“…He distrusted the weak direct linguistic evidence, instead surmising an Athapaskan language based on the coordination between Athapaskan-speaking Apache, Suma, and other groups reported by later Spanish documents (Forbes 1960). Forbes's (1959) argument for Athapaskan-speaking Suma is discredited by most scholars, who believe that the alliance of Suma and Apache groups reflects political linkages after the Apache became the dominant openly rebellious Indigenous people (Lockhart 1997;Naylor 1981). Initially, Naylor (1969) agreed that the Suma language was not Uto-Aztecan but rejected an Athapaskan affiliation.…”
Section: Records Of the Spanish Secular And Religious Authoritiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the process, the recognition of "branches" of the Suma (Bandelier 1890(Bandelier -1892 across Chihuahua was largely lost. The new approach was heralded by Gerald (1951) and Forbes (1959Forbes ( , 1960, who mixed documentary references from the Río Grande and the CGV to paint an amalgamated picture of a bellicose, nomadic Suma aligned with the Apache. In contrast, Griffen (1967Griffen ( , 1979 interpreted crucial colonial records for the province of Nueva Vizcaya, including the CGV.…”
Section: Suma and The Anthropological Imaginationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A few known words from Spanish texts were the basis of Kroeber (1934) and Sauer (1934) suggesting that the Suma were Uto-Aztecan speakers. Later, Forbes (1959) proposed that they were Athapaskans. He distrusted the weak direct linguistic evidence, instead surmising an Athapaskan language based on the coordination between Athapaskan-speaking Apache, Suma, and other groups reported by later Spanish documents (Forbes 1960).…”
In 1584, Baltasar de Obregón described the people he met in the Casas Grandes Valley (CGV), Northwest Chihuahua, Mexico. He juxtaposed these “rustic” people with the sophistication of the ancient builders of Paquimé who had lived in the CGV. Seventy years later, the Spanish missionaries called the people in the CGV “Suma” and enlisted them to build Mission San Antonio de Padua de Casas Grandes. Scholars have examined Obregón's and later administrators’ accounts to argue that the Suma were a small-scale society and unrelated to the ancient people of Paquimé (~AD 1200–1430). We reevaluate this interpretation. First, we contextualize the documentary evidence within contemporary frameworks. Second, using data from the 1958–1961 Joint Casas Grandes Expedition, we compare Paquimé and Suma material culture. We argue that the Suma were likely long-term residents of the Valley, organized into horticulture villages, and exhibiting cultural practices linked to Paquimé. After critiquing previous arguments about Suma origins, we consider how this criticism relates broadly to exploring Native Americans’ reactions to colonial settings.
“…He distrusted the weak direct linguistic evidence, instead surmising an Athapaskan language based on the coordination between Athapaskan-speaking Apache, Suma, and other groups reported by later Spanish documents (Forbes 1960). Forbes's (1959) argument for Athapaskan-speaking Suma is discredited by most scholars, who believe that the alliance of Suma and Apache groups reflects political linkages after the Apache became the dominant openly rebellious Indigenous people (Lockhart 1997;Naylor 1981). Initially, Naylor (1969) agreed that the Suma language was not Uto-Aztecan but rejected an Athapaskan affiliation.…”
Section: Records Of the Spanish Secular And Religious Authoritiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the process, the recognition of "branches" of the Suma (Bandelier 1890(Bandelier -1892 across Chihuahua was largely lost. The new approach was heralded by Gerald (1951) and Forbes (1959Forbes ( , 1960, who mixed documentary references from the Río Grande and the CGV to paint an amalgamated picture of a bellicose, nomadic Suma aligned with the Apache. In contrast, Griffen (1967Griffen ( , 1979 interpreted crucial colonial records for the province of Nueva Vizcaya, including the CGV.…”
Section: Suma and The Anthropological Imaginationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A few known words from Spanish texts were the basis of Kroeber (1934) and Sauer (1934) suggesting that the Suma were Uto-Aztecan speakers. Later, Forbes (1959) proposed that they were Athapaskans. He distrusted the weak direct linguistic evidence, instead surmising an Athapaskan language based on the coordination between Athapaskan-speaking Apache, Suma, and other groups reported by later Spanish documents (Forbes 1960).…”
In 1584, Baltasar de Obregón described the people he met in the Casas Grandes Valley (CGV), Northwest Chihuahua, Mexico. He juxtaposed these “rustic” people with the sophistication of the ancient builders of Paquimé who had lived in the CGV. Seventy years later, the Spanish missionaries called the people in the CGV “Suma” and enlisted them to build Mission San Antonio de Padua de Casas Grandes. Scholars have examined Obregón's and later administrators’ accounts to argue that the Suma were a small-scale society and unrelated to the ancient people of Paquimé (~AD 1200–1430). We reevaluate this interpretation. First, we contextualize the documentary evidence within contemporary frameworks. Second, using data from the 1958–1961 Joint Casas Grandes Expedition, we compare Paquimé and Suma material culture. We argue that the Suma were likely long-term residents of the Valley, organized into horticulture villages, and exhibiting cultural practices linked to Paquimé. After critiquing previous arguments about Suma origins, we consider how this criticism relates broadly to exploring Native Americans’ reactions to colonial settings.
“…These include the Janos, Jumanos, Jocomes, Sumas, Cholomes, Mansos, Pelones, and Sibolos (Forbes, 1959). All these groups were extinguished or assimilated with other Apaches at an early date.…”
“…These include the Janos, Jumanos, Jocomes, Sumas, Cholomes, Mansos, Pelones, and Sibolos (Forbes, 1959). These include the Janos, Jumanos, Jocomes, Sumas, Cholomes, Mansos, Pelones, and Sibolos (Forbes, 1959).…”
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.