In skimming several books about California, I found 2 opposing
views that resemble the proverbial half-full/half-empty attitudes
in emphasizing the times of peace versus the times of war.
The excellent Heizer book discusses 117 conflicts, most during the
19th century, with the main purpose of analyzing the precipitating
causes. The book has specific articles and makes no attempt to
summarize, stating instead that California was a diverse area. [3]
The archaeology book is similar in its unwillingness to draw
general conclusions, but mentions that in the Late Pacific period,
as populations increased (up to 310,000), so does evidence of
violence, which occurred in each group. [4]
Driver has mixed opinions:
"California - On the whole, these Indians were among the most
mild-tempered and peace-loving on the entire North American
continent. Most hostilities were between small parties
representing a kinship group or a village, but tribelets also
clashed at times, and, because these conflicts were between
political units, they may be labeled war." [1]
Underhill also can't seem to make up her mind:
"...the central valley...was the acorn country above all
others, but also there was enough fish and small game so that
its residents had time for extra ceremony and for warfare.
Not the eastern warfare...Rather, these populous tribes, each
within its well-marked gathering territory, were like
established nations which preferred to keep the peace unless
invaded." [2]
We also need to define what we mean by "California." When I say
California Indians, I do not mean the modern state borders. I do
mean the California Cultural Area. And, I admit, I tend to think
of the Central portion of the California Cultural Area while
dismissing the northeastern part as "more like the Northwest Coast" and
the northeastern part as "more like the Columbian Plateau". So
in the future, when I mean the Central California Cultural Area, I
will say that. (Or better, I'll resist the temptation to enter
these judgemental discussions. :-))
On the Yuman groups, Heizer says:
"Although the [Yuman-speaking] Mohave and Quechan fall outside
the California culture area... they have usually been treated as
California Indians because they occupied territory in the modern
political state." [3]
One reason that I would exclude the Yuman groups from the
California Cultural Area is that their attitude toward warfare was
in contrast to other California tribes. (I'm an amateur, but many
professionals also make the distinction; relative peacefulness is
one of the characterizing traits that defines the cultural area.)
The half-full versions tend to draw a general conclusion of the
Californian's peacefulness. For example:
"For reasons that remain obscure, invasions and intrusions
apparently did not prompt endless rounds of warfare, though
conflicts occurred. Generally speaking, the neighboring groups
throughout California seem to have lived peacefully until the
historic era." [5]
"California Indians were gentle as the climate in which they
lived...each village had its leaders but there were no great war
chiefs among these unwarlike people." [6] (Dee Brown)
"Since food supplies were relatively abundant, little in the
way of warfare took place. There were feuds but little of the
type of warring that took place on the Plains, for example." [7]
In two of these cases, what is meant is that they were peaceful
compared to the Spanish and American intruders who came later.
While we may disagree on definitions, we must all certainly agree
that the experiences of non-conquest-oriented inter-tribal conflict
left the Natives of the California Cultural Area totally unprepared
for the ruthless conquer-and-remove-or-destroy type of wars brought
to the area by white people.
Now, before Grovsner accuses me of inaccuracies, let me be the
first to mention that some books are more detailed and scholarly
(read, better) while the 3 books quoted above are more popularized
and generalized summaries as are 3-4 other books with similar
*impressions* or *interpretations* of the facts.
Generalizing can lead to misconceptions, but there is no other way
to summarize volumes and volumes of data. There are authors (such
as the archaeologist Marek aka Ceram) who seem to assume that man
is innately aggressive and that warfare is inevitable. Some people
are more romantic, others more cynical. I don't think either view
is inaccurate, but I will agree that each carries the bias of the
author's general attitude about humanity.
References
1. Driver, Harold, E., _Indians of North America_, Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1961.
2. Underhill, Ruth, _Red Man's America_, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press_, 1953.
3. Heizer, R. F., volume editor, _Handbook of North American
Indians, Volume 8: California_, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian
Institution, 1978.
4. Chartkoff, J.J., _The Archaeology of California_,
Stanford: Stanford University Press_, 1984.
5. Kopper, Philip, _The Smithsonian Book of North American
Indians_, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1986.
6. Brown, Dee, _Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee_, NY: Pocket Books,
1970/1981.
7. Yenne, Bill and Garrett, Susan, _Pictorial History of the North
American Indian_, NY: Exeter Books, 1984.