DOCSLIB.ORG

TRIBE OR TRIBAL ORGANIZATION INITIAL CR RELEASE Alabama Ma-Chis Lower Creek Indian Tribe $7,037 Mowa Band of Choctaw Indians

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
TRIBE OR TRIBAL ORGANIZATION INITIAL CR RELEASE Alabama Ma-Chis Lower Creek Indian Tribe $7,037 Mowa Band of Choctaw Indians 2018 Initial CR Release of LIHEAP Block Grant Funds to Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations under P.L. 115-56 INITIAL CR TRIBE OR TRIBAL ORGANIZATION RELEASE Alabama Ma-Chis Lower Creek Indian Tribe $7,037 Mowa Band of Choctaw Indians $128,077 Poarch Band of Creek Indians (also in Florida) $82,073 United Cherokee Ani-Yun Wiya Nation $33,442 Alaska Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association $165,633 Aniak Traditional Council $149,594 Assn. of Village Council Presidents $2,392,465 Bristol Bay Native Association $900,047 Chuathbaluk Traditional Council $18,751 Cook Inlet $259,388 Kenaitze Indian Tribe $117,991 Orutsararmuit Native Council $218,761 Seldovia Village $10,938 Sitka Tribe of Alaska $65,595 Tanana Chiefs Conference $1,493,031 Tlingit & Haida Central Council $700,036 Yakutat Tlingit Tribe $31,252 Arizona Cocopah Tribe $7,223 Colorado River Indian Tribes (also in California) $23,645 Gila River Pima-Maricopa Community $72,889 Navajo Nation (also in New Mexico and Utah) $1,391,576 Pascua Yaqui Tribe $27,844 Quechan Tribe (also in California) $17,796 Salt River Pima Maricopa Ind. Cmty. $26,894 San Carlos Apache Tribe $44,348 White Mountain Apache Tribe $63,355 California Berry Creek Rancheria $5,620 Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians $1,513 Bishop Paiute $21,182 Coyote Valley Pomo Band $4,669 Enterprise Rancheria $2,162 Hoopa Valley Tribe $38,734 Hopland Band $5,880 Karuk Tribe $28,100 2018 Initial CR Release of LIHEAP Block Grant Funds to Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations under P.L. 115-56 INITIAL CR TRIBE OR TRIBAL ORGANIZATION RELEASE Mooretown Rancheria $16,038 N. Cal. Ind. Devel. Council, Inc.(NCIDC) (also in Arizona) $266,732 Pinoleville Rancheria $15,987 Pit River Tribe $33,676 Quartz Valley $3,372 Redding Rancheria $41,587 Redwood Valley $1,902 Riverside-San Bernardino Indian Health $38,648 Round Valley $24,857 S. Cal. Tribal Chairmen's Association $4,366 Sherwood Valley Rancheria $6,312 Southern Indian Health Council $4,972 Yurok Tribe $50,406 Connecticut Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation $617 Idaho Coeur d'Alene Tribe $54,029 Nez Perce Tribe $125,025 Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Fort Hall) $687,641 Kansas United Tribes of Kansas & SE Nebraska (also in Nebraska) $56,700 Maine Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians $152,175 Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians $152,175 Passamaquoddy Tribe--Indian Township $290,356 Passamaquoddy Tribe--Pleasant Point $405,099 Penobscot Tribe $278,812 Massachusetts Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe $98,349 Michigan Grand Traverse Ottawa/Chippewa Band $39,545 Inter-Tribal Council of Michigan $75,195 Keweenaw Bay Indian Community $104,352 Little River Band of Ottawa Indians $152,870 Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians (also in Indiana) $139,626 Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa Tribe $450,000 Mississippi Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians $55,392 2018 Initial CR Release of LIHEAP Block Grant Funds to Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations under P.L. 115-56 INITIAL CR TRIBE OR TRIBAL ORGANIZATION RELEASE Montana Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes (Fort Peck) $737,927 Blackfeet Tribe $891,467 Chippewa-Cree Tribe $263,545 Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes $1,047,290 Fort Belknap Community $308,231 Northern Cheyenne Tribe $413,649 New Mexico Five Sandoval Indian Pueblos $25,939 Jicarilla Apache Tribe $22,842 Pueblo of Jemez $10,841 Pueblo of Laguna $42,200 Pueblo of Nambe $7,743 Pueblo of Zuni $65,042 New York Seneca Nation $113,832 St. Regis Mohawk Band $63,773 North Carolina Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians $88,988 Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina $1,445,093 North Dakota Spirit Lake Tribe $1,137,878 Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (also in South Dakota) $1,579,858 Three Affiliated Tribes (Fort Berthold) $910,302 Turtle Mountain Chippewa Band $2,048,180 Oklahoma Absentee Shawnee Tribe $15,823 Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town $10,143 Apache Tribe of Oklahoma $13,632 Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma $1,550,664 Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes $133,482 Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma $483,619 Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma $697,433 Citizen Band Potawatomi $160,380 Comanche Indian Tribe $82,280 Delaware Nation $3,600 Delaware Tribe of Indians $26,453 Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma $3,600 2018 Initial CR Release of LIHEAP Block Grant Funds to Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations under P.L. 115-56 INITIAL CR TRIBE OR TRIBAL ORGANIZATION RELEASE Fort Sill Apache Tribe $3,600 Kialegee Tribal Town $3,600 Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma $41,789 Kiowa Indian Tribe $49,660 Miami Tribe $8,114 Muscogee (Creek) Nation $248,058 Osage Tribe $120,806 Otoe-Missouria Tribe $7,466 Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma $19,069 Pawnee Tribe $29,617 Ponca Tribe $55,178 Quapaw Tribe $22,315 Sac & Fox Tribe of Oklahoma $110,762 Seminole Nation of Oklahoma $49,173 Seneca-Cayuga Tribe $9,656 Shawnee Tribe $3,600 Thlopthlocco Tribal Town $17,122 Tonkawa Tribe $5,274 United Keetowah $210,974 Wichita & Affiliated Tribes $14,200 Wyandotte Nation $7,709 Oregon Conf. Tribe of Coos-Lower Umpqua $33,300 Conf. Tribes of Grand Ronde $106,961 Conf. Tribes of Siletz Indians $103,199 Conf. Tribes of Warm Springs $103,199 Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians $10,800 Klamath Tribe $224,571 Rhode Island Narragansett Indian Tribe $38,287 South Dakota Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe $521,224 Oglala Sioux Tribe $1,079,415 Rosebud Sioux Tribe $850,224 Yankton Sioux Tribe $219,949 Utah Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah $87,585 Ute Tribe (Uintah & Ouray) $115,138 2018 Initial CR Release of LIHEAP Block Grant Funds to Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations under P.L. 115-56 INITIAL CR TRIBE OR TRIBAL ORGANIZATION RELEASE Washington Colville Confederated Tribes $446,959 Hoh Tribe $7,614 Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe $13,034 Kalispel Indian Community $13,034 Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe $31,873 Lummi Indian Tribe $131,872 Makah Indian Tribe $102,848 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe $47,071 Nooksack Indian Tribe $36,200 Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe $21,741 Quileute Tribe $42,005 Quinault Tribe $114,458 Samish Tribe $43,430 Small Tribes Organization of W. Wash. $69,498 South Puget Intertribal Planning Agency $146,805 Spokane Tribe $92,030 Suquamish Tribe $13,034 Swinomish Indians $55,778 Yakama Indian Nation $473,765 Wyoming Eastern Shoshone of the Wind River $113,307 Northern Arapaho Nation $166,980 Total to All Tribes $33,505,013 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Delaware Indian Land Claims: a Historical and Legal Perspective
    Delaware Indian land Claims: A Historical and Legal Perspective DAVID A. EZZO Alden, New York and MICHAEL MOSKOWITZ Wantagh, New York In this paper we shall discuss Delaware Indian land claims in both a histori­ cal and legal context. The first section of the paper deals with the historical background necessary to understand the land claims filed by the Delaware. In the second part of the paper the focus is on a legal review of the Delaware land claims cases. Ezzo is responsible for the first section while Moskowitz is responsible for the second section. 1. History The term Delaware has been used to describe the descendants of the Native Americans that resided in the Delaware River Valley and other adjacent areas at the start of the 17th century. The Delaware spoke two dialects: Munsee and Unami, both of these belong to the Eastern Algonquian Lan­ guage family. Goddard has noted that the Delaware never formed a single political unit. He also has noted that the term Delaware was only applied to these groups after they had migrated from their original Northeastern homeland. Goddard sums up the Delaware migration as follows: The piecemeal western migration, in the face of white settlement and its attendant pressures during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, left the Delaware in a number of widely scattered places in Southern Ontario, Western New York, Wisconsin, Kansas and Oklahoma. Their history involves the repeated divisions and consolidations of many villages and of local, political and linguistic groups that developed in complicated and incompletely known ways. In addition, individuals, families and small groups were constantly moving from place to place.
    [Show full text]
  • 1.1 Passamaquoddy, They Speak Malecite-Passamaquoddy (Also Known As Maliseet- Passamaquoddy
    1.1 Passamaquoddy, they speak Malecite-Passamaquoddy (also known as Maliseet- Passamaquoddy. It is an endangered language from the Algonquian language family (1) 1.2 Pqm (2) 1.3 45.3,-66.656 (3) 1.4 The Passamaquoddy tribe belonged to the loose confederation of eastern American Indians known as the Wabanaki Alliance, together with the Maliseet, Mi'kmaq, Abenaki, and Penobscot tribes. Today most Passamaquoddy people live in Maine, in two communities along the Passamaquoddy Bay that bears their name. However, there is also a band of a few hundred Passamaquoddy people in New Brunswick. The French referred to both the Passamaquoddy and their Maliseet kinfolk by the same name, "Etchimins." They were closely related peoples who shared a common language, but the two tribes have always considered themselves politically independent. Smallpox and other European diseases took a heavy toll on the Passamaquoddy tribe, which was reduced from at least 20,000 people to no more than 4000. Pressured by European and Iroquois aggression, the Maliseet and Passamaquoddy banded together with their neighbors the Abenakis, Penobscots, and Micmacs into the short-lived but formidable Wabanaki Confederacy. This confederacy was no more than a loose alliance, however, and neither the Maliseet nor the Passamaquoddy nation ever gave up their sovereignty. Today the Passamaquoddy live primarily in the United States and the Maliseet in Canada, but the distinction between the two is not imposed by those governments--the two tribes have always been politically distinct entities. (4) 1.5 After working with the French and joining the Abnaki confederation against the English, many converted to Catholicism.
    [Show full text]
  • Tonkawa Indians Before the Time of the Spanish Explorers, Native Americans Inhabited the Open Ranges and Woodlands of Texas
    Tonkawa Indians Before the time of the Spanish explorers, Native Americans inhabited the open ranges and woodlands of Texas. One group that made its mark in history is the Tonkawa Indians. These people were thought to have come to Texas as early as the seventeenth century. Tonkawa, a Waco Indian word, means, “they all stay together,” which eloquently describes this group of nomadic Indian tribes. There is scant archeological evidence of the Tonkawa people, and historians have several theories on the tribal structure and lifestyles of this group. Some believe the Tonkawa were actually a group of independent bands of Indians, which may have included the Sana, Toho, Tohaha, Cantona, and Cava Indians. In the early eighteenth century these bands of Indians were thought to have joined together to form Tonkawa Proper. There is some evidence that the Tonkawa actually came to Texas much earlier as one cohesive group of Tonkawa Indians that lived further north. These nomadic hunters lived in tepees made from buffalo hide, grass and other materials. Tepees allowed bands to easily pack their homes and move with the migrating herds of buffalo or to outrun their enemies. An elected tribal chief led each band of Tonkawa, and each band was composed of maternal clans. Unlike many societies that are patriarchal, the Tonkawa clan membership followed on the side of the mother. When a couple got married, the man would go live with his wife’s clan, and the children would become members of their mother’s clan as well. As a society that always stays together, the Tonkawa established a system that ensured all widows, widowers, and orphaned children were taken care of if their family members died.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Oklahoma Libraries Western History Collections
    University of Oklahoma Libraries Western History Collections C. Ross Hume Collection Hume, Carleton Ross (1878–1960). Papers, 1838–1948. 10.50 feet. Attorney. Personal and business correspondence (1893–1948) relating to Hume’s family, his attendance at the University of Oklahoma, his contact with the university as an alumnus, and his law practice as an attorney for the Caddo Indians. Also included are numerous legal documents (1838–1948) relating to Indian claims and the Indians of Oklahoma, the Shirley Trading Post, the Anadarko, Oklahoma, area and the University of Oklahoma. ___________ Biographical Note: Carleton Ross Hume, who along with Roy P. Stoops made up the first graduating class of the University of Oklahoma in 1898. He was born at Tontogany, Ohio, in 1878. He was the son of Charles Robinson Hume and Annette Ross Hume. The Humes moved to Anadarko, Oklahoma Territory, in December of 1890, when Dr. Hume was appointed as government physician to the Anadarko Indian Agency. C. Ross Hume later served as attorney for the Caddo Nation, and a judge in Anadarko. Box 1 Native American Tribal Materials Apaches (1925-26) 1. Legal inquiry concerning an Apache woman Various Individual claims- includes letter to Hume from Sen. E. Thomas Folder of Clippings Cherokees 2. Power of Attorney Notes on Sequoyah Treaties with Republic of Texas (1836 and 1837) Cherokee Indians' Claim Texas Land Research notes - secondary sources Cheyennes 3. Historical notes including origins, dates of wars, movements, etc. 47th Congress, 1st session -1882. Message from the President of the United States. Confirmation of Certain Land in Indian Territory to Cheyenne and Arapahoe Indians Comanches 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Traditional Knowledge Protocol
    Maliseet Nation (Wolastoqwik) Traditional Knowledge Protocol (MTK Protocol) September 2009 Maliseet Nation Conservation Council Traditional Knowledge Working Group Table of Contents Foreword …………………………………………………………………………… i 1.0 Introduction ………………………………………………………………… 1 2.0 Definitions …………………………………………………………………… 2 3.0 Interpretation ………………………………………………………………… 3 4.0 MTK Methodology …………………………………………………………… 4 I Project Planning ………………………………………………………… 5 II Delivery and Implementation ……………………………………………… 6 III Finalizing Report and Disclosure ………………………………………… 7 5.0 Amendments …………………………………………………………………… 7 Appendices …………………………………………………………………………… 8 Maliseet Leadership Proclamation / Resolution …………………………… 9 Draft Maliseet Ethics Guidelines ……………………………………… 10 Foreword Development of the Maliseet Nation Traditional Knowledge (MTK) Protocol highlights the recognition of the importance of Aboriginal traditional knowledge in relation to the environmental issues facing Maliseet traditional territory, the Saint John River (Wolustok) watershed1. The protection of such knowledge has been identified by the Maliseet Chiefs as a crucial component for future relations with non-Aboriginals, as increasing development activity continues to cause concern for all parties on the best way to proceed, in the spirit of cooperation and with due respect for Maliseet Aboriginal and Treaty rights2. The protocol also addresses past problems with research projects such as lack of consultation of Maliseet people, lack of meaningful community involvement, lack of benefit from research, lack of informed consent, lack of community ownership of data (including analysis, interpretation, recording or access), and lack of respect of our culture and beliefs by outside researchers. Initiated by the Maliseet Nation Conservation Council and produced through the combined efforts of informed Maliseet Elders, leaders, committees and grassroots volunteers, this protocol identifies the methods developed by the Maliseet Nation for the proper and thorough collection and use of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK).
    [Show full text]
  • Nps-Waso-Nagpra-23208; Ppwocradn0-Pcu00rp14.R50000]
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 06/02/2017 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2017-11453, and on FDsys.gov 4312-52 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-23208; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Intent to Repatriate Cultural Items: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ocmulgee National Monument, Macon, GA AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ocmulgee National Monument, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to Ocmulgee National Monument. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed. DATES: Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Ocmulgee National Monument at the address in this notice by [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. ADDRESSES: Jim David, Superintendent, Ocmulgee National Monument, 1207 Emery Highway, Macon, GA 31217, telephone (478) 752-8257, email [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Paiute and Western Shoshone Land Use in Northern Nevada: a Class I Ethnographic/Ethnohistoric Overview
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management NEVADA NORTHERN PAIUTE AND WESTERN SHOSHONE LAND USE IN NORTHERN NEVADA: A CLASS I ETHNOGRAPHIC/ETHNOHISTORIC OVERVIEW Ginny Bengston CULTURAL RESOURCE SERIES NO. 12 2003 SWCA ENVIROHMENTAL CON..·S:.. .U LTt;NTS . iitew.a,e.El t:ti.r B'i!lt e.a:b ~f l-amd :Nf'arat:1.iern'.~nt N~:¥G~GI Sl$i~-'®'ffl'c~. P,rceP,GJ r.ei l l§y. SWGA.,,En:v,ir.e.m"me'Y-tfol I €on's.wlf.arats NORTHERN PAIUTE AND WESTERN SHOSHONE LAND USE IN NORTHERN NEVADA: A CLASS I ETHNOGRAPHIC/ETHNOHISTORIC OVERVIEW Submitted to BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Nevada State Office 1340 Financial Boulevard Reno, Nevada 89520-0008 Submitted by SWCA, INC. Environmental Consultants 5370 Kietzke Lane, Suite 205 Reno, Nevada 89511 (775) 826-1700 Prepared by Ginny Bengston SWCA Cultural Resources Report No. 02-551 December 16, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ................................................................v List of Tables .................................................................v List of Appendixes ............................................................ vi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................1 CHAPTER 2. ETHNOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW .....................................4 Northern Paiute ............................................................4 Habitation Patterns .......................................................8 Subsistence .............................................................9 Burial Practices ........................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Kiowa and Cheyenne's Story
    Kiowa and Cheyenne's Story Along the Santa Fe Trail My life changed forever along the Santa Fe Trail. It was hot August 2, 2003 as my family traveled homeward to Littleton, Colorado from a family vacation through Kansas. This side of Dodge City my husband, Jeff, nine-year-old Michael and seven-year-old Stacia and I debated whether or not to stop at a Point of Interest close to the highway. It was educational and free, so, why not, we stopped. The parking lot was completely empty except for an elderly man sitting on a bench and two skinny dogs close by him. As we headed up the trail leading to a sign explaining the local history, the dogs approached us. We glanced at the man for permission to pet the dogs. He just smiled in silence. We petted their thin sides, receiving kisses in return. The brown Boxer mix and the black Lab wearily followed us up the trail, laying down each time we stopped. After a brief rabbit chase, both dogs returned, following us back to the dry, dusty parking lot. I told the man to call his dogs since we were leaving. He said they weren‛t his. But, they had to be; no one else was around. I called him a liar and we began arguing! A Winnebago arrived and Jeff asked if the dogs belonged to them. No. The old man kept telling me to take the dogs. Finally Jeff whispered to me that the dogs didn‛t act like they knew the old man any better than they did us.
    [Show full text]
  • Arkansas V. Oklahoma: Restoring the Notion of Partnership Under the Clean Water Act Katheryn Kim Frierson [email protected]
    University of Chicago Legal Forum Volume 1997 | Issue 1 Article 16 Arkansas v. Oklahoma: Restoring the Notion of Partnership under the Clean Water Act Katheryn Kim Frierson [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf Recommended Citation Frierson, Katheryn Kim () "Arkansas v. Oklahoma: Restoring the Notion of Partnership under the Clean Water Act," University of Chicago Legal Forum: Vol. 1997: Iss. 1, Article 16. Available at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1997/iss1/16 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Chicago Legal Forum by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Arkansas v Oklahoma: Restoring the Notion of Partnership Under the Clean Water Act Katheryn Kim Friersont The long history of interstate water pollution disputes traces the steady rise of federal regulatory power in the area of environ- mental policy, culminating in the passage of the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1972.1 Arkansas v Oklahoma2 is the third and latest Supreme Court decision involving interstate water pol- lution since the passage of the 1972 amendments. By all ac- counts, Arkansas is wholly consistent with the Court's prior decisions. In Milwaukee v Illinois3 and InternationalPaper Co. v Ouellette,4 the Court held that the Clean Water Act ("CWA") preempted all traditional common law and state law remedies. Consequently, states lost much of their traditional authority to direct water pollution policies. Despite the claim that the CWA intended "a regulatory 'partnership' between the Federal Govern- ment and the source State", Milwaukee and InternationalPaper placed states in a subordinate position to the federal govern- t B.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Tribal and House District Boundaries
    ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Tribal Boundaries and Oklahoma House Boundaries ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 22 ! 18 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 13 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 20 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 7 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Cimarron ! ! ! ! 14 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 11 ! ! Texas ! ! Harper ! ! 4 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! n ! ! Beaver ! ! ! ! Ottawa ! ! ! ! Kay 9 o ! Woods ! ! ! ! Grant t ! 61 ! ! ! ! ! Nowata ! ! ! ! ! 37 ! ! ! g ! ! ! ! 7 ! 2 ! ! ! ! Alfalfa ! n ! ! ! ! ! 10 ! ! 27 i ! ! ! ! ! Craig ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! h ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 26 s ! ! Osage 25 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! a ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 6 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Tribes ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 16 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! W ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 21 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 58 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 38 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Tribes by House District ! 11 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 Absentee Shawnee* ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Woodward ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2 ! 36 ! Apache* ! ! ! 40 ! 17 ! ! ! 5 8 ! ! ! Rogers ! ! ! ! ! Garfield ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 40 ! ! ! ! ! 3 Noble ! ! ! Caddo* ! ! Major ! ! Delaware ! ! ! ! ! 4 ! ! ! ! ! Mayes ! ! Pawnee ! ! ! 19 ! ! 2 41 ! ! ! ! ! 9 ! 4 ! 74 ! ! ! Cherokee ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ellis ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 41 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 72 ! ! ! ! ! 35 4 8 6 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5 3 42 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 77
    [Show full text]
  • ROCK PAINTINGS at HUECO TANKS STATE HISTORIC SITE by Kay Sutherland, Ph.D
    PWD BK P4501-095E Hueco 6/22/06 9:06 AM Page A ROCK PAINTINGS AT HUECO TANKS STATE HISTORIC SITE by Kay Sutherland, Ph.D. PWD BK P4501-095E Hueco 6/22/06 9:06 AM Page B Mescalero Apache design, circa 1800 A.D., part of a rock painting depicting white dancing figures. Unless otherwise indicated, the illustrations are photographs of watercolors by Forrest Kirkland, reproduced courtesy of Texas Memorial Museum. The watercolors were photographed by Rod Florence. Editor: Georg Zappler Art Direction: Pris Martin PWD BK P4501-095E Hueco 6/22/06 9:06 AM Page C ROCK PAINTINGS AT HUECO TANKS STATE HISTORIC SITE by Kay Sutherland, Ph.D. Watercolors by Forrest Kirkland Dedicated to Forrest and Lula Kirkland PWD BK P4501-095E Hueco 6/22/06 9:06 AM Page 1 INTRODUCTION The rock paintings at Hueco Tanks the “Jornada Mogollon”) lived in State Historic Site are the impres- small villages or pueblos at and sive artistic legacy of the different near Hueco Tanks and painted on prehistoric peoples who found the rock-shelter walls. Still later, water, shelter and food at this the Mescalero Apaches and possibly stone oasis in the desert. Over other Plains Indian groups 3000 paintings depict religious painted pictures of their rituals masks, caricature faces, complex and depicted their contact with geometric designs, dancing figures, Spaniards, Mexicans and Anglos. people with elaborate headdresses, The European newcomers and birds, jaguars, deer and symbols settlers left no pictures, but some of rain, lightning and corn. Hidden chose instead to record their within shelters, crevices and caves names with dates on the rock among the three massive outcrops walls, perhaps as a sign of the of boulders found in the park, the importance of the individual in art work is rich in symbolism and western cultures.
    [Show full text]
  • John Lawrence of Saguache
    COLORADO I : 'ACAS ~ A " '" ··:// ,,, : ' r •oun ~ r--R' -0 - 6'- A N-C -0 -_l___----, 0R A N 0 ) ••oc. ~~ GAR"<eo (S"M?-- The Town Boom in Las Animas and Baca Counties Morris F. Taylor was professor of history at Trinidad State Junior College until his death in 1979. Well known for his contribution to the historical scholarship of Colorado and New Mexico, he won two certificates of commendation for his writings from the American Asso­ ciation for State and Local History and the 1974 LeRoy R. Hafen Award for the best article in The Colorado Maga­ zine. His two major books are First Mail West: Stage Lines on the Santa Fe Trail (1971) and 0. P. McMains and the Maxwell Land Grant Conflict (1979). He held a mas­ ter's degree from Cornell University and was awarded an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters from the Univer­ sity of Colorado in 1969. 112 THE COLORADO MAGAZINE 55/2 and 3 1978 Las Animas and Baca Counties 113 In the late 1880s southeastern Colorado experienced boom condi­ Town Company. Probably named for Two Buttes, a prominent land­ tions that were short-Jived. Several years of unusually good rainfall mark in that flat country, the place was abandoned the next year, most over much of the Great Plains had aroused unquestioning hopes and of the people moving to a new town, Minneapolis, which had a more speculative greeds, bringing on land rushes and urban developments attractive site not far away.5 In November of that year the incorpora­ that were the first steps toward the dust bowls of the twentieth century .1 tion papers of the Clyde Land and Town Company, signed by men Similar to the many land development schemes in the West today that from Kansas and Rhode Island and Las Animas County in Colorado, are unplanned, quick-profit enterprises, land rushes and town promo­ were filed with the Las Animas County clerk.
    [Show full text]