The Pueblos An Overview of Main Issues and Important Themes

Introductions Oldest continuous occupation of a single area in the Western Hemisphere outside of Meso- America Cultural, linguistic and trade relations with Meso- America Northern Pueblos influenced by Apache, Navajo, Utes, Comanche and Kiowa Cultural change and tradition

Terms and Identities Pueblos = Spanish term for people living in “villages” 4 Language families Multiple languages that are mutually unintelligible

General Characteristics Intensive horticulture Elaborate ceremonial cycle Tightly-knit social organization Domesticated plants & animals Extensive trade networks Highly developed pottery and art/tools Little organized warfare

Continued… Clusters along Rio Grande Matrilineal or Patrilineal Typically clans Kivas, Katsinas, medicine societies Some have moieties  Dual complimentary social structures. Larger than families and clans, but not necessarily a hereditary structure. Tend to be exogamous. Religious, agricultural, etc. functions. May also have social & biological purposes. Bind clans together  Turquoise/Squash; Summer/Winter  Ceremonial & social dances, hunting

Taos Pueblo 1936

Languages Keresan Family  Acoma, Cochiti, Laguna, San Felipe, Santa Ana, Santo Domingo, Zia Tanoan Family  Tiwa, Tewa Towa Tiwa: Taos, Picuris, Sandia, Isleta Tewa: San Juan, Santa Clara, San Ildefonso, Nambe, Tesuque, Pojaque Towa: Jemez Zunian Family  Zuni Uto-Aztecan  Hopi and many others

Other Methods of Organization Western Pueblos  Hopi, Hano, Laguna, Acoma, Zuni  Matrilineal and Matrifocal, clans, Katsinas Keresan Bridge Pueblos  Zia, Santa Ana, San Felipe, Santo Domingo Cochiti  Centralized political/social, matrilineal clans, moieties Eastern Tanoan Pueblos  Tesuque, Nambe, Pojaque, Ildefonso, S.C., S.J, Taos, Picuris, Sandia, Isleta  Moderate centralization, bilateral, no clans: moieties

Acoma woman, 1939Father & Son 1893

Trade languages Influence of Apache, Dine, Kiowa and Comanche Taos & eastern Pueblos have dances from Kiowa Comanche Spanish influence

Pueblo-Spanish Relations Juan de Onate Santa Fe Pueblo Revolt 1680  Causes:  Conversion  Oppression  Land & Labor  Apaches  Environment  Popé

Post-Revolt Spain tempered conversion efforts Spanish settlers and Nuevo Hispano villagers Land Grants to Spanish & Pueblos Conflicts between Spanish for labor  Congregation, repartimiento, ecomienda Apache-Comanche-Navajo-Hopi tensions, trade and intermarriage Intermarriage of Pueblos into Hispano settlements “Detribalized” Indians, Genizaros No Treaties

Government-Hybridity 1598 & 1620 Spanish imposed new forms of government “Traditional” or Religious  Cacique & Cacique Society War Chief & War Captain, aides Tribal Council Secular  Governor & Aides  Fiscale and aids  Sheriff & Acequia/ditch bosses

Multi-National government All Indian Pueblo Council “Traditional” and Modern coalition Representatives from all Pueblos Governor, vice, etc Discussion and debate Majority rule, but tempered by the desire for consensus Deal with outsiders and issues impacting all Pueblos, especially state of New Mexico

Mexican Period Plan de Iguala: Mexican government granted citizenship to all people No legal status as “Indian” No treaties Privatization of communal & mission lands Combined with the land grants, stereotypes of “savage Indians” and their settled living patterns their legal status as “Indians” was debated

19 th Century U.S. Status U.S.-Mexico War and Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo U.S. must respect the rights of all Mexican citizens Were Pueblos non-citizen Indians or “Mexican” citizens that were now U.S. citizens? What was the status of their land grants? Would the U.S. make treaties with them (like other tribes) or treat them like Mexican…Americans? In comparing them to Apaches, Comanches, etc, Americans used racist definitions of “Indian” to determine the legal and racial status of the Pueblos Indian = savage=treaties Pueblos=semi-civilized=citizen=no treaties

Ambiguous legal status “Spain granted” title to Pueblos NM Organic Act, 1850  Pueblos cannot vote No distinctions made between Native & Spanish Pueblos or grants U.S. v. Lucero, 1869 & U.S. vs. Joseph, 1876  NM Territory has jurisdiction, pueblos not Indian Territory, rights to trespass, taxation, trade U.S. vs., Sandoval, 1913  Feds had jurisdiction, land was protected  3,000 claims to Pueblo lands, led to discussion about the Bursum Bill, Pueblo Lands Board

Creeping colonialism Typically pattern of land loss  Speculators purchased land adjacent to Pueblos  Speculators sold land for grazing purposes, generally to Hispano pastoralists  Hispanos would ask to graze on Pueblo land  Pay taxes on Pueblo lands to the Territorial gov, remain there for years  Courts came in and ruled in favor of Hispanos, who would sell land back to developers, or developers would forcefully buy them out.

Modern Locations

Taos: Struggle for the Land Blue Lake 1906 Carson Nat. Forest Religious Freedom & Public Lands Conservation 1971 Nixon

Annual celebration of the return of Blue Lake

Taos Pueblo: Indigenous & Hispanic? Historic relationship between Catholicism and “Hispanic culture” & Indigenous culture, religion  Syncretism  Compartmentalization Poseyemu, Montezuma and Jesus Feast Days Matachines  General and specific levels  Essentialism and constructivism  Tradition and adaptation

Jemez Pueblo & the Anthony Casino 2004 proposed a casino in Anthony, NM Gerald Peters, SF art dealer Petitions from community Dona Ana County Services, land in trust Opposition

Conclusions Commonalities and Diversity Language, religion, socio-cultural, economic, and political organization Spanish-Pueblo relations Ambiguous legal status Land and Water Syncretism & compartmentalization Contemporary concerns