Francisco Garcés's 1775–1776 Diary and the Napac: A Further Inquiry

Abstract

This paper is a sequel to “Who Were the Napac?” (Whiteley, Peter M. 2011 Who Were the Napac? Decoding an Ethnohistorical Enigma. Kiva (77:59–86), which demonstrated how the term “Napac,” in the 1775–1776 diary of Francisco Garcés, has been misinterpreted as “Navajo.” “Napac” rather was shown to be a Havasupai reference to the San Francisco Peaks and to a Yavapai band seasonally resident there. The present paper examines additional manuscript copies of Garcés's diary, both to test that earlier inference, and to better understand variations among different versions of the diary. Concentrating on watermarks and on a phylogenetic analysis of textual forms, the argument highlights two previously unexamined manuscript copies (at The University of Arizona Special Collections and the Huntington Library). A new interpretation of the history of Garcés's diary includes further comparison to nine additional manuscript copies in European and Mexican archives.

Este trabajo es una secuela al “Who Were the Napac?” (Whiteley, Peter M. 2011 Who Were the Napac? Decoding an Ethnohistorical Enigma. Kiva 77:59–86), el cual demostró cómo el término “Napac,” en el diario de Fray Francisco Garcés de 1775–1776, ha sido malinterpretado como “Navajo.” Más bien “Napac” es una palabra Havasupai que se refiere a la sierra de San Francisco y a un grupo Yavapai que residía allí estacionalmente. Este estudio investiga otras copías manuscritas del diario de Garcés, simultaneamente para probar esta inferencia anterior y para entender mejor las variaciones entre las versiones diferentes del diario. Concentrándose en las filigranas y en un análisis filogenético de las formas textuales, el estudio arroja luz sobre dos copías manuscritas no examinadas anteriormente (en las bibliotecas de la Universidad de Arizona y del Huntington). Se presenta una nueva interpretación de la historia del diario de Garcés, incluso una comparación de nueve copías manuscritas adicionales en los archivos europeos y mexicanos.

KEYWORDS:

• Ethnohistory
• Southwest historical geography
• Textual analysis
• Watermarks
• Textual phylogenetics

Acknowledgments

Research for this paper relied especially on: the University of Arizona (“UA”) Library Special Collections (“SC”), Arizona State Museum, and Arizona Historical Society, Tucson; the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University; the Huntington Library, San Marino, CA; the Franciscan General Archives, Rome; and the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley. Particular thanks go to Louis A. Hieb (former Director, UA SC), Verónica Reyes-Escudero (Associate Librarian, UA SC), Richard King (Director, UA Records Management and Archives), and Patricia Ballesteros and Charles Wommack (Library Information Associates, UA SC). At the Arizona State Museum Office of Ethnohistorical Research, I am very grateful to: Bernard Fontana (former Ethnologist), Michael Brescia (Associate Curator of Ethnohistory), Dale Brenneman (Associate Curator of Documentary History), and Monica Young (Research Specialist). Thanks also to Arizona Historical Society archivist Laura Hoff for arranging access. For help with specific manuscripts, watermarks, and/or paper history, I am very grateful to: William P. Frank (Curator of Hispanic, Cartographic, and Western Manuscripts, Huntington Library); George Miles (William Robertson Coe Curator of Western Americana, Beinecke Library); Adam Minakowski (Reference Archivist, National Anthropological Archives); Helen McGettrick (Reference Librarian, Newberry Library); Jonathan M. Bloom (Norma Jean Calderwood University Professor of Islamic and Asian Art, Boston College); Neil Harris (Professor of Bibliography and Library Studies, University of Udine), José Carlos Balmaceda Abrate (Vocal, Asociación Hispánica de Historiadores del Papel, Madrid); Rick Hendricks (New Mexico State Historian); John Kessell (Professor Emeritus of History, University of New Mexico); Kenneth C. Ward (Maury A. Bromsen Curator of Latin American Books, John Carter Brown Library, Brown University); Fr. Gerardo Frausto, OFM (Secretario, Provincia Franciscana de Michoacán); Dean Smith (Assistant Manuscript Archivist, Bancroft Library). Late in the research, I was fortunate indeed to visit the Franciscan General Archives in Rome: I am especially grateful for his patient help to Fr. Priamo Etzi, OFM. Special thanks go also to my colleague Ward C. Wheeler (Curator of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History) for POY analysis and imaging, and to AMNH Anthropology Division artist, Jennifer Steffey, for tracing the watermarks. I am also most grateful to the AMNH Anthropology Division's Ogden-Mills Fund for support of travel to Tucson, Washington, D.C., New Haven, Rome, and Berkeley. I remain solely responsible for all interpretations.

Abbreviations

AGI,	=	Archivo General de Indias, Seville, Spain. Microfilm copies housed at BL.
AGN,	=	Archivo General de la Nación, Mexico City. Microfilm copies housed at DRSW, Arizona Historical Society Library, and BL.
AHSL,	=	Arizona Historical Society Library, Tucson.
Aud. Guad.,	=	Audiencia de Guadalajara.
BL,	=	Bancroft Library, Berkeley.
DRSW,	=	Documentary Relations of the Southwest, Office of Ethnohistorical Research, Arizona State Museum, Tucson.
PI,	=	Provincias Internas.

Notes

1 Garcés had arrived from Spain in 1763, in company with Pedro Font (Kessell 1970:188–189). He was based at the Colegio de la Santa Cruz de Querétaro until being posted to the most remote mission of the Pimería Alta, San Xavier del Bac, in 1768, following the Jesuit expulsion. This corrects my earlier remark (Whiteley 2011:64) that Garcés arrived in New Spain in 1768.

2 Garcés had a substantive exchange with three men at Orayvi who were about to return to Zuni (Coues 1900:365–380). Coues (whom I followed previously in this regard [Whiteley 2011:62]) inferred all were Zunis, although Garcés' text is more ambiguous, characterizing them only as “indios de Zuni,” i.e., “Indians from Zuni” (e.g., Galvin 1996:72–73). Fr. Domínguez, who interviewed Lazaro in Santa Fe, indicates he was an Acoma native, and his evident fluency in Spanish may confirm that (Acoma was under greater Spanish influence than Zuni). It was Lazaro who described to Garcés where Navajos would first be encountered—along the trail from Hopi to Zuni (Coues 1900:369).

3 The Havasupai guides separated from him shortly before reaching Orayvi and proceeded into the town independently; Garcés represents only two, an old man and a boy, actually accompanied him into Orayvi (Coues 1900:361). Lazaro told Fr. Rosete at Zuni that Garcés had been led by, “el Cacique de los Cosninas y otros quatro de esta Nación que trajeron al Padre á Moqui” (“the Chief of the Havasupais and four others of that Nation who brought the Father to Hopi”; Rosete 7–6–1776, in Maas 1915:92).

4 Previously, following some catalog records, I referred to the published version as “García-Figueroa 1854.” For reasons I will address elsewhere, “Garcés (1854)” is a more precise reference.

5 In fact, Beaumont died in 1780, probably in May or June. A Franciscan register from Querétaro indicates he was still living in late April (4–17/27–1780), but had passed by 7–15–1780 (Frausto pers. comm. 11–13–2014).

6 Garcés must have kept written notes; the information is too extensive for memory alone (cf. Whiteley 2011:65).

7 The priests' full names are taken from Bancroft (1884:691). Garcés describes completion of the diary “a que ā cooperado el P. Font, el P Balbastro que a escrito el primer traslado i el P Thomas [Eixarch] i antes avian aiudado el P Gamarra i Espinosa” (Garcés n.d. [1777]).

8 During Escalante's visit to Hopi from Zuni in August 1775, the Havasupai sent a party to meet him. At Wàlpi, one Havasupai man drew a map for Escalante on the ground with charcoal, delineating the country from Hopi to the lower Colorado River, showing intermediate peoples (Maas 1915:74–75); there is no suggestion these included Navajos (Escalante 4–30–1776, in Maas 1915:64–80).

9 Brown (2011:58, n. 110) cites three sources: (1) an undated letter from Garcés to Fr. Diego Ximénez (Garcés n.d. [1776]); (2) the English and; (3) first Spanish printing of Galvin's version of the diary (Brown misdates the English edition as “1967” [properly 1965] and miscites the 1968 Mexican edition as “1971”—a different item in his bibliography—but his footnote makes clear which specific references he intends). Having examined the first item in detail, I can state unequivocally that it does not contain any reference to Navajos in the passage in question. Just as in the diary (including Galvin's editions), the letter's only reference to the location of Navajos cites the account (by Lazaro—see note 2 above) that Navajos would first be encountered on the road between Hopi and Zuni.

Some of Brown's confusion lies in the letter's occasional use of “Apaches” to refer to Havasupais and Walapais. In the diary (see Whiteley 2011:74), “Yabipais” and “Apaches” are used both generically and specifically, but Walapai and Havasupai are never termed “Apaches,” only “Yabipais.” This difference between letter and diary would suggest that by the time the diary was written up, ethnonymy had been somewhat rationalized. Brown (2011:436) suggests the undated letter was written in “October, November, or December, 1776.” However, Viceroy Bucareli received it in January, 1777, forwarding a certified copy on January 27 to Minister for the Indies José de Gálvez (Chapman 1919: #3110, #3465). During this period (of great chaos in northern Sonora—see below), letters from the farthest Pimería Alta missions seem to have frequently taken three months or more to reach Querétaro, where copies were made and forwarded to the Viceroy's office. From this circumstance, and some internal references in the letter, I believe it dates to late September, 1776 (Whiteley in prep.).

10 I must correct my criticism (Whiteley 2011:79, n. 12) that Coues disallowed Moenave as the location of the Havasupai ranchería Garcés visited near Moenkopi Wash. In fact Coues (1900:356, n. 37) did suggest a possible correlation with “inhabited places now known as Moencopie, Moa Ave [i.e., = Moenave], and Tuba . . . .” From Garcés' descriptions of both land and people, and from my own fieldwork, I think Moenave (“Mawyavi” in Hopi) is by far the most likely place, and not Mùnqapi, nor the area Hopis call Tuuvi, a site of old cotton-fields encompassed by modern Tuba (=Tuuvi) City.

11 These include three copies at the Franciscan General Archives (FGA) in Rome; two at the Archivo General de la Nación (AGN), Mexico City (additional to the AGN Historia 24 “Bancroft” copy); two at the Archivo General de Indias (AGI), Seville; and two at the Real Biblioteca, Palacio Real (RB), Madrid. The FGA was visited in person; AGN and AGI copies were consulted via microfilm, and RB copies via digital reproductions. Fuller analysis of these sources is ongoing.

12 Garcés conflated the Little Colorado mainstream with its tributary, Moenkopi Wash (cf. Coues 1900:357–358, n. 39).

13 This corrects my inference (Whiteley 2011:79, n. 6) that the Bancroft comprises “ca. 224 pages.” I previously depended for this version on a printout of selected pages from Bancroft Library microfilm. In June 2015, I examined a copy of the same AGN Historia 24 microfilm at AHSL. My previous reading (Whiteley 2011:69) of the page number for the Napac passage in this copy as “62” was also incorrect; it should be page 42.

14 Maggs Brothers' records for that period are “fragmentary” (Ed Maggs pers. comm. 5–8–2014) and now reside at the British Library (Hugh Bett pers. comm. 5–12–2014), which did not respond concretely to electronic inquiries.

15 Many thanks to Louis Hieb for informing me of this copy.

16 It is not evident how and where Galvin acquired the manuscript in his own library. My efforts to locate current whereabouts have not been successful.

17 My inquiries have not been fruitful beyond this. John Howell Books closed with the death in 1984 of long-term proprietor Warren Howell.

18 When acquired, the UA diary contained a folded, colored map of “Moqui y Nuevo-Mexico” tipped in at the end. Assessed by the book-dealer as contemporary with the diary (Howell Books 1979–1980, part V: 511–513), it was removed by Special Collections, and is stored separately. Several features—non-correspondence with the geography traveled by Garcés (and depicted on Pedro Font's maps), implausible Spanish syntax in the legend, thumbtack holes in the corners, and too-bright wash color pigments—betray this map as an inauthentic twentieth-century amalgam. It clearly does not belong with the UA Garcés diary.

19 Garcés (1854) is excluded from the comparison here: some textual features, like accents, were evidently conformed to nineteenth-century conventions. In contrast, Galvin (1996) appears to adhere closely to its original, so is included.

20 Version III has at least three additional instantiations in archives mentioned in note 11; several other cases of Versions I and II are also known (analysis of these sources is in process).

21 As seen on the final page of the diary appearing on AGN Historia 24 microfilm at the Arizona Historical Society Library.

22 Brown (2011:57) indicates Font and others began work on Garcés' diary and map by the end of November, 1776, but the timing is wrong. Garcés did not arrive until after Font's letter to Ximénez of November 30, which lists the priests then present at Ímuris (Font and Matson 1975:273)—none of whom (except Font himself) match those cited by Garcés (n.d. [1777]) as helping to produce the diary.

23 Fontana (1996:20) refers to an unpublished late 20th century manuscript (by Jack Holterman) indicating Garcés wrote letters from Tucson on January 21 and February 19, 1777. This is in error, and likely reflects mistranscription of letters Garcés is positively known to have written from Tucson on 1-21-1778 and 2-19-1778.

24 Both versions seen of this letter are copies rather than originals; the FGA copy is dated February 4, the AGN copy February 3; in other respects, the texts are the same.

25 This refines McCarty's (1969:221) statement that the diary was transmitted to Querétaro “by the middle of 1777.” In 1777, mail from Horcasitas to Querétaro seems to have ordinarily taken about six weeks to arrive and for copies to be made (see, e.g., several documents cited in Chapman 1919:457–458).

26 Certification by the Viceroy's Secretary, Melchor de Peramás (Garcés n.d.h: last page).

27 Both copies are held at the AGI, in Audiencia de Guadalajara Legajo 516 (Bardavío 1971:30–31). Chapman's catalog (1919) conflates the two copies, and he may not in fact have seen the Ximénez. Bucareli's certified copy comprises 109 folios, or 218 pages (my count agrees with Bardavío (1971:30); Chapman (1919:392) counted 215 pages); the Ximénez occupies 32 numbered folios (pace Bardavío (1971:31) who lists 31), or 63 pages. Both copies appear in succession on AGI microfilm (Garcés n.d.g, Garcés n.d.h). Chapman (1919:392) assigned only one catalog number (“3001”) to an AGI Garcés diary, with his page count suggesting it is the Bucareli-certified copy. Chapman (1919: #3527) separately mentions a copy enclosed with Ximénez's letter of 4–18–1777, but references that enclosure only as #3001 (i.e., the Bucareli-certified copy), with no separate page-count, raising the question of whether he actually saw the Ximénez. On the AGI microfilm, both copies are labeled on their respective first frames “Chapman 3001.”

28 The only differences are in punctuation and spellings, with two lexical exceptions: one in the Ximénez and another in the Bucareli-certified. In the former (Garcés n.d.g), “mucho” is omitted from the phrase “elevandose atrechos [mucho].” In the latter (Garcés n.d.h), “los” is inserted before “Napac” in the phrase “con los Yabipais Tejua, y los Napac.”—similarly, then, to Versions II and III. In other Version I variants, as noted, both “Tejua” and “Napac” appear as modifiers on “Yabipais;” with “los,” ethnonym Napac appears more independent. One punctuation difference in the Ximénez may introduce a related semantic distinction: “ . . . guerra que tienen con los Yabipais, Tejua, y Napac. Viven estos . . .” The commas between “Yabipais,” “Tejua,” and “Napac” conceivably suggest each is a distinct group of the same order, although a reading of Tejua and Napac as modifiers on Yabipais in this rendering remains plausible also. In other respects both the Ximénez and Bucareli-certified copies adhere to Version I.

29 As observed on the last page of the microfilm copy of this letter. I cannot make out the figures within the central circle; the St George cross within the oval is discernible, the “2” in the bottom circle and parts of the rearing gryphons flanking the oval are definitely visible, and the 1771 date below the bottom circle is quite clear.

30 The coat-of-arms watermark and 1771 are visible on the Bucareli-certified copy, for example, on the second page of the entry for July 3, 1776. I am unable to identify the watermark on the Ximénez copy, owing to the density of the writing and the quality of the microfilm examined.

31 Via a digital copy, the coat-of-arms and date are plainly visible on some pages (e.g., 6, 14), though I cannot make out the figures or number in the central and bottom circles.

32 For example, the killing of Fr. Luis Jaume at the San Diego mission on November 5, 1775 (Garcés n.d.c: note on verso side of January 3, 1776, page; cf. Coues 1900:206–208); and the killing of two Spanish soldiers by a Yokuts band (Garcés n.d.c: marginal note by May 3, 1776, entry).