Churros and peaches in the Canyon de Chelly

A discussion on DAD-Net about the identity of a particular goat (or was it sheep?) specimen elicited this wonderful contribution from Carol Snyder Halberstadt, president and cofounder Black Mesa Weavers for Life and Land, Inc.

There is another breed of sheep among which many have have four horns–both ewes and rams, although there are also two-horned and also some without any horns.

These are the rare and endangered Navajo-Churro sheep, which descend from the first domesticated sheep in the Americas. Brought to the Southwest in the 1500s by the Spanish (and brought to Spain possibly by the Moors?) the Iberian churra — an ancient breed that is likely related very closely to the first sheep domesticated in the Near/Middle East about 9,000 years ago — was recognized and welcomed by the Dinè as the promised gift from Etsáanadléhee [Asdzaa nádleehé] (Changing Woman) herself, and developed by them into a unique breed, with a double-coated fleece that produces one of the finest and strongest weaving wools in the world, with glowing whites and an amazing array of natural colors.

Those with four horns, which is a very rare trait among sheep, was one of the characteristics that marked them as sacred to the Dinè.

The Churro have survived several efforts by the U.S. government to drive them to extinction, starting in 1863, when the army was sent to remove the Dinè from their ancestral homeland by slaughtering their Churro, burning their peach orchards, food stocks, and homes, and forcing about 9,000 Dinè on the “Long Walk,” hundreds of miles to Hweeldi (“The Place of Sorrow”), at Fort Sumner, New Mexico, imprisoned there in an internment camp, where thousands died. A few thousand Dinè evaded the U.S. Army and were able to hide with their remnant flocks in remote areas of what is today Arizona and Utah: the Black Mesa region.

In 1868, after four years of suffering, about 3,000 surviving Dinè were allowed to return from Fort Sumner to a portion of their homeland, where they rebuilt their lives, their culture, and their Churro herds.

Not long after, a government-imposed attempt to “improve” the Navajo-Churro forced interbreeding with sheep such as Rambouillet and Merino, further threatening Churro survival and identity,

Nevertheless, by the 1930s, the Churro had increased to more than a million. They were again threatened when stock reductions were ordered (largely the result of restricted grazing regulations that disallowed traditional Navajo grazing practices), citing a need to control overgrazing and erosion. Considered worthless by the government, about a million Churro were slaughtered, their bodies left to rot — a trauma recalled by many Dinè alive today.

By the mid-1970s, the breed was near-extinct, with only about 450 surviving, mainly in the Black Mesa region of Arizona. Today, through the efforts of Dinè and non-Dinè organizations and breeders, there are about 2,000 Navajo-Churro registered nationwide, with an estimated 1,000 in all Dinè Bikéyah (Navajoland). Of these, in the Black Mesa area, some 550-600 Churro continue to form an integral part of the land and Dinè lifeways.

This is a very brief summary. I would be very interested in knowing more about the Uruguay Criollo breed, which might be related to the Churro — since the Spanish introduced their churra to the U.S. Southwest, as well as into Mexico and South America.

There’s a lot to digest in this tragic tale, and a lot more to learn. I want to know, for example, about how it happened that the Dinè (what the Navajo called themselves — it means, as these things often do, The People) recognized this sheep as the gift of Etsáanadléhee. And about how the Dinè and their flocks managed to hide out in Black Mesa. But I’ll just pursue one little, very minor thing here.

The U.S. Army burned the Dinè’s peach orchards. Peach orchards? Where did they get peaches from, and why did they keep orchards? It seems so incongruous somehow. A basically pastoralist, semi-nomadic people planting orchards of exotic fruits? Well, first, it seems clear that peach orchards did indeed exist. They’re mentioned, for example, in a book on Native American “resistance to genocide, ecocide and colonization.” By the mid-1860s, flocks and orchards had been established “over several generations at the bottom of Canyon de Chelly.”

How many trees were there? One source on the Navajo Peach Tree Incident says five thousand, but others three and seven thousand. A lot of trees, anyway:

  • This time, though Carson employed the mercenary Utes over several months until the Navajo were found in the canyon. That’s when he destroyed 5000 peach trees — the pride of the Navajos — and most of their food supplies so that their harsh-winter food stockpile vanished.
  • The Navajo never forgave Carson for what he did to their peach trees.

    Another source, a travel writer visiting the Canyon de Chelly, adds:

    Gabriel hands me a wedge of pottery whose geometric pattern reminds me of mesas. “Made by Hopi,” Gabriel says. The Hopis lived here too, planting the first peach trees in the 1600s, which were later cut down by Carson’s men. When the Navajo returned from the Long Walk, they reconstructed the peach orchards, adding apple and apricot trees.

    And again, more on the Hopi connection from a study of the origins of Navajo pastoralism:

    Life in Canyons de Chelly and del Muerto followed the rhythms of the seasons. In summer, green patches of corn and beans and melons dotted the bottoms, and here and there stood small groves of peach trees, at least some of which had been planted by a Hopi clan that for a time took refuge here.

    So from the Hopi to the Navajo, and traded as dried fruit, but where did all these peach trees come from originally? Spanish missions, perhaps? Following that train of thought took me to a familiar book, Sauer on the Historical Geography of Crop Plants, which confirmed the outlines of the history of the peach in the American southwest that had emerged from all the snippets I’d collected.

    I just had no idea that the Native American tribes of New Mexico had taken up peach cultivation with such fervour. Which of course leads to a whole series of other questions. Foremost among which is: why peaches in particular? But also: are any of these old peaches still around, despite Carson’s best efforts, and do they represent varieties long gone in Europe? After all, the Churro survived…

    Documenting the history of fisheries

    • Human fishing and impacts on near-shore and island marine life — including the catching of shellfish, finfish and other marine mammals — apparently began in many parts in the Middle Stone Age — 300,000 to 30,000 years ago — 10 times earlier than previously believed;
    • Passages of Latin and Greek verse written in 2nd century CE suggest Romans began trawling with nets;
    • In the early to mid 1800s, years of overfishing followed by extreme weather collapsed a European herring fishery. Then, the jellyfish that herring had preyed upon flourished, seriously altering the food web;
    • In the mid 1800s, periwinkle snails and rockweed migrated from England to Nova Scotia on the rocks ships carried as ballast — the tip of an “invasion iceberg” of species brought to North America;
    • In less than 40 years, Philippine seahorses plunged to just 10% of their original abundance, reckoned in part through fishers’ reports of each having caught up to 200 in a night in the early days of that fishery.

    Just some of the insights that will be shared by participants in the forthcoming Oceans Past II conference, according to EurekaAlert. It sounds absolutely fascinating:

    Using such diverse sources as old ship logs, literary texts, tax accounts, newly translated legal documents and even mounted trophies, Census [Census of Marine Life] researchers are piecing together images — some flickering, others in high definition — of fish of such sizes, abundance and distribution in ages past that they stagger modern imaginations.

    It’s all part of the History of Marine Animal Populations (HMAP) project. One of the regions being studied is the Mediterranean, and the project website has some great historical photographs of fisheries, for example from the Venetian lagoon. The “scientific area” includes an erudite answer to the question “Did the Romans eat fish?” by HMAP leader of the Black Sea project Tonnes Bekker-Nielsen. Here’s a perhaps surprising snippet:

    The fish product most likely to be found in the average Roman kitchen or cookshop was garum, a sauce made from fermented fish and similar to the sauce known as umami or nuac, which is very popular throughout East Asia today. Garum was used to give flavour to stews, soups and many other dishes; it could also be eaten as a relish on bread.

    The project includes some interesting data visualization tools.

    Using photos to share knowledge about agrobiodiversity

    ResourceShelf reported on a Library of Congress blog post on the photographs in the US Farm Security Administration and Office of War Information collection, the most popular among which are now available in a Flickr group under the heading FSA/OWI Favorites. That led me to some wonderful colour photos from the 30s and 40s from the same source. One of them particularly caught my eye. Not because it’s particularly well framed or for its dramatic subject matter. It’s just a pretty standard shot of some harvested oats fields in southeastern Georgia taken in May 1939. But someone — a Mr Raymond Crippen, actually, who sounds as if he has first-hand experience of wartime Georgian oat fields — has taken the trouble to annotate different parts of the image:

    The most common grains in shocks were wheat, oats, barley. Farmers hated working with the barley. The “beards” stuck to sweaty arms, found their way down shirts – and they caused great itching.

    This strikes me as a great way of documenting and sharing indigenous knowledge of agricultural practices and biodiversity. Has it ever been tried in a more formal way?

    The symbolism of plants

    With the forthcoming 12 monthly articles we want to give a certain insight into how former generations and cultures, having far less access to rational and experimental scientific knowledge than modern scientists, tried to explain and interpret their observations in the plant kingdom.

    That’s from Riklef Kandeler and Wolfram Ullrich’s introduction to their series on “Symbolism of plants: examples of European-Mediterranean culture presented with biology and history of art” in the Journal of Experimental Botany. ((This seems to be something of a tradition. There was a similar monthly series on plant culture in 2002 by Nicholas H. Battey.)) It started last January, and each month brings a new plant. June’s installment has just come out. It’s on lilies. No crops, really, though some of the plants treated are used as food (e.g. Crocus). The focus is on plants which carry with them the heaviest symbolic baggage. You can set up an alert with the journal to tell you when the next in the series will come out.

    Bedbugs redux

    Caveman Forecaster is a blog about “the art and science of time series analysis and forecasting.” There was a post about a month ago about bedbugs that really piqued my interest. It seems that bedbugs (Cimex lectularius) were virtually eradicated in the US fifty years ago, but are making a comeback. That has even led to the organization of a National Bedbug Summit, which took place last month. The post was mostly about using Google search data to monitor and predict the seasonal outbreaks and longer-term trends. But it got me looking into the reasons for the resurgence, and wikipedia has a reasonable summary of that, with plenty of references. Basically, genetic diversity studies suggest that there was never complete eradication, but that the pesticide-resistant populations moved to alternate hosts, “have slowly been propagating in poultry facilities, and have made their way back to human hosts via the poultry workers.” So here’s another example of a human pest which can also hang out with agrobiodiversity, and jump back and forth.