 |
| Forensic reconstruction of Leanderthal Lady |
A question one frequently sees asked: "Who were the Indigenous tribes of X?",
where X is Texas, or Central Texas, or Travis County, or Austin. The answer is not simple.
Let's start with a working definition of "indigenous" compiled from various sources: Peoples originating
in a particular place. Indigenous or Aboriginal peoples are so-called
because they are descended from those who were living on their lands or
in a geographical region before people of different cultures or ethnic
origins arrived from elsewhere for settlement.
Given the scientific community posits that Native
Americans migrated to the Americas from elsewhere, in one sense there was a time
when all Native Americans were new comers. Many Native Peoples' creation
stories deny they migrated to the Americas, rather they have always been here in
the Americas, though they acknowledge they may have migrated from the point of creation. Either way there is general agreement that Native Americans as
a whole are indigenous to the Americas either by virtue of their
creation here, or having been the first to migrate here a very long time ago
(14,000 years BP is no longer disputed; some estimates are pushing 30,000 years BP).
But the question gets tricky when you start restricting the geographical scope. To illustrate consider this. In Texas today, there are three federally recognized tribes: Alabama-Coushatta, the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe and the Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo. Of these only the Tigua consider their current location, far west Texas, part of their ancestral lands pre-European contact. Still, their current reservation of Ysleta del Sur Pueblo near El Paso was established as a result of forced movement by the Spanish as part of New Mexico’s Pueblo Revolt of 1680. The Alabamas and Coushattas began moving west ca. 1780s across the Sabine River into Spanish Texas ahead of U.S. westward expansion; they were moving into a region already settled by the Spanish. Kickapoo too settled in Texas having been displaced from their
homelands as part of the U.S. westward expansion; an Algonkian-speaking people their original home was the Great Lakes region.
Having arrived in
Texas with or after European arrival in Texas, and displaced from what the tribes consider their true place of origin, would one consider these tribes "indigenous" to Texas? Do they?
So how to approach this question? The "Land Acknowledgment" from the Native American and Indigenous Studies program at the University of Texas at Austin (see below) is well crafted in
what it says. The phrase "who have been or have become a part of [Texas]" acknowledges the reality of the diverse history of Native Americans past and present that have called Texas home
But if pressed, how do we address the question of indigenous to Texas? Given the history of the Americas, indeed the planet, is one of migration I think one has to be clear about a time frame or event, and geographical scope. Given this blog is about Austin, Travis County and Texas in general, let me use that as my geographical scope. There are then several time frames and events that, for me, helps with getting a handle on the indigenous question. So let me run through those.
Native Americans in Prehistoric Times
Archeological investigations of Travis County and my neighborhood around Bull Creek show
utilization by humans stretching back 9,000
years, maybe longer. The Wilson-Leonard site where “Leanderthal
Lady” was
found, only 8 miles northwest of the headwaters of Bull Creek, shows a
succession of use from Paleoindian cultures 13,000 years ago to Late
Prehistoric Toyah cultures. Some artifacts found in digs on Bull Creek
are
similar to those associated with the Wilson-Leonard site.
With
a branch of a prehistoric trade trail running through Austin from
Mexico to East Texas that the Spanish would later call El Camino Real de
los Tejas, there was probably traffic through this area by Native
Americans we have no names for.
Key takeaways from this are that we do not have names for "tribes" in prehistoric times (or if that is even a meaningful concept), and even with archeology, linguistics and most recently DNA it is difficult to impossible to make connections between peoples of prehistoric times and tribes today; further while DNA is able to identify Native American ancestry, it is unable to distinguish associations with specific tribes. This often plays out in court when current tribes make claims on prehistoric remains under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. An example of that later.
Protohistoric Period
In Texas, there is a period called Protohistoric, marked by the first Spanish and French explorations into Texas and hence first contact with Native Americans. In particular, it is these first Spanish entradas that give us descriptions and names of tribes, usually Spanish versions of the names used by the tribes. The early Spanish entradas recorded names in Texas
such as:
- 1528, Cabeza de Vaca, represents the very first Spanish trip into Texas albeit unintended: Coahuiltecan, Mariames, Yguaces, Quevenes (possibly Karankawa related), Avavares, and "Cow People" (possibly Jumano)
- 1541 Coronado entrada: Querecho (possibly Apache) and Teya (possibly Apache, Wichita or Caddo)
- 1542 Soto/Moscoso entrada: Hasinai (possibly Caddo related)
- 1583 Espejo entrada: Jumano
- 1690 De León entrada: Tonkawa
As a reference point for when the Spanish were firmly established in New
Mexico, Santa Fe was founded in 1610 as the capital of Nuevo México; in Texas, San Antonio de Bexar was founded in 1718.
The first entrada to reach San Pedro Springs, the future site of San Antonio, was 1691. A second followed in 1709; Espinosa et.al. left San Juan Bautista Mission, Mexico and marched to the future site of San Antonio to find the Payaya Indians at San Pedro Springs. From there the Spanish proceeded to the Colorado River (Austin) looking for Hasinai, AKA Tejas AKA Caddo Indians. The Payaya were the first tribe that the Spanish encountered at San
Pedro Springs in San Antonio along what would become El Camino Real, formerly an old Native American trade route. The Payaya and Coahuiltecan may have traveled El Camino Real trading with the Caddo
(Tejas) of East Texas. The Caddo themselves may well have traveled El
Camino Real through Austin. The Jumano, perhaps linked to the archeology
of the late prehistoric Toyah culture, may have traveled the area as
part of their extensive trade route.
These then are tribes we might call indigenous to Texas based on the Protohistoric Period; they were the first post prehistoric Native Americans encountered by the Spanish to which we can put names. Note however, just because the Spanish, new to Texas via their entradas, encountered a tribe does not mean that tribe had not also just recently arrived; this may be the case with the Tonkawa, and also the Apache.
What about the Comanche or Apache?
The Apache, as Athabaskan speakers, would have in prehistoric times called Canada up into Alaska home. Querechos, thought to be a division of the Apache, had reached the Llano Estacado bordering New Mexico not long before Coronado in 1541. This is known because while at the Pecos Pueblo (Cicuye), the residents told Coronado of the "new" people that had just arrived and with whom they were trading: the Querecho. They had not at this point adopted the use of the horse, and were using dog travois.
The Comanche, an offshoot of the Shoshone, were indigenous to the Great
Basin. They are unique in that they were migrating south and east, and
were not fleeing European westward expansion. Indeed they were causing
displacement of indigenous peoples as they migrated (the Apache being one).
The Spanish were well acquainted with the Comanche from their dealings in New Mexico. The Comanche entered recorded history in 1706 when residents of Taos Pueblo sent word to the Spanish governor in Santa Fe that they were expecting an attack from Ute Indians and their new allies, the Comanche (Hamalainen, p.20). There is also indication they had attended the Taos trade fair earlier in 1700, again with the Utes (Noye, p.3). The Spanish had been established in New Mexico for nearly a century, Santa Fe having been founded in 1610. Clearly the Spanish had proceeded the Comanche into New Mexico; it was after all the Spanish presence in New Mexico that introduced the horse that so transformed Comanche mobility (exactly when is still an open question, but the Pueblo Revolt against the Spanish in 1680, with the Spanish fleeing New Mexico, is a best guess).
As for Texas, "The first documented evidence of Comanches in Texas occurred in 1743, when a small band, probably a scouting party, appeared at the Spanish settlement of San Antonio seeking their enemies, the Lipan Apaches." [Handbook]. The Spanish entradas had reached San Pedro Springs by 1691, again in 1709 (recall the Comanche are just appearing at Taos, New Mexico in 1706), and San Antonio de Bexar founded in 1718. So again, the Spanish proceeded the Comanche into Texas.
From the perspective of the Spanish one might argue neither the Apache or Comanche were indigenous to Texas, both having been documented by the Spanish as migrating here roughly the same time as, or even after, the Spanish.
Native Americans of Austin, Republic of Texas & Statehood
To bring the geographic focus of the question even tighter, from an Austin & Central Texas perspective, the next event that is useful for defining indigenous ("Who was there when we got there and so we called indigenous.") is the period before and after the founding the Republic of Texas and into statehood. The Spanish entradas are at a close ending the Protohistoric Period; Mexico is now independent of Spain; and Texas is independent of Mexico resulting in Germans, Czechs, Anglos and more settling into the land making note of the population already in place, who they would view as indigenous.
At Austin’s founding, historically recorded tribes in the immediate area included Apache,
Comanche, Tonkawa, and Waco (a branch of the Wichita, related to the Caddo). The Tonkawa were probably
the oldest residents of the area at its founding (though they too appear to be "new comers"; see more below). The dominant tribe at Austin's founding were the Comanche. For the newest newcomers, the Anglos, Germans et.al. these were the
tribes that were already there and hence indigenous from their newcomer
perspective.
It is during this period too that Native American displacement by U.S. expansion increases with many moving to, or being "resettled", in Texas, the Cherokee being a notable example with Sam Houston being an adopted member of the Cherokee tribe. Other tribes from the east: Alabamas; Coushattas; Kickapoo; Seminole; Delaware.
The truth may be that by the Historic Period, tribes that would have formerly been considered indigenous by the Spanish had been displaced, absorbed or were close to extinction if not already extinct. Even the Tonkawa, long regarded as Central Texas' best candidate for indigenous tribe may have been from somewhere else: "Traditionally, the Tonkawas have been regarded as an old Texas tribe,
but new evidence suggests that the Tonkawas migrated from the high
plains as late as the seventeenth century. (Handbook of Texas)(Perttula, Timothy K. , The Prehistory of Texas, 2012 Texas A&M University Press, p.22).
Not Just an Academic Question
The question of whether a tribe is indigenous to a region is not just academic; it can have real world consequences. Here's an example.
Since 1990, Federal law has provided for "repatriation
and disposition of certain Native American human remains, funerary objects,
sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony" collected through
archeological excavation. This law is known as the Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA).
This year Texas Archeological Research Laboratory (TARL) was in the news when UT was asked for the return
of certain remains. An article on the UT NEWS (9/30/20) website explained
"The Miakan-Garza
Band, a group that traces its ancestry to Coahuiltecans from Northern Mexico,
requested remains in March 2016 through NAGPRA. TARL carefully considered the
request but decided it did not have sufficient basis to repatriate the
remains."
While NAGPRA calls for the return of a tribe's ancestor’s
remains for reburial, it also calls for some evidence that the remains are indeed
associated with that tribe. For very old burials, like “Leanderthal Lady,” discovered
ahead of TxDOT road construction in 1982 near Leander (hence the name), this
can be a challenge. It is highly unlikely her "tribe" when buried
11,000 years ago was anything resembling a tribal nation in existence today.
This was also the problem with the famous 9,000-year-old remains of
"Kennewick Man" discovered in Washington state in 1996.
In the case of the Miakan-Garza Band who claim Coahuiltecan
ancestry there were other issues.
Coahuiltecan was, until recently, generally considered an
extinct tribe, and is not a federally recognized tribal nation. Additionally,
two other tribes, the Caddo Nation and the
Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, objected to the repatriation, saying there
was no evidence the remains were Coahuiltecan; in prehistoric times Texas was
the home to many, many Native American groups.
That was the state of things earlier this year when UT’s Daily
Texan reported “UT-Austin denies request for Indigenous remains from
Miakan-Garza Band” (Aug. 30, 2020). In the end, however, that decision was
reversed with KUT reporting in September that “UT Austin is reversing
its decision to deny a local indigenous group’s request for three sets of
Native American remains housed in the school’s archeological research
laboratory.” The basis of that reversal was in large part the claim that Coahuiltecans were indigenous to Texas.
I'm Not From Texas, But ...
The question of what tribes are indigenous to Texas, or a region of Texas, deserves consideration; it can and does impact real world issues of rights, e.g. NAGPRA. But as Perttula says (p.217) "The present territory of central Texas was not
the long-term ancestral homeland of any indigenous group for whom an
ethnographic account exists. The ethnographically well-known Comanche,
Apache, Wichita, Kiowa, and even the Tonkawa arrived in central Texas
just before or during the early European contact period.". See also Prikryl (2001).
Here I've tried to describe one way to approach the question, that being to first be clear about the time frame and geographic scope. Realistically, given Native Americans have been living here for 14,000+ years, any migration to Texas almost certainly resulted in newcomers encountering, and sometimes displacing, peoples that considered themselves indigenous at that time.
Maybe bumper stickers like "Native Texan" is another way to look at the question. Maybe being born somewhere makes you "from there". I don't however think that captures the notion of being indigenous from a Native American's perspective. Or maybe having an extended lineage in a location? From that perspective the Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo might claim to be indigenous to El Paso, even though they are fully aware they migrated there from their acknowledged homeland in New Mexico.
And there are some tribes for which the question of origin may be hard to answer. The Kiowa language seems to be related to languages of the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico. But history and their tradition have the Kiowa migrating to Texas from the Great Plains ca. 18th century. One theory accounts for this by positing they are an offshoot of the Jumano that migrated north at some forgotten time in the past (Texas Beyond History).
In the end, the question of being indigenous to Texas seems to be related to another popular bumper sticker: "I'm not from Texas but I got here as fast I could".
 |
Kiowa language appears to be related to that of Pueblo Indians of New Mexico, but their migration to Texas ca. 18th century was from the Northern Great Plains.
|
 |
This Land Acknowledgment from the Native American and Indigenous Studies (NAIS) program at the University of Texas at Austin is well crafted in what it says. The phrase "who have been or have become a part of [Texas]" acknowledges the reality of the diverse history of Native Americans past and present that have called Texas home.
|
References
More on Native Americans and Texas
Noyes, Stanley. Los Comanches. 1993. Emphasis on Comanche-Spanish relations in New Mexico.
Hamalainen, Pekka. The Comanche Empire. 2008.
For more on the role of El Camino Real in trade, see recent work done on a site called Rancheria Grande:
THC video:
https://www.thc.texas.gov/blog/rancheria-grande
Statesman article: https://www.statesman.com/NEWS/20160915/Rancheria-Grande-was-the-big-city-back-in-the-1700s
More on TARL and the The Miakan-Garza
Band's NAGPRA Claims
September 28, 2020: "UT Reverses Decision Denying Indigenous Group's Request For Centuries-Old Remains".
UT News Article:
Some Spanish Entradas Into or Crossing Texas
Re-thinking Tonkawa's arrival in Texas and today's Travis County
“Until relatively recently, the Tonkawa were considered
Native Americans indigenous to Texas. This group of hunter-gatherers was so
routinely seen and described by Europeans and Americans in Central Texas and
immediately adjacent areas from the late 18th through the early 19th centuries
that scholars such as Bolton (1910:998-999), Sjoberg (1953), and Newcomb
(1961:133-153) thought that the Tonkawa were the Indian group native to this part
of Texas and that they had been in this area for many centuries going back even
to prehistoric times …[but] … In the last 20 years new data have come to light which
indicate that many previous hypotheses about the Tonkawa are based on
misunderstandings. First of all, it can be said with a good degree of certainty
that the Tonkawa proper were first found by Europeans in the year 1601 far to
the north of Texas, either in northern Oklahoma (Newcomb and Campbell 1982) or
in south central Kansas (Vehik 1986:22). Other documentary evidence indicates that
the Tonkawa moved southward in historic times to the Red River in north central
Texas in the early 1700s and then proceeded further southward along the
Blackland Prairie-Post Oak Savannah ecotone until by the early 19th century
they were found between the Colorado and San Antonio rivers (Newcomb and
Campbell n.d.; Newcomb 1993:26- 29).”
Update on the Karankawa
Kiowa Migration to Texas
Texas Beyond History: "The Kiowa language is part of the Kiowa-Tanoan language family. Tanoan languages are those that were spoken in the Jemez, Piro, Tiwa, and Tewa pueblos of New Mexico. Linguists who study the history of languages, however, believe that Kiowa split from Tanoan branch over 3,000 years ago. Thus, at some time in the past they moved to the far north or the puebloan groups moved a considerable distance to the south prior to the arrival of the Kiowa in the Southern Plains ... By the early eighteenth century the Kiowa were living in the area between the Platte and Kansas rivers well to the north of Texas. https://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/plateaus/peoples/kiowa.html
Federal and State Recognized Tribes
Only three federally recognized tribes still have reservations in Texas: the Alabama-Coushatta, Kickapoo, and Tigua. Of these only the Tigua consider their current location, far west Texas, part of their ancestral lands pre-European contact. Still, their current reservation of Ysleta del Sur Pueblo near El Paso was established as a result of forced movement by the Spanish as part of New Mexico’s Pueblo Revolt of 1680. In addition to the federally recognized tribes, Texas recognizes the Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas headquartered in McAllen. The Caddo, Cherokee, Comanche, Tonkawa and others are officially headquartered in Oklahoma. Today THC, TxDOT and the Texas Military Department collaborate with tribes in Texas and the adjacent states to identify and preserve artifacts and locations of tribal significance, including burials covered by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA).
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete