HARUixfiTox] PLACE-NAMES 477 



(21) Span. "Santiago".' 



(22) Span. "Nuestra Sefiora de los Angeles de Porciuncula".^ 

 "Nuestra SeiTora de Pecos".'' "N. Senora de Peco.s".^ "N. S. 

 de los Angeles de Pecos ".^ "Nuestra Senora de los Angeas de 

 Pecos". ^ "Nuestni Senora de Por.ciiincula de los Angeles de 

 Pecos".^ "N. S. do los Angeles de Tecos".^ "Los Angeles"'." 



The liistoiy of Pecos is discussed in various works. See 

 Bandelier, Final lieport, pt. i, pp. 127-28, 1890, and pt. ii, chap. 

 Ill, 18'J2; Hewett in Amer. Anthr., vi, 1904; Hewett, Covi- 

 munautes, pp. 34-37, 1908. Sonae of the most important facts 

 are brought out in the following: 



The greatest pueblo of them all in the vicinity of Santa Fe was the settle- 

 ment known as Cicuy6, just on the boundary almost between Santa Fe and 

 San Bliguel Counties. This is the pueblo of Pecos. It contained at one time 

 not less than 2,000 inhabitants, and could muster an army of not less than 500 

 warriors This pueblo died out al)out five years before the coming of the 

 Americans, the last of the Pecos going to their kinsmen, the Indians of Jemez.'" 



Hewett (following Hodge) fixes the date of the abandonment of 

 Pecos as August, 1838." According to a tradition learned by the 

 present writer at Jemez, there were only about a dozen Indians 

 left at the time of evacuation, and these went to Sandia Pueblo 

 [29:100], where they were well received and lived for a few dtiys, 

 but finding that thej^ could not get along well with the Sandia 

 people, they went to Jemez [27:3.5]. One or two of theni, how- 

 ever, remained at Santo Domingo Pueblo [28:105]. Why the 

 Pecos refugees did not go directl}' to Jemez is difficult to under- 

 stand, for the Pecos and Jemez languages are as closely related 

 as Danish and Swedish, while the Sandia language, though be- 

 longing to the same stock, is unintelligible to a Pecos. Strangely 

 enough, Bandelier records a San Felipe (?) tradition that three 

 refugees from Kuapti [28:61] first applied to the Indians of Sandia 

 for hospitality, but were coldlj^ received and thereupon went to 

 the Tanos; see Bandelier, Final Report^ pt. ii, p. 188, 1892 

 (quoted under [29 :♦)(!]). Mr. Hodge informs the writer that in 

 September, 189.5, he was told by Jose Miguel Peco, or Zu-wa-ng', 

 a native of Pecos and a very old man, that the remnant of the 

 tribe numbered only five at the time of the abandonment of Pecos, 



1 Oiiate (159S) in Doc. Ined., xvi, p. 259, 1871. 



2 Vetancurt (1693) in Teatro Mex., in, p. 323, 1871. 

 'D'Anville, m.ip Amdr. Sept., 1716. 



< Jefferys, Ami-r. Alias, map 5, 1776. 



' Alencaster (lSO-5) quoted by Prince, N. Mex., p. 37, 1S83. 



s Ward in Ind. Aff. Rep. for 1867, p. 213, 1868. 



' Bandelier in Anstand, p. 815, 1882. 



8 Bancroft, Native Races, r, p. 599. 1882 (misquoting Melinc). 



s Bancroft, Ariz, and N. Mex., p. 2.81, 1889. 



i» R. E. Tmtchell in Santa Fe New Mexican, Sept. 22, 1910. 



11 Communautds, p. 37, 1908. 



