Settlement Patterns On The Mescalero Apache Reservation Since 1883

American Geographical Society
Settlement Patterns on the Mescalero Apache Reservation since 1883

Author(s): Martha L. Henderson
Source: Geographical Review, Vol. 80, No. 3 (Jul., 1990), pp. 226-238
Published by: American Geographical Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/215301
Accessed: 06-12-2015 13:53 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Wiley and American Geographical Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Geographical Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 129.96.252.188 on Sun, 06 Dec 2015 13:53:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SETTLEMENT PATTERNS ON THE MESCALERO
APACHE RESERVATION SINCE 1883
MARTHA L. HENDERSON
ABSTRACT. After a century of federal efforts to alter Mescalero Apache culture,

settlement patterns on the reservation continue to display the precontact heri-
tage. Retention of traditional patterns resulted from selective adoption of federal
policy, development of a vigorous tribal political structure, and assistance from
sympathetic federal Indian agents. Five eras of federal policy since 1883 are the
framework to identify and analyze the geographical elements in the settlement
patterns. Cultural adaptation and persistence are evident in the contemporary
landscape inhabited by the Mescalero Apache.
THE cultural landscapes of American Indian groups have undergone di-

verse changes since European contact with North America. These land-
scapes, formerly created by direct interaction between native groups
and the physical environment, have been greatly influenced by the filter of
the dominant Euro-American culture. The United States government has
been the primary agent in re-creating Indian-land relationships as a means
of assimilating Indians into the dominant culture and of expanding the non-
Indian land base. Some native groups, unable or unwilling to respond to
federal pressure, suffered total disruption of their indigenous land relation-
ships. Other groups successfully adapted to federal policies to preserve tra-
ditional land occupation, settlement, and resource-use patterns similar to
those in the precontact period. Current federal Indian policy emphasizes
American Indian leadership with regard to reservation landuse and landscape
modification.
The research presented here focuses on the persistence of precontact
eastern-Apache settlement patterns on the Mescalero Apache Reservation in
New Mexico as an indicator of cultural adaptation and reassertion of Apache
culture on the Southwest landscape (Fig. 1). Settlement patterns on the
reservation are examined during five radical shifts in federal Indian policy
since the mid-nineteenth century, and the factors that have permitted re-
tention of eastern-Apache settlement patterns are identified. Evidence of
change was provided by archival and field research. Library sources, histor-
ical maps, United States Department of the Interior records, field mapping,
and interviews were other sources of data to validate historical and modern
settlement patterns. To measure eastern-Apache adaptation since 1883, these
data were correlated with five distinct eras of federal Indian policy.
TRADITIONAL SETTLEMENTPATTERNS
The location and the pattern of settlement prior to contact with westward-
advancing Americans are keys to eastern-Apache culture retention. The pre-
* DR. HENDERSON is an assistant professor of geography at the University of Minnesota,

Duluth, Minnesota 55812-1496.
MESCALERO APACHE RESERVATION 227
108 106 104'
-36
36- 36
oSanta Fe
oAlbuquerque
!0t i
34- | (! escalero Apache

Mescalero Apc34
I / j Reservation I
I Alamogor
! 0?Alamogordo
aLas Cruces
32
MEX. 0 100
y- miles
108' 106' 104'
FIG. 1-Mescalero Apache Reservation, New Mexico.
contact cultures of the three largest clans, Mescalero, Chiricahua, and Lipan,
have been extensively researched and documented (Castetter and Opler 1936;
Basehart 1974; Opler 1983). The Mescalero and Lipan groups inhabited a
region bordered by the Rio Grande on the west and the Pecos River on the
east. The Sangre de Cristo Mountains limited eastern-Apache territory to the
north, and the Sierra Madre defined it on the south. Chiricahua bands tra-
ditionally occupied territory west of the Rio Grande near the Warm Springs
area in Arizona (Basehart 1974). Mescalero, Lipan, and Chiricahua territories
are part of a large region known as Apacheria that extends westward to the
228 THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW
Colorado River (Thrapp 1967). Western Apacheria was occupied by Apache

groups that rarely sought resources from or social interaction with the groups
east of the Rio Grande (Basehart 1974).
Eastern Apacheria is a mountainous, arid environment dominated by the
Chihuahuan desert at low elevations and pine forests at high ones. Because
of local topography and aridity, vegetative patterns are grouped into four
zones: brush, grassland, woodland, and forest. The four zones produce a
variety of native foodstuffs on a seasonal basis. From this environment the
eastern Apache were able to hunt and gather an extensive array of plants
and animal resources (Castetter and Opler 1936).
Favored campsites were located in the Sacramento mountains, along Tu-
larosa Creek and Rio Hondo, and on the desert margins (Basehart1974;Opler
1983). Matrilocal bands moved from resource sites when an item was ex-
hausted and new material was needed. Males who had successfully identified
a new location of resource supplies led the migration. Once at a site, women
erected tepees or oak arbors in close proximity to one another. Residential
proximity increased the opportunity to share the duties of food gathering
and preparation, child rearing, and preparation of ceremonial events (Base-
hart 1974). Precontact settlement patterns were typified by stream locations
and proximal residence to maximize resource utilization and efficiency.
AMERICAN INTERVENTION
Like other American Indians, the eastern Apache encountered westward-
moving settlers who sought land and new resources. Initial contact on the
high plains of western Texas and eastern New Mexico was disruptive to
Apache subsistence patterns. Conflict ensued between the two groups of
vastly different cultural backgrounds. An agreement between the United
States government and the Indian leaders in 1855 limited the location and
resource-gathering activities of the eastern Apache to Fort Stanley, a military
reserve in east-central New Mexico. Further disputes culminated in a reser-
vation assignment in 1883 (Sonnichsen 1973).
The Mescalero Apache Reservation occupies an area traditionally familiar
to the Mescalero and Lipan groups. The reservation is within the precontact
territory of the eastern-Apache bands and was the center of hunting and
gathering before their assignment to a reservation. Traditional meeting places
and campsites lie within the reservation boundaries, as does Sierra Blanca,
a sacred place in eastern-Apache cosmology (Basehart 1974).
Indian Agent W. Llewellyn described the initial process of reservation
settlement in his annual report for the Department of the Interior in 1881.
Generally, the population had divided into matrilocal bands. Encampments
exhibiting close residential proximity were scatteredin various canyons where
water was available. The most popular settlement zone was along Tularosa
Creek, where water, agency service, and passage off the reservation were
most accessible. Other settlement sites were found in northwestern, south-
western, and southeastern canyons on the reservation (Llewellyn 1881).
ADJUSTINGPATTERNS1887-1933
In 1887, Congress passed the Indian Allotment Act. By allotting lands,
the federal government emphasized Indian adoption of intensive farming
and landownership practices from the dominant culture during the nine-
teenth century. The act provided for an allotment of 160 acres to Indian
heads of family for farming and self-sufficiency, with smaller acreages for
single adults and orphaned children. Permanent settlement on individual
familial allotments was essential in establishing intensive agriculture as a
means of economic livelihood among the Indians (Prucha 1981).
The United States House of Representatives instructed the Department
of the Interior to allot the Mescalero Apache Reservation on receipt of a
favorable inspector's report (U.S. House of Representatives 1900). The special
agent for the reservation, Walter Luttrell, asserted that the rugged and arid
environment was the primary reason for not implementing the allotment
policy. The amount of flat land was limited, and the supply of water was
inadequate to sustain intensive agriculture to the extent that the Indians
could become self-sufficient. Opening the reservation to settlers by allotting
land to the Indians would have a negative effect on water availability. Fur-
thermore, Luttrell stated that the reservation was ideally suited for grazing
and timber production. Revenue potential was greatest from these resources
if they were managed and exploited communally. Finally, Luttrell reported
that the Indians did not want individual allotments and asked the federal
government to protect the Tularosa watershed by keeping the reservation
intact (Luttrell 1900).
During the early 1900s the Mescalero and Lipan groups continued to live
in matrilocal settlements along Tularosa, Nogal, Three Rivers, and Elk-Silver
creeks. Attempts by various Indian agents to establish permanent settlements
with log houses were not accepted by the population, especially the grand-
mothers, who insisted that the poorly ventilated log structures contributed
to disease and illness among the children. In fact, an epidemic of smallpox
from 1900 to 1910 killed nearly one-half of the children on the reservation.
The Indians blamed the agents and the log houses for the loss (Sonnichsen
1973).
A third eastern-Apache group, the Chiricahua, settled on the reservation
in 1909. The Chiricahua, who had been held as prisoners of war at Fort Sill,
were offered the choice of remaining in Oklahoma on land allotments or
moving to the Mescalero reservation. Approximately two-thirds of this group,
two hundred Indians, moved to the reservation. They arrived at Mescalero
in the spring of 1913 and were placed under the administration of Indian
Agent C. R. Jefferis. He had been instructed by the War and Interior de-
partments to settle the migrants, to construct houses and a hospital, and to
encourage intensive and extensive agriculture. Funds from the sale of Chirica-
hua cattle at Fort Sill were distributed among the settlers in New Mexico to
finance their relocation.
FIG.2-Residences by settlement area 1920.
Environmental conditions and political difficulties militated against suc-

cessful relocation (Jefferis 1913). The Chiricahua were given land assignments
at Whitetail, an area approximately twenty miles northeast of Mescalero.
The area is a narrow, eight-mile-long valley more than seven thousand feet
in elevation that periodically experiences severe winter cold, heavy snowfalls,
late and early frosts, and occasional spring and summer droughts. Between
1913 and 1915, crops raised at Whitetail were affected by drought, early frosts,
and a wildfire that destroyed crops in 1914 (Turcheneske 1978).
Settlement plans and disbursement of funds continued to be delayed
until 1922. After that year, the Chiricahua slowly gained a foothold at White-
tail. Houses, a school, and a church were constructed along Whitetail Creek.
Extensive meadows were fenced for cropping and grazing. The Chiricahua
began to reestablish cattle herds and to produce a minimal crop of vegetables
for their own consumption (Turcheneske 1978).
In 1920, the largest settlement zone was Whitetail, with 43 percent of all
residences, followed by Mescalero with 27 percent (Fig. 2). Whitetail had
been populated by the recent arrival of the Chiricahua bands; preference for
location in Mescalero and along U.S. 70, meanwhile, resulted from their
relatively easy access to water and, at the former, agency buildings. Tularosa
Canyon also provided access to communities outside the reservation, in-
cluding Tularosa to the south and Ruidoso and Fort Stanton to the north.
Band settlement patterns during the early reservation years were similar
to those in the precontact period. Tepees, oak arbors, log houses, and out-
buildings were located in close proximity, generally less than one hundred
feet. The traditional landscape reflected a matrilocal, closely spaced pattern.
Only at Whitetail, where houses had been erected in the late 1920s, was the
clustering pattern disrupted.
FEDERAL SETTLEMENTPATTERNS 1934-1950
The eastern Apache quickly responded to the Indian Reorganization Act
of 1934. The purpose of this act was to protect and promote Indian culture
by establishing self-governance, but it also directly affected settlement pat-
terns on the Mescalero Apache Reservation. Although enforcement of the
act on the reservation met the primary goal of federal policy, which was to
improve living conditions and economic self-sufficiency on reservations, the
greatest consequence of the legislation was to transform settlement from a
clustered to a dispersed residential pattern. The redistribution process altered
population densities in settlement areas and totally disrupted traditional
clustering.
In 1934, the Bureau of Indian Affairs assigned eastern-Apache heads of
household acreages of land for intensive agriculture. By 1940 housing units
had been constructed on land assignments along streams in the Tularosa,
Nogal, Three Rivers, Whitetail, Elk, and Silver canyons (Fig. 3). Tularosa
Canyon dominated as the central-place settlement on the reservation: 55
percent of all residences were in this canyon, where the year-round avail-
ability of water assured the possibility of agriculture during the growing
season. Whitetail Canyon, with 12 percent of the housing, was the second
largest zone where tillable land was available. The remaining canyons were
narrow, and the limited amounts of water and hours of sunlight restricted
the number of productive land assignments that could be made.
The location of land assignments was identified by heads of household
to preserve previous band locations near water sources. The assignments
reaffirmed the federal government's intent to ensure eastern-Apache eco-
nomic self-sufficiency by promoting intensive agriculture, even if it was not
culturally accepted by them. Resistance to it continued despite the land-
assignment process. In addition to assigning agricultural land to each house-
hold, the Bureau of Indian Affairs constructed houses and outbuildings on
each assignment. This settlement pattern is evident today by the sites of
standing structures, house foundations, and small apple orchards. The unit
was usually located in the canyon bottoms near a water source and at some
distance from another residence. These landscape features indicate a federally
imposed, dispersed settlement pattern.
The land-assignment process and associated settlement pattern disrupted
traditional proximity relationships and was not favorably received by the
eastern Apache, especially the women. Distances between houses and land
assignments broke the tradition of shared work and thus reduced household
efficiency. The men continued to resist adoption of intensive agriculture and
worked in group activities, primarily hunting, logging, or cattle herding
(Informant A).
RESETTLEMENTAND RENEWAL 1951-1974
After 1950, in an effort to rid itself of the Indian trust relationship, the
federal government reversed its Indian policy and ended support for Indian
ethnicity. The new policy era was marked by the termination of treaties and
the withdrawal of federal economic-support systems. Some tribes lost federal
recognition; others lost their reservation land base. Indians were encouraged
to move to urban locations and to assimilate into the work force there (Fixico
1986).
The Mescalero Apache were only mildly affected by the termination
policy. During the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Apache were able to
reestablish traditional settlement patterns in locations that served their social
and economic needs. Changes in settlement sites and the quality of housing
improved living conditions on the reservation. Evidence of the reassertion
of tradition became evident in house location, clustering, and matrilocality.
Two research projects between 1958 and 1963 documented the preference
for matrilocal settlement (Kunstadter 1963;Boyer 1964). Matrilocal settlement
preference, which means the organization of family residence and activities
around female family members, was demonstrated on the reservation by the
migration of almost all households to Mescalero between 1955 and 1960. The
primary reason for the migration was a desire by Mescalero Apache women
to live close together in easily accessible places. The town of Mescalero had
almost two hundred dwellings in 1960, each occupied by a household. Fifty-
seven percent of the households had at least one nuclear family, of which
9 percent contained relatives of the wife and 6 percent had relatives of the
husband (Boyer 1964). Houses as well as households migrated. Some of the
houses erected in the 1930s were moved to Mescalero. They were placed,
close to each other, on average-sized city lots. Of the 293 houses on the
reservation, 68 percent were at Mescalero. The remaining 32 percent were
found along U.S. 70 and in the Elk-Silver, Carrizo, Whitetail, Three Rivers,
and Nogal settlement areas (Fig. 4).
The number of available housing units fell below population needs by
1960. Crowding intensified the demand for new structures. Despite the ter-
mination policy, the federal government constructed two hundred single-
and multiple-family dwellings in Mescalero and in the Carrizo district be-
tween 1964 and 1965 (Informant A). Multiple-family dwellings in Mescalero
were located within walking distance of the tribal offices, the hospital, and
the service zone.
Reassertion of proximal settlement in urban locations during the era when
the termination policy flourished required strong tribal leadership and a
positive working relationship with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Character-
istics of traditional Apache culture and an ability to adapt federal policy to
tribal preferences allowed the eastern Apache to modify settlement patterns
on the reservation during the 1950s and 1960s. The tribal council focused on
economic activity, specifically logging and cattle herding, that would reduce
the need for dispersed land assignments and residences. In cooperation with
the bureau, the council had access to funds for house relocation and im-
provements as well as new construction (Informant A). Consequently, the
population on the reservation shifted settlements to efficient sites that were
in close proximity to one another. Matrilocal patterns reemerged in multiple-
family areas (Informant B).
CONTEMPORARY SETTLEMENTS
Since the passage of the Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act

in 1975, Mescalero Apache settlement sites and housing conditions have been
guided by tribal authority and have been funded by tribal and federal sources.
Current policy coincides with a rapidly increasing population that continues
to express a desire for traditional settlement patterns. In 1970, the reservation
had a population of 1,486 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1973);by 1980, the total
was barely 1,500 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1982). A 1985 estimate gave a
figure in excess of 2,000 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1985). The rising pop-
ulation put pressure on the existent housing stock and forced the tribal
council to explore possibilities of both new residential locations and dwellings.
The tribal council is the land broker for the reservation. With the assis-
tance of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the council determines the character
and circumstances of all landuses, including settlement patterns (Informant
A). As a representative body, the council rules on residence decisions. Because
the greatest economic value for reservation land is associated with forestry
and grazing, residential land assignments are generally made in areas already
open for settlement (Informant B).
The Mescalero Apache tradition of proximity to neighbors and the desire
to maintain large tracts of undeveloped land has greatly influenced the
location of present-day settlements (Fig. 5). The preferred sites continue to
be at Mescalero, where 65 percent of all structures are located, and at Carrizo
and along U.S. 70, which share 13 percent of them. The other centers account
for 8 percent, with Elk-Silver having one-half of the dispersed sites.
The federal government offers low-interest loans for housing and services
on the reservation. An agency of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) and sources in the Bureau of Indian Affairs have helped
increase the number of residences on the reservation. The houses are gen-
erally located next to highways and in proximity to each other. Residential
clustering is apparent in field observations and on recent maps of the reserva-
tion. In Mescalero, houses, duplexes, and apartments are clustered along
streets. The urban fringe is outlined by dispersed single-family dwellings.
This dispersed pattern is repeated in Carrizo, a settlement area with easy
access to Ruidoso and commercial establishments north of the reservation.
The Elk-Silver, Three Rivers, and Nogal drainages are occupied by houses
FIG. 5-Residences by settlement area 1980.
built during either the 1930s or the mid-1970s. New houses are also found
along U.S. 70 and at its intersection with New Mexico Highway 24. These
areas are popular because they are close to services and employment both
on and off the reservation.
Increasing population has altered, to some extent, traditional patterns of
settlement location (Informant C). For example, post-marriage residence is
becoming more neolocal. Young families tend to seek a permanent residence
wherever it is available. The desire to live in matrilocal kinship groups is
reportedly diminishing, although certain locations are recognized by all Mes-
calero Apache to be the home sites of matrilocal family groups. Relationships
between wives and close friendships between young girls continue to be
reinforced by grandmothers (Informant C).
Recent shifts in marriage patterns and tribal membership have also
changed settlement choices. Since 1960, Mescalero teenagers have attended
high school in surrounding communities. As one result of this off-reservation
exposure, marriage between Mescalero Apache women and members of other
tribes or Mexican Americans now occurs with some frequency. Women
marrying non-Mescalero men generally refuse to leave the reservation, so
their husbands move there. Because the women are tribal members, they
can request land assignments that allow the nontribal males to become
residents of the reservation. However, males determine landuse, so various
non-eastern-Apache landuses are appearing on recent land assignments.
fI 1920
g 1940
1960
t
a 1980
FIG.6-Changes in residential location 1920-1980.
A shortage of houses currently exists on the reservation. Settlement is

preferred there rather than elsewhere, and extended-family residence and
use of temporary housing are becoming common. Mobile homes are being
used in some settlement areas, while families await construction of other
dwellings. Tribal-member requests for new housing have already exhausted
the supply, and the waiting list for new dwellings grows. New housing,
sponsored by HUD, will be placed in Carrizo to shift people from Mescalero
to Ruidoso (Informant C).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Temporal and spatial analyses of settlement patterns on the Mescalero

Apache Reservation demonstrate the ability of the eastern Apache to main-
tain an Apache-defined landscape (Fig. 6). Adaptation of federal policies by
the eastern Apache is an indication of the group's flexibility and political
astuteness throughout a century of pulsating support for American Indian
cultural identity by the United States government. In addition to Apache
flexibility and power, several physical and cultural conditions and historical
events are significant in the dominance of Apache culture on the landscape
of the reservation.
One such factor is the physical setting. The mountainous, arid environ-
ment limits the possibility of intensive agriculture, which spared the reser-
vation from the threat of land allotment and conversion to non-Indian land-
ownership. During the allotment period, federal Indian agents sought action
against white squatters and demanded that the restricted amount of bottom-
land be protected by the reservation boundary. Limited agricultural land
and water demanded other forms of Apache self-sufficiency.
Although the agents are often portrayed as exorcists of Indian culture,
the ones at Mescalero, especially Luttrell, defended the retention of Indian
land rights on the reservation. Later, Jefferis insisted that the federal gov-
ernment make good on its promise to relocate the Chiricahua and to provide
them with adequate housing and social services. Those agents contributed
to the persistence of eastern-Apache culture during the allotment era.
However important the roles of physical setting and federal agents had
been, the tenacity and organizational skill of the tribe were paramount
factors. The eastern Apache were one of the first groups to become a political
and economic unit under the terms of the Indian Reorganization Act. Tribal
organization allowed the clans to operate as a single unit, to commercialize
tribal resources, and to request assistance from the federal government. Hous-
ing construction, though not in the locations preferred during the 1934-1950
period, improved living conditions on the reservation.
With a powerful tribal council, a business committee, and elected pres-
idents, the tribe demonstrated political strength in negotiating with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs and other federal agencies during the 1950s and
1960s. One example was the relocation of houses built during the 1930s to
sites more congruent with Apache settlement tradition. New house sites
continue to reflect a matrilocal, resource-conserving tradition. Formerly pop-
ulated canyons have been abandoned, and Mescalero, Carrizo, and U.S. 70
are now the principal settlement zones on the reservation. With continued
population increase, these communities will probably expand, but the total
area devoted to residential use will be carefully monitored. Leadership de-
veloped during the 1934-1950 and 1951-1974 periods remains a valuable
asset of the tribe. The tribal council operates from a well-organized power
base in its relations with the federal government.
The evidence indicates that changes in settlement patterns on the Mes-
calero reservation have occurred as federal policy has shifted. Each shift
required eastern-Apache adaptation and reassertion of traditional culture
identifiable in historical and current settlement patterns. Environmental con-
ditions, outspoken and supportive federal agents, and responsive and adept
tribal organization and leadership have been significant in maintaining
Apache settlement patterns. Traditional preferences for matrilocality and
proximity of residences, along with a desire to maintain large expanses of
land for extensive resource use, are exhibited in the modern cultural land-
scape of the Mescalero reservation.
REFERENCES
Basehart, H. W. 1974. Mescalero Apache subsistence patterns and socio-political organization. New
York: Garland.
Boyer, R. M. 1964. Matrifocal family among the Mescalero: Additional data. AmericanAnthropologist
66:593-602.
Castetter, E., and M. E. Opler. 1936. Ethnobiology of the Chiricahua and Mescalero Apache.
University of New Mexico, Bulletin, Biological Series, vol. 4, no. 5, 3-63. Albuquerque.
Fixico, D. L. 1986. Termination and relocation: Federal Indian policy, 1945-1960. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press.
Informant A. 1989. Interview with long-term area resident knowledgeable about reservation
history and landuse patterns.
Informant B. 1987. Interview with long-term area resident knowledgeable about reservation history
and landuse patterns.
Informant C. 1987. Interview with long-term area resident familiar with reservation social patterns.
Jefferis, C. R. 1913. Letter to the commissioner of Indian affairs, record group 75, Bureau of Indian
Affairs. National Archives, Washington, D.C.
Kunstadter, P. 1963. Survey of the consanguine or matrifocal family. American Anthropologist 65:
56-66.
Llewellyn, W. 1881. Annual report. Annual report of the commissioner of Indian affairs, report
of the secretary of the interior, 135-136. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Luttrell, W. 1900. Annual report. Annual report of the commissioner of Indian affairs, report of
the secretary of the interior, 285-291. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Opler, M. E. 1983. Mescalero Apache. Handbook of American Indians, ed. A. Ortiz, vol. 10, 401-
439. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
Prucha, F. 1981. Indian policy in the United States: Historical essays. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
Sonnichsen, C. L. 1973. Mescalero Apaches, 2d ed. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Thrapp, D. L. 1967. Conquest of Apacheria. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Turcheneske, J. A. 1978. Disorder at Whitetail: The Fort Sill Apache's first ten years at Mescalero,
1913-1923. New Mexico Historical Review 53:109-132.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1973. Census of population 1970: Characteristics of the population,
New Mexico. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
.1982. Census of population 1980: Characteristics of the population, New Mexico. Wash-
ington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
.1985. Projected population for the state of New Mexico. Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office.
U.S. House of Representatives. 1900. Report no. 759, 56th Congress, 1st Session. Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office.

Settlement Patterns On The Mescalero Apache Reservation Since 1883

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Settlement Patterns On The Mescalero Apache Reservation Since 1883

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

American Geographical Society

Settlement Patterns on the Mescalero Apache Reservation since 1883

ABSTRACT. After a century of federal efforts to alter Mescalero Apache culture,

THE cultural landscapes of American Indian groups have undergone di-

* DR. HENDERSON is an assistant professor of geography at the University of Minnesota,

108 106 104'

34- | (! escalero Apache

108' 106' 104'

FIG. 1-Mescalero Apache Reservation, New Mexico.

Colorado River (Thrapp 1967). Western Apacheria was occupied by Apache

FIG.2-Residences by settlement area 1920.

Environmental conditions and political difficulties militated against suc-

FIG.3-Residences by settlement area 1940.

FIG.4-Residences by settlement area 1960.

Since the passage of the Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act

FIG. 5-Residences by settlement area 1980.

FIG.6-Changes in residential location 1920-1980.

A shortage of houses currently exists on the reservation. Settlement is

Temporal and spatial analyses of settlement patterns on the Mescalero

You might also like