Showing posts with label Taos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taos. Show all posts

22 April 2023

A Biography of Leonardo Shapiro, Part 3


[This installment of “A Biography of Leonardo Shapiro” starts with the young directing student enrolling at NYU in its newly formed School of the Arts.  He immediately met several of the people who’d be important to his artistic development, including Jerzy Grotowski, John Arden and Margareta D’Arcy, Peter Kass, Richard Schechner, and Carl Weber. 

[Shapiro also met many others during this time who had an influence on his understanding of theater, art, and the social contract.  He also launched his first non-student production and his first piece of political theater, which evolved into his first theater troupe.  The tyro director also took his first professional directing job at this time—and had his first taste of failure.

[Finally, in a major jog in his life path, Shapiro took off for the West Coast and was diverted in Taos, New Mexico, for a two-year sojourn that turned out to be one of his most formative experiences.  He created his second company, a political guerrilla-theater troupe that traversed the Four Corners. 

[Again, I strongly recommend that readers just picking up this multi-part post to go back to Parts 1 and 2 (posted on 16 and 19 April) first.  I’ve been identifying people and explaining important ideas as they arise, and later sections of the bio will make more sense if you’ve read the foregoing parts.]

Shapiro did eventually register at the newly established School of the Arts (now the Tisch School of the Arts) at New York University in 1966, from which he obtained a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree in directing in 1969.  By his own account, however, his tenure there was precarious. 

Shapiro enrolled in the Theater Program at NYU’s School of the Arts, which had just been launched in 1965, in its first class.  He was accepted largely on the basis of his prior experiential learning, and his time at NYU was arguably Shapiro’s most practically and professionally influential educational influence, especially combined with the Windsor Mountain experience, which founded the intellectual and philosophical basis of his thinking.

Not only did Shapiro get schooling from faculty such as Peter Kass (1923-2008), his acting teacher and a protégé of several Group Theatre members; Carl Weber (1925-2016), an actor and dramaturg at the Berliner Ensemble, and assistant director to Brecht; and Richard Schechner (b. 1934), whose teaching remained influential long after Shapiro left school, but he worked with visiting theater pros John Arden (1930-2012) and Jerzy Grotowski (1933-99). 

Other influential teachers at NYU of whom Shapiro spoke were Hovey Burgess (b. 1940), former clown and juggler (with Clyde Beatty-Cole Brothers Circus) who taught circus skills, one of Shapiro’s favorite classes, and Omar Shapli (1930-2010), a director, teacher, and founder of the Chicago-based improvisational group Section 10, who taught theater games.

Many of Shapiro’s NYU schoolmates became important figures in his artistic development.  Of special note were:

·  Fred Aronow (b. 1945), a cameraman and sound recordist who was an MFA student in Film Studies who introduced Shapiro to the Taos Indians and the San Gerónimo festival in New Mexico in 1969.

·  Tom Crawley (1940-95), an actor and SOA graduate who was a participant with Shapiro in the 1967 Grotowski workshop and a cast member of the original Brother, You’re Next street performances (1967).

·  Larry Pine (b. 1945) and his wife Margaret Rachlin Pine (b. 1948), actors and both SOA graduates who were Shapiro’s closest friends in the 1960s and ’70s.  Larry was a cast member of Brother, You’re Next and a participant in the 1967 Grotowski workshop; he was an original member of André Gregory’s Manhattan Project.  Margaret, also a composer, was an original member of the Shaliko Company and the composer for the musical adaptation of Molière’s The Misanthrope produced by New York Shakespeare Festival (1977), originally under Shapiro’s direction.

·  Linda Putnam (b. 1944), an actress with Appleseed Circus in New Mexico (1970-71) and an original member of the Shaliko Company; an SOA graduate, Linda joined Shapiro in New Mexico with her husband, David, in 1970.

·  Wallace Shawn (b. 1943), a playwright and actor and the author of The Youth Hostel (1976), which Shapiro directed at the Public Theater; a schoolmate of Shapiro’s and a supporter of the Shaliko Company who brought Andrea Dunbar’s The Arbor (1983), the U.S. première of which Shapiro staged, from London.  He also conducted a seminar for Shapiro’s Trinity/La MaMa Performing Arts Program.

· Candace Tovar, (b. 1947), an actress, singer, and dancer, and SOA graduate who became Shapiro’s wife in 1970; their son, Spartacus, was born in 1971.  Candace was in New Mexico with Shapiro in 1970-71, and became a member of the original Shaliko Company; they divorced in 1973, but Candace is a central character in Shapiro’s 1994 semi-autobiographical play, Runaway Sam in the Promised Land.

In 1967, NYU hired British playwright John Arden (Serjeant Musgrave’s Dance, 1959) as a visiting lecturer in the undergraduate theater program at the brand-new SOA; he taught a course on politics and theater.  Out of this class came a remarkable performance project, War Carnival, conceived, at the behest of the students, by Arden, an artist long associated with leftist causes; his wife, actress Margaretta D’Arcy (b. 1934); and NYU theater games instructor Omar Shapli.

The students of acting, directing, and playwriting developed the project and events in New York City around the time of its conception bore on the theme of the project, presented beginning in the afternoon of Saturday, 13 May 1967 (see “War Carnival,” 13 May 2010).  One of those directing students was the young Leonardo Shapiro, already a political radical and anti-war activist.

Shapiro—whom Arden described as a “balding bearded-weirdy”—was drawn to Arden, a mix of English establishment and international bohemian.  Described as a “combination medieval passion play and modern day Play-In,” War Carnival was conceived principally by D’Arcy.  It was a 10-hour, blatantly anti-Vietnam war street fair (except that it was staged in an NYU studio space on 2nd Avenue).

In 1967, Jerzy Grotowski, who would become one of Shapiro’s two main theater models and inspirations (the other was Bertolt Brecht), conducted his first American workshop at NYU.  Grotowski and Ryszard Cieślak (1937-90), Grotowski’s principal actor, taught a four-week “methodology” series from 6 to 30 November in which Shapiro, one of only four directing students in the class, participated.  

While Shapiro was doing the Grotowski workshop, he and a band of classmates wrote and performed the guerrilla street play Brother, You’re Next, the adaptation of Brecht’s Man Is Man.  Shapiro and two of his classmates, Stephen Wangh (b. 1943) and Robert Reiser (b. 1941), wrote the script (based on improvisations by the cast) and Chris Rohmann (b. 1942), the only member of the company who wasn’t an NYU student (he’d been bought in from Ohio by Wangh), composed the music.

The young street performers were all facing the Vietnam war draft.  The ends of their student deferments were looming, and several of the students had already been called for military service.  “[T]here was lots and lots of dead people coming back and we were all scared shitless,” said Larry Pine, one of the Brother company. 

Sharing some themes and plot points with both Hair, which opened Off-Broadway the same year, and Full Metal Jacket, the 1987 film by Stanley Kubrick (1928-99), one of Shapiro’s acknowledged inspirations, Brother tells the story of a draftee at first determined to escape military service, but who eventually learns that “war is so much fun” and readily participates in it. 

The play was performed in unannounced appearances in parks and on street corners around New York City.  (The troupe did one series of performances indoors as part of an anti-Vietnam war event organized in January 1968 by the Theatre for Peace, a project of the Committee of the Professions to End the War in Vietnam.)  One of the two published reviews of the indoor shows affirmed that Brother was a commitment “to a theater of propaganda in the best sense of the word.”

In the spirit of ’60s activism, the company gave the script royalty-free to any group across the country that wanted to present it.  Shapiro remembered hearing about performances of Brother by groups in Chicago and cities in California and Minnesota and requests by other groups.

The cast of Brother, You’re Next became the kernel of the New York Free Theater, a street troupe which performed protest songs and sketches all over the five boroughs of New York City from 1968 until the mid-1970s (see my post on 4 April 2010).  

Shapiro, Wangh, Rohmann, and Reiser co-founded the NYFT, “a street and community theater of social and political involvement” which operated under the aegis of NYU’s School of the Arts.   The Free Theater eventually launched community workshops “intended to aid participants in directing neighborhood programs relating to racism, narcotics and violence,” but in 1968 and 1969 devoted itself to street performances.  (Shapiro left New York City for the West Coast in the summer of 1969.)

In New York Times listings of free events during the summer of 1969—the Free Theater was a street theater, but not a guerrilla troupe; their appearances were scheduled and publicized—the theater described itself as “street actors in ‘involvement’ theater and satire,” mounting performances in neighborhoods all over the city, on street corners, in parks, and on college campuses in Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, and the Bronx.   

(No appearances were announced in this list for either the borough of Staten Island or suburban areas outside the city.  One reason might have been that the New York City subway system doesn’t reach those locations, though the troupe included Staten Island in a list of its targeted areas.) 

The little band of pacifist theater artists originally launched NYFT to combat racism and racist attitudes among the diverse population of New York City.  It was a direct response to the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. (b. 1929), on 4 April 1968.  (Toward the end of its existence, NYFT expanded its mandate to accommodate other social ills, but that was after Shapiro’s departure from New York.)

In late 1968, while Shapiro was still a student at NYU, and during the time that Brother, You’re Next was touring the streets of New York City, the neophyte director was hired for his first professional job.  It was not an auspicious start to his career. 

The Off-Broadway producer of Yes Yes, No No, Beverly Landau, approached director Peter Rivers to stage Ronnie Paris’s comic “fantasy picture of a cold and glittering world of women without men” at the Astor Place Theatre in the East Village.  Rivers declined but recommended Shapiro in an attempt, Shapiro believed, to teach the younger artist “that a professional takes anything and makes it work at its own level, and a professional doesn’t judge everything and just do a few great classics.” 

The lesson may not have taken: Shapiro, feeling that the play wasn’t very funny on its own merits, “took a few liberties here and there, sort of spiced it up.”  Playwright Paris (1924-1992), who was also a producer of the show, objected when she saw a rehearsal the day before previews were to begin, and “freaked out.” 

To be precise, the director had moved the setting from an ordinary home to a cave seven miles down after a nuclear holocaust; since the cast included only women, Shapiro decided that all the men had been wiped out.  The “dripping stalagmites” of the set and ragged costumes were hardly the tea-and-false-eyelashes milieu Paris had anticipated. 

One day at rehearsal, Shapiro recalled, someone on the production staff said something offensive to Candace Tovar, who was then Shapiro’s girlfriend and had merely happened by the theater on an errand for Shapiro—and Shapiro knocked the fellow to the floor.  That act abruptly ended any collaboration between Shapiro and the playwright and producers, which dissolved then and there.  

Yes Yes, No No opened under Peter Rivers’s direction on 31 December 1968 and was dismissed in the New York Times on New Year’s Day 1969 by Clive Barnes, who described it as “a vaguely realistic play, in which the symbols and stultified ritualistic dialogue offer no insights into the realism.”  He added, “No one is going to get much of a chariot race out of a horse and buggy.”  The play closed after one performance. 

It probably didn’t help the reception of the play that, after Shapiro’s departure on the night before the start of performances, the producers of Yes Yes, No No couldn’t afford (nor, probably, did they have the time) to redesign and rebuild the set with which he’d left them.  As a result, Shapiro recorded, while the producers had reset the action, recostumed the actors, and seated them on furniture to drink tea, they still did so “in the middle of this dripping cave.”

In thesummer of 1969, largely on the strength of Brother’s reception, Ecology Action West, an environmental activist group in Berkeley, invited Shapiro to start a street theater for them, and he took off for California. 

He recorded that he’d been approached by Jo Ann Schmidman (b. 1948), the socially-committed experimental director and founder in 1968 of the feminist Omaha Magic Theater, to work for her, but he declined because the contract contained what Shapiro characterized as “this ridiculous morals clause” mandated by the city. 

After finishing his last project at NYU—a production of Brecht’s In the Jungle of Cities in the spring of 1969 which he deemed his “thesis”—he left New York on a meandering route west that took him to visit SOA classmate Linda Putnam and her husband David in Boston; the Woodstock rock festival in upstate Bethel, New York (15-17 August); and Ram Dass’s retreat in Millbrook, New York.

(Ram Dass [1931-2019] the former Richard Alpert, had been a Harvard colleague of Timothy Leary [1920-1996], the advocate of psychedelic drugs, especially LSD.  Dass started the International Foundation for Internal Freedom [IFIF], a sort of proto-commune, in 1963.  Later, Dass would establish an unofficial headquarters at Lama, one of the New Mexico communes with which Shapiro would become associated.)

On his way west, Shapiro stopped in Milwaukee where Candace Tovar was performing at the Melody Top, a summer tent theater; adopted Grushenka, “a large, longhaired dog of some brownish color,” from a Milwaukee pound; picked Tovar up; and drove to Minnesota to visit his family.  Then he headed south and west through Pipestone, Minnesota; the Black Hills of South Dakota; and Denver, where Tovar left to return for her final year at NYU. 

Shapiro stopped his “old green VW bus with a red flag stenciled with Che Guevara” for lunch one day in Taos, New Mexico.  Propitiously, he’d arrived on San Gerónimo Day, a bright, sunny Tuesday, 30 September, and happened to meet Fred Aronow, whom he knew from New York University and who was the assistant cameraman and sound recordist for a documentary film on ecology and the environment which was focusing on the Taos Indians. 

San Gerónimo Day is the annual feast day for the patron saint (Saint Jerome) of Taos Pueblo—each pueblo and village in 16th-century New Spain was assigned a patron by the Conquistadors—celebrated by a two-day festival that is part religious observance and part secular carnival marking the harvest.  The Anglo town of Taos marks the day with a parallel celebration.

(I have a two-part post on “Taos & Taos Pueblo”; the first installment, subtitled “Background” and posted on 24 May 2012, gives a description of the San Gerónimo Festival, among other aspects of life at the pueblo.  The second installment, “History,” was posted on 27 May 2012.)

At the time of Shapiro’s arrival in Taos, Shelly (1928-75) and Mary Louise Grossman (b. 1930) and their collaborator, John N. Hamlet (1911-82), were in the area filming the last of Our Vanishing Wilderness, their eight-episode series of half-hour television films for National Educational Television, the predecessor of the Public Broadcasting Service.   

The film, The Water Is So Clear that a Blind Man Could See, focuses on the Pueblo Indians who, the Grossmans said, have a “reverence for land” and a “love of trees and other elements of nature,” and “inadvertently practice conservation with a willingness to sacrifice for the preservation of nature.”  The filmmakers observed, also, that the Taos Pueblos had “resisted the advance of modern civilization.”  (The series premièred on New York’s WNET on Sunday, 11 October 1970, and ran weekly until 29 November; the Taos episode aired on 22 November.)

Aronow, who’d graduated with a Master of Fine Arts degree from the Department of Film and Television of NYU’s School of the Arts in 1969—the same year that Shapiro had graduated from the undergraduate directing program—recalled that he’d been in the central plaza of Taos when he heard someone call his name.   

The plaza had been closed to traffic for a performance of “some colonial period Spanish dance music” by local singer-accordionist Jennie Vincent (1913-2016), part of the Fall Fiesta, the city’s parallel celebration to the San Gerónimo Festival at the pueblo, and Aronow was surprised to see an East Village acquaintance calling to him from the dirty, beat-up, hand-decorated bus. 

Aronow took his friend to Taos Pueblo where the film crew’d been working daily for several weeks already and been given access to areas and aspects of the pueblo and the festival that tourists seldom see.  Shapiro was stunned to encounter a living culture, unlike those of other Native American societies he’d known in Minnesota and Florida, with “a live and lively oral tradition, unbroken for thousands of years and a rich ritual and dramatic ceremonial life.” 

Shapiro didn’t go on to California; he remained in New Mexico for two years.

Taos and its surrounding countryside holds attractions for many who come whether only to visit or to stay.  Photographer William Davis (b. 1943) was drawn to its beauty—“a result,” he believed, “of a rare combination of mystical and human elements.”

As John Nichols (b. 1940; author of The Milagro Beanfield War, 1974)—who moved to Taos not long before Shapiro came there, had written extensively about the area, and recorded one of Shapiro’s largest protest events—said of Taos Mountain, which physically, emotionally, and psychologically dominates the town, the pueblo, and all the villages of the valley:  it “casts spells” to keep people from leaving and lure back those who try. 

It does seem to have cast a spell on Shapiro, who returned 20 years later “in pain, fleeing from New York, from Career, from the intractability of the American dream.”  For those who came to escape establishment America, there was a spirit conjured up by the combination of the times, the land, and the people who gravitated there that generated ideas and ways of living in reaction to America’s consumerist society. 

In Shapiro’s view, “Everybody was making up social structures, cooperatives of various kinds, a newspaper,” and Andrea Lord (b. 1946), who’d arrived in Taos from Los Angeles in the spring of 1969, saw the commune community as “a new way of being,” where “[p]eople were opening up their minds to new information . . ., new ways of relating to everything and everyone.” 

On Shapiro’s first night at The Family commune, Roger Sundell (b. 1936?), who was working on a film about the commune  (Peace, Love, 2 Hours—Taos, 1970), said to him, “Want to build a house, go ahead,” and Shapiro summed up, “[A]nybody could live there, it was like making it up as they went along, together.”   “It was a very exciting time,” Lord concluded, “full of promise and hope,” and Shapiro decreed, “It was a scene, it was sort of astonishing, out in the middle of nowhere.”

(The Family, a group-marriage commune, was one of the many hippie enclaves located near Taos in the 1960s and ’70s.  It had about 50 members who lived together a few miles from Taos in a two-bedroom adobe house and a school bus.  Though Shapiro was never fully a member of The Family, this was the group with which he appears to have been most closely allied in Taos.  His first theater piece in Taos was sponsored by The Family. 

(The Family ran a natural-food store, a free medical clinic, the Taos Community Information Center, and an alternative school, all serving the hippie community in and around Taos.  The commune also published Fountain of Light, the best-known of the counterculture newspapers of the movement, to which Shapiro contributed at least one article.)

Soon after arriving in Taos that fall, Shapiro presented The Second Coming, a music-theater piece based on William Butler Yeats’s 1921 poem exploring the polarities between the spiritual and the physical realms (see “Cheerleaders of the Revolution”). 

He was drawn to Yeats’s poem because, first, he’d developed an awareness of the poet’s work at Windsor Mountain where he worked on Yeats’s Purgatory in his senior year and, second, he responded viscerally to the sound of the verse, especially, he said, on recordings of Yeats reading it himself.  (He quoted Yeats saying, “I want all my poetry to be spoken on a stage or sung.”)

Much of the sentiment Shapiro would later put into his productions and his writings can be seen in lines of the poem which warn:

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Shapiro saw socio-political implications in these lines and others in the poem (explored in “Cheerleaders of the Revolution”), but he also just had the idea of doing something meaningful on Halloween so The Second Coming was a kind of ceremony beginning with an invocation from British occultist, Satanist, and student of magic Aleister Crowley (1875-1947; see my post, “‘The Wickedest Man In The World’: Aleister Crowley,” 28 September and 1, 4, 7, and 13 October 2019).   The core group of performers was from The Family where Shapiro was doing a workshop. 

The performance of Second Coming started at midnight on 31 October/1 November 1969, a brisk, chilly Friday/Saturday, in a canyon of the Rio Grande River Gorge about 15 miles outside of town which Shapiro dubbed “The Midnight Theater.”  

Shapiro and Lord both recalled that Second Coming was quite successful, attracting about 100 spectators or so, and the director declared he was impressed that there was an audience in the Taos area for such a spectacle.  Further, Lord believed, the performance gave “some kind of creative center and expression” to the nascent counterculture community, which was still “very untried and vulnerable.”

Not long after the performance of The Second Coming, a woman he met at The Family took Shapiro later in the fall of 1969 to the Zuni Pueblo, about 280 miles southwest of Taos, for his first time seeing the shalako ceremony (see my post, “‘May You Be Blessed With Light’: The Zuni Shalako Rite,” 22 October 2010). 

The ceremony, observed in November or December each year on or around the winter solstice, reenacts the Zuni creation story.  (The solstice was on 22 December that year; the shaliko ceremony commenced at midnight on 8 December.)

The shalakos are deities who serve as messengers from the gods to the Zuni people.  They are represented in the ceremony by dancers in 9- or 10-foot-tall masks.  Shapiro was so impressed by the event that when he started his company in New York City in 1972, he named it after these sacred figures.

In his first weeks in Taos, Shapiro lived in his VW bus, moving from commune—among them the famous Hog Farm near Taos, The Family, and Lorien north of Questa (24 miles north of Taos)—to commune “to Pizza Parlor parking lot.”  He met a young couple who sold jewelry to tourists at the pueblo and he made beadwork for them to sell, a skill Shapiro had learned way back at Camp Thunderbird in the 1950s. 

Eventually he rented a $15-a-month, four-room, adobe house in Dixon in Rio Arriba County, 20 miles southwest of Taos up in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, surrounded by national forest land—“farther away from everyone and everything than I had ever been.”  As he did when he returned a quarter of a century later, he reveled in “all the land you can walk on in a day.”

The new arrival recounted that in his first week there, he returned to the adobe house one day and “found a pile of dog shit on my bed.”  Examining it more closely, Shapiro discovered that the deposit was actually several buttons of peyote.  It turned out that some members of the Hog Farm commune had made a trip to Texas or Mexico “and come back bearing gifts, planting seeds like Johnny Appleseed . . . .”

Lonely and increasingly obsessed with the war in Southeast Asia, Shapiro conceived of the Appleseed Circus, “[a] street theater without streets,” and began inviting people to come west and join him.  The origins of the troupe were in the invitations he issued at the end of a theater column he wrote for Fountain of Light, the Family commune newsletter:

Free workshop sessions begin at the Gallery House Jan. 12, 13 and 14, two 2[‑]hour sessions a day at 2 p.m. and 7 p.m.  Improvisation, circus techniques, theatre games, basic acting and mime, everybody welcome if your [sic] a little crazy and willing to work.  Looking to produce a “play” for Washington’s Birthday, Feb. 22 [still a federal holiday until 1970].  Formal rehearsals start Feb. 1.  Contact thru Taos Community Information Center.

The notice attracted local interest and the messages he sent east brought friends from home starting early in 1970.  Candace Tovar and the Putnams all moved into the Dixon adobe, forming a mini-commune of their own—one that functioned not as a farm, but a theater.  This little “anarchist cell” began recruiting members by advertising in local newspapers—there were numerous counterculture publications circulating in the area.  People started coming.

The young director’s principal notion was a “political, tribal traveling theatre/circus of myth consciousness and social integration.”  Shapiro served as “Mr. Theorist,” he said, “writing little manifestos” inspired by the events in Czechoslovakia (“Prague Spring,” 5 January-21 August 1968) and Paris (“May 68,” 2 May-23 June 1968) the previous year and what they were reading every day in the newspapers; David Putnam, a carpenter with a Harvard degree, was the designer and builder. 

The new band of activists thought there was going to be a revolution, and the Appleseed Circus was born from that impulse.  “We were hiding out in the hills, and had no connections with anybody,” Shapiro wrote later.  “We were pretty focused, we were following through on” their activist opposition to the war in Vietnam. 

Shapiro’s initial idea was for the troupe to travel in horse-drawn wagons like a real 19th-century circus, but they soon discovered that there were too many fences across the countryside and so they were relegated to automobiles and roads.  At the start, the small band had only Shapiro’s Volkswagen bus and the Putnams’ Ford panel van, but then they built the flat-bed stage they would use for their guerrilla performances. 

The wagon was built on the frame of a pick-up truck which the troupe got from the dump.  They did the welding at the N&M Garage, a cooperative garage in Taos that let them use its equipment.  The result was a massive structure, some 11 feet high, weighing perhaps as much as two tons.  The sides folded down for transport, and then folded up to an 11-foot platform to form the stage, which was about three feet off the ground.  It ended up a cumbersome vehicle and the company had difficulty figuring out the steering. 

Within a year, the troupe began collecting vehicles and, ultimately, the Appleseed Circus traversed the countryside surrounding Taos County in two school busses, a bread van, the truck pulling a wagon, and Shapiro’s green minibus.  The nomadic troupe, numbering at its peak about 20 people, roamed in this motley assortment of vehicles like an old-fashioned circus from its base in Dixon into Colorado, Utah, and Arizona doing guerrilla theater. 

For their performances, the Circus players wore green overalls with big red felt apples on them and, Shapiro recalled, an ‘A’ created by one of the company members.  “[T]o me all these things were poetry, were theater,” he wrote.  “I lived in a very pure world.” 

On 4 July 1970, Shapiro and Candace Tovar were married in a “barefoot dawn wedding on top of Picuris Peak”; their son, Spartacus, who would return to the area with his father in 1992 and 1993 to help build Shapiro’s retirement home, was born on 18 March of the next year.

On 5 and 6 August 1970, Shapiro’s “cheerleaders of the revolution” mounted Song in the Blood (Hiroshima/Los Alamos), a two-day environmental-theater event in Los Alamos, New Mexico, and at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory in observation of the 25th anniversary of the Hiroshima atom-bomb raid.  (See my post, “Song in the Blood (Hiroshima/Los Alamos),” 5 August 2009.)

John Nichols, the novelist and essayist from Taos who attended the rally, described Shapiro’s motivation.  After outlining at length the history of LASL (now known as the Los Alamos National Laboratory), Nichols generally invoked the “few hardy boys and girls and men and women (not yet in exile or underground or on the FBI’s top ten) who wish to carry on the dialogues that might, by some wondrous miracle, prolong man’s minute upon this tortured planet.” 

The New York Times described this event as “the first large-scale demonstration at the laboratory” and noted that the demonstrators had been “escorted by the police, watched by undercover agents and filmed by 13 government cameramen.”  Shapiro, himself, recalled that he had been “warned off, threatened, bullied and shot at” during the month preceding the demonstration and shots were fired at his Dixon house “a couple times” as intimidation. 

The Appleseed Circus, as it traveled like a Gypsy caravan through small towns of the Four Corners (the only area where four states—Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado—meet; about 260 miles west of Taos) in vehicles barely holding together, never really coalesced as a performing troupe except for the Los Alamos protest and, while he was rehearsing A Man’s a Man, Shapiro felt frustrated at the lack of professionalism. 

When the Circus went to Pennsylvania in the fall of 1970, spending the winter in David Putnam’s father’s barn, so Shapiro could recruit professional actors, not just “a propaganda thing,” the troupe began to fall apart.  Shapiro’s intention had been to enlist “eastern actors” and “build up a show and do a college tour.”  “That was a mistake,” Shapiro recalled; “it didn’t work.  It wasn’t based on that kind of an aesthetic.  When I started Shaliko, it was in order to do something that would be more professionally oriented and less political.”

The little band, which included a now-pregnant Candace Tovar, wended its way through Colorado, where, in Boulder, Shapiro sold the green VW bus in which he had arrived in New Mexico two years earlier, and Kansas, where Tovar was arrested for stealing a grapefruit in Dodge City, and Ohio, where Shapiro and Putnam shoplifted an ice cream machine to sell for cash to buy gasoline. 

Because they had painted “Kill Precedence” on the side of one of the school busses in which they were traveling—and living—and because President Nixon was in Columbus, Ohio (19 October 1970), they attracted the attention of police.  “We were literally accompanied from one end of Ohio to the other,” Shapiro recalled.  Thus, the remnants of the Appleseed Circus returned east and, eventually, to New York City at the start of 1971. 

The end of his time in New Mexico also ended what Shapiro considered his apprenticeship: being active in “the movement,” observing the Open and Living Theatres, working with John Arden and Peter Kass at NYU, working with Grotowski, studying Brecht and the Group Theatre, creating Brother, You’re Next, the abortive directorship of Yes Yes, No No, organizing the New York Free Theater and Appleseed Circus, attending the shalako ceremony, and mounting the protest at Los Alamos.

The sojourn in New Mexico, however, provided Shapiro with a number of residual influences.  First, it strengthened his abiding interest in circus performances, an attraction which had begun in Hovey Burgess’s NYU circus-arts classes.

Second, The Shaliko Company drew its name from the Zuni name for the spirits who carry messages between their world and ours.  Shapiro’d had an affinity for Native American culture since his childhood in Minnesota, and his time in New Mexico only deepened it. 

Third, Shapiro conceived the private aspiration of one day returning to New Mexico to live and write poetry when he left the theater.  He eventually bought a piece of mountain land near Taos and, with his son’s help, built a home not far from the mountain slope where he and Candace Tovar celebrated their wedding and, in 1993, Shapiro fulfilled his dream.

[As you see, Shapiro designated this whole period as his apprenticeship, and in Part 4, ROTters will begin to see where that period of learning and experimenting led him.

[The next installment of “A Biography of Leonardo Shapiro” will be published on Tuesday, 25 April.  I’ll be covering the foundation of The Shaliko Company, the East Village troupe Shapiro directed for 20 years (over three incarnations) until his retirement from New York theater and resettlement in New Mexico.  

[This is arguably the most creative period of his artistic life, separating everything else into “Before Shaliko” and “After Shaliko.”  I invite all readers to come back to Rick On Theater for Part 4 of the bio post to see where this step leads the still-developing theater artist.]

 

27 May 2012

Taos & Taos Pueblo: History

[Welcome to part two of my discussion of the town of Taos and the nearby Indian pueblo that predates it. (If you haven’t read part one, which gives some background and sets the scene for this exploration, I recommend going back to my last ROT post and catching up first.) This section mostly covers the history of the area, both the Indian people through colonial times and the modern town in the 20th century. If you consider the history as I’ve outlined it, you’ll get an inkling of why so many different people, from the Pueblo Indians themselves to the artists and writers centuries later to the hippies of the 1960s, were attracted to this area of the country and why some people have fought so fiercely to hold on to it and the life they made there.]

Spain conquered the territory of Nueva México between 1540 and 1542 when Francisco Vázquez de Coronado took a huge force north to find the legendary Seven Golden Cities of Cibola. The first Spanish governor of New Mexico, Juan de Oñate, was appointed in 1598. The Spanish remained in control of New Mexico until 1821, when Mexico wrested its independence from its mother country and took command of Nueva España and all its North American territories. Texas broke away in 1836 to become an independent state allied to the United States, and after the Mexican-American War, the U.S. took the territories of Arizona, New Mexico, California, and part of Colorado as booty in 1848 with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The residents of the Taos Valley, Indian, Spanish, and Anglo, shifted ostensive allegiance with each change of administration. Many things changed with each shift, as you might imagine, often not for the best for one party or another.

When the Spanish first settled in Taos, relations with the native Indians were friendly for the most part. Pueblos aren’t generally hostile and their society is built on accommodation and appeasement, not aggressiveness and competition. They’re also not acquisitive so territorial conquest isn’t part of their epistemology. Land isn’t a commodity to be owned in any case, so sharing it with others, as long as everyone leaves everyone else alone to live their lives as they see fit, is not a problem. The Pueblos had been sharing the land for centuries with each other, the Hopi and the Navajo, and, less easily, the Apache. But as the Spanish grew more numerous and the reach of the Inquisition spread to New Spain, the Taos Indians felt threatened and oppressed as missionaries, looking for converts, meddled in the Indians’ religious affairs and the colonial leaders demanded tribute and slave labor. Indian men were locked up or whipped for breaking the Spaniards’ laws and forced conversions became the rule. By 1640, the tensions had grown to the boiling point and the Taos natives revolted, killing the priest and several settlers. The Indians left the pueblo for 21 years, until they were persuaded to return by the new governor, López de Mendizábal.

The situation only got worse. Punishment for infractions was brutal and arbitrary and when 40 men were hanged for refusing to abandon their native religion, Taos Pueblo became the center of a rebellion organized by Popé, a medicine man from San Juan Pueblo hiding in Taos. Popé quietly traveled from village to village, and on 10 August 1680, all the pueblos rose up in the Pueblo Revolt. The Indians killed almost 500 settlers and 21 priests in the churches the Spaniards had imposed on the villages. They tore down the churches, destroying the records of the settlements, and every Indian who’d been forcibly baptized was bathed with amole, a ritual cleanser made from yucca plants, to remove the stain of Spanish corruption. The Spanish invaders retreated back to Mexico and for a time, Nueva México and the Four Corners area was once more free of its colonial masters after 82 years. The Spanish abandoned Pueblo territory for a dozen years.

The Spanish reinvaded New Mexico in 1692, but the Pueblos remained restive, striking at the invaders from the mountains, until 1696 when Governor Diego de Vargas defeated the Indians at Taos Canyon. The Pueblos disarmed and moved back to their villages. In the 18th century, the Spanish governors of New Spain and New Mexico executed many royal land grants that carved up the territory into large tracts controlled by powerful Spanish families and soldiers rewarded for service to the Spanish Crown. The conditions for both settlers and Indians in New Mexico and Taos remained mostly unchanged into the 19th century. In 1821, Mexico won independence from Spain and gained control of all of New Spain including New Mexico; the people of Taos, however, felt little change in the far-northern outpost of the new nation. Until the opening of the Santa Fe Trail in 1826, that is.

The Santa Fe Trail was an early-19th-century version of an Interstate Highway, stretching from Missouri to Santa Fe, New Mexico. Even though New Mexico and most of the West was part of Mexico, Americans took advantage of the relatively easy route (for the day, mind you) and came to New Mexico in droves to benefit from the open land, fertile soil, and untapped opportunity; one early such traveler was 16-year-old Christopher Carson, known since childhood as “Kit,” who became a prominent and famous Taoseño. (In 1835, those same kinds of American settlers had become a powerful force in the Mexican territory of Tejas and declared the territory independent of Mexico. A revolution, including the famous Battle of the Alamo in 1836, eventually established the Republic of Texas.) By the 1830s, though, Mexican rule had reached Taos and in 1837, the alcalde (mayor) of Don Fernando de Taos was arrested and imprisoned by the Mexican government for taking a bribe to release a relative from jail. Everyone in town took up arms and on 3 August, with some Indian allies, freed the alcalde, launching the Revolt of 1837 (also called the Chimayó Rebellion). Albino Pérez, the regional governor, hearing of the uprising, headed north from Santa Fe on 9 August. When Pérez’s force met the rebels en route, his militia abandoned him and joined the insurrectionists. Pérez returned to Santa Fe for safety but fled the city with a few loyal soldiers. Pérez was intercepted by a band of Indians who killed and beheaded him; the northern rebels sent his head back to the capital. The norteños selected José Gonzales, a Taos Indian, as governor.

Gonzales’s government was no more popular than its predecessor, committing many outrages, mostly outside Gonzales’s control, and a counterrevolution ensued. Upon defeating the forces of the rebel government, the counterrevolutionaries under Manuel Armijo, a prominent soldier and politician, arrested Gonzales. The former governor and others were given amnesty, but after a month the revolt resurged and Armijo, appointed governor of New Mexico in January 1838, marched north to quell the new uprising. This time, on 23 January 1838, he executed four of the original rebels, including the alcalde of Taos who had been the catalyst for the revolt. He marched on Gonzales’s forces and the former governor fled, only to be captured and publicly executed in the plaza of Santa Cruz. Armijo remained in office until the United States Army took over the territory at the start of the Mexican-American War.

After the United States occupied New Mexico at the start of the Mexican War, the pueblo staged the Taos Rebellion in 1847. On 19 January 1847, a mob of Mexicans and Indian allies broke into Governor Charles Bent’s home in Taos, shot him with arrows, and scalped him in front of his family while he was still alive. The insurrectionists killed Brent, the sheriff, the circuit attorney, and the brothers-in-law of Bent and Kit Carson in front of the women, including Carson’s wife, and children. The next day, a larger rebel force murdered seven men at Arroyo Hondo and shot eight traders passing through the village of Mora. The American response followed quickly: Colonel Sterling Price, the military governor of the territory, marched north from Santa Fe with 300 men and routed the larger but untrained rebel force. Fifteen hundred revolutionaries took refuge in Taos Pueblo, barricading themselves behind the thick adobe walls of the Mission San Gerónimo. Colonel Price stormed the pueblo walls with axes and ladders and the Americans bombarded the church with howitzer fire and breached a hole in the wall through which Price continued to fire, killing about 150 of the rebels with rifle fire as they fled. The U.S. force captured some 400 insurrectionists in hand-to-hand combat at a loss of about seven American soldiers. In the aftermath, 28 of the rebels were tried for murder and treason and hanged in Taos. There were a few more skirmishes after the Siege of Taos, but after they were put down, the New Mexicans and Indians ceased armed rebellion.

In 1922, Taos Pueblo was a leader in forming the All Pueblo Council, aimed at defeating the Fall-Bursum bill, passed by the U.S. Senate to transfer the title of pueblo lands to American squatters living on them before 1902. The bill, requested in 1921 by President Warren G. Harding’s Secretary of the Interior, Albert Fall, and proposed by Senator Holm O. Bursum of New Mexico, was defeated in the House of Representatives with the help of several sympathetic Anglo organizations. In 1926, when governmental pressure was exerted to break pueblo ceremonialism, the entire Taos Tribal Council went to jail for defying an order forbidding the Taos Indians from keeping their sons out of school for kiva initiation. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs had informed the Taos council that their religion made the boys “half animals” and prohibited them from staying out of school for initiation rites. The members of the council refused to comply and were jailed for violating the religious-crimes law. They were released by a federal court under public pressure.

Out of these conflicts evolved the Blue Lake Controversy of 1933. In 1906, the United States Government had seized tens of thousands of acres in which the Taos Indians had hunted and worshipped for centuries. By executive order, President Theodore Roosevelt placed 130,000 acres of Taos landscape, including Blue Lake, 25 miles north of town at an altitude of 11,000 feet up Mount Taos (Wheeler Peak), into Carson National Forest, under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service. Decades later, in an attempt to secure property rights for Anglo residents of Taos, the U.S. Congress negotiated with the Taos Pueblo, whose Spanish land-grant title to the land had been recognized by the U.S. Government, to purchase the land on which the town of Taos sits. The pueblo council rejected the proposal because they preferred secure rights to their sacred Blue Lake, referred to as the Indians’ “cathedral.” Despite Congress’s efforts, the Taos Council refused to sign the land deal and finally Congress agreed to exchange the Taos land for secure rights to the Blue Lake area. The Taos Indians relinquished payment of $142,000, but got what they wanted: undisputed access to the home of the kachinas, the sipapu, the source of all their blessings. (Many Native Americans believe that the sipapu is where souls emerge from beneath the Earth at birth and where they return to the spirit realm after death. Arguably the most sacred site in Indian theology, it is also the gateway to the home of the gods and where prayers must go to reach them. Each tribe and pueblo has its own sipapu; Blue Lake is the Taos Indians' traditional place of emergence.)

The Blue Lake dispute was not finally resolved until 15 December 1970, however, when President Richard Nixon signed Public Law 91-550, the Blue Lake Wilderness Protection Act. Sentiments in Taos County were divided when that bill was before Congress, according to the weekly Taos News: the Taos Town Council supported the bill; the Taos County Commission opposed it, citing concern for the water rights in the Rio Pueblo de Taos Watershed, the only source of domestic water for the pueblo and the town. There is evidence that the president’s final decision was influenced by a special viewing of a documentary, made during the San Gerónimo Festival period of 1969 and aired in November 1970 on NET (the predecessor of PBS) as the penultimate episode of Our Vanishing Wilderness, an eight-part ecology series. The film, The Water Is So Clear that a Blind Man Could See, made by Shelly and Mary Louise Grossman and their collaborator, John N. Hamlet, focused on the environmentalism of the Taos Indians. “Our ancestors came out of Blue Lake, long ago,” said an elderly Indian trying to explain the significance of the legislative action. “Blue Lake nourishes everything. It is the source of our wisdom, of our life. . . . Do you understand?”

Again, in 1936, Taos incited a revolt against the dominance of pueblo affairs by the influence of a woman Indian agent; and still again, in 1949, it rebelled against demands for a new ‘democratic’ government to supplant the old council, a system of elders and heredity. In an outgrowth of the 1948 extension of the right to vote to Native Americans, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, an agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior, supervised plebiscites in all pueblos to decide if the old council system should be supplanted by an elected pueblo government. Most pueblos voted to change their systems, but the ultra-conservative Taos Pueblo sent the BIA representative away, though the pressure to change the system remained strong both from within the pueblo, split between the younger residents and the older ones, and from outside. Nonetheless, the pueblo is still governed the old-fashioned way: a governor, responsible for civil and business affairs within the pueblo and relations with the Anglo world, and a war chief, in charge of safeguarding the mountains and Indian lands beyond the village walls, are appointed annually by the Tribal Council, made up of about 50 male elders. None are elected democratically.

The Taos area experienced other upheavals unassociated with the Native American population of the territory. There are still Latino and Chicano families in Taos County who trace their lineage back to the original Spanish settlers and whose land is part of old Spanish land grants going back to the 16th and 17th centuries. For them, this wasn’t the southwest—it was El Norte, the North. These norteño families, many of whom speak no English or very little (and even then, only begrudgingly), have lived in the valleys of northern New Mexico since long before Anglos came there in any numbers, when the Santa Fe Trail opened the way. Many of the present-day norteños live on the very same land that their ancestors from New Spain and later Mexico had defended against raiding Comanches. These residents of the secluded Taos Valley, which resisted assimilation into the dominant culture even by the Latino settlers—there’s just something in the water up there!—adamantly kept their traditions and Spanish/Mexican culture. Though some, especially the later generations, learned English, they maintained their fluency in Spanish even after the region became part of the United States. They don’t speak standard Spanish, however, or even contemporary Mexican Spanish, but a backwoods norteño dialect full of archaisms, colloquialisms, and contractions. Some of the villages look like towns the current residents’ ancestors might have inhabited in Renaissance Spain. These families have roots that predate the Declaration of Independence, going back to when there were no people living in the valley other than Indians. And this doesn’t even take into consideration that the Spanish settlers, unlike the English to the east, frequently intermarried with the Indian people among whom they lived so that the forbears of these northern New Mexicans include the native peoples who settled the Taos Valley centuries earlier.

Now, New Mexico’s a territory that has generally respected its Hispanic inhabitants. The upstart Anglos may have gained economic and political dominance, and prejudices and biases continue to exist, but the descendants of the norteños are among the region’s “first families,” with members in high political office, business and professional leadership, artistic prominence, and importance all across the middle class of local society. Over the decades, however, when New Mexico was a territory of the United States (1846-1912), Anglo land speculators, assisted by Chicano allies, corrupt officials, and biased courts, surreptitiously wrested title of the grant lands from the norteños, effectively stealing the legacy of their forbears without their even realizing it until it was too late. Eventually, the grantees sued, but their lawyer asked only that the court restore the title to their homes and the land they farmed; control of the remaining 21,000 acres of common land, grazing and forest land amounting to up to 90% of the grant, was retained by the Anglos who sold it for a profit. Whereas Congress eventually acted in behalf of the Taos Indians in the Blue Lake matter, the U.S. courts didn’t uphold the rights of these unworldly Latino citizens, guaranteed in 1848 by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, acting instead as an instrument of their victimization. On 5 June 1967, the resentment and anger broke out into violence in neighboring Rio Arriba County when a band of Chicanos led by Reies Lopez Tijerina, a Tejano and one-time evangelical preacher, protested the repression by police and political officials of the land-grant heirs’ attempts to press their claims and tried to make a citizen’s arrest of a local district attorney in the county seat, Tierra Amarilla. The plan went wrong and several town officials were wounded, two were kidnapped, and the National Guard—complete with tanks—occupied the town while police conducted an indiscriminate round-up of Chicano residents. This incident became known as the Tierra Amarilla Courthouse Raid. (Though acquitted in a state trial before a sympathetic Hispanic jury, Reies was retried on federal charges in Las Cruces, transferred from Albuquerque, before an all-Anglo jury hostile to Mexicans. Reies ended up sentenced to prison time and eventually moved to Mexico in the 1990s.)

Artists were drawn to the Taos Valley in a "passive invasion” beginning in the late 19th century, in part because it had remained isolated. It is remote enough from the rest of civilization that, as one recent photographer resident remarked, the mountains keep the critics far enough away that no effort is needed to avoid hearing them. This influx of newcomers into Taos was made up of artists such as Ernest L. Blumenschein and Bert Geer Phillips who arrived in 1898 and helped establish an art colony in Taos. They were studying painting in Paris when painter Joseph Henry Sharp, considered the “spiritual father” of the Taos art scene, advised them to “paint the west before it is gone.” Sharp had come to New Mexico and visited pueblos, though not Taos, in 1883, becoming the first artist to visit the territory. Blumenschein and Phillips were on a sketching trip from Colorado to Mexico when a wheel on their surrey broke and Blumenschein carried it on horseback to the nearest village for repair. That village was Taos and when the painter saw it, he knew he’d found his home. The Taos artists, who enlivened Taos, captured a way of life that was quickly disappearing and their paintings are now valued for both their artistry and their depiction of the old days of Taos. Taos evolved into a world-renowned art colony due to its mix of beauty, mountain light, culture, and tradition. The avant-garde intellectuals and artists who recognized Taos's charm included painter Georgia O'Keeffe, photographers Ansel Adams and Paul Strand, psychoanalyst Carl Jung, and writers D. H. Lawrence and Frank Waters. They were all to one degree or another a part of the salon of Mabel Dodge Luhan, a wealthy East Coast heiress who married Tony Luhan, a Taos Pueblo Indian, and built a home known as Las Palomas, a well-known Taos landmark. Today, Taos is still an active art center, both for working artists, many of whom maintain studios in and around the town, and galleries all over the county that sell their work. Many of the artists are themselves Native American, both from Taos Pueblo and other nearby tribes and from as far away as Colorado and California. In fact, art is something of a local industry, drawing visitors to Taos both for art tourism and serious collecting. (In Santa Fe, just 70 miles south of Taos, the Museum of Contemporary Native Arts exhibits Indian artists and the Institute of American Indian Arts there trains artists from Native American cultures from all over North America.)

From the mid-1960s through the end of the decade, Taos Valley was invaded by another kind of newcomer: hippies. Thousands of flower children from the East and West Coasts, fleeing the “middle-class values” of bourgeois families, moved to the area, establishing or joining communes, or settling into individual crash-pads and, consequently, buying up property. With names like the Five Star Farm, Morningstar, the Reality Construction Company, New Buffalo, Lorien, Lila, the Tree Frog Farm, the Hog Farm, The Family, and so forth, some of these experiments in communal living and subsistence farming were financed by rich guys whose wealth was generated by the profits of large corporations. The newcomers didn’t always ingratiate themselves to the locals: they arrived not knowing the ground rules or the culture, they flouted the conventions of society, they often brought cash into the largely poor territory to buy up land. The freaks, as they were often called by both themselves and others, lived without running water or electricity in places so remote they could only bring in their supplies on foot or horseback. The newcomers offended the locals by bathing, laundering diapers, and washing pots and pans in streams and culverts where families downstream got their drinking and cooking water. Hippies, having responded to the rumors of “free land,” were overburdening the arid, desert soil that barely provided meager subsistence to the people who had been living there for generations (and who, as we’ve seen, had already suffered the theft of their land by larcenous speculators—who, like the hippies, were Anglos). Commune leaders were desperately spreading the word that new arrivals were no longer welcome. Locals complained about the conditions in which the commune dwellers lived and their apparent disregard for other residents, invoking “[p]eople who didn’t know how to dig a hole . . . shitting in the river, spreading amoebic dysentery.”

By the 1970s, the animosity had grown so bad that The New Mexico Review and Legislative Journal, a leftist monthly publication, reported, “The vibrations in Taos are bad,” and cited signs visible in shops and on vans around the county: “DESTROY THE HIPPIES” and “HELP KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL, TAKE A HIPPIE TO A CARWASH”; “every fourth or fifth pickup truck” bore a gun rack holding “a rifle or two” and an “AMERICA, LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT” bumper sticker. Local restaurants announced that they “reserve the right” not to serve anyone deemed a “health menace” and stores and public agencies distributed a right-wing, red-baiting, mimeographed “venom sheet” titled SPOTlight (from the Society for the Protection of Taos) that was rabidly anti-commune. The city of Taos had canceled its long-held summer fiesta because, as the arch-conservative Taos News reported, the residents did not want to encourage a greater influx of hippies. The Taoseños responded to “the hippie problem” with “police harassment, vigilante action, intimidation, violence.” The New Mexico Review reported, for instance, that the state’s General Construction Board had planned a “red tag” raid on Taos-area communes to designate structures that did not meet building codes. The Taos school board “officially” labeled hippies “this cancerous epidemic” and the courts were routinely harsher with longhaired defendants than with native residents or tourists with money and the locals, of both ethnicities, harbored the same sentiment. Vigilante gangs, many made up of Anglo high school boys spurred on by parents, teachers, Taos News editorials and letters, and even the Chamber of Commerce, patrolled Taos County. Said one local: “The thing to do is just shoot every goddam longhair”—even if that action callously eliminated a few desirable writers and artists (not to mention traditionally longhaired Indians). “It doesn’t matter. Just shoot every guy with long hair.”

1970 began with what was locally known as “the Hippie-Chicano War,” a campaign of vandalism and even violence directed against the communards largely orchestrated by the Anglo power structure; there were many violent incidents, including bombings, shootings, and assaults, between the local residents of both Anglo and Hispanic blood and the longhaired newcomers. Calling the town “provincial,” the unidentified Review reporter (whom I believe was novelist John Nichols) alleged that “there’s nothing that quite wakes up the good citizens of the town like shooting or beating a stranger.” Though both Anglos and Chicanos resented the immigration of these outsiders, for many of the same reasons—the new arrivals’ life styles and behavior (especially their hygiene and sanitation practices), their drug use, and their acquisition of local land and real estate—the Chicanos began to see that their attention to the hippies and other newcomers was being encouraged and manipulated by and for the benefit of the Anglos—the descendants of the crooks who’d stolen their land the first time around.

By the end of the decade, though, most of the communes had run into financial problems, exacerbated by stricter regulations of building codes and sanitations laws, and individual hippies found the reality of living off the land harder and less romantic than the notion seemed in San Francisco or upstate New York. Some communes were simply evicted from their subsidized land. A few of the communes continued, but the flood of newcomers subsided and eventually halted, with a number of the former flower children staying on as, simply, new New Mexicans—as protective of the land as any of their predecessors. The Taos artist colony still thrives and is an integral part of the region’s culture, but the hippie invasion, which generated such an upheaval in the isolated little valley, has pretty much disappeared. The period is preserved, however, in numerous contemporaneous books and one remarkable amateur film, made by The Family commune in December 1969 or January 1970. Entitled Peace, Love, 2 Hours—Taos, 1970, the documentary was never released publicly, either commercially or underground, and the film isn’t listed in any catalogue or index of independent or documentary movies.

Today, Taos County is New Mexico’s third largest county and one of the poorest in the state which is 45th in per capita income in the United States. Taos, however, is a center of tourism and recreation, making the contrast stark. The ’60s mindset is still in evidence, embraced by the art community, and a certain freedom of personal expression in appearance and behavior prevails. Taos has over 20 sites on the National Register of Historic Places, including both Taos and Picurís Pueblos and the Downtown Historic District of the modern town, so there’s much of interest for the sightseer and the history or archeology buff. The Pueblo is open to visitors most days except when there’s a tribal ritual to which outsiders aren’t invited. (Cameras are permitted except during religious ceremonies like San Gerónimo, but the pueblo charges a small fee, as it does for admission, and the pueblo closes for about ten weeks in the late winter and early spring.) The ski slopes and the casino both bring in large numbers of entertainment-seekers and the art center and hundreds of galleries and studios attract art tourists and serious collectors both. The Taos Art Museum, at the Fechin House north of the town plaza, is a little gem that’s devoted to the art of Taos’s past, focusing on the early 20th century. It houses some 300 works by 50 Taos artists. (There’s also a University of New Mexico art museum, the Harwood Museum of Art, in town. Both museums charge admission; the studios, open to visitors at the pleasure of the artist, and galleries do not.) If you’re a culture vulture like I am, you can easily spend several days poking around the galleries, shops, and historic sites of Taos—and never go near the casino, ski slopes, or hiking trails!

The climate and weather, not to mention the natural beauty of the environment, of Taos County makes the town and its environs pleasant all year round. Summer daytime temperatures can get very high, but there’s little rainfall and evenings, even on the hottest days, are cool. Summer activities include hiking and camping, fishing, mountain biking, rock climbing, rafting, horseback riding, and many other outdoor pastimes. Two thirds of the Carson National Forest is in neighboring Rio Arriba County, but one third, including Wheeler Peak, is in Taos County. (If you enjoy outdoor pursuits, you could die happy here. The scenery alone could knock you out.) Taos is 1½ hour’s drive north of Santa Fe, 2½ hours northeast of Albuquerque, and 1½ hours northeast of Los Alamos.

[A few words about . . . well, words. In particular, some of the ones I used above. This article is especially loaded with words from Spanish and Indian vocabularies, some of which don’t translate exactly and carry connotations that we don’t necessarily spot readily. On the simplest level, many of the Indian words have various spellings because none of the American Indian languages had written forms until Western anthropologists invented them for the purposes of transcribing native vocabularies and creating dictionaries in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Looking the words up will be hard unless you know that there are different ways to write most of them. Sipapu, for instance, can be spelled shipap, shipapu, shipapulima, or shipapuyna; and chiffonetti is also written chiffoneti, chiffoneta, and other variations (not to mention other, completely different words referring to the same figures in other Indian languages). Anglo, which I said means anyone who isn’t Hispanic or Indian, can refer to someone of German or even African-American heritage. In some contexts it can be a synonym for white or American, but not always. The word’s not inherently insulting or derogatory, but in the right circumstances is can have a pejorative edge, like gringo (a world I didn’t use in this article, but which is part of the same milieu), a polysemous word as it is used among the Chicanos of the Taos County mountains. Depending on its context, it can be endearing, factually descriptive, or insulting.

[Among the other words denoting the various cultural groups which I mentioned in “Taos & Taos Pueblo,” Chicano refers to people specifically of Mexican background—whether they have immigrated to the United States after 1821 (or 1846), or came here with the original Spanish colonists in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. A Tejano (or Tejana) is a Latino person whose family came from Texas when it was still part of New Spain or Mexico, before the Republic of Texas was declared in 1836. (There’s a regional demonym for Texans who are descended from the Americans who established the republic, which only existed from 1836 until 1845, when Texas became the 28th state of the Union. Citizens of the modern state are Texans; citizens of the Republic of Texas are known locally as Texians.) Norteños, as I used it in the article, is a name only for those New Mexican Latinos who migrated from central Mexico in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries to the northernmost territories of New Mexico like Taos County. It shouldn’t be confused with Norte Americanos, which simply means anyone from the United States and Canada—the former British (or Franco-British) colonies of North America. Someone is a Norte Americano whether he comes from New England, Florida, Arizona, Ontario, Alaska, or the Yukon. A norteño only comes from the northern New Mexico counties and traces his ancestry back to the Spanish settlers. He can’t be from Santa Fe, Albuquerque, or Gallup, and he or is forbears can’t have moved into the state after, say, 1846. It’s also pretty much a local appellation, probably meaningless beyond northern New Mexico.

[Finally,
pueblo can be a confusing word because it can mean three different (though related) things. (The word is Spanish for ‘people’ or ‘town.’) Capitalized, Pueblo means the group of Indians, sometimes called Puebloans, from the desert southwest who dwell in the adobe villages like the one I’ve described here. It can also be part of the name of a specific Indian village, such as Taos Pueblo or Picurís Pueblo. Uncapitalized, pueblo refers to the village itself. One last word on this topic: I use both Native American and Indian in “Taos & Taos Pueblo.” Basically, I did that for variety, but while I was in New Mexico, many of the Indians I met there were very clear that they actually preferred that name to Native American, despite common wisdom and political correctness. It’s the name they all grew up with and it has more context than the neutral, artificial Native American. Indian may have been a name given by mistake, a white man’s appellation that bears no relation to the names Indian peoples use for themselves, but Native American can mean any non-European, native people from Inuit and Aleuts to Hawaiians and Samoans as well as American Indians. At least Indian refers explicitly to their own distinct group of people.]

24 May 2012

Taos & Taos Pueblo: Background

[On 4 May, I published a profile of writer Frank Waters, who lived in and wrote about Taos, New Mexico. One of his most passionate subjects was the Taos Pueblo and its people; Waters’s masterpiece novel, The Man Who Killed the Deer (1942), is set in and around the pueblo. In the mid-1990s, I was writing about Leonardo Shapiro, a New York stage director who lived near Taos at the turn of the ’60s and then returned there to retire and, unhappily, die. In May 2002, I took a trip around New Mexico and spent time in Taos and visited the pueblo. It’s little wonder that a writer like Waters, a painter like Georgia O’Keefe, or a theater artist like Shapiro would settle in Taos, which has become a writers’ and artists’ center, as the area has stunning landscape and is chock full of history and the clashes or overlaps of cultures as old as America itself. After writing the Waters profile, I decided to write about Taos and Taos Pueblo, too. I hope you’ll agree that it’s a fascinating subject.

[Because of the complexity of this subject, even in the cursory way I’ve covered it for
ROT, I’ve had to split the article into two parts. In part one below, I’ll discuss the geography of the area, the layout of the Indian pueblo, and some of its ceremonial events. As much detail as I’ve provided here, I can assure you that I’ve only scratched the surface. The Taos Pueblo, the Taos Indians, and their culture are intricate and complex and even the little they allow outsiders to see and understand could fill a book. In fact, it has—many, many books: you already know about Frank Waters’s writing, and in “Frank Waters,” I listed some of the other non-fiction works that discuss the Taos and Pueblo people. That short list is just the tip of the iceberg: there are plenty more where they came from, believe me! If “Taos & Taos Pueblo” whets your appetite, go spelunking in the stacks of any decent library. There’s a lot of information on the ‘Net, too, of course, but the old books, from the turn of the century through, say, the 1970s, are the best. It was all still such a surprise to everyone, such a wonderful gift. We got blasé after a few decades.]

Taos is one of the longest continuously inhabited places in North America, possibly the longest (there’s a debate with Acoma Pueblo), but the Spanish town, once known as Don Fernando de Taos, dates from around 1615 when the Conquistadores defeated the Pueblo Indians in northern New Spain, including present-day New Mexico. (The Spanish settlers, however, lived within the Indian pueblo until 1795, when they moved to Don Fernando de Taos, the site of the modern town.) The name Taos means "place of red willows" in the Tiwa language spoken by the Taos Indians. (The 19 pueblos in New Mexico are each a separate tribe and don’t all speak the same language. There are five distinct Pueblo languages, including Zuni, spoken only by the members of that pueblo.)

Modern Taos, incorporated only in 1934, is 130 miles northwest of Albuquerque, New Mexico’s largest city, and 70 miles north of Santa Fe, the state capital. It’s the seat of Taos County, right in the center of New Mexico’s northern border with Colorado, and sits at an altitude of just under 7,000 feet. Wheeler Peak in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, the highest point in the state at 13,161 feet, is 10 miles north of the town; known as Taos Mountain until 1950—and still called that locally—it is sacred to the Taos Indians and located within the reservation lands. (Today the mountains, a southern branch of the Rockies, are home to a ski resort, Taos Ski Valley, begun in 1956, and the Indian-run Taos Mountain Casino, opened in 1997.) The population of Taos in 2000 was 4,700 spread out over about 5½ square miles. Today, the town and the valley are home to three cultures, Anglo (a regional term that designates anyone who’s neither Hispanic nor Indian), Spanish/Mexican, and Native American, and though there are political and social tensions among the groups, some of which have broken out into violence from time to time, the valley’s culture is a combination of all three heritages.

The Taos Valley holds attractions for many who come only to visit or pass through, both today and in decades past. (A few who stayed, following the Ancestral Pueblo People in the 3rd millennium BCE, include the Navajos and Apaches in the 13th century CE, the Spanish in the 16th century, the Mexicans in the 1820s, the Americans in the 1830s, artists from around the world in the 1890s, writers in the 1920s, and hippies in the 1960s.) The land is semi-arid and the soil, paved with a thin layer of pebbles left behind by erosion, is a fine, pewter-hued clay that gets slimy in the rain but dries brittle. As if nature had always intended this place to be a contradiction or a paradox, it is both mountain country and desert; it has bright sun that can heat up the day—the mountains aren’t high enough to shade the floor of the valley, which runs generally east to west—but the nights can be bitter cold. The lands are watered by little rivers, tributaries of the Rio Grande whose sources are in the sacred Sangre de Cristos, which can run icy and clear, lined with aspens, junipers, pines, and cottonwoods (los álamos in Spanish). All along the valleys are unique geologic formations, abundant wildlife, and dazzling scenery and short distances away, the red dirt of the desert and the table-top mesas (like the one atop which Acoma Pueblo sits, 365 feet above the desert floor) seem like a moonscape. Photographer William Davis was drawn to its beauty—“a result,” he believed, “of a rare combination of mystical and human elements.” As writer John Nichols—who lived in Taos and wrote extensively about the area—said of Taos Mountain (Wheeler Peak), which physically, emotionally, and psychologically dominates the town, the pueblo, and all the villages of the valley: It “casts spells” to keep people from leaving and lure back those who try. It’s a region that remained an isolated frontier for three centuries, becoming almost a distinct nation unto itself, surrounded by round hillocks to the south and rocky crags to the west where the Rio Grande River Gorge drops down hundreds of vertical feet.

Though the Taos Indians have a long oral history, they don’t reveal it to outsiders for religious reasons. (Taos Pueblo is among the most traditional and conservative Indian communities in the country; the people have resisted assimilation on almost every level for centuries.) What we believe about the history of the area and the village comes from anthropology and archeology by Western scholars and experts. There is evidence of human presence going back over 12,000 years and of agriculture as early as 3000 BCE. By 200 CE, pit dwellings were constructed and early permanent village life had begun. (There are excavated remains of some Ancestral Pueblo dwellings from as early as 1150 CE at Bandelier National Monument near Los Alamos. Ancestral Pueblo People is the currently preferred term for what anthropologists used to call Anasazi, a Navajo word which the Pueblo people dislike because it means ‘ancient enemy.’) Settled around 900 CE, the Taos Valley saw the first large, multi-storied adobe structures around the first millennium. By the dawn of the 14th century, the village of Taos had appeared.

The pueblo, the northern- and easternmost of the existing ancient Indian villages, has been occupied in its current location for centuries (except for brief periods of abandonment during the colonial era, as we’ll see), but the present structures are, of course, not so old. The village is continuously being rebuilt as the adobe—sun-dried bricks made of mud mixed with straw—is constantly restored and new houses replace old ones. The exterior of the adobe walls, usually several feet thick, are regularly replastered with thick layers of mud and the interior walls are carefully coated with thin washes of white earth to keep them clean and bright. The five-story houses are actually many individual homes, built side-by-side like row houses, with common walls but without connecting doorways between the dwellings. (In ancient times, there were no doors or windows at ground level; entry was made through the roof, reached by ladders that could be drawn up for protection. The pueblos were often targets of marauding Apaches as well as Comanches and other tribes from the northern plains.) The roofs of the dwellings, covered with packed dirt for coolness, are supported by large timbers; smaller pieces of wood are placed side-by-side on top of the timbers.

Two buildings, considered to be the oldest continuously inhabited structures in the United States, are believed to date from the mid-16th century: Hlauuma (north house) and Hlaukwima (south house). Taos Pueblo is divided into moieties or halves, each with its own kiva, the ritual chamber, and kiva traditions. The north side is inhabited by the Winter People and the south side by the Summer People. There is a traditional rivalry between the two sides, which is openly played out in the foot races held each 3 May (Santa Cruz Dance), the beginning of the planting season, and again on 30 September (San Gerónimo Day), the end of the harvest.

About 150 people live within Taos Pueblo itself, with another 1,900 on pueblo land (the reservation), approximately 99,000 acres surrounding the village. There are other Taos Indians who live in the American towns nearby and still more who live far away and return for ceremonial events and celebrations. Today the village itself, however, is largely a ceremonial and tourist site. Indians return for religious ceremonies or during tourist season when the houses around the central plaza are used as shops for art and various local crafts such as silver jewelry, some pottery (though the most important Pueblo pottery center is San Ildefonso Pueblo, the home of the late Maria Martinez) and, because Taos Indians were traditionally superb hunters, products made from skins such as moccasins, pouches, and drums. Modern Taos has become an important art center and many Taos Indians are painters and printmakers who combine Western and Indian motifs and techniques into striking art. They maintain permanent galleries in town but in tourist season, they operate small galleries in the pueblo. (On my visit to the pueblo, I met a printmaker who ran a gallery from his mother’s house in the village during the tourist season. His main residence and studio was in Hollywood, Florida, where his family lived while he was in Taos.)

There’s one building within the pueblo that’s alien to the village’s Native American past. As in every Indian village in what was once New Spain, Taos Pueblo has a Catholic church. Spanish colonial practice was to establish a misión in each village, dedicated to a patron saint for the pueblo which would then bear its name, while the priests who accompanied the Conquistadores went about forcibly converting the Indians. The church in Taos, Mission San Gerónimo (St. Jerome), was originally built in 1619 by Indian slave labor. The Church of San Gerónimo de Taos (the pueblo’s full Spanish name) remained until the first Indian revolt against their colonial masters (which I’ll cover briefly in part two); a second chapel replaced the original one until the U.S. Army destroyed it during the Mexican-American War. The present church dates from 1850. The curious thing about the Pueblo Indians and Western religions is that, despite the early resistance and the general refusal of tribes like the Taos Indians to assimilate, they coexist. As prominent in the village as the Catholic church are the pueblo’s kivas, the native “churches,” the center of the Pueblo religious practices. The Indians see no contradiction between their adopted Catholicism (90% of Taos Pueblo’s population is Catholic) and their traditional beliefs. “Yes, most of us are Catholic,” explained one modern Taos Indian. “But that is not in conflict with our older Indian religion. We worship life—the water, the trees, all growing things. We could make room for a newborn Child who came into the world to teach us. We regard every man as an individual brother.” Indeed, when the Spanish friars arrived in New Mexico to convert the Indians, they found the Pueblos intransigent. The Indian ceremonials the priests found when they got there remained, simply redressed in Catholic garb. The Pueblos celebrated the saints’ days on the dates specified by the church, and the ceremonies began with a mass and other Catholic observances—but the celebrations themselves, the dances, prayers, rituals, were conducted just as they had been before the Conquistadores arrived in 1540. The pueblo’s most important celebration, for example, is the Festival of San Gerónimo on 29 and 30 September, a combination of traditional rites and ceremonial events and Catholic practices. All 19 New Mexico pueblos have a similar arrangement: for instance, nearby Picurís Pueblo (San Lorenzo de Picurís) celebrates San Lorenzo Day on 10 August.

Despite this apparent cultural palimpsest, Taos Pueblo is one of the most conservative places in North America. As I’ve noted, the Taos Indians resist assimilation even today. Within the village itself, old ways are enshrined. Taos Pueblo houses are owned by the women while the land is owned by the men. Most Indians speak unaccented English and have Anglo names (for generations past, both were Spanish), but among themselves they use the unwritten Tiwa language and retain Indian names which signify their reverence for the Earth and nature. There are no motor vehicles within the pueblo borders. No modern technology is permitted in the village, though homes on the reservation lands surrounding the pueblo may have modern conveniences and pueblo members who live in town or elsewhere may do as they please. (I visited one family’s home on the reservation, a small ranch-style house with a modern kitchen run off of propane tanks outside, vents for central heating, electric lighting, a TV in the living room, a pick-up truck parked out front, and a satellite dish on the roof. I didn’t see a computer, but the family made and sold jewelry and the little labels for the business included an address for a website, so I assume there’s a computer in the house somewhere.) No one in the pueblo has a TV, radio, telephone, computer, plumbing, or electricity. When visitors come for a festival such as San Gerónimo, no cameras, cell phones, tablets, or iPods are permitted; no one may photograph or record the ceremonies which, even though they may seem like little more than a carnival, are religious rites for the Taos Pueblos. Even note-taking and sketching are prohibited: one artist who attended pueblo events often said he made sketches from memory afterwards, but out of deference to “my friends here,” he wouldn’t exhibit or publish them.

Indian children may go to church and attend Anglo schools if their parents wish, but boys will all be initiated into the appropriate kiva when the time comes. Every part of Pueblo life—the arts, crafts, commerce, social structure, and religion—is intertwined and all tribe members participate in the ceremonials and rites that have been part of their people’s lives, virtually unchanged, since perhaps long before the Ottoman Empire or the Hundred Years’ War. Frank Waters, the Taos-area writer who depicted Indian life in both fiction and non-fiction books, wrote in his masterpiece, The Man Who Killed the Deer, about Martiniano, a young Pueblo man, educated in Western ways and taught to live in the modern world, who finds himself conflicted when he returns to the pueblo and must discover a way to reconcile the two cultures so that he can benefit from what both offer. (Other pueblos are not necessarily as traditional as Taos, though several are. Acoma Pueblo, for instance, also maintains many of the old traditions, including female ownership of the houses. Zuni is also very traditional, and it was the constant breaches of proper behavior, including photo-taking and recording, that resulted in the Zunis’ forbidding outsiders from attending the Shalako ceremony.)

San Gerónimo Day is 30 September, but Taos Pueblo’s celebration begins on the 29th with, as with all similar Pueblo festivals, a mass in the pueblo church. No one finds it incongruous that the Catholic priest blesses the Indian ceremonies that will follow, many of which have roots in the native religion that the Catholic Church would never recognize. Parts of the celebration are religious, or at least spiritual, and other parts are pure entertainment—a common mix among Pueblo ceremonials (and, I believe, those of most Native Americans). The Pueblo Indians have a rich dramatic expression—poetry, myth and history, song, dance, and even magic tricks and clowning—embedded in the ceremonials by which their religion is given external manifestation.

At about 7:30 the morning after the vespers service, shortly after sunup, the traditional foot race between the north and south kivas is run on a course extending east to west, symbolizing the celestial paths of the sun and moon. The two teams number perhaps as many as 50 on each side, ranging from boys, who do most of the running, to men of all ages, who urge the young runners on and help them recover when they’ve completed their legs of the race. The teams assemble at each end of the track, parallel to the little Pueblo River that bisects the village and worn down by decades of use to a level below the surrounding fields, the north kiva team on the north side and the south kiva runners on the south side. Behind the start is a sort of reviewing stand for pueblo dignitaries, but beside the Indian bigwigs also sit an array of santos, hand-carved wooden statues of St. Jerome and other Catholic saints carried from the church. Above them is a large cross made from branches.

The men run in relays, one runner from each kiva starting in the east like the rising sun runs westward about a half a mile where he touches the arm of another runner who returns to the east, and so forth until the winning relay team is declared. No outsider knows the real rules of the foot race; they’re kept a pueblo secret like most rituals, learned in kiva instruction. In 1935 Mabel Dodge Luhan described a race that, like all Pueblo ceremonials, looked virtually the same then as it did centuries before and as it does today: “Teeth bared, heads back, they tear along the track lightly but with incredible swiftness, and they are giving back to earth and sun what they have received.” Despite the crisp September morning, the runners are naked except for a loincloth and a belt of bells. (Spirits are attracted to ringing bells in Pueblo lore.) Most runners race barefoot over the stony, uneven ground to show their disdain for pain. On their chests and backs are painted two diagonal white stripes and their lower arms and upper legs are also painted white; their upper arms and lower legs are painted black with a white band around their ankles. Some runners also use red and yellow paint. They wear eagle feathers in their hair, worn in braids, and pasted wherever their bodies are painted white.

The purpose of the ceremonial race is to assure the sun and the moon sufficient power to make their daily journeys for another year—and to secure long life for the heavenly bodies, the runners, and the village. As one Taos native explained it: “The foot races are literally a race for life. We believe that long ago the world ended when the Sun God fell to the earth at the north end of the race track, plunging the world into total darkness. The foot races are run to draw power and strength from the sun to enable us to survive as a tribe.” Athleticism isn’t the point, of course, and winning isn’t a matter of one kiva team defeating the other; that kind of competitiveness is not an Indian virtue. My friend Leo Shapiro recounted his response to witnessing the race: “It just totally knocked me out. They were racing not against each other. It didn’t matter who won. But they really were racing.” Frank Waters put it this way: “Running not to win from one another, but extending all their strength to the sun for his new race, that once again he might return it to them, the creative power to carry the tribe forward another year.” The winner is the village, the tribe, who benefit from the strength and devotion displayed by their best young men. A well-run race is good for everyone.

Before the Spanish arrived and the Catholic church essentially coöpted the festival, it had been a trade fair at which the Taos Indians hosted their neighbors, including the Apaches, Utes, Hopis, and Navajos, so the afternoon is filled with an arts and crafts fair which includes numerous vendors of food, Indian, Mexican, and American. Today, aside from the Taoseños and Anglo tourists, Indians come from as far away as the Great Plains. Since this is a feast day, friends and family are invited to the villagers’ homes at the end of the day for a meal of red and green chilies, corn, frybread (a traditional Native American flat bread made from deep-fried dough), bread baked in a horno (the beehive-shaped outdoor adobe oven that is essentially the Indians’ traditional kitchen), and other traditional native dishes; also on the menu might be cross-over dishes like “Navajo tacos” (green chilies, beans, cheese, tomato, and lettuce wrapped in frybread), deer-meat chili, pozole soup (pre-Columbian Mexican soup of hominy, or nuxtamal, with meat—usually pork, chicken, or turkey—pork rinds, chili peppers, and seasonings), and cornbread (yes, that cornbread).

At about 4 p.m., chiffonetti (“delight-makers”) or Black Eye clowns, one of the few groups in Pueblo life who must be members of a specific, religious clan, gather around a 50-foot-tall, greased pole in the middle of the pueblo plaza, topped with harvest foods such as corn, apples, melons, and squash, a sack containing a variety of fresh-baked breads and groceries, and a slaughtered deer or sheep. The Black Eyes’ bodies, clad only in a breechcloth and moccasins, are horizontally striped black and white to represent the spirits of the dead, and their unmasked faces are painted white with black circles around the eyes and mouths. They wear their hair parted in the middle and twisted up on either side of their heads like two horns, topped with corn-husk florets. The chiffonetti also wear evergreen branches in their belts or in a bandoleer, or hold them in their hands. Thus encumbered, the chiffonetti, must climb the greased pole, the trunk of an entire pine tree, too wide at its base to reach around and tapering to a point at the pinnacle, and retrieve the food. It’s not so easy to accomplish, a real feat of will and strength. The first to the top then lowers the goods to his brothers below who distribute them to all the villagers. When the climber makes it to the top, he entertains the other villagers gathered below and on the flat rooftops to cheer him on, with jokes and teasing; his fellow Black Eyes join in amusing the crowd with horseplay, acrobatics, and magic tricks. The impromptu entertainment might include mimicking the spectators, Indian, Chicano, or Anglo; acting out local gossip; and even mocking the Catholic ceremonies. Nothing is sacred, for the chiffonetti aren’t afraid of anything, and they gleefully make fun of their own tribe and their village neighbors along with the outsiders—but all with obvious good humor and sense of fun; though some of the fun is pointed and trenchant, no bitterness, insult, or hurt is overtly intended. The victorious Black Eye slides back down the pole, greeted with whoops and cheers from below, and there’s a brief dance in the plaza. Eventually, the pole is chopped down; once climbed, it can never be climbed again.

If no clown gets to the top and gets the prize down, the Pueblos believe the next year will be bad for the village. There’s an oft-told story of one disastrous San Lorenzo Festival at nearby Picurís, which follows the same rituals as Taos, when no young man was strong and agile enough to climb the pole and the pueblo nearly vanished. As Frank Waters concluded his account of the story: “But there is no power left in Picurís, no good medicine, no strong thoughts.” (Picurís is even today the smallest and poorest of the 19 New Mexico pueblos and the tale’s considered a cautionary one.) Leo Shapiro explained that this is more than just a spiritual belief: “[I]t makes perfect sense, if you live out there, that if everybody is just sort of so out of shape that nobody’s gonna get up the pole, then it’s a pretty good predictor of the fact that they’re not gonna make it. So it’s not an abstraction.”

[Please come back in a few days to read about the history of the area and some of the cultural history of both the modern town and the Indian village. I won’t preview it here, but I’ll tell you that the area in and around Taos has an action-packed and surprising history.]