Lightfoot _ Parrish 2009_pp2-36

Lightfoot _ Parrish 2009_pp2-36 - California Naturai...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–19. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 6
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 8
Background image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 10
Background image of page 11

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 12
Background image of page 13

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 14
Background image of page 15

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 16
Background image of page 17

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 18
Background image of page 19
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: California Naturai History Guides Phyilis M. Faber and Bruce M. Pavlik. General Editors CALIFORNIA INDIANS gand THEIR ENVIRONMENT {An Introduction .- Kent G. Lightfoot [and Otis Parrish ' Contributions by Lee MI. Panich, Tsim D. Schneider, and K. Elizabeth Soiuri _IUNiVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS Berkeley £05 Angeles London Why California Indians Matter rm: INEVITABLE QUESTION l5 comma. l {KL} am standing in front of the California Indian Gallery in the Phoebe A. Hearst Mu- seum of Anthropology on the Berkeley campus of the University of California. A group of undergraduate students from a section of the Introduction to Archaeology course is touring the exhibit. An earnest, but somewhat skeptical looking student, lags behind the others; all signs indicate she is about to launch the relevancy question. “I love all this great old stuff,” she gestures animatediy at the brightly colored baskets, soap root brushes, and strings of shell beads collected by ethnographers in the early twentieth century, “but what can you really learn by studying them?” She _ stops for a moment, adjusting the earpiece and volume of her razor—thin iPod, before continuing. “And what relevancy does ' studying Indians have for our lives in California today? I mean, this stulf is really ancient history.” Before I can find my voice to defend my lifetime efforts of studying this “old stuff,” she has turned her attention to her cell phone, on which she is retrieving a'slew of text messages. It is going to be another long day on the Berkeley campus. . 1 Ah yes, the relevancy question. This is not an isolated inci- ' dent. Anyone who works with California Indian materials in classrooms or in public education programs has heard various permutations of this question many times before. Our experi~ ence suggests that California Indians are commonly perceived by the denizens of the Golden State to be historical anachronisms that have little relevancy in our fast-paced contemporary world. Museum specimens are all fine and good, but they refer to chap- ters in the state’s history that have little bearing on us today. This common perception is fueled by the widespread untruth that most, if not all, of the “real” Indians suffered extinction in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, following their entan- glements with Franciscan missionaries, Russian fur traders, ' Mexican ranchers, and Anglo-American settlers. Although dis— ease, yiolence, and homelessness caused massive hardship for all Indians throughout the state, especially during the dark decades of the 18503 through the 18705, thousands of lndians did sur— vive. After falling to a nadir of an estimated 16,000 to 17,000 in number in 1900, the population has rebounded to about 150,000 people who recognize their Native Californian roots.l Further- more, California boasts the largest number of federally recog nized Indian entities for any state in the nation, a total of £08 at last count. in addition, a number of other tribal groups are rec- ognized by state and local agencies but are not yet officially rec— ognized by the federal government. But beyond an occasional visit to an Indian casino, most Californians have limited contact with contemporary Native people and remain largely ignorant of life within Indian communities across the state. Another factor that has fueled this question of relevancy is an outdated perspective that many of us retain about traditional Indian cultures. Those of us who attended fourth grade in Cali- fornia schools probably built a sugar cube model of one of the 21 Franciscan missions and learned something about the interac- tions between the padres and Indians. But beyond that, our un- derstanding of past and present inclian people may be pretty sketchy. Moreover, because most Native groups in what is now California traditionally practiced a lifestyle based on the ex- ploitation of wild plants and animals for food, medicine, and raw materials, the general public has a tendency to view Native Californians as historical characters in a play that permanently closed more than a century ago. Portrayed as simplistic hunterw gatherers who foraged for what they needed in the bountiful environment of California, this view has perpetuated a negative stereotype of California Indians as rather primitive, dirty, un— inventive, and lazy people (see Rawls 1984). As pointed out throughout this book, nothing could be farther from the truth. But the stereotype lives on. The truth is, the people of California have always been a little bit differentmmoving to the beat of a different drum. Califo. nia lndlans, in particular, have always been the exception to the It 4.8.2 These Pacific Coast people do not fit any of the classic anthropo— logical models devised to explain the evolutionary progression from simple, mobile hunter-gatherers to larger, sedentary, and more complex agrarian societies. in ethnographic summaries of _ historic hunter—gatherer peoples, they are either ignored or as»- scribed as being anomalous compared to the more typical small-1. .. Figure a, lndian village near Yuba'City by unknown artist in mid-18005. nomadic bands of foragers found in other nontemperate regions of. the world (e.g.., Lee and Devore 1968). Although technicaily they are hunter-gatherers, many Native California communities exhibited traits more typically associated with well‘developed agrarian societies. That is, they enjoyed sizeahle population den— sities, had relatively sedentary villages, amassed significant quan— tities of stored food and goods, and maintained complex political and religious organizations (fig. I). We now refer to these kinds of groups as “complex hunter—gatherers” to distinguish them in the anthropoiogical literature from the better known mobile foragers or “generalized hunter-gatherers.n3 So what makes Native Californians so unique? For one thing, agriculture never played a significant role among California In- dians. This is rather exceptional for complex hunter-gatherers worldwide, the majority of whom made the transition to an agrarian base and/or a herding economy in late prehistory. Con- sequently, the study of complex hunterwgatherers from other temperate regions of the world (eastern North America, Europe, Near East, Southeast Asia) is primarfiy archaeological in nature. Some scholars, in fact, suggest that the rise of agriculture may have taken place among complex hunter-gatherers in regions of relative abundance (Price and Gebauer 1995bz7—8; Smith i995). Initially serving as dietary supplements among a broader range of foodstuifs, it is argued that these plant and.l or anhnai domes- ticates eventually formed the nucleus of intensive food produc— tion practices. Most complex hunterwgatherers worldwide either _- -4 RETHINKING cALIFDRNiA lNfiEAfiS experimented with the domestication of indigenous plants and/ or they eventually adopted foreign domesticates into their mix of hunter—gatherer strategies (see Habu 2004:117—t18; Price and Gehauer I995a}. Yet with the exception of the Southern Deserts Province, I agricultural economies never took hold in Native California. Un- lilte lndian groups in eastern North America who grew “flood— plain weeds,” such as sunflower, squash, marsh elder, and cheno- pod (Smith 1995), there is little evidence in California for the widespread domestication of native plants. it is significant that most of the complex hunter-gatherers in eastern North America eventually adopted varying combinations of corn, hearts, and squash into their economies. Some hunter~gatherers in the adja— cent Great Basin and American Southwest also incorporated these foreign crops into their menus (Keeley 2995:262—263; Wills 1995), making these foods known to people in California through trade and population movements. But with the excep- tion of groups along the Colorado River and adjacent desert areas, Native Californians made little use of them. Consequently, the study of complex hunter-gatherers in California can be based not only on a lengthy archaeological record, but a rich corpus of ethnographic studies, Native orai traditions, and Native histories and observations spanning to the present. Another thing that stands Native California apart is its pop- ulation. Even without the infusion of agriculture, California’s hunter-gatherers boasted popuiation densities among the high- est in any American region north of Mexico at the time of ini- tial European colonization. None of this makes sense according to theoretical models about the rise of agriculture that are predicated on either population pressure or socioeconomic competition, or that view agricuiture as an outgrowth of exper— imentation by complex hunter—gatherers in areas of diverse and rich food suppiies (Hayden 1995; Price and Gebauer l995b:7). Little wonder that at the annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology when you tell other academic types that you work in California, they typicaliy give you a quick look of pity before moving rapidly away to join colleagues working in less perplexing areas. Tremendous linguistic and cuitural diversity, which defies simplistic summaries or the pigeonhoiing of groups into the ac- customed anthropological constructs, presents another unique WHY CALIFORNIA ENDIQNS MATTER characteristic of Native Caiifornia. One of the most linguisticaily diverse areas of world, it is estimated that somewhere between 80 to 100 Native languages were spoken about the time of European . settiement—approximately 20 percent ofali the languages articJ Cm'u'a . ulated in North America (map 1). Most of the major stocks of Hope t North American languages are represented. As a consequence, I i Chlmartko __ anthropologists have defined and mapped a complex smorgas— ggfikfifie - hard of ethnoiinguistic groupings across the state. There is no wig - surer way to initiate a mass exodus from a coliege course on Cai— Cuaptow k ifornia indians than to require students to memorize ethno- E MD Wanna ' . j graphic maps showing the iocation of these many varied groups. a??? . What complicates the geopolitical landscape of Native Cali— gg’fg‘ifimm _ fornia even more is that most of the dayvto-day interactions " of California indians took place within polities (politicai com— munities) that were small in both spatial area and popuiation size. Thus, what emerges in the study of Caiifornia Indians is a crowded landscape packed with many modestwsized, semi— autonornous polities, each of which supported its own organi- zation of elites, retainers, religious speciaiists, craft experts, and commoners. None of this fits neatly into the classic anthropo~ logical concepts of hands, tribes, chiefdorns, and states that have (Om-immh-WMH HHH NHQ been employed to define other Indian groups across the Ameri» cas. The difficulty of making sense of the iconoclastic Cah'fornia Indian societies in light of mainstream models and concepts has .' certainly contributed to the marginaiization of their study ‘ _ - within the broader fleids of North American archaeology and Chums“ _ i anthropology. tanguagss . . . . . . . . Our purpose in writing this book is to build upon the original work of Heizer and Eissaser (1980) to present a new synthesis of California Indians. The first part addresses why the Native peo~ ple of the Golden State are different and why this should matter to us today. This front~end information is crucial for under- standing the second part of the book—a guide to Indian uses of _ natural resources in the six provinces of California (Northwest 50 100 "was _ '_ Coast, Central Coast, South Coast, Northeast, Great Central Va}- 100 kilometers ley and Sierra Nevada, and Southern Deserts). In taking a fresh - look at California Indians, our perspective is that rather than forcing them into models and concepts developed elsewhere, we should pay speciai attention to those cultural practices and org:- . . oizational forms that make them different from other complex Map. 1‘ Native Caiifornian languages‘ _ I hunter-gatherer groups and agrarian societies. The seemingir as Cahrielincik (TDDEVB) WHY CALIFORNiA INIJIARS MATTER 7 ' unique hunter—gatherer lifeways that developed in California may ' have much to contribute too'ur world today. This rethinking 15 based largelyio'n a_ fp'oWerful resurgence now taking place among many-Native-Californian groups, in combination with recent 1n- sight_s_'p_rovided by-historiCal ecologists, anthropologists, ethnon ' historians, and archaeologists. The renewed interest in California Indian histories, cultural practices, spiritual _ beliefs, languages, _ arts and crafts, and-food ways is profoundly changing our basic ' . understanding of the-historical lifew'ziysbf our state’s first people. . This ongoing-researchlit-providing new insights about long terin interrelations-betweenCalifornia Indians and the environ- ' 'mentL-Rather'than simply. exploiting the richne‘ssof California’s many habitats,- it is now-generally recognized that indigenous populations helped! create and'shape much of the “ecosystem . divorsityI-bymeans 'of various lcinds of cultural-actrvrties and ' indigenous 'management'practicesthat can=still-.be seen today. By'.enhan_cin'g-the productivity of grasslands, scrub stands, oak . woodlands, 'Con‘ifer forests, and montane meadows, California Indians.cont-r'iliutedito the amendment 3 richnet'work of H habitats .that'p'rovided a cornucopia of fonds, medicines, and I raw materials for_;clothing,'_basl<ets_, houses,'dance regalla, and I other cultural object's.'l-lowever,- many questions remain about the degree-to which-Native peoples constructed anthropogenetic landscapes in California’s varied topographic and-geOgraphic settings, the kinds of techniques they employed'.'to.alter the en-w - Vironment,-and the overall impacts they had on plant and aru- -' mal populations. . - ' . .. _ _ ' 'Most recent perspectives on Californian Indian- landarnan- . agement-techniquestend to equate themtoagrarian methods 'employedelsewllere in North America, using concepts such as, ' ‘-‘.protoagrict'iltural,’1 “quasi-agricultural,”.Or ‘I‘semiag-ricultural. For example-Kat Anderson (2005:2531) has recently argued that H -- 'pro'toagric'ultural management practices employed. in Native California “were the same as those utilized'in earlyagriculture to increase. yields of the edible parts of domesticated plants.” The basic-ideals that California Indians practiced protoag'ricultural I 'j'ecoaomies'ianalogous,_'for most intents and purposes, to those '5 Employed. by Indian _larmers'elsewhere in. the Americas. The pri» I' may differenceforNatlve Californians was that they were tend- - ing and. cultivating wild (nondemesticirted) crops. . - ' . What wepro'pose'in this hook is an alternative perspective for s- R's-rntmt'ma.cam-eonma mounts. understanding the hunter-gatherer practices of California In- dians and their interactions with the environment. What if Cali- fornia Indians practiced a very ditterent kind of economy, one that was organized in a fundamentally different manner than those of advanced agrarian societies? And in providing a distinct alternative, what'if Native California economies offered certain advantages over agrarian systems? In contrast to many highly dcw veloped agrarian societies whose members invest considerable labor per unit of area to grow a limited number of domesticates, we argue that Native Californians employed various strategies for enhancing resource diversity over the broader landscape. in this book we depict Native Californians as fire managers (or pyro~ diversity collectors, to use the formal anthropological term}, which distinguishes them from other agrarianmriented people in Native North America. Employing this economy of diversifi- cation, we argue that Native peoples enjoyed considerable flexi- bility in choosing suites of plants and animals for exploitation .' across local regions, depending upon ever-changing environ— mental conditions and seasonal availability. Although fire mau- 'agement has certain limitations (as__outlined later), overall it provides a more balanced menu with less risk and labor intensi— _' - fication than many contemporaneous Native agrarian programs that depended primarily on corn, beans, and squash. Further - more, this kind of diversified economy has the capability of sup- 3 porting relatively dense populations, complex political organiza- tions, craft specialization, and sophisticated ceremonial systems. In presenting a new synthesis on California Indians, we touch upon three major themes throughout the book that make the study of the cultural practices of California inclians and their in- ' teractions with the environment relevant to just about any per— son living in the Golden State today, especially skeptical students touring the amazing California Indian collections in the Phoebe . Hearst Museum of Anthropology. Theme 1: Indigenous Landscape ' Management There is no question that California Indians modified the land- I . scape to enhance the production of plant and animal resources. With the pioneering work of Lowell Bean, Henry Lewis, Thomas 3 Blackburn, Florence Shipek, and others in the 19705, the idea WH‘! CALIFORNIA INDIANS MAT‘i‘ER 9 that .California'lndians have been .actiVe agents in augmenting environmental--productivity and diversity has been belittling steam.- The m_ost-reCent§and fully articnlated rendition of indige- .. -:nons'land 'management'is'ondined in Anderson’s (3005) seminal ' . book Ten-ding that/Vila; Native A'friériean'Knawledge and the Main- " agenenthreesomes: Natural Resources, :a-Comprehensrvel'dls— I cussion of varionsitnethods- of cultivation. employed by -Ca11for—. I -'_-'niai1neiii;i, including pruning and coppicing {selected plants, soaring -_sejeds,-"Weeding', prescribed burning, remove} of debris ' from-field's 'and'.tree'_grOVes_,.andso'fotth. She argues that it. was I through “clo'se encounters'with- the environment-that. Indian " .' communities. heipedfshape the composition and: Istrnetnre of ' tinsel eeosYs‘terns, essentiaiiy creating: and maintaining some of : theistateis signature-plant communities'such as coastal prairies, . 'valleybak savannas, and'montane meadows; . i u 1- .- _' _ I sis-But questions are_'now being raised ahont-the degree to. which :' Galifo'r'nia Indians actualiyshaped the local environment. Yale ..'(.19§8:23 1')'cat1__tions_ that-the former myth of the-'pre¢Coiuinb1an . 'Wiiderne‘SsinlNorth Ainerica is b'eingrepiaced Wi’d'ra'new exag- .. ,gerated one: “the-myth of the hnmanizedilandscapef’ in which ' Native. people thoroughly modified 'extensiVe regions throngh . I 'filfe managerneleticultivation, monnd-"constructron',- handing " settlements, harvesting resourCes,‘ and other‘snch"act1vit1es.Al- thoiigh he’doesnot quesn'on some level of management of the ' land; Vale (2092} believes that _only__relativelyisniall"areas were typic'aiiy impacted, and that. natural, nonhuman e‘eoiogical .' processes.Continued'to shape largel"_c_omp'onents Io'f the-environ»- _ _ ' ' ment- Similar points. hatre been-made about the vegetation Iofthe . -_ I. .- Sierra'.Nevada and California- cha'pariral habitatsethat'the basrc ' "Composition. and. structure . of these plant.communities-can _be - airplained: primariiyihy'naturai fire regimes, topOgraphy, premp- " itation,‘ and sogforth that had. littie toido with cultural practices .' ' 'of Native '_Califo'rnians (Bendix'ZOOZ; Parker 2002)._These c_r:-. . :tiq'u'es point out the important: of cr'iticaliy evaluatmg'the na— . . ture' of. the: indigenous iandwrnana'gernent;practices that Were -' employed across space and through'tirne. '. - j .Thisdebate is much more than just an academic exercise. In ' Z - arguingfthat'longgterm human management produced, in large- I 3. . I "part, many'bf. California’s enveteti vegetation-types,;nnderson_ _ 3 ' "and others maintain that without the infusion ofNatlve knowl- - - - edge and practices, we are at risk of losing some of our precmus swim '-c’ “rennin n I - iandscape resources in the long term. They make-a strong case for employing indigenous-management techniques to maintain or. restore coastal prairies, oak parklands, wetlands, and so on. ' These scholars. raise an important point for Californians to con- sider today, Should we employ traditional landscape practices, such as intentional burning, to maintain rnanythonsands _of hectares of grasslands, woodlands, and forests in public iands across California? This question has significant implications for '. ' how we manage our public land reserves in California today.‘ I Theme 2: Sustainable Economies There is considerable debate about whether traditional Native California economies represented a sustainable program of her— -_ves_ting wiid crops and animal populations that involved mini; ' mai environmentai degradation over the long run; This View, ad— vocated by Anderson, Bev Ortiz, and other researchers working __With contemporary Native peopie, stresses various conserVation practices and cultural rules employed by Indian harvesters. They firmly believe that these cuitural conventions, handed down over countless generations, aliowed Indian people to live in harmony _'with the environment. But this position is challenged by some __ _-archa_eologists whose studies. of—fannal remains from prehistoric sites indicate that, in some times and places, Native people over— _ harvested animai populations. These scholars argue that the elimination of some of the larger species of marine mammals, -.terre_strial game, and fishes from locai regions forced Native '- hunters to broaden their diet to include small game and fishes and other sources of food. The implications that overhunting had on local environments over many decades or even centur'es is not clear, but it certainly challenges the idea that Cahfornia'lrn 'dians were in perfect harmony with the nature} world. Evaluating this compiicated debate is important for Califor~ nians. today. There is much interest about the creation of sus- ' tamable economies that can produce food and other resources in an environmentally friendiy way. Some of this work on renew- able resources is focusing on alternatives to industrial agribusi- ness farming by stressing smaller-scale organic farms that feature _ polycnltural practices of growing integrated systems of overstory _ (agroforestry) and understory plant crops, intercrOpping, natu— '-rai pest control systems, nontoxic fertilizers and herbicides, and _W1‘IY CALIF-URN“! JNPEAflS MQTTEII __1 I' I1¢w~¢1¢w :injiIgatibh-systétttsf 'BtttII-fithét'altgmativas to: agricui: I ttiréIIm’ay also efis’tI-fot greatiiig sustainable ecdnumies,-Ione's' that _ I - tmI'ajflIbeII printtfes't It'd .futuréI populatibhsI-éf Californians. 'Are ' -- - that: chsISQIIls. ta b'é léaIIméci IerrIn-_ CalIifoItIriia-'_Indi'an_' pyrcdlstersity _ ' pta‘cticés if; éevéiéplng: sI'u'ch 'sImall=.§IcaIléI,I sfistaifiéblg-écbno‘mies LthaIt we cafn' ificoiporate-ihtdour livesItchay? II I ' _ -. . I. I _ _F_o_1f thousands yéé‘té' Califomig'lfiidiéhs .greated._regionél etch-w . 'omies I-foItfllarVestinIg foo_cE,.--m¢dlc.ine,z raw matefials from . _. chIaIcIal plant andIanimal populatidn§;'and fcjr-prm I . _ (lacing abjects' ftém stone and day.- InI-‘the‘iatte'f halrof'-thisI_bool<_,' - We. to the; key fe's'qurces that fueledthe-eitgnofiaigéfiglncs of -'-:-_1ndian._t;mfnmunities acmss different evince$ Of California; If: is' .' - I_ impqrténftbstfefis thit Cultural Chafigéhitd 'iItInQvaiiiijtl hasbee'n . -. éfiongoitlgipr‘ocess in Ithé state 'fot' many Icéntti3r§Ie'Is_,'at_1& that the I ' I .‘t_ools',g techniqués, "and .pfacticés' 'undérlininIg-I-Ithesé economies- _ _ I, 'gon'timle "td-ttanéfiarm- over time: Ffitthermbré; Native harvest~ _ _ _ lug ficnptfiifi am still employed attest the StategllI-ith-new inno— :- I -vation$'_contiiii1ally being introduced'td collect ant} process: ref; _ 'I .I sources, I. Opportunitiég Ifél’} I. mény Icontérfipdréryiindiam;_'to ' hatvést I I II ' fdéds,nieIdipihéSJahdI-bésketry'mfiitériai'are;h§Wever,Ibgdom_ing _.I I_ litereésingly diffictalt With Ithe"cOntlmiingtprivatization;0E rural . '_ ."le-Ibpefty afidithe'Iimpiémentatlofi'beVariuus-hafvésting _regi1_lz_i—_- 3 ' tIioInsI Ion s'téjttIe aficlfeclefal landS.-Thisiis.-at_ifithet:impottantI-iss'ueI 5ft); usII-toiIthIink Iabfiiiti Should Natifie‘ijaliforI-nfiafisbefiiloWed to; : II ' _Icént_iniie_tmdltibhgl hIaIrwstirigi'practic'es 'oI'r'lI publicIlan'c152'IC6uld I _ ' I- _It_l_1I'IeS_e lridIEaIIn harveSte-rs play a more Iinfiipbrta'fit mid-it: the educIaIé ' - ItioInI' Iof Iottr'staté’S'.¢hildrIen by'pmvidinIg-g .l)_étte'Ir'fifidéi‘standiflg; I . ofthe-diversityf'and bounty of 'Califbr'rii'a’s naturalzIrI'esm-a'rm's?‘ f-And- finally, should. webé thifikir’ag. mdre'Is'Iejritjfisljr Iébc'uItIIusing.I.' I _-the_ iImrrienseIquuataItifigs ef divIerstéI Wild foodsfind'r_aw._materials'I .ptodugeti each year-across -Californié tliat remain largely uh'__ I ' -I touchedbfhumané? Given the highflutfitiéhélfiraluéfif much-'6 I thélWild-foofls, they ctmld protilclearijlmpottaitt $1It§§plémeht ItoI I' ' Igdian tQQmUInitIies and. to; somgshighly motivated ' and enerfl. f. _g‘etic lion—Indian'stfidents andteachets: -_: - ' " " - I I So .thét'.abbuIt the 'relevaInIIcy 'cjuestidrt? WeIhIo'IpeI writln I Li'I-“ohm-AI :N _A at I - I this back that w'e all can finally move befond the question of rel- - evancy and begm a broader dialogue'within the state 011' some important and Itimély i§sIues that'concern California Indians mid indsggpg stewards-hipptagticgs, sustainableetonomiés', renew; Ia le-food soul-egg,- and the managément of pfiblic kinds; Wé Icain - I - lem‘l-tnuch-ab'out aitémative'waijrs of both protecting and. {ising -.-t_h_e Itch natural resqurces of Califdrnia bwaorkiInngithIchbntemw pp'raty NativeUIIchrII-tmunities andby learningIabout past IIIn'diaIn cultural practzces and -liféways throughNativeorai-tradlfiohs, I -_ ttttaSEHm cglléttltans,-Iarchaeology, ethnography, and eItIIhnbhls-' -- - I tory. In talqng this perspective,- we look'forward in anticipation . eqlae-ngxt time a student asks ébqutIthé relevance Io'fstudying I .i-Callforflia' Indian peoples and their material culture. WHY c-fiL-IFQ-R-Nhl HHJIANS MATTER '-'.--o:wa§sfiv.§-Tri ' 'vjm andijstandingCaiifomiaiindiana-Th: _. ' - -' nrig'ifiAI-défiiiens ftheggalagsfiscate ism-1.3;} t9; :th‘Qs__r§i-i_1_-1.--9til:f§; - "ciofiiffiexh'finté'r.gafhérér.a'ndiagmrianisouggesquidfindgiico Boast-(i iiite'nESix're' hétV'eSting systemsri'gmbyfiwe methods offood I I- ' 'stdr'a'ge; sbme- level ofsedémary life; high population idegnsitiesr - ' 'I flier'3¢;i.ofi1fiiishe ' ' .. ékfieptignaile'vgl-v: _ 3 f: of‘reseu 'jéjdiiferéitj}iatxthesttale (ifghe_-I¢tal":§giofii..11143.deng hafd'té maintain.- ai-pl'e'thora' of digitinéfiméhaiyitfits @an Ting '. I ' 'iii'éid 1:566 ',5'I‘nedici'né'§, ahci snakes oflraw-mat'gnals,-they dlvergeCE _ - I fifihdamehfafly' fibril-the 'merhbérs bf. figuyzq't-h-ér 59d; - :I'Ié'tiésgiwhé increasingly'._f{_icu'sied_theirattention on the-production _ ofé ii' 'it:d-_ré_nge-0.f:t:rops:§1f;é syéc-iaji'z-éd-'gqb'dsipfge get'sfhg". . ___ __ __ _ I ‘ d méfi . that'Wem harvestedbyégnowlgdggglfl gm meg -_ u I fi'aftt'aridévoti _g*ourseiv'e_:hgto€gi1f_ _:a_§nthmpgiogyand .. I I ffér rhdrcthanQDyEars we arclsuilconsfign 'Ian matefiél ‘cuitui'e that a'fé; 3536.9 tégi With pf 614301;: I-I'drfiy'We than dutii'n'e how 'fire- managefngnt played a-ce-ntra e Itihéimaintenance and e9ha1‘1'_ men: of'p'lént andafiimfl div'erfj . ' saw '11; Eocaiplacc' It _-i§ tru 'th I - finctu'atioris m-enfironmehtaf'tonditions. '- '- _ _ . _ -__ _ _ . Keep in mind that 'trern'enéous variation can ande'rfii: sim'cific . tivg c'uitures; the foflbwifig géneral outfinepmvidésth'e foun-I ation .for'_ more detailed. discussiohs; espegiafiy in” the reso'qrc'e __g' ‘ g'ptes'gnted th: second'half of thebookgAspects-ofthESé . "t difioha] cultural practices ar‘esn‘ll gmployed todayby'cantem pgirary. Nativé Californian communities, but Considerabie-charigé . '- - ' ' h ' ' 'tgken place in Native'lifeways over-the last 259 years withihe ' coming of Spanish, Mexican, Russian, and American Colongsté, a _.pom€'we'return to iate'r. ' ' ' ' {Fe-6d} f0? Even} '0 _'cca-5_i0”n__ H 26 [Hand Elsasser'-(l-980:'83) chaserjvafivéiy:e'sfilfiated-that' I Nafiir'é Californiansuhafvested .mhre than 500 pléfitiéfid afiimai Although fearlier swarm ns bf 'eihnbg'raphers énd 'ag; -. Est's'.-recogni29¢i_ti1is' d_ (army, .tiig're ater‘aiie'n'cyto _ 'emphasiZe :_a_ felafiveiy; few {odd 'étfipks’theitfié" teifcd aroufid' the_. exploi'tationiof '¢orns_,_sahnon,a_nd large ga e, such as deer, eIEc, ' and-[antelope(Baumhoffizwssas ml 2)._Whi1¢-notdenyihgthej.s.' ' ' Importance'o'f'théég résb_1_jrc_e's', mu'ch‘ 1355 attéfitiénhasbeeu paid _ - .. " theimamz bi: ei: kinds-pf fcjiodsihatwete' __ s: Sighifiéént di» . ' '- _ t'omponentS ofthe_-yea;1y"m'en'fi.-'Dépgndingan the 166;} - _ regidmNativepecple explcited Various .tre'é-huticmps;gathered '.' -' . dst grass ihd-Sméil'flov'vér plant'splucked fifl '-'and_ _';_dug-for-'_roots,-bui' ,.corfns_,-tu emand rh-izoz'neéi-CQI— .1 'téd'kélp and segweédfléngi'fhéfioafiiCifiiéd marine and fresh— ' . : wa't'ér invertebrates; harvested-mama and freshwater fishes;'an& '_ ' ' "' hnt'ed WaterfOWI',-'_terrestriaf bififs; smallér'terrest'riali game; Sea mmaE3,-and even insects (fig._ 2). _ 15nd=céréin niai__c§?1ia§'a_ weugsf'a; ._ hgy'tifansfg'rm' _miljera1'._i- ' 'piéfefi I catéhlng. _ mafia-grease, _ __ _ _ emgmatac ohms encs{SOm'e:3Nfi 6C formats melded and flied-pg cry" vessfefi fr'dmglogaiélays, __ y__used-._for-fgoo§<ing and storing foods gc lg} otter'yproducuo Was-relative!" r' __ _ _ . __ _. m ad'thédjo'I bjra re :wfc'ly'e groups _ anthem Calif" " far and-mica; c 'u-alcah _ . _. g. heknig-ZOM 6-1 62} _ Indian. grofips f in: 'south'em Caiiforma I icy; ' and ' the" North Coasts-Rangfi 'aIs'O- _.m'gl;e .firé'd, dr-igd,._or. bags (so raked I '_ _ _Ira_ng d plant',_a"' ' - 'qutaf'andpeséie fo'paunciing' _pu'l_ -'6nt_ain' 's'_c.ordag'e,-choth-v 199-673ierre Miwok. _- . _- . . . jafid-fence‘s-for capturing fishes, some arc-works_.9£-' . . . . .=.Ien9iY-Y'?¥i¢1 . i fes _t_'fr in 'vérlngé-stages_cffiahtjsuaessiqh ésjhdseplants“ - _ V et’fiti‘dfi _: _. ' 'éia 'd _m01_itane-' {basket 't'raps' . gg'ria'sSI-‘noppér' _' g MfiI¢-'D¢e'r_- or, . - - 1 2. W39 .5. kW . .6 prciavideisfifficienfhab I . I I I a I I .p-reciiéztabiliiy of'envirdnmentai'p¢r_;utb§tions'du§1pg_ most yga __ I ‘ ' e'iéy 320021306); but 5111511 gfiofigb‘ to remain..§1;a§1ag¢ab1efrom and. dé‘se Fame-filleer _ es'Re'aneiféxszhéngé ade' par-mars; 330; . __ . _ _ _ _ _ : _ _es_01§ng_'shbf.tag_es_ -' by gmviding 'sdcial -ni¢c'han_1sms £0: mpving'fobd and material. _ _ "aréas withsmplqs'godds té’thosc fating fe's'ou'rce shortages. - There: :aEsO'exc'ellent'archae currengg gifw'arfare and raids _ _ he_Creat_io_h-o£ Indian maney,_ re-ncy' heros‘s- much. of Native 'Cgiifonjia; _also.=faci_lita_1tt:d. inter-1 ' pqiit'y' exchange; Depending-- ' ' .' __ "éeMa’liuhi' : shélis;fcl_a_r"n—diskub'ea'ds,ma'gnésite'béfid 0' 'tylinfigks;'and.01ive-.Z Sn‘afi. olixfci'la') SheIE beads served'a 'st n'djaféi'zed mediinfis'jhf exchang' Thesiz éndriiumbewf b aéds-Iotciylindeis;'usualiv? __$t'ru_hgfin sitandafdmd Sizj: ga'z'jgths' _wer§_'_eqfiated_WIth- fact-igua- '- I': i . _.r_1i__ dyglues that coiild'be "ed'asgift's,a's fungrérybffe 'ngs, 'g. off bldo'éi'ireveng'e débfis'dr interpersbnaILafi't's bfyi ' mt: ahth'répofbgi'sts:haw-argue thatlthé prgiduc't on of '. 'I' I helibéads created-wort dfbahking 'sy'steifi thaf zillbwed _ am: 'I . ' _ _ _ 10$th é‘yidence for'sttife' ané'vi'oa " I =lencé_behveeu’pofifie$;afindingthat suggests} e or'nr'noh'ch ' " -_ -_ 3-1éedpigf-.ini"timés bf Sniping: -'to_' transfdrmgfqu items, int?) 3b_e_a_'d ' ' ' -'¢ur'r_ency;"'D'1';_riaig times of {doé’shdrfigéfi,fiaéS‘e-béadsi'cquld than; _ . .' “Eiggivé-n-amyias presents mpeo'pleja-frém-regions'not-;facin-g'-rc_w_ I ' source--Short&g_es_,fih'o wdu'ldrefi'ipgocatg;Inn-offering: Sam's in ' foodstuffs Equal {cor gkeatettha'n..the mum-f that! ' " I - _-._ I f1I'dthis"gh'appriwgprésema'naadéz'=a§;fire_madly-men __ _ _ ._ jliiférn-iarhatretakes'éround'2iosal aianéosfiinfinifies 'th .tec: ' '. ively-Workfi to efihance'the div' s'it'jr-an.d-pm'd'uctivi-tY-of ace . ' _- indmic'filly important plant an'ci'animal-xéspifi‘qésiNativébédplg - . _' -implementédprescribed burnsiihat-Slfigmefitéd the dive‘r'sityp'f '_ - " f [finds-capes:in h'élping to. create *zi'patrihmijr'ié ofihetéfogéhgcus__ _hab.iia-t§c'0fit_2ii11ihg plants at'différcnt'33tag'cs bfsucCcsS'iG_11,..Fi£§s_ _ -_ 'fostezeditihé-Igromh'of plantsuscd fgf food'gfid'ir'a thé'crea'tion of .- ' ' -. perishaEIé-matefiaI_¢uimre. Managedb‘flrfis'aISoproduced'néw 'férag'e that attracted game birds andimam'nilalé'.‘ Thepmlfiferatiog '_ ' of. écong'm'ic'plant'azigi animal rég'séur'jcés lit:'disctetc'patchcfsacm'sé; _ dcaE-tci‘rit'griés-éiIOWed Inéiafico'mmfinitiés td.imfi1¢mé._11t_ghé I _. .'j ngting strategiés'th'a't invoive'é thébul'kkofiegt'iéfifof.fodd,_qordj _- '-_- age, basketr'y mat'ériali, and other-kin'dsj-of m; materials. Gathere- '- _. . fling. goods en massé and then stockpilifigit'h'em at winter-Viiiages ' .. hot-pitiys'ustainéd-yeople during tilé'iea'h timfi'S-Cfif the'yéa'r,'b:1;t' . i was ifzstrhmemal in supporting the profiisi'dfi'of smailésé-éile péIi-‘_ : " ties'igh'étf dqtted-the lanéscape of Natifig'Califomia. __ " ' ' " ' .36_ "fl 3' mt ja can OR'NI'IA IN- ...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 19

Lightfoot _ Parrish 2009_pp2-36 - California Naturai...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 19. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online