"Oasis - The Pueblo peoples have been characterized as
unemotional, co-operative, and peaceful by Ruth Benedict in her
famous book, _Patterns of Culture_, but she has overstated her
case. While the Pueblos were less warlike than their
neighbors, they could not have survived without military
activity." [1]
Most people define "warlike" as more aggressive, and "peaceful" as
less aggressive. Defensive wars don't usually count.
"...there is good evidence to indicate that all the Pueblos at
one time or another fought with other Pueblos as well as with
Navajos, Apaches, and Utes...." [1]
But he utterly fails to provide specific evidence to support his
apparent claims that peace was *not* the dominant pattern of
inter-Pueblo life. In fact, there is evidence of inter-Pueblo war
as the archaeologist Marek (aka Ceram) likes to emphasize, (I don't
have his books available at the moment) but the few sites that show
warfare are obviously during famines due to droughts, and the
*dozens* (100s?) of other sites show trade rather than warfare.
Some of this may have had to do with improved methods of storing
food and of agriculture itself. Almost every group that began
agriculture had some growing pains when crops failed unexpectedly.
In time, each group learned methods of preparing for such events.
"The weakness of the Pueblo military position, as compared to
that of the Navahos and Apaches, was that the Pueblos usually
waited until they were attacked before they fought."
This statement seems to contradict the notion of inter-Pueblo
warfare, doesn't it? What indeed is Driver saying? He is saying
that he doesn't consider any group peaceful unless they were
*perfectly* peaceful, and since no one has ever been *perfectly*
peaceful, then humans must be incapable of ever being peaceful at
all, so we might as well not try. Obviously, I disagree.
By the way, I also disagree that the Pueblo method was a weakness.
One method they used to cope with raiders was to offer a gift of
corn and other goods in exchange for a halt of violence. Hence,
during historic times, the Navajos were invited to Pueblo
festivals and permitted to take any goods they pleased, so long as
there was no bloodshed. This tradition continues today, and the
coming of the Navajos to one such Pueblo festival is described by
N. Scott Momaday in _The Names: A Memoir_.
I don't think it was a weakness, because it was successful in
having the desired affect. Another technique, after the initial
halt to bloodshed, was to offer membership in the Pueblo to former
raiders. It is thought that some Ute raiders became new Hopi clans
in this manner. Another instance of Pueblo-other friendship is the
Comanche's relationship with Taos Pueblo. The Comanches were
professional raiders, but a rapport developed between them and
Taos. (At least I think it was Taos; memory may be wrong.) There
is a dance, described in a big picture book called _Pueblo_, that
commemorates the mixed feeling sort of attitude the Taos people had
toward their new Plains-style friends.
Reference
1. Driver, Harold, E., _Indians of North America_,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.
2. Momaday, N. Scott, _The Names: A Memoir_.
3. _Pueblo_.