Texas

War Arrow · Post by **War Arrow** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:10 am

From the news page:
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/ts_mor ... 8_0_10_0_M
Well aside from the microscopic niggle of the term 'chichimec' being in this case a generic nahuatl name for a nomadic hunter-gatherer (which by the way carried certain conotatations of 'wild nobility' so doesn't quite equate to 'barbarian') I found this pretty interesting. I'm not too clued up on this area of the Americas, and it's interesting to see yet another thumbs up for the nomadic lifestyle. I know there's a few hunter-gatherer sympathisers hanging around here. There's an unspoken assumption that peoples from times past weren't quite so clued up as we are. I seriously doubt that. I've got a television set and I know how to turn it on or off, but I have very little idea about how you'd go about making one. These folks had brains based on the same model that Einstein was working with.
I do wonder at the level of settled civilisation out there. The American South West is littered with Hohokam ball courts (usually in the form of two parallel rows of rocks - more in The Mesoamerican Ballgame by Scarborough & Wilcox - University of Arizona Press) plus there's Aztec, Chaco Canyon, La Quemada etc so it seems unlikely that farming just ended there, never to take hold anywhere north of the Rio Grande - especially given that these places benefited from trade routes reaching right down into Mexico. Then again, like I say, I'm no expert on this region.
Anyone here able to enlighten me (Stan, Min, Charlie - what with this being your stamping ground and yes I know the whole state is probably ten times bigger than England?)?

stan · Post by **stan** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 9:05 am

The thing about the Native Americans is that they have never been a monolithic group. They had different kinship structures, languages, survival strategies, adapted to a wide range of climates, ate different foods, related to other tribes in different ways, had different beliefs, etc.
It seems that at any given period there were large "permanent" cities or settlements extisting simultaneously with nomadic hunter-gatherers.
A modern example (although not Texan) is the simultaneous existence of the Pueblo cultures in New Mexico (permanent architecture, agriculture, domesticated animals, trading) with the Sioux of the northern plains (Sitting Bull) who lived in portable tepees, rode and kept huge herds of horses, and migrated annually following the buffalo herds...like the mongols, maybe.
Until the 18th century the Pecos Indians had a pueblo in New Mexico
just "west of the Pecos (river). They traded annually with the nomadic raiders, the Apaches, who rode in from what is now Mexico and West Texas, bringing things like animal skins to exhange for pottery, grain, and maybe blankets. (Geronimo was the last great Apache leader.)
As I think about it, you could compare the diversity of North American
(not to mention central and S. America!) Indian tribes to the diversity of African ones.
There's an excellent old book about the cultural differences of NA tribes written by an anthropologist, which I have read but cannot find my copy right now....
I'll try to find it and post it.

(As I was writing this I forgot that you were an expert on Central America....I don't mean to condescend. )

stan · Post by **stan** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 9:11 am

http://www.lsjunction.com/places/indians.htm

Here's a simplified map of Indians in Texas and brief descriptions.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 9:25 am

Whoa there Stan! The period of horse ownership amongst the plains Indians was of only relatively short duration. They adapted their living to the horse, maybe, but surely prior to that what were they, sedentary or migratory?

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 9:41 am

Or, like other predators on foot, they could not simply go storming into a buffalo herd and shoot as many as they wanted. They would have had to surround and stalk a straggler until they got close enough to attack.

The quick adaptation of the horse by the plains Indians shows that these people were quick to understand the value of this innovation.

War Arrow · Post by **War Arrow** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 12:12 pm

Thanks for the link, Stan. Very informative (and as an aside, I always presumed the name Texas was of Nahuatl derivation (through Nahuatl speakers travelling with the conquistadores) meaning something like 'place where they (the conquistadores) stopped' based on a translation of Texcoco as 'Place of Detention' - although my dictionary gets no closer than Texahcallah - area strewn with rocks or boulders) and no condesencion was involved. I get a little sketchy once you get beyond the Valley of Mexico.
This all makes me wonder what factors led one group of people to take to settled life whilst others stuck with a semi-nomadic existence. I guess it would have to be largely cultural thus refuting the idea that one way was necessarily more 'advanced' (for want of a better word) than the other (as the point about adapting to horses suggests). It can't really have been just down to geography and what land happened to be available given the generally arid places in which some groups set down roots. Then again, I suppose if your history is intertwined with that of buffalo herds for as long as anyone can recall (thus I imagine necessitating nomadism, if that's a word), chances are you'd want to stick with what you know.

stan · Post by **stan** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 2:55 pm

Whoa there Stan!

"WHOA, Silver! WHOA, big fellow!"...the Lone Ranger.

You are correct about the horses, Digit, but you and Minimalist (Thanks, Bob.) made my point about diversity of cultures. The Sioux (and others) were ready for the horses and used them for over 200 years.

Without looking it up, I imagine the plains Indians must have followed the buffalo for centuries on foot.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:03 pm

Texcoco as 'Place of Detention'

Now it's "Place of Lethal Injection."

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:01 pm

Stan, Min, Charlie - what with this being your stamping ground and yes I know the whole state is probably ten times bigger than England?

Man, War, so much has happened here over the past 13,000 years, plus, that I've really just focused on Early Archaic and Paleo. There's just no way of one individual knowing everything about the history/ prehistory of this big state. Frank's good with alot of the Late Prehistoric and Historic stuff in Texas. He works on alot of Caddo sites. Surprised he hasn't weighed in.

War Arrow · Post by **War Arrow** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:37 pm

Anyone here able to enlighten me (Stan, Min, Charlie - what with this being your stamping ground and yes I know the whole state is probably ten times bigger than England?)?

Just after I wrote this I realised it's pretty similar to the American who says to me "I got a cousin living in Halifax, name of Jake. Maybe you know him?

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 5:10 pm

Jake?

That bastard owes me $20.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 6:42 pm

Just after I wrote this I realised it's pretty similar to the American who says to me "I got a cousin living in Halifax, name of Jake. Maybe you know him?

Yeah, less than 200 B.P., the damn region was a country.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 6:43 pm

Jake?

You too?!!

Get a rope!!

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 8:46 pm

Generally the farmers were in the east and the nomads were in the west. It did have a lot to do with geography, though. The Caddo were sedentary, but they did travel out west once a year to hunt buffalo/bison. Wherever there was plenty of water and wildlife and fertile soil you would find setlled indians. Wherever these resources were scarce the poeple had to move around more to find food and water. Reading that back it sounds too simple. It wasn't that simple and I don't mean to sound condescending. Different peoples adapted to different conditions in different ways. Around here they were excellent farmers, because there was plenty of water and game and other natural resources as well as soil which would grow corn and beans and pumpkins and squash. Lots of fruits and beriies and nuts were available to add variety to their diet. Those plains indians didn't eat well. Lotta jerky and pemmican I expect.