who still practiced their indigionus religion the puelbos began to be come resentful. Another cause for the revolt was due to the miss treatment of the pueblos form the encomenderos. This too went form being some thing tolarable to that of some thing more of a burden than any thing else. At first the encomenderos were able to provide protection for the of the raiding apaches that of famine. But as time grew the emcominda was not able to provide and the pueblos no longer neaded the encomienda system. The historians that agree with these points are those of Bowden, Gutierrez and Garner. The other two also have some simmilarites but see these as minute reasons. 1. The majority of the writers fall in to the camp of the first one, the one that states that the publos and the spaniard lived in raliative harmony untill there was a stress put on their relationship. Bowden, Gutierrez, Garner, and Chaves all agree in that both groups benefited with one another untill the of exterior forces created some friction among them. The one that agrues that there was always anamosity between the groups is Knaut. Bowden finds that there there wasn't much friction between the two groups at fist because the religion of bot resembles each others thus making the pueblos easy to absorb the new religon. Gurierrez states that the Franciscan were skillful manipulators who where able to absore them selves in to the pueblo culture taking over the cheifs and convincing others to go along. This all went well until the priest were no longer able to enfore there power. Garner points out the both groups lived in harmony because the Franciscan tolerated the religious differences and alowed them to maintain there old beliefs. All this came crashing down when the drought of 1660's the famine of 1670's and the raid of the apaches all but great stress on every one. Chaves agrument is that both goups lived with out any major problems among them. He states that...
