilteco had become the dominant native language spoken in the missions.” It is generally assumed that the majority of Indian groups affiliated with Mission San Juan spoke a Coahuiltecan language, but recent studies reveal the possibility that Coahuilteco was a lingua franca throughout the San Antonio mission system. Of the 20 groups of indigenous peoples linked with Mission San Juan Capistrano, only the Pajalat, Tacame, and Tilijae, and possibly the Peana are likely to have been Coahuilteco speakers (Table 10) (Campbell and Campbell 1996:68).

Affiliated Languages

A number of languages spoken by the Indians of south Texas and northeast Mexico have now been identified, including Comecrudo, Cotoname, Coahuilteco, Aranama, Solano, Mamulique, and Garza (Goddard 1979). According to Goddard (1979:363, 371-372), those languages spoken in Texas at the time that they were recorded include Coahuilteco, Garza (Mier), and Solano (Eagle Pass). Comecrudo (Tamaulipas), Mamulique (Nuevo León), and Aranama (Matamoros) were spoken in Mexico (Goddard 1979:369-373). Swanton (1940:118) places Cotoname in Tamaulipas.

Since the late 1800s, linguistic research has focused on attempting to identify the genetic relationships of these languages to one another (Table 11). The major trends dominating linguistic research on the indigenous peoples of south Texas since Orozco y Berra’s work involve identifying the languages spoken by the south Texas Indians and determining the geographical extent of the Coahuiltecan language family. Following Orozco y Berra (1864), Powell (1891) assigned Coahuilteco, Comecrudo, and Cotoname under the Coahuiltecan language family. Gatschet (1891), however, placed the same three languages within the Pakawan family. Atakapa (southwest Louisiana and northeast Texas) (Newcomb 1961:315-316) and Maratino (Mexico?) were included with Coahuilteco, Comecrudo, and Cotoname under the Coahuiltecan family by Swanton in 1915. Building on Swanton’s research, Sapir (1920) agreed with his classification of the Coahuiltecan languages, added Solano and Aranama to the family, and hypothesized a link between Coahuiltecan and Hokan. By 1929, Sapir suggested that Tonkawa and Karankawa be added to the languages composing the Coahuiltecan family.

In 1964, a linguistic conference was held in Indiana and a consensus was reached on the Coahuiltecan language classification that removed Comecrudo, Cotoname, Karankawa, and Tonkawa from the Coahuiltecan family. Comecrudo and Cotoname were placed in the Comecrudan family, while Coahuilteco was declared a linguistic isolate (Manaster Ramer 1996:13). Both Coahuiltecan and Comecrudan were thought to be related only in that they both belonged to the Hokan Phylum (Goddard 1979:377). In his

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

Mission Concepción		Mission San José		Mission San Juan		Mission Espada
Group	Language	Group	Language	Group	Language	Group	Language
		Aguastaya	unknown
Apache	Apachean (Athapaskan)
		Aranama	Aranama
						Arcahomo	unknown
						Assaca	unknown
Borrado	unknown	Borrado	unknown	Borrado	unknown	Borrado	unknown
						Cacalote	unknown
						Caguaumama	unknown
		Camama	unknown
Camasuqua	unknown			Camasuqua	unknown	Camasuqua	unknown
		Cana	unknown
						Carrizo	unknown
						Cayan	unknown
Chayopin	unknown	Chayopin	unknown	Chayopin	unknown
Coapite	Karankawa
Comanche	Comanche
Copan	Karankawa
Cujan	Karankawa	Cujan	Karankawa
		Eyeish	Caddo (Caddoan)
						Gegueriguan	unknown
				Guanbrauta-Aiaquia	unknown
						Huaraque	unknown
Lipan Apache	Apachean (Athapaskan)	Lipan Apache	Apachean (Athapaskan)
Malaguita	unknown			Malaguita	unknown	Malaguita	unknown
Manos de Perro	unknown
		Mayapem	Cotoname
		Mesquite	unknown			Mesquite	unknown
Orejón	unknown			Orejón	unknown
Pacao	Coahuilteco					Pacao	Coahuilteco
Pachalaque	Coahuilteco
Pajalat	Coahuilteco			Pajalat	Coahuilteco
Pamaque	unknown			Pamaque	unknown	Pamaque	unknown

Table 10. Continued.

Mission Concepción		Mission San José		Mission San Juan		Mission Espada
Group	Language	Group	Language	Group	Language	Group	Language
		Pampopa	Coahuilteco
				Pana	unknown
				Pasnacan	unknown
		Pastia	Coahuilteco
Patalca	unknown
Patumaco	Coahuilteco
Payaya	Coahuilteco
				Peana	unknown
Piguique	unknown			Piguique	unknown
		Pinto	unknown
				Pitalac	unknown
						Pootajpo	unknown
		Queniacapem	unknown
						Saguiem	unknown
Sanipao	unknown
Sarapjon	unknown			Sarapjon	unknown	Sarapjon	unknown
		Saulapaguem	Cotoname
						Siguipan	unknown
Siquipil	Coahuilteco
		Sulujam	Coahuilteco
Tacame	Coahuilteco	Tacame	Coahuilteco	Tacame	Coahuilteco	Tacame	Coahuilteco
Taguaguan	unknown			Taguaguan	unknown	Taguaguan	unknown
		Tejas	Caddo (Caddoan)
		Tenicapem	Cotoname
Tilijae	Coahuilteco			Tilijae	Coahuilteco
Tilpacopal	Coahuilteco
Tinapihuaya	unknown			Tinapihuaya	unknown	Tinapihuaya	unknown
Toaraque	unknown
						Tuarique	unknown
						Uncrauya	unknown
Venado	unknown			Venado	unknown
Viayan	unknown			Viayan	unknown	Viayan	unknown
Xarame	Coahuilteco
		Xauna	unknown
Yojuane	Tonkawa?
						Zacuestacán	unknown
Total: 32	Total: 5	Total: 21	Total: 6	Total: 20	Total: 1	Total: 25	Total: 1

The purpose of this chapter is to review the literature on south Texas and mission Indian archaeology in an effort to provide baseline information to the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park for addressing cultural affiliation issues pertaining to NAGPRA. Many San Juan community members claim descent from Native American peoples brought into the mission. These peoples are commonly referred to as Coahuiltecans, a cultural designation that is increasingly questioned by the anthropological community (Hester 1998:5-6, 2000:5-6).

Archaeological data, when combined with ethnographic and ethnohistoric information, has the potential to enable researchers to identify the pre-contact (e.g., “Prehistoric”) ancestry of historically known cultural groups. In some parts of the United States, including south Texas, native culture changed so drastically after the time of initial European contact as to become unrecognizable as such by the late 1800s, when the discipline of anthropology was born. In such cases, archaeologists frequently rely on ethnohistoric descriptions of indigenous material culture when trying to link pre-contact sites with historically known peoples (Trigger 1982:2-3).

Ethnohistoric information on the indigenous groups of south Texas and northeast Mexico—commonly referred to as Coahuiltecan—extends as far back as the late 1520s through the mid-1530s with Cabeza de Vaca (Covey 1961). Subsequent to his return to Spain, de Vaca documented his experiences living with native peoples of the Texas Gulf Coast and of his travels across south Texas. After 1535, Spanish attention is not focused on Texas again until 1689, when a party accompanying Captain Alonso de León crossed the Rio Grande in search of a rumored French settlement (Casis 1916; West 1905). Missions were set up within the next three decades in east Texas and along the San Antonio River. In 1731, three of the east Texas missions were relocated to the San Antonio River and became known as Missions Concepción, San Juan, and Espada.

Studies of south Texas archaeology are limited by the sparse information available from the temporal spectrum as a whole. However, the late pre-contact period (ca. AD 800-A.D. 1600) is considered “the best known prehistoric time interval in the region [of south Texas]; remains are distinctive, numerous, and better preserved than earlier Archaic materials” (Black 1989:51). This time period also encompasses the earliest contacts between Europeans and indigenous peoples in Texas. The interval between the late pre-contact and the early post-contact (“Historic”) period is crucial to establishing cultural affiliation ties to contemporary Native American groups descended from Texas Indians. For studies of this nature, collaboration between archaeologists, ethnohistorians, and native peoples becomes necessary. According to NAGPRA regulations:

Cultural affiliation means that there is a relationship of shared group identity which can reasonably be traced historically or prehistorically between members of a present-day Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and an identifiable earlier group. Cultural affiliation is established when the preponderance of the evidence—based on geographical, kinship, biological, archaeological, linguistic, folklore, oral tradition, historical evidence, or other information or expert opinion—reasonably leads to such a conclusion [United States Department of the Interior (USDOI) 1999].

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

Material Culture

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

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

The technological changes that characterize the Late Prehistoric period in general are found spread “over a vast region stretching from north-central and west-central Texas to deep south Texas,” from a point of origin in the south Plains (Black 1989:57). Two phases, the Austin Phase (A.D. 800-1300) and the Toyah Phase (A.D. 1300-1600) are recognized within the Late Prehistoric period throughout south Texas. The Austin Phase is marked by the introduction of the bow-and-arrow and expanding stemmed Scallorn points, while the Toyah Phase is marked by contracting stemmed Perdiz points, the appearance of pottery making among inland groups, and the reintroduction of blade technology. Because Toyah material culture appears in Texas suddenly and fully developed, Johnson (1994:272) dismisses hypotheses that the complex developed in Texas, and suggests that it was brought in already fully developed by immigrant bison hunters. By matching the geographic placement of ethnohistorically described ethnic groups with the Classic Toyah culture area, Johnson offers the eastern Sanan speakers, the Aranama, and Coahuilteco speakers as possible “latter day Toyah Folk.”

Along the Texas gulf coast, the Late Prehistoric period began around A.D. 1200, marked by the Rockport complex, while in the Rio Grande delta it is marked by the emergence of the Brownsville complex after A.D. 1200. Unlike sites in the south Texas interior and gulf coast, ceramics are not typical of Brownsville Complex sites, nor are stemmed arrow points. Brownsville Complex peoples possessed a well-developed shell tool working technology. Some of the Brownsville Complex groups apparently survived “well into the historic era” (Black 1989:52), as evidenced by archaeological and ethnohistoric information.

Regional distinctions during the Late Prehistoric era are particularly evident in ceramics. Two main ceramics traditions, bone-tempered and sandy-paste, have been recognized within south Texas. Bone-tempered pottery, called Leon Plain, is primarily recovered from inland south Texas sites and is associated with the Toyah cultural complex (Hester 1989c:215). Vessels of this type are simply shaped, usually undecorated, and made with a crushed animal bone temper (Hester 1980:124). Johnson cautions that the subtleties of variation among ceramics in pre-contact sites are inadequately dealt with to justify Leon Plain as a typological category. The similarities and differences need to be evaluated “in a much more detailed manner than is involved in assigning type names and composing type descriptions” (Johnson 1994:210). A sandy-paste ceramics tradition is associated with the Karankawa Indians (Hester 1980:128) along the Texas Gulf Coast. Such pottery, referred to as Rockport ware, tends to be thin-walled, sandy-textured, and typically decorated and waterproofed with asphaltum (Black 1989:52). Black (1989:52) cautions, however, that as the sample of coastal ceramics grows larger, it becomes clear that “the inland and coastal pottery traditions appear to be interrelated and less distinct than once thought.”

Protohistoric Interval

Black (1989:52) notes the existence of “a short lived protohistoric interval in the brief span between the initial Spanish contact in AD 1528 (Cabeza de Vaca) and total domination of the region by the mid eighteenth century.” During the protohistoric period, the introduction of horses by the Spanish, epidemics resulting from newly introduced European diseases, and trade for European goods caused rapid changes in indigenous cultural groups (Johnson 1994:287). The year 1528 marks the Spanish entrada into Texas and the first written descriptions of the appearance and lifestyle of the native cultural groups.

Historic Period

Indigenous ceramics production and bone, lithic, and shell working technologies were carried over into the Historic period. Other artifacts characterizing post-contact Indian sites include projectile points fashioned out of glass or metal, glass trade beads, gunflints, and gun parts (Hester 1980:161). Priests at the Spanish missions supplied native recruits with religious ornaments such as crucifixes and rosaries and with utilitarian utensils including scissors, knives, pots, and pans (Hester 1989c:218). During the Historic period, the hunting and gathering lifestyle practiced by most Texas native cultural groups eventually ceased to be a viable way of life. With the advancement of the Apache from the west, most of the south Texas hunter-gatherer groups repeatedly experienced geographic displacement during the Historic period of the late seventeenth century.

The San Antonio missions, established during the early to mid-eighteenth century, recruited most of their indigenous converts from among south Texas cultural groups. Many native Texan cultural groups had already experienced decimation of population due to introduced diseases and warfare with the Spanish and competing tribes. By the late nineteenth century, these groups were no longer cohesive units, the remaining members of which became socioeconomically integrated into the population of the dominant society or were relocated to reservations outside the state. The Historic period also encompasses the “extinction” of the Coahuiltecan Indians brought into the Spanish missions.

Indian pottery traditions continued with few stylistic changes. While Spanish missionaries often note the absence of pottery making among the diverse Indian groups entering the San Antonio missions (Hester 1980:124-125; Schuetz 1969:63), archaeological research has demonstrated that pottery is found in great quantities throughout pre-contact sites in the region. In any case, mission Indian pottery, called Goliad ware, closely resembles Leon Plain ceramics. Hester (1989c:215-217) emphasizes that, “it is specifically the bone-tempered pottery tradition of Late Prehistoric times [i.e. Leon Plain] that becomes the dominant utility ware of the missions and that persists in south Texas into the early nineteenth century.” Goliad ware ceramics frequently display incised linear or wavy lines, small dots painted with asphaltum or red paint, and notched rims. Goliad ware appears to be a synthesis of Leon Plain and Rockport ware (Hester 1980:125-126). In short, Leon Plain pottery is called Goliad ware when found in mission contexts. Hester (1989c:223-224) notes that “its [Goliad ware’s] basic attributes are no different from those of Leon Plain.” It remains unclear as to why missionaries noted the absence of a pottery making tradition among the south Texas Indians.

Lithic technologies employed by the region’s aboriginal hunter-gatherers continued to be utilized at the missions. Hester (1989c:220) notes that in 1767, Fray Gaspar de Solís observed that “old men made arrows for the warriors” at Mission San Juan Capistrano, although translations of the Solís diary place this observation at San José (Forrestal 1931:21; Kress 1931:52). Manufacture and use of stone tools was ubiquitous in all the south Texas missions. Blade technology in particular continued to be practiced at Missions San Juan Capistrano, Espíritu Santo, and San Bernardo (Hester 1989c:217, 223). Projectile point inventories from excavations at the Spanish missions are dominated by Zavala and Guerrero points. Guerrero points, having both lanceolate and triangular forms, represent a completely new type of arrow point that is found at all the Texas missions from the early 1700s, including Mission San Juan. Hester (1989c:220-221) reports that at the Shanklin site, a non-mission site in Wharton County (southeast Texas), Guerrero points were recovered in association with a Spanish coin dating to 1738. Zavala points may be re-worked from Archaic dart points, but have also been found in sites in the Rio Grande Valley dating from the sixteenth through the eighteenth century (Hester 1989c:220).

Mission Excavations

Eleven archaeological investigations have been conducted at Mission San Juan since the 1930s (Table 12), when reconstruction of the mission’s walls and limited excavations were undertaken by workers employed with the Works Progress Administration (WPA). The bulk of archaeological work at San Juan has taken place since the late 1960s. In 1967, Mardith Schuetz, as representative of San Antonio’s Witte Museum, directed mitigation activities at Mission San Juan in response to a request by the Catholic Archdiocese of San Antonio. A number of excavations covering different portions of the mission grounds took place under Schuetz’s supervision for the next four years (Schuetz 1968, 1969, 1974, 1980a). In 1983, excavations related to foundation stabilization took place in the floor of the post-Colonial, or Tufa, house situated on the east wall. Representatives from the University of Texas at San Antonio’s Center for Archaeological Research (CAR-UTSA) carried out additional excavations at Mission San Juan in 1986, 1992, 1997, 1998, and 1999 (Figure 30).

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

Reference

Date

Institution and Work Undertaken

Referenced in:

Schuetz, M. K.

1968 The History and Archaeology of Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. Volume I (of II): Historical Documentation and Description of the Structures. Report No. 10. State Building Commission Archaeological Program, Austin.

Late 1930s

Works Progress Administration (WPA) excavation of grounds in various places around mission walls, exposure of buried foundations, reconstruction of mission walls.

Schuetz, M. K.

1969 The History and Archaeology of Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. Volume II: Description of the Artifacts and Ethno-History of the Coahuiltecan Indians. Report No. 11. State Building Commission Archaeological Program, Austin.

1967

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

Schuetz, M. K.

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

1968

Witte Museum, the excavation of level 3 of Area B (the midden), excavation of the colonial floor in Room 19, re-excavation of Room 21 and portions of Room 20, testing around south walls to obtain additional building data for the restoration, screening of midden material thrown up by the restoration and reinforcement of the walls of Room 18, testing in front of the pilasters of the chapel (Room 17).

Schuetz, M. K.

1974 The Dating of the Chapel at Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. Special Reports, No. 12. Texas Historical Commission, Office of the State Archaeologist, Austin.

1969

Witte Museum, excavation of the Chapel (Room 17).

Schuetz, M. K.

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

1971

Witte Museum, excavation of Rooms 22, 23, 31(earliest church), 32 and 34 (convento), portion convento plaza (units 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 42, and 43).

Escobedo, J. T.

1985 The Post-Colonial House: An Excavation Report. Manuscript on file, headquarters, San Antonio Missions National Historical Park.

1983

National Park Service, excavation of foundations of post-Colonial (Tufa) house on east wall of mission compound.

Table 12. Continued.

Reference

Date

Institution and Work Undertaken

Turner, D. D.

1988 Excavations at San Juan Capistrano, 41BX5, Bexar County, Texas. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio Archaeological Survey Report No. 171.

1986

Center for Archaeological Research at University of Texas at San Antonio (CAR-UTSA), test excavations outside north wall.

Fox, A. A.

1993 Archaeological Testing and Monitoring in Connection with a Drainage Project at Mission San Juan Capistrano San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio Archaeological Survey Report, No. 217.

1992

Center for Archaeological Research at University of Texas at San Antonio (CAR-UTSA), excavation of portions of east wall, southeast corner of mission, interior of church ruin near north wall doorway, and south of south wall of Tufa House.

Gross, K. J.

1998 Archaeological Testing and Monitoring for a Proposed Drainage Channel at Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio Archaeological Survey Report, No. 283.

1998

Center for Archaeological Research at University of Texas at San Antonio (CAR-UTSA), test excavations along proposed drainage channel outside south wall.

Durst, J. J.

1999 Recent Excavations at Mission San Juan de Capistrano. Cultural Resources Management News and Views, 11(1):31-33.

1998

Center for Archaeological Research at University of Texas at San Antonio (CAR-UTSA), excavation outside of western wall of chapel.

Cargill, D. A. and R. C. Robinson

2000 Archaeological Testing and Monitoring of a Service Drive at Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio Archaeological Survey Report, No. 296.

1997 and 1999

Center for Archaeological Research at University of Texas at San Antonio (CAR-UTSA), 14 shovel tests, three test excavation units, and one backhoe trench outside the north and northwest area of the mission compound.

Francis, J. R.

2000 Isolated Burial Analysis. In Archaeological Testing and Monitoring of a Service Drive at Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas, by D. A. Cargill and R. C. Robinson, Appendix IV. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio, Archaeological Survey Report, No. 296.

1999

Center for Archaeological Research at University of Texas at San Antonio (CAR-UTSA), monitoring construction and discovering, removing, analyzing, and reinterring Native American human remains along drainage channel south of compound.

Publication	Summary
Fray Bartolomé García 1760 Manual para administrar los santos sacramentos de penitencia, eucharistia, extrema-uncion, y matrimonio… Mexico.	Church manual in Spanish with native language equivalents (in the language spoken by the Alasapas, Borrados, Chayopines, Manos de Perro, Mescales, Orejones, Pacaos, Pacoas, Pacuaches, Pajalates, Pamaques, Pampopas, Pausanes, Piguiques, Sanipaos, Tilijaes, Tacames, and Venados).
de Vergara, Gabriel 1965 [1732] El Cuadernillo de la lengua de los indios pajalates (1732) y El confesonario de indios en lengua coahuilteca, edited by Eugenio del Hoyo. Publicaciones del Instituto Technológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Serie Historia 3. Monterrey, Mexico.	Notebook compiled by Gabriel de Vergara in 1732, recording the language of the Pajalate Indians and an Indian confessional in the Coahuiltecan language.
Manuel Orozco y Berra 1864 Geografía de las lenguas y carta etnográfica de México. Impr. de J.M. Andrade y F. Escalante, Mexico.	Geographic distribution of languages of Mexico, coined term Coahuilteco to describe languages and cultural groups of northern Mexico and southern Texas.
Gatschet, Albert S. 1891 The Karankawa Indians, The Coast People of Texas. Archaeological and Ethnological Papers of the Peabody Museum Vol. 1, No. 2. Harvard University, Cambridge.	Coins term Pakawan to refer to Coahuiltecan languages.
Powell, John W. 1891 Indian Linguistic Families of America North of Mexico. Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.	Grouped Coahuilteco, Comecrudo, Cotoname under Coahuiltecan.
Swanton, John R. 1915 Linguistic Position of the Tribes of Southern Texas and Northeastern Mexico. American Anthropologist 17:17-40.	Grouped Coahuilteco, Comecrudo, Cotoname, plus Atakapa and Maratino, under Coahuiltecan.
Sapir, Edward 1920 The Hokan and Coahuiltecan Languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 1(4):280-290.	Agreed with Swanton’s conclusions, and suggested that Solano and Aranama be included. Also tried to link Coahuiltecan with Hokan.
Sapir, Edward 1925 The Hokan Affinity of Subtiaba in Nicaragua. American Anthropologist 27(3):402-435, (4):491-527.	Established Coahuiltecan family, including Tonkawa, Karankawa, and Coahuilteco (Coahuilteco = Coahuilteco “proper,” Comecrudo, Cotoname, Solano and Aranama).
Voegelin, C.F. and F.M. Voegelin 1964 Languages of the World: Native America Fascicle Two. Anthropological Linguistics 7(7):1-150.	Coahuilteco viewed as a linguistic isolate, Comecrudo and Cotoname now grouped under Comecrudan. Comecrudan and Coahuilteco in Hokan Phylum.
Goddard, Ives 1979 The Languages of South Texas and the Lower Rio Grande. In The Languages of Native America: Historical and Comparative Assessment, edited by Lyle Campbell and Marianne Mithun, pp. 355-389. University of Texas Press, Austin.	Coahuilteco, Comecrudo, and Cotoname are “independent isolated languages.” Also introduces Mamulique and Garza as languages related to each other under the family Comecrudan.
Manaster Ramer, Alexis 1996 Sapir’s Classifications: Coahuiltecan. Anthropological Linguistics, 38(1): 1-38.	Pakawan = Coahuilteco, Comecrudo, Cotoname, Mamulique, and Garza; Coahuiltecan = Pakawan plus Karankawa and Atakapa.
Campbell, Lyle 1996 Coahuiltecan: A Closer Look. Anthropological Linguistics, 38(4): 620-634.	The languages should be viewed as unrelated because the documentary evidence is too poor to be able to demonstrate genetic relationships.

1967
Burial 1		2 majolica sherds
Burial 2		several glass beads
Burial 8B		bone stained with red ocher
Burial 8C[1]		bone stained with red ocher, 2 Spanish coins (on left pelvis)
Burial 10		worked deer metapodial (on left pelvis)
Burial 11B		brass medallion w/ cloth adhering to it
Burial 11C		brass crucifix w/ cloth adhering to it, handmade shell beads
Burial 11E		brass crucifix
Burial 11H[2]		bone pin
Burial 12B		copper chain with wooden rosary beads
Burial 16A		crucifix with glass sets
Burial 18B		rosary of square cut lignite and glass beads
1969
Burial A		metal arrow point (cause of death)
Burial 1		Indian-made potsherd
Burial 2A		4 brass buttons, bits of wool fabric, 3 Indian potsherds
Burial 2B		1 bone button, 1 copper button, 1 flint knife or scraper, 1 Indian potsherd
Burial 2C		Painted plaster remnants, fragments of oxidized copper, pin-shaped wooden object covered with gesso, fragments of painted wood.
Burial 3A		2 sherds blue and white majolica, 1 Indian potsherd, 4 fragments mussel shell, animal bones
Burial 3B		bits of corroded small-gauge wire, 1 bone button
Burial 4B		1 brass hook and eye dress fastener, 9 brass straight pins, bits of cotton fabric, 1 dart point (base)