Stephanie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One of the things that I see evidence of every day
> in the local tribes out here is the evidence of
> alteration due to the advent of european settlers.
> Kenuchelover cited two excellent examples for the
> Navajo--silversmithing and sheepherding. These
> two things are both hugely important to Navajo
> culture today but they did not exist prior to the
> advent of Europeans. A great deal of the
> "traditional" foods out here actually stem from
> europeans, in particuliar, breads. Santo Domingo
> bread is a round, raised white loaf of bread made
> from flour. Fry bread? Spanish based on the
> sopapilla. Considering how much the cultures of
> the various tribes have been altered since the
> european arrival, it's a wonder that connections
> can even be made to those tribes former selves.
>
> Can anyone else think of more things that would
> confuse the issue as to which culture was
> associated with that?

Going in rough chronological order?

In the case of the Navajo in specific, early on they'd picked up lots of stuff from local Pueblos (some came voluntarily, some not ), like agriculture, religious elements, new medicinal plants, etc.

Then in the late 17th through early 19th century, besides the aforementioned sheep & silversmithing & loom style they'd also picked up horses, peaches, coffee, & a few guns.

During the late 19th century, they picked up lots more guns , and the current clothing style (inspired by second hand East Coast "high fashion" stuff sent out in by missionary & charity relief groups).

Nowadays, you've also got everything from pickup trucks to coffee as integral to Navajo life (by the time your kids are grown, you can add computers & the internet. It's been a while since I visited Dinetah, but even then I noted photovoltaic panels perched above an awful lot of hogans).

The Navajo are a exemplary example of a people who thrive on adaptation.... picking up what they can use from folk they meet, and giving it their own unique twist. Cherokee have been noted for this as well, but weren't half so good at it as were Navajo.

> To me, it's unsurprising
> that there is uncertainty about where tribes may
> have originally arrived from.

The Navajo are a good case in point. Much of their material culture IS different, picked up or altered over the last 200-700 years (but see further below…!).

Makes me think of James Andovasio (of Meadowcroft Rockshelter fame).... he testified in the Spirit Cave Man NAGPRA case that “because” the textiles found with the burial exhibited a totally different weave pattern than was used historically by local Paiutes, there was “no way” that the Paiute could be descended from Spirit Cave Man’s people……

Think about this… if your ancestors 9500 years ago used a different weaving pattern, then there is no way they can be your ancestors….. snicker, by this logic, most modern Europeans spontaneously generated under cabbage leaves…!

Sigh…. and some people act like I’m paranoid because I keep harping about scientific bias & deliberate malfeasance connected with NAGPRA & PaleoIndian remains.

> The Navajo today
> are dramatically different from what the Navajo
> 1000 years ago would've been like--and probably
> unrecognizable as being Navajo.
>
> Stephanie

DNA doesn't lie..... and it's worth noting that while the Navajo ARE largely of Athabascan origin, they've got considerable admixture (some maybe dating to right after the Pueblo Revolt, when Hopi & other tribes took refuge with the Navajo, but most of it likely due to low level admixture over the last 500-1000 years) from local Puebloan & other SW tribes.

Eh, I'd have to look up the studies, but I think they suggested something like 20-30% local ancestry. So you can tell your husband that the Anasazi ARE his ancestors as well, not just the Pueblo people's ancestors. And that when Navajo traditions say that they originated in the Four Corners region… it can’t be entirely written off as “myth”.

Kenuchelover.