Indigenous History in the Borderlands

Photograph of two Navajo women on horses from the Annita Delano photographic collection. 

The Borderlands are both geographical and cultural spaces. This fluid space between worlds is a place of cultural wealth that hosts several communities. This libguide, one of many centered on the people of the Borderlands, looks at the experiences of federally recognized Indigenous communities in the Borderlands, from California to Texas, and Baja California to Tamaulipas, Mexico.

Origin of the Guide 

The Indigenous History in the Borderlands LibGuide is the third installment in a series of libguides focused on the history of marginalized groups in the U.S./Mexico borderlands. The other guides have highlighted the experiences of Black, Asian & Asian American, and Mexican & Mexican American communities.  

This guide describes manuscript sources in the University of Arizona Libraries Special Collections which bear upon Indigenous peoples of the U.S./Mexico borderlands. The result of a comprehensive manuscript survey, the guide presents brief accounts of collections and contents under separate entries for seventeen indigenous peoples of primarily Arizona, New Mexico, and Sonora, Mexico. Each entry is comprised of a brief introduction, content description for relevant collections, and a synonymy of ethnonyms to facilitate further identification of relevant sources.  

Catalog records and finding aids identify many manuscript collections with content in UA Libraries Special Collections relevant to indigenous peoples. Nevertheless, our curators knew relevant materials remained unidentified or insufficiently described to afford ready access. They were concerned about the nature of the information held in these collections. A systematic collection survey was necessary. The original survey and research was conducted by Graduate Assistant Michelle Boyer and Archivist Wendell Cox, with the guidance of Verónica Reyes-Escudero from 2014-2015. This publicly-available libguide was created by Graduate Assistant Zoe Harrison in 2024 using the resources found within the original survey.  

This survey was not occasioned by neglect, mishandling, or poor collection description. Able and apt description facilitated the survey and provided keywords and context sufficient to identify sources and delve deeper into content. Given the nature of archival organization, manuscript collection descriptions invariably are incomplete. In an age when the power of discovery seems limitless, it is essential to remember we are empowered – and, conversely, limited – by description and intellectual control established by others. Description also reflects changing sensibilities. There is no illusion this survey is definitive, nor that this guide will not be subject to revision. Nor did we attempt to identify all relevant sources. The survey was deliberately limited to manuscript collections, believing print, photographic, and vertical files were already accessible or deserved separate study.  

Scope and Method 

This guide briefly describes collections associated with seventeen tribal peoples of Arizona, New Mexico, and Sonora, Mexico. By the ethnonyms used throughout this survey and guide, the seventeen tribes are the Akimel O'odham, Apache, Chemehuevi, Cocopah, Havasupai, Hopi, Hualapai, Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo, Paiute, Quechan, Seri, Tohono O'odham, Yaqui, Yavapai, and Zuni. These tribes are not synonymous with Arizona’s twenty‐two federally‐recognized tribal entities. Several federally‐recognized entities are comprised of peoples of disparate tribes; e.g., the Colorado River Indian Tribes are comprised of members ethnically identified with the Mohave, Chemehuevi, Hopi, and Navajo. Arizona’s tribal nations also include several federally‐recognized entities with people of the same ethnic identification; e.g., the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Yavapai‐Apache Nation, and the Yavapai‐ Prescott Indian Tribe. 

We defined the project's scope as manuscript collections with content related to fifteen tribes associated with the twenty‐two federally‐recognized tribal entities of Arizona. To these we added two additional tribes – the Zuni of New Mexico and the Seri of Sonora, Mexico – because of historic connections to Arizona (Zuni) or the strength of collections (Seri). 

In the course of identifying collections with relevant content, we searched the University of Arizona's online public access catalog using variant ethnonyms for each tribe, and repeated this process using a full‐text search of Arizona Archives Online (AAO). Keyword searches using tribal names or ethnonyms, preferred and otherwise, were used, largely limiting searches to manuscript collections. In identifying alternate ethnonyms, contemporary websites for federally‐recognized tribes were consulted, as well as the synonymies for each people in relevant volumes and entries of The Handbook of Native North American Indians. Many of the latter were developed by Ives Goddard, a renowned American linguist. 

Early materials often clearly identify peoples, but there are instances, especially with seventeenth‐, eighteenth‐, and nineteenth‐century records, where identifications are unclear, obscure, or incorrect. The burden rests with the researcher to verify the accuracy of identifications, not simply to accept the association discerned by our survey. The result was an identification of numerous collections for many of the tribes surveyed. It also resulted in many false drops, or instances where keywords appeared in circumstances manifestly unrelated to tribal peoples. In any instance where a collection, or parts of a collection, might plausibly contain information, it was subject to hands-on assessment. 

With each potential collection, relevant containers and folders were reviewed closely, and if the content warranted description, notes were made on contents. Initially, folders were described on an item‐by‐ item basis; it soon became apparent this was an unnecessary, problematic, and untenable level of description. Our observations almost always represent folder‐level description. Exceptions include those records where a whole (e.g., The U.S. Soil Conservation Service’s Reports of a Land Management Survey, Navajo Indian Reservation, 1930‐1938 [AZ 124]) were more valuable than respective parts. A handful of collections are so large, discreetly focused, or uniquely associated with a people they were handled holistically, with the knowledge the respective finding aids would serve interested researchers far better than any additional description made by this survey. Those collections have been addressed briefly as sidebars under entries for tribal peoples (e.g., the Hubbell Trading Post Records [AZ 375] and its 252 linear feet of records, most closely associated with Navajo business, life, and culture.) In all other instances, detailed descriptions, and counts of leaves and pages, appear in the seventeen related spreadsheets and original project notes, which formed the basis for the entries which follow. 

An understanding of past, present, and likely future scholarship on indigenous peoples, especially the importance of tribal voices and perspectives, informed the significance we attached to these collections and their description. Certainly, much of what we found were the observations of outsiders, most if not all of them non‐Indians. Every voice speaks from a context, informed by history, experience, and cosmology. Some voices may reflect misapprehensions, misunderstandings, or even give offense. Scholars seek a diversity of voices. Librarians and archivists strive to preserve and provide access to just such a diversity. Much was also written by indigenous peoples themselves or directly recorded their observations or actions, representing a diversity of perspectives and a variety of positions. There are numerous instances of indigenous people speaking for themselves in many collections. Material, notably in congressional collections, generally concerned with policy affecting American Indians throughout the United States was excluded, unless it also largely related to the tribes within the survey’s scope. 

As extensive as our survey has been, there is no way to know whether all materials related to Arizona’s tribal peoples have been identified, much less examined or understood. Reasonable efforts were made to find materials with the time and resources available. This guide is a point of departure. No one should limit themselves to its recommendations. They must also understand its limitations.  

Guidelines for Stewardship 

As part of University of Arizona Libraries Special Collections effort to best support ethical practices regarding materials by or about Indigenous peoples of America, we have published guidelines for the stewardship of these materials. These guidelines can be found on the “Guidelines for Stewardship” page of this guide. They can also be found on each collection guide for Indigenous-related collections. We urge you to refer to these guidelines when working with our collections and contact an archivist should you have further questions.  

Land Acknowledgement

We respectfully acknowledge the University of Arizona is on the land and territories of Indigenous peoples. Today, Arizona is home to 22 federally recognized tribes, with Tucson being home to the O’odham and the Yaqui. Committed to diversity and inclusion, the University strives to build sustainable relationships with sovereign Native Nations and Indigenous communities through education offerings, partnerships, and community service.