47
CALIFORNIA INDIAN WARFARE
Steven R. James
Suzanne Graziani
49
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TRIBES
CENTRAL COAST TRIBES
CENTRAL INTERIOR TRIBES
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRIBES
COLORADO RIVER TRIBES
DISCUSSION
APPENDIX 1
A List of Warfare Encounters Between Tribes
ILLUSTRATION
Map Showing Names and Territories of California Tribes
BIBLIOGRAPHY
51
INTRODUCTION
With the exception of the Mohave and the Yuma Indians along the Colorado
River, the tribes of California were considered to be peaceful, yet peaceful is an
ambiguous word. While there was no large-scale or organized warfare outside the
Colorado River area, all tribes seemed to be, at one time or another, engaged in
fighting with their neighbors. There was a great deal of feuding between groups (tribelets
or villages) within the individual tribes, also. The basic cause for warfare was
economic competition, which included trespassing, and poaching, as well as murder.
The Mohave and the Yuma, on the other hand, glorified war for itself.
The ambiguity of the word "peaceful" is increased by the accounts in the
ethnographies. For example, a tribe may be described as being "peaceful;" yet,
warfare with certain neighbors was said to be "common." At times, there were actual
contradictions in the information concerning tribal warfare and intertribal relationships.
Apparently, each California tribe had contact with most of its neighbors, but
for the purposes of this paper, we have divided the state into the following five areas
of interaction: the Northern tribes, the Central Coast tribes, the Southern tribes, the
Central Interior tribes, and tie Colorado River tribes. Within each area, we have
attempted to ascertain which tribes were in agreement and which tribes were in conflict,
and if the conflicts were chronic. Unfortunately, what is impossible to determine is
the extent of white influence on the native patterns and relationships which were reported
to ethnographers as though they were wholly aboriginal.
52
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TRIBES
The tribes of Northern California may be divided into two major groups, the
Northwestern Coast and the Northeastern tribes, based on economy and material culture.
However, the basic characteristics of their warfare and the attitudes toward war were
similiar throughout the entire area. These tribes, therefore, will be treated as a
unit.
White influence up to 1850 was not as great in northern California as it was
in most of the rest of the state. The white population was smaller than that which
moved in farther south, and the land itself was more bountiful with fish and shellfish
from the waters, and vegetable and game, food on the land. In addition, there was no
concern with forcible religious conversion as happened along the coast south of San
Francisco. However, the ethnographies contain discrepancies, especially as to the
details of warfare, which may have arisen from the informants' lack of first-hand
observations of the true native patterns. Of the white influences which are apparent,
perhaps the most important was the introduction of the horse. This brought groups
formerly having little or no interaction into contact with each other and changed the
relationships between them. For example, the Paiutes were described as the "worst"
enemies of the Atsugewi (Garth 1953: 180) until the acquisition of the horse allowed
the Paiutes to travel extensively and eventually begin trade with the Atsugewi (Garth
1953: 183).
The general attitude of Northern California Indians was peaceful. The
Northwest Coast tribes appeared to be more warlike than the Northeastern tribes, but
this may be due to the fact that more actual battles were recorded for them. The land
area of these tribes was small, and it is possible that sheer numbers alone could
increase friction, even if the basic attitude toward was was negative. Inland, the
Atsugewi were reported to "avoid war" (Garth 1 953: 182). The Wintu were described
as "non-belligerent people" (DuBois 1935: 36). Most of the tribes in both areas
equated war with murder (Dixon 1907: 453; DuBois 1935: 37; Kroeber 1951: 421;
Gifford and Klimek 1936: 74) and had elaborate tribal procedures to avert actual
fighting (Dixon 1907: 453; Foster 1944: 188; Loeb 1926: 205). The most aggressive
tribe in Northern California were the Modoc, and they were influenced by their allies,
the Klamath of southern Oregon (Ray 1963: 134). Powers (1877: 253) gave the Modoc
credit for being "fierce warriors" in their battles with the whites in Oregon, but Kroeber
(1925: 134) stated that their warfare may have been "overrated." It is not possible
to tell now how much of the fierceness described was due to the fact that the whites
who wrote the accounts were also doing the fighting. It is also not possible to tell
how much the frequency of conflict between Indians increased from the threat of white
settlement throughout Northern California.
53
Here, as in the reminder of California, the warfare of the Northern California
Indians was economic in nature. The basic reason for fighting was the retaliation of a
trespass, a poaching, or a murder -- serious offenses which upset the balance
between the Indians and nature. Gould (1966: 80) said for the Tolowa that warfare was
not organized by instead involved a surprise attack by one or two men on an unsuspecting
victim to retaliate an injury or a death. Even so, attempts were made to avert actual
fighting.
This idea of negotiating for peace before war began, despite the seriousness
of the precipitating action, stresses the fact that warfare was looked upon as being
undesirable. Fighting could not be encouraged, because the tribes were too small to
afford the loss of life, and they were too dependent upon hunting and gathering cycles
to afford the loss of time involved in warfare.
A distinction should be made between fighting within the tribe and fighting
with other tribes. While both were disruptive economically, in-group wars destroyed
the co-operation which was necessary for the society to function efficiently in
subsistence activity, and they left the group defenseless against threats coming from
the outside. In-group fighting, however, was fairly common. The Modoc fought each
other (Kroeber 1925: 331), as did the Wintu (Voegelin 1938: 108) and the Pomo
(Kroeber 1925: 235-6; Barrett 1908: 243). Kroeber described such hostilities for
the Pomo:
"This feud may be placed between 1830 and 1835, or earlier.
According to the Yokaia-pomo, they owned the entire valley, up
to the mouth of the East Fork of Russian River, but had allowed
a body of northern Pomo to settle at Komil and utilize the northern
end of the valley. A dispute arising about hunting or fishing
rights, the southerners attacked the hitherto tolerated intruders
and drove them to Scott Valley or Clear Lake, from where the
local chief, probably of Noboral, finally purchased peace for them.
"The northern Pomo assert that one end of the valley had
always been theirs, and that the trouble arose not over violations
of boundaries but because their famous shaman Sikutsha was
accused of having "poisoned" a man in one of the central
villages. An attempt was made to obtain revenge by force, but
Sikutsha escaped to friends in the Upper Lake region. The
Komil people as a whole had not been drawn into a battle, but
were ill at ease, and left their village, j ourneyed up the East
Fork to Blue Lakes, and finally settled in Scott Valley.
"It is not impossible that both conflicts took place as
stated, though at different times" (Kroeber 1925: 235-236).
Intervillage feuding occurred between Maidu villages (Kroeber 1925: 400-1) and
between Yurok villages, the latter having a yearly intratribal settlement ritual because
54
the frequency of such hostilities was too much of a threat to the tribe (Thompson 1916:
143). Any intratribal dispute was detrimental to the group, and as a result, such
problems were considered to be private between families rather than involving the
entire group, and attempts were made to settle them quickly. Intertribal wars,
while disturbing economic patterns within the groups involved, also created antagonism
between neighbors who needed to trade with each other and so could not encourage
hostilities.
Frequently, and especially among the Northwest Coast tribes, a monetary
compensation was offered in lieu of resorting to warfare. If this was refused and a
battle occurred, peace was ultimately made with a monetary settlement. This
practice served two purposes: 1) it was a reminder of the economic factor of warfare,
a compensation for the loss which caused the hostilities, and if war had occurred,
for the hardships and losses caused by the fighting; and 2) it discouraged further
fighting because war was too costly.
The chief, or an intermediary sent by him, arranged the compensations
and settlements. As with the rest of California, the chief in Northern California was
not a war-leader and did not fight. In intratribal disputes, the Yuki chief arranged
payments for murder (Gifford 1965:72), while the Shasta chiefs acted as mediators
between the opposing parties and exacted the compensation payments(Dixon 1907:
453). With the Northeastern tribes, problems could be settled without compensation.
Pomo chiefs settled intervillage boundary disputes (Loeb 1926: 205). Even the fierce
Modoc settled internal disputes through mutual friends (Ray 1963: 12-14). In neither
case is there mention made of compensation. However, the Atsugewi chiefs sent
messengers to arrange settlement payments for murders (Garth 1953: 179); Spott
and Kroeber (1942: 152-3) mentioned an instance when a girl was paid in settlement
for a murder. In the event of an outside war, the Yuki chief held his people in check
while he sent a messenger with a claim for payment to the other tribe; if in spite of
this, war resulted, the Yuki offered payment when they were the victors (Foster 1944:
189). In this way, the losers were paid not to retAliate. The Pomo took this pro-
cedure one step further by expecting a reciprocal compensation from the losers (Loeb
1926: 203-204). The Shasta arranged reciprocal settlements a year after a battle
(Holt 1946: 313- 314), when the original source of friction had been forgotten, which
stressed the prohibitive economic aspect of war. The Wappo had the losers pay
for a battle (Driver 1936: 214); so, while winning may have been profitable, it was
not worth the risk of losing. The Nomlaki offered no monetary settlement but
initiated mutual trading (Goldschmidt 1951: 337).
As a result of the economic factor, warfare was probably fairly uncommon,
even between tribes who considered themselves to be traditional enemies. The
Modoc, mentioned before as one of the most aggressive trives in Northern California,
did not have a class of warriors; instead the men joined war-parties randomly if they
were interested in fighting (Ray 1963: 137). Frequent warfare requires a standing
55
class of warriors, as existed among the Colorado River tribes. On the other hand,
the Hupa of the Northwest Coast had a warrior class, comprised of young men guided
by visions, but this class had no special status within the tribe which would glorify
participation in warfare (Wallace 1949: 2). Goddard (1903: 63) said that warfare
involving the Hupa was "probably not frequent. " Also, in general, there was no
feeling of total tribal unity necessary for large-scale warfare. However, one of the
earliest ethnographic accounts, that of Kostromitonov of the Russian colony Ross in
1839 (1974: 11-12), mentioned a dispute involving two tribes probably of the Pomo
which lasted a year and took the lives of 200 men. In contradiction, Kostromitonov
also said, "Peacefully disposed by nature, the Indians wage war against each other
only rarely..." and since the feud had occurred prior to his arrival at Ross, it may
be assumed that either Kostromitonov or his native informants exaggerated the number
of Indians killed.
Very little economic raiding occurred. After the whites arrived, the Modocs
raided the Achomawi for slaves, but according to Kroeber (1925: 308), this may have
started as a method of revenge which was intensified by mobility through the use of the
horse. The Modoc were the only tribe in Northern California that raided for slaves.
Other tribes may have taken captives in war who were made into slaves, but the reports
vary in this respect. For example, both Dixon (1907: 441) and Voegelin (1942: 110-1)
said that the Shasta enslaved prisoners, but Holt (1946: 313) said thatthey took no
captives. Voegelin (1942: 110-1) said that the Wintu killed most of their captives,
while DuBois (1935: 39) said that this tribe took no prisoners. Some accounts also
saide that captive women were married by the Northeastern tribes. This is mentioned
for the Maidu (Faye 1923: 44), the Atsugewi, the Achomawi and the Wintu (Voegelin
1942: 110-1), In contrast, along the Northwest Coast, women captives of the Hupa,
Karok, and Yurok were generally killed (Driver 1939: 358). Apparently, taking
captives was not a main objective of warfare, nor were female captives taken primarily
as a means of increasing the tribal population.
There is little mention of warfare involved with territorial expansion. The
Wappo gained Alexander Valley from the Pomo (Barrett 1908b: 226, Cook, 1956: 122).
In another case, the Yana attempted to extend their fishing rights on the Sacramento
River through Wintu territory, but were defeated (Merriam 1955: 15-16). Most
warfare seems to have been concerned with maintaining the existing boundaries.
As a result, the majority of fights occurred between neighbors. The Hupa,
for instance, were said to have clashed with all their neighbors at some time (Wallace
1949: 9). Tribal boundaries were definite, and if a member of a neighboring group
was seen hunting or gathering too close to one's land, the incident could provoke a
general conflict with the offending group for poaching, or if the trespasser or the one
who sighted him was killed, a retaliation for murder might occur. In this way,
warfare, while being economically disruptive, served to support the existing balance
between the Indians and nature. Each group had definite rules governing the use of
56
the land, and these varied depending upon what subsistence resource was most
plentiful in the area. For instance, one group of the Achomawi allowed their neighbors
to fish in their waters of the Pit River, but guarded their hunting rights, while
another Achomawi group shared their hunting rights (Kniffen 1928: 307-309). The
Eastern Pomo allowed the Wintu to fish and hunt on their land, but they could not
gather withoutpriorapproval (Gifford 1923:80). Allowing neighbors to gather with
prior approval was common among the Pomo. TheWintu and the Yana fished together
on the Sacramento River (Sapir & Spier 1943: 270), but the text made no mention of
gathering procedure for that area.
In short, the land provided enough for living and some for sharing, but the
sharing could not be overdone. Infringement of the established procedures led to
retaliations. For example, the Northern Pomo and the Huchnom fought constantly
over fishing rights on the Russian River (Loeb 1926: 210). A particular battle is on
record between the Pomo and the Patwin which resulted from their arguing over
acorns. This ended with the death of a Pomo woman (Gifford & Kroeber 1937: 198).
Another occurred with the Pomo who were allied with the Kato, against the Yuki to
retaliate the deaths of two Pomo women who had been gathering clover too close to the
boundary of Yuki territory (Stewart 1943: 33).
The Northwest Coast tribes appeared to trade rather than to grant reciprocal
gathering rights, although the Northeastern tribes engaged in trade also. The
Mattole traded with all their neighbors to some degree, but principal contact was with
the Hupa (Nomland 1938: 105). The Shasta traded with the Yurok, the Karok, and
the Wintu (Dixon 1907: 436). The Achomawi traded with the Atsugewi and the Wintu
(Kroeber 1925: 309), and some groups of the Achomawi traded with the Modoc while
others warred with them constantly (Ibid.: 320). The Maidu traded extensively with
the Atsugewi, as did the Wintu (Garth 1953: 183). As mentioned before, the Paiutes
traded with the Atsugewi.
The breaking of trade agreements could lead to war. In one case, the
Potter Valley Pomo raided the Northeast Pomo for salt, rather than trading for it,
and the Northeast Pomo retaliated, killing some Potter Valley people (Kroeber 1925:
236):
"The Potter Valley people were long in the habit of visiting
across the mountains and purchasing salt. A party that attempted
to make away with a supply secretly was discovered, attacked, and
in part destroyed. In revenge the Potter Valley people killed
certain of the northeasterners who happened to be among them,
after which they thought it wisest to refrain from attempting to
reestablish intercourse and secured such salt as they couldget
from the ocean. This was before the arrival of the Americans."
57
Arguments over trade between the Mountain Yuki and the Nomlaki resulted in an
ambush attack upon a Nomlaki party be allied Yuki forces (Goldschmidt, Foster &
Essene 1939: 143-134).
The Indians of Northern California were usupicious of strangers. To the
Maidu, they were "natural enemies" (Faye 1923: 43). The Shasta killed strangers
on sight, as did the Wintu (Voegelin 1942: 108). The suspicion was based on the idea
that when strange people arrived, "it must be for a bad purpose" (Kroeber 1925: 13).
The Lassik were said to kill traders (Nomland 1938: 105), probably because they were
suspicious of the real motives of the strangers in their territory. Two recorded
irtances of warfare between other tribes support this idea. A trading party of Yuki
was killed at a Kato village, leading to a retaliation by the Yuki and a counter-retal-
iation by the Kato (Kroeber 1925: 157-158). In another case, some Yurok men who
had Hupa wives were attacked while visiting their wives' village, resulting in retaliation
and coanter-retaliation (Ibid.: 50-51). Other cases of warfare over the death of a
stranger involved trespassing incidents. In a specific instance, several Yuki poachers
attacked a group of Kato women, leading to a retaliation years later and then a counter-
retaliation by the Yuki (Essene 1942: 93). Another account mentioned that a Wailaki
killed two Yuki boys on their home territory which resulted in two retalitory attacks
by the Yuki (Gifford 1965: 73). In this case, it is probable that the Wailaki was
poaching and killed the Yuki boys in self-defense. Other accounts did not mention that
the person killed was poaching or was even on another tribe's territory -- for example,
one battle resulted from the killing by a Wintu of two Nomlaki who were gathering seeds
(Barrett 1908a: 344), the account giving no mention of where the seeds were being
gathered -- but it may be inferred that the person who did the killing viewed his victim
as either a trespasser or a potential poacher, and in any case, a threat because he
was a stranger. Being too close to tribal boundaries could be as dangerous as crossing
them.
As mentioned before, certain tribes in Northern California considered
other tribes to be their traditional enemies. With one exception, these pairs were
members of different linguistic families. The one exception was the chronic hostility
between the Shasta and the Madesi group of the Achomawi, who were both members
of the Hokan family; however, throughout California, poorer tribes tended to raid the
richer ones, and the Shasta were said to be "jealous" of the Achomawi "wealth"
(Kniffen 1928: 314).  For the others, the existence of traditional enemies from different
linguistic stocks can be explained as long-standing enmity which began as a conflict
over territory when a new group of foreign-speaking people moved in and began to
establish themselves in the area. The fact that the newcomers spoke a different
language made communication between groups difficult and kept alive through generations
the idea that the other people were different and therefore suspicious.
Fighting was chronic between the Wintu of the Penutian linguistic family and
the Yuki of the Yukian family; in fact the Wintu word for "Yuki" means "enemy" (DuBois
58
1935: 39). Of the Northeast California tribes, the Penutian-speaking Modoc engaged
in traditional warfare with certain groups of the Hokan-speaking Achomawi (Kroeber
1925: 320; Ray 1963: 12, 134). The Modoc also fought extensively with the Hokan-
speaking Shasta as allies of the Klamath, who considered themselves traditional
enemies of the Shasta (Garth 1953: 331; Holt. 1946: 313; Powers 1877: 254). The
Shoshonean Paiutes were chronic enemies of the Achomawi (Kelly 1932: 185). It
was mentioned before that the Paiutes were traditional enemies of the Atsugewi until
the horse increased the contact; instead with the Modoc and the Paiutes, the horse
produced chronic enmity (Ray 1963: 134). While being of a different linguistic stock,
the Paiutes were also better classified as Great Basin people rather than Californian;
so, there were other differences besides language which made them seem suspicious
to their neighbors. Among the Northwest Coast tribes, only one mention of traditional
enemies was made. The Mattole exchanged "constant" hostilities with the Wiyot
(Nomland 1938: 105), the Mattole being of the Athabascan family and the Wiyot being
Algonkin speakers. Warfare between the Yuki and the Kato, Athabascan speakers,
was common (Kroeber 1925: 157-158; Essene 1942: 93; Kroeber 1928: 396-398), as
it was between the Yuki and the Pomo of the Hokan family (DuBois 1935: 38; Barrett
1908a: 134-136), and between the Yukian-speaking Wappo and the Pomo (Barrett
1908a: 256-266; Kroeber 1925: 220-201; Gifford & Kroeber 1937: 198). None of
these sources refers to these tribes as being "traditional enemies," but this mayhave
been merely the preference of the ethnographers, for the number of recorded battles
encourages this inference. Certainly the chronic hostilities between the Yuki and the
Nomlaki, for example, could be seen as being traditional, as with other tribes who
fought each other constantly.
Witchcraft and shamans figured heavily in Northern California Indian warfare.
Sometimes a shaman was hired to "kill" an enemy instead of a tribal expedition, as
with the Shasta, Achomawi, Atsugewi, Modoc, and Wintu (Voegelin 1942: 109). The
Modoc also hired shamans to retaliate in intratribal disputes (Ray 1963: 10). A
shaman could be the cause of warfare, also, instead of averting it. The Yana were
said to have once been friendly with the Atsugewi until the Atsugewi accused a Yana
shaman of "poisoning" one of their people (Sapir & Spier 1943: 270). Presumed
witchcraft deaths precipitated fighting between some Pomo groups. In one report, a
Point Arena man killed a Yorkville shaman for causing his wife's death, and the Yorkville
people attacked in revenge (Loeb 1926: 212):
"The Point Arena Indians of the coast had wars with Stewart Point,
Yorkville, Yokaia, and Mendocino (Buldam). It is said that mcs t
of these wars were due to deaths from poisonings, and that there was
little trouble about boundaries. A man would get sick. Then he
would remember who stood in back of him at the last feast. An
accusation and a war would follow."
59
Kroeber's opinion was that the Patwin also staged similar avenging attacks within
their tribe (Kroeber 1932: 298).)
The use of ritual in warfare emphasized the fact that fighting represented a
disturbance in the balance of the Indians' lives, which required the aid of supernatural
forces in. remedy. Ritual supplied luck; Pomo war-chiefs made offerings of beads
prior to a battle (Gifford & Kroeber 1937: 154), and shamans used witchcraft to bring
good fortune to their people. Shasta shamans sang all night prior to a battle to "charm"
the enemy (Voegelin 1942: 109), while Atsugewi shamans cast spells of drowsiness
upon the enemy camp (Garth 1953: 182). The Modoc shamans used magical "devices"
to bring success (Ray 1963: 136). The Tolowa, Yurok, and Hupa shamans employed
"formula-magic" against their enemies (Driver 1939: 359). A shaman sometimes
used his powers also to foretell the outcome of a battle, such as with the Nomlaki,
whose shamans were "seers" (Goldschmidt 1951: 342), and the Atsugewi whose
shamans prophesized when the expedition was half completed (Garth 1953: 182).
Dances of incitement were held for most of the Northern California tribes.
These gave the fighters courage and allowed the shamans to work their magic. With
the Yuki, both men and women danced (Foster 1944: 189). Shasta men told of their
expected deeds in battle (Dixon 1907: 430-440), Atsugewi men pantomimed their
fighting (Garth 1953: 181),and Modoc women scorned the enemy through songs and
mock battles (Ray 1963: 139). The Yurok held a noisy dance with the men in a single
file line, imitating the shooting and dodging of arrows, according to von Loeffelholz
from his study 1850-1856 (Heizer & Mills 1952: 163). Atsugewi women danced
daily while the men were on an expedition to give them "strength" (Garth 1953: 181).
Dances were held also for the Karok, Hupa, and Kato (Driver 1939: 359) and the
Cloverdale and Sherwood Valley Pomo (Gifford & Kroeber 1937: 155).
The White Deerskin Dance of the Hupa was held as a world-renewal ritual
to atone for broken taboos, but it probably had its origins in the war-dance. Goldschmidt
and Driver (1940: 127-130) described the dance as having the "routines and objects"
of the war dances of other tribes in Northern California, in that Hupa territory was
divided into two sections characterized by distrust so that in the dance, the two groups
became "ceremonial rivals," while the lavish costumes of the dancers were equated
to the wealth displays in warfare that encouraged the enemy to seek a settlement, and
the linear arrangement of the dancers was like an actual battle formation. The Hupa
regarded the war dance and the world renewal dance as being one ceremony (Ibid.:
128).
Dancing after a battle took two forms: the victory dance and the settlement
dance. The former was more prevalent according to the texts, but some ethnographers
may have considered both types to be victory dances. There are conflicts in the
records co6cerning post-war ritual and the taking of scalps. For instance, Kroeber
(1925: 50)/said that the Yurok neither took scalps nor had dances, but Driver (1939:
359) statd that the Yurok danced for both victory and settlements, with scalps being
60
displayed on a pole for the victory dance. Goldschmidt and Driver (1940: 128)
described Yurok settlement dances as being like those of the Hupa and the Karok, with
the dancers in lines facing each other and compensations being paid if no hostilities
arose during the ceremony. Other tribes had victory dances with scalps on a pole,
including the Karok and Sinkyone (Driver 1939: 359), and the Northern Pomo, Central
Pomo and the Patwin (Gifford & Kroeber 1937: 156). The Pomo passed their scalps
from village to village to be danced over (Ibid.: 198). The Yuki showed the scalps
at their victory dance (Foster 1944: 189), as did the Kato (Kroeber 1925: 157) and
the Atsugewi (Garth 1953: 182), but for none of these tribes is there mention made
of the scalps being on a pole. The Wappo held a victory dance and feast with their
allies, but they took no scalps (Driver 1936: 213-214). The Wintu did not scalp
(DuBois 1935: 39), nor did the Hupa (Goddard 1903: 62), and the Shasta did "little"
scalping (Driver 1907: 441). Settlement dances, held after compensation payments
were made, were reported for the Yurok, Tolowa, Karok, and Kato (Driver 1939:
360).
Only three tribes were reported to hold special rituals for those who had
killed an enemy in war. The Northern Pomo killers had to be purified and could
not attend the victory dance (Gifford & Kroeber 1937: 156, 198). Yuki killers were
purified (Foster 1944: 189-190). The Atsugewi purified all warriors, but the puri-
fication of killers was more "rigorous" (Ray 1963: 182). This type of procedure
probably occurred in other Northern California tribes but is not recorded, for it
emphasizes the fact that killing, even if done to avenge a serious offense against the
tribe, was taken to be evil.
While no fighting was looked upon with favor, intertribal warfare acted as
a unifying factor since it over-rode intratribal feuding and strengthened the co-operation
and sense of solidarity necessary for a hunting and gathering society to exist. In view
of the dancing and accompanying ritual, it provided a break from the usual routine,
almost as an expensive form of entertainment, which gave expression to group soli-
darity. Since most battles were retalitory in nature, warfare among the Northern
California Indians also served as a warning to the offending group, to keep them from
repeating their actions. However, was was economically impractical, and since
there were procedures to avoid actual bloodshed, fighting was probably fairly uncommon.
61
CENTRAL COAST TRIBES
The Coast Miwok once occupied the territory between the Pomo tribes and
the northwestern end of San Francisco Bay. Like most tribes who inhabited the
central coast of California, not much material was written on their warfare activities.
A war song of the Coast Miwok, recorded in an account by a Russian at Fort Ross
prior to 1839, is practically the only information on their warfare. Kostromitonov
wrote:
"At the beginning, or as they make ready for war, they sing:
Temoi hoibu                  Leaders, let us
Onigi tschinami              Go out to war!
Temai ilawak                 Let us go and capture
Temai o tomai                A pretty girl!
Upon approaching the enemy settlement:
Indi mi schojugu             When do we cross the mountain?
Pari o londo                 Who do we see first?
Upon beginning to shoot:
Buteki landa                 Sharp are our missiles
Junawschi landa              Keep putting forth yours.
Then the toyon (chief) sings to give his warriors courage:
Otilek - otilek lilem        Forward, forward,
Lile oje lippe               Now to the battle,
Lile oje lili lippi          Stouthearted, follow me!
Nawu elendu                  Fear nothing, enemy arrows
Indi kotscht ma iwid elendu.  Do you no harm.
Each of these couplets is repeated several times on the occasions
indicated"(Kostromitonov 1974: 11).
Very little information exists on Costanoan relationships among themselves
or with outside groups. Early Spanish accounts describe them as generally friendly
to the Spanish yet warlike to other groups. They fought among themselves as well as
with the Salinan, Esselen, Coast and Plains Miwok, and Yokuts.
"Of the little wars -- or village feuds -- that agitated the
Costanoan gro.ps from time to time, the following have been recorded:
The Salso-n against the natives of San Francisco; the Sakla-n
against the same, or against the Oakland tribe transplanted
to the mission; the Ausai-ma agianst the Mutsu-n; the
Wacharo-n or others of the Soledad region against the northern
Salinans" (Kroeber 1925: 466).
Father Palou reported that on August 12, 1776, the village of San Mateo
attacked and burned the village near the San Francisco mission. Many were killed or
62
wounded on both sides, but the latter were defeated. S  after their defeat, the
Indians near the mission fled across the bay to the eastern side (Bolton 1926: 135).
No reasons for the fight were given.
Jose Espinosa y Tello wrote that the Monterey Bay Costanoans waged wars
with little energy for a short duration and few were killed. Truces were unstable
because "memory of some old antipathy or perhaps some new caprice suffices to
produce hostilities. " At times, differences between tribes were decided by a duel
(Heizer and Whippel 1954: 217-218).
Fages reported that there was continual warfare between the hill Indians
of the Sierra de Santa Lucia (Salinan) and those around the region of San Carlos
Mission (Costanoan). They fought each other over acorn grounds (Fages 1937: 64).
In her paper on the Costanoans, Linda Switzer included a brief summary of
the information on Costanoan warfare as mentioned in the accounts by early explorers
and priests.
"Beechey describes these wars as being very frequent and
sometimes leading to complete annihilation of the tribe (Beechey
1831: 77). Anza reported that the Indians he met were generally
friendly, but would usually accompany him only to the boundaries
of their lands 'without going a step outside of their respective
territories because of the enmity that is common among them'
(Anza, 1930: 129). Near San Mateo Font came upon a village
fighting a group of invaders and was warned by the Indians
to stay back until the enemy had been chased away (Font 1930:
388). Anza's lieutenant, Moraga, also encountered a group of
40 armed Indians who were on their way to avange themselves for
the wounding of a companion (Moraga 1930: no page given).
"The Indians living around San Pablo Bay are described by
some of the explorers as being more unfriendly and warlike.
Langsdorff described them as being fierce and having nothing
to do with either the Spanish or the Mission Indians (Langsdorff
1814: 107). According to Choris, these same Indians also
prevented an excursion, consisting of 12 soldiers, from ascending
the Sacramento River on a exploratory expedition (Choris
1913: 15).
According to Stephen Fields, around the 1830's and 1840's fights between
the Tulares (Yokuts) and Carmel Indians (probably Costanoans) occurred at Monterey
Bay. Evidently the Tulares came each year to gather mussels and abalones and to
bathe in the bay (Pilling 1950: 440). In a newspaper article from March 23, 1869,
Alexander S. Taylor reported that in May of 1859, about 50 Indians from the Merced
63
River area (Yokuts) entered Monterey Bay, mounted on horses and armed with rifles.
They, too, came to gather mussels and abalones (Pilling 1950: 438).
Whether or not Yokuts visited Monterey Bay in aboriginal times is hard to
tell.
"This violent contact between the Tulare and Mission Indians
suggests the aboriginal view of trespass causing feud or
bloodshed. The lateness of contact would make it appear
that such precontact notions would be lost and that a more
satisfactory explanation would be one of traditional enmity
based on trespass" (Pilling 1950: 440).
Aboriginally, the Yokuts may have been prevented from visiting the coast at
Monterey because of the Costanoans. In the historic period, the territory between the
Yokuts and the coast was left vacant since the Costanoans and other tribes in between
were taken to the missions or died from epidemics. This allowed the Yokuts to roam
freely over an area that had formerly been restricted territory and dangerous to pass
through.
The reasons for enmity among Costanoan tribes and between them and
outsiders included revenge for a wounded companion, trespassing, and fights over acorn
gathering lands. Kroeber reported that "songs of insult or vengeance were common
both as an aftermath and as a new cause of fighting" (Kroeber 1925: 469).
However, not all offenses resulted in fighting. Fages observed that for the
Indians from Monterey to San Francisco Bay, cases of robbery were reported to the
captain in charge of four to five villages. This captain "holds a council of all Indians
to deliberate concerning the punishment and reparation due" (Fages 1937: 73).
In another account, Father Crespi of the Portola expedition interpreted
offerings left around a cross by Indians near Monterey as a sign of peace.
"We found the cross all surrounded by arrows and darts with
plumes stuck in the ground; a dart with a string of sardines,
still nearly fresh; another dart with a piece of meat hanging
to it; and at the foot of the cross a little pile of mussels,
all put there by the heathen in token of peace" (Crespi, in Bolton
1927: 51).
Wars for the Costanoans were short by very intense, and were fought by the
bravest. Warfare adversely affected their subsistence patterns, thus permeating
their daily lives but was a means of protecting their subsistence resources.
64
Information on Esselen warfare and intertribal relations is practically non-
existent. They probably warred with the Salinans and Costanoans but there are no
specific accounts supporting this.
The little information on the Salinan indicates that they were on bitter terms
with the southernmost Costanoan and probably the Esselen but on more amicable terms
with Yokuts. The Salinan even made trips to Tulare Lake and reciprocal visits were
made by the Yokuts to the sea. To the south, relations with the most northernly
Chumash were probably unfriendly (Mason 1912: 108,181).
According to Lt. Pedro Fages, an early Spanish explorer quoted earlier,
the Indians of the Santa Lucia Mountains (Salinan) gave "no quarter to strangers"
(Mason 1912: 180). Fages described these Indians as being "continually at war with
their neighbors ... The affair is limited to setting fire to this or that village of the
adversary, sacking it, and bringing away some of the women, either married or single"
(Fages 1937: 58). The hill Indians of the Santa Lucia Range who lived between San
Carlos Mission at Monterey and San Antonia Mission keep the other Indians around
this region (Costanoan) from gathering acorns in the hills. The hill Indians "encounter
the same resistance when they go along the beach above Monterey on the same quest"
(Fages 1937: 64).
Although relations between Salinans and Yokuts appear to have been amicable,
a fight between them is recorded in a myth. In this fight two Salinan out hunting in
their territory ran across ten Tularenos. The two Salinans killed four Tularenos and
drove the rest off. They then cut off the heads of the four slain Tularenos and
returned home for a victory dance (Mason 1918: 104). In another conflict, a shaman
raiding party (either Salinan or Chumash) supposedly once entered Yokuts territory
(Gayton 1948b: 259).
The practice of cutting off the heads of slain enemies is reported among other
sources for both the Salinan and Costanoan. Taylor wrote that the Salinan took scalps
for their war dance, and cut off the heads and arms of their slain enemies to inspire
them with valor (Mason 1912: 180). Among the Costanoans around Mission Santa Cruz,
the limbs and top part of the skull of enemies killed in battle were cut off, and the skull
was carried in triumph to the village on a pike (Kroeber 1908a: 25). Also among
Costanoans orEsselens near Monterey Bay, some of the enemy's flesh was eaten by the
parents of the slayer (Fages, in Mason 1912: 180) or to gain the enemy's courage
(Perouse, in Harrison 1892: 58). These practices seem to be a ritualized aspect of
warfare for the Salinan and Costanoan.
Mason feels the wars of the Salinan were short with some cruelty but little
bloodshed and quickly settled. There was fighting among themselves as with their
outside nieghbors. Hostilities were always present and raids could be expected anytime.
65
The reasons for hostilities were trespassing on acorn and hunting grounds and women
stealing,
On the whole Chumash relationships with outside groups were amicable, but
occasionally conflicts did occur. There is no mention of traditional enemies. Their
primary reason for interaction with outside groups was through trading. In their
own territory, however, the literature suggests that much intervillage warfare occurred
aboriginally.
Outside groups traded with the Chumash frequently and over long distances.
Longinos Martinez wrote that trade occurred frequently between the Chumash and the
mountain people (Simpson 1961: 54). Landberg suggests that these were either Buena
Vista Yokuts or Tubatulabal (Landberg 1965: 89). Tubatulabal came to the coast to
trade with Chumash villages near Ventura, a trip which took four days on foot.
Sometimes the Chumash visited the Tubatulabal (Voegelin 1938: 51-52). In another
account, a Yowlumne Yokuts listed the trails that Yokuts traders took to the coast
(Latta 1949: 67-68).
It is not known if there visit occurred aboriginially. The account of trade
between the Chumash and Tubatulabal was reported in this historic period after the
missions were established (Voegelin 1938: 9), but this does not preclude the possibility
that these visits occurred before white contact.
Although specific tribes are not mentioned, a few conflicts between Cuhmash
and what look like outside groups are reported. Portola's expedition reported on
August 18, 1769, two destroyed villages on the Santa Barbara coast between the settle-
ments of Pueblo de la Carpinteria and Pueblo de la Laguna. Indians in the area said
one village was destroyed three months before by Sierra Indians who came to fight
(Bolton 1927: 164). Landberg believes the reason for the fight was due to low food
supplies in early spring (Landberg 1965: 88).
Among themselves, the Cuhmash appear to have been quite hostile at times.
Many accounts report that there was much intervillage fighting or feuding. The causes
for these conflicts varied considerably and included trespassing, food stealing, disputes
over women, and witchcraft.
Loginos Martinez in 1792 reported that:
"if a chief merely makes an attempt to pass through another's
jurisdiction, fighting and quarreling result, so great is the
distrust that these nations have of one another... Their wars
are frequent and always originate over rights to seed-gathering
grounds, or in disputes over concubines" (Simpson 1961: 58).
66
In this excerpt, Longinos Martinez is confusing as to whether he means Indians in
general or those of the Santa Barbara Channel he was previously describing.
In another Spanish account, Fages described the Indians at San Luis Obispo
(Chumash) as good dispositioned and "friendly toward the Spaniard." In the next
paragraph, however, he wrote that "they are a warlike people, always roaming from
village to village at odds with everyone. " The inhabitants between La Carpinteria
and the Punta de los Pedernales (Chumash) were described similarly (Fages 1937:
31, 47-48).
Font described the Chumash as friendly and not very warlike, although he
mentions some villages that were abandoned because of war (Bolton 1931: 256, 262).
Father Palow wrote that on November 29, 1776, Mission San Luis Obispo
was attacked by Indians from a village ten leagues away. Part of the mission was
burned as a result of this attack. The reason for the attack seemed to have been for
revenge on the Indians at the mission who were the enemies of the attacking party
(Bolton 1926: 157-158).
In 1891, Yates described a fight told to him by an informant:
"When Justo was a small boy he had witnessed some fighting at
the Estero, about one mile from the city of Santa Barbara,
between the Indians of El Rincon (a point about 15 miles distant)
and those who lived where Santa Barbara is located. Their
method was to open a battle by tossing up a lot of feathers.
One Indian would leave his companions, advance toward his
enemies, and shoot a number of arrows, which were generally
dodged by the opposing forces. When the Indian got tired he
retreated or fell back, and another would advance.
"The fighting did not result in much loss to the participants.
In the instance referred to, the Santa Barbara Indians lost
one of their number; the Rincon party, two " (Yates 1891: 394).
Kroeber wrote that "all accounts unite in making the Chumash an unwarlike
people, although intervillage feuds were common and the fighter who killed was accorded
public esteem" (Kroeber 1925: 556). Most of the accounts presented here in this
paper give the impression that the Chumash were warlike but only among themselves.
In view of this fact, the word "unwarlike" used to describe the Chumash by Kroeber
should be defined. The Chumash were "unwarlike" and friendly with outside groups
but were warlike among themselves.
Fights among the Chumash themselves were short with few casualties, like
other tribes in the Central Coast region. The reasons for these fights were manv-
67
some of which have already been mentioned. Trespassing was probably a major reason
for conflicts. Of the Indians around San Luis Obispo, Kroeber wrote that poaching of
a rich crop causes wars if done "without previously paying or notifying the legitimate
owner" (Kroeber 1908a: 16-17). In such situations, trespassing was most likely
done with the intention of poaching.
Witchcraft and magic were a part of Chumash warfare. Kroeber mentioned
that a chief would invite visitors to ceremonies and a refusal caused war because it
created the suspicion of witchcraft (Kroeber 1925: 556). In an article written in 1889
by Yates, an informant acknowledged that warriors wore a plummet stone
it.. . and said it was worn suspended from the neck for defense,
and to make the wearer impervious to arrows, and that in
time of war any one biting this implement was rendered
invisible to his enemies, and enabled to travel with safetyl"
(Yates, in Heizer 1955: 152).
68
CENTRAL INTERIOR TRIBES
The Washo inhabited the area around Lake Tahoe in the Sierra in both
California and Nevada. They had contact with three other tribes: Maidu, Miwok, and
Paiute. The Carson Valley Washo visited the Paiute near Walker River and the Maidu
near Placerville and Colfax. Hostilities occasionally took place with these two tribes
(Lowie 1939: 301). The Washo were said to have defeated the Northern Paiute
around 1860 (Kroeber 1925: 570).
According to Kroeber, the relationship between the Washo and the Miwok
was friendly, the latter even recognizing Washo hunting rights on the Stanislaus River
almost down to the Calaveras Big Trees (Kroeber 1925: 570). And Barrett wrote:
"Neither Miwok' nor Washo inhabited the very high mountains
during the colder season, but during the summer both camped
there and seem to have been on very friendly terms. It also
appeared that although the ownership of the respective territory
of each was fully recognized by the other, there were no exacting
restrictions placed by either upon the other in their territory"
(Barrett 1908b: 347-348).
Lowie reported that "sometimes there was friendly competition with aliens."
In the incident mentioned, a Washo killed a grizzly bear to put the Diggers (probably
Maidu) to shame (Lowie 1939: 3 29).
One reason for hostilities was that the Washo tried to exclude the Maidu and
Paiute from Lake Tahoe. Another reason was that "the Maidu often took game away
from the Washo, even killing them, and thus precipitated fighting." In one conflict,
the Washo held a war dance afterwards to celebrate their victory. They danced over
the "best fighter's scalp" and tied it to a pole; whereupon both women and men shook
the pole (Lowie 1939: 301, 329-330).
From what has or has not been written, the Interior Miwok seem to have been
a peaceful tribe, perhaps one of the more peaceful tribes in California. There is very
little mention of fighting in the literature. However, their culture was disrupted; and
the Miwok were wiped out so swiftly by the forty-niners, which may account for the
reason that not much information was availbable on them.
The Miwok were on friendly terms with the Washo, as previously mentioned.
Relationships between the Miwok and Mono Lake Paiute appear as mostly friendly
although some hostilities took place at the headwaters of the middle and southern
Stanislaus River.
69
"There was hostility between the Miwok and the Shoshonean
'Paiutes' along the portion of their boundary line at the southern
head of Stanislaus river, although still farther to the south, in the
vicinity of Yosemite Valley and southward, the people of the two
stocks were on very friendly terms, making amicable trading
trips both ways across the summit of the Sierras" (Barrett 1908b: 348).
"... it may be noted that in the region of the headwaters of the
middle and south Stanislaus the Miwok and Mono were on bad terms
in recent times, while along the Merced they were more at ease
with each other" (Kroeber 1925: 443).
Yosemite Valley, in Southern Miwok territory, was a focal point for trade
among the Miwok, Mono, and even the Washo; and then, as now, was a summer
resort for the three tribes (Barrett and Gifford 1933: 129, 256).
Unlike the amicable relations that prevailed in Yosemite Valley, Hetch
Hetchy Valley appears to have been disputed by the Miwok and the Eastern Mono.
This was probably part of the same conflicts reported by Kroeber and Barrett above.
Ralph S. Kuykendall writes that before the Hetch HetchyValley was discovered in
1850 by whites, "the Valley was disputed ground between the east and west slope
Indians, but the Piutes from across the range had gotten the upper hand and were
accustomed to spend time in Hetch Hetchy in the fall of the year gathering acorns"
(Kuykendall, in Hall 1921: 38).
Long distance trips by the Miwok to the coast to obtain marine mollusk
shells were reported by these took place after the coming of the Spanish (Barrett
and Gifford 1933: 256). Since the defense of territory among the California Indians
was very strong, trespassing, in many cases, was considered a reason for fighting.
This tended to restrict movements among most tribes to their own territory. The
territory between the Sierra foothills and the coast may have become vacant when the
Indian groups who had occupied it were removed to the missions or died from
epidemics. This would have allowed the Miwok to travel across formerly inhabited
territory with little resistance.
The Northern Miwok were said to be hated enemies of the Plains Miwok
with boundaries being crossed only in large groups (Bennyhoff 1961: 19). This would
support the idea that long distance trips occurred after the Spanish. However, the
large groups referred to could have been trading parties. Adjacent to the Miwok were
the Nisenan (Southern Maidu). Beals reported that foothill Nisenan traded with valley
Nisenan in parties of 100-200 men who traveled by night and never stayed in the valley
overnight (Beals 1933: 365). This could have been the same among the Miwok, but
it does not indicate that long distance trading trading trips to the coast were made
aboriginally by the Miwok.
Interaction between the Chukchansi Yokuts and the Miwok on the upper
Fresno River was evidently friendly, the former entering Miwok territory without
hesitation (Kroeber 1925: 481). Long distance trips to the coast could have been
made through Yokuts territory, but this sort of conjectual reasoning opens up more
unanswerable questions. Just how the Interior Miwok and other Yokuts tribes got
along is not known.
According to Kroeber:
"When the Miwok fought, which was not very often, it most
frequently took the form of a feud for revenge. They usually
shot at each other at fairly long range; enough, .at any rate,
to make possible the dodging of arrows. Each line of warriors
therefore capered and danced about to render it difficult for their
opponents to take aim, and jerked forward and sideways
as they saw arrows coming. As might be expected, casualties
were rather light. It was only when one party could ambush
another, or pounce on a settlement asleep just before daybreak,
that fatalities would run high" (Kroeber, in Hall, 1921: 58).
One cause of war was the kidnapping and raping of women. A Southern Miwok
informant reported that in the old days they would capture Paiutes, rape the women,
and kill them. Another informant reported he often savw some men capture a woman
from another tribe. Then they would bring her back to the round house where 50-60
men raped her all night and released her the next day (Aginsky 1943: 461).
A major cause of war was trespassing and poaching upon acorn grounds.
Witchcraft and murder were other reasons. The Central Miwok tribes held dances of
incitement and most Miwok tribes held victory dances. The Northern Miwok were
said to take scalps or heads and place scalps on a pole (Aginsky 1943: 434).
The Northern Miwok and Valley Nisenan were both hated enemies of the
Plains Miwok; and only large groups crossed these boundaries (Bennyhoff 1961: 19- 20).
Plains Miwok relations with the Yokuts appear to have been friendly, especially between
the Muqueleme Miwok and the Chilamne Yokuts (Ibid.: 185).
The last remembered fight between the Foothill Nisenan and Plains Miwok
(who could have also been Northern Miwok) occurred around 1847-1850. In this battle
the Plains Miwok attacked the Foothill Nisenan. The reason for the conflict could
have been that the Foothill Nisenan forced their entry into Plains Miwok territory
(Bennyhoff 1961: 140).
Plains Miwok tribelets also fought among themselves, maybe more often than
with foreiga. tribes. "A Miwok tribelet was just as ready to attack another Miwok
71
tribelet as it was to fight a Yokuts or a Nisenan one, and in some cases more so"
(Bennyhoff 1961: 25).
The main reason for fighting was poaching, but wife-stealing and witchcraft
are also reported. Crossing into another tribe's territory without permission caused
war. Sometimes permission to enter another tribelet's territory was given when that
tribelet lacked certain resources.
For the Plains Miwok, Bennyhoff believes that battle were "sportsmanlike
archery contests in which one or two deaths prompted retreat. To reestablish peace,
the victor had to pay for any inbalance in casualities" (Bennyhoff 1961: 15, 19, 25).
Most of the Yokuts tribes, of which there were probably 50, were apparently
amicable among themselves, but they had their differences at times. Kroeber wrote:
"Conflicts between tribes were apparently about as frequent as
with aliens; and with many of their neighbors they were on friendly
and intimate terms. Yokuts were evidently on the whole a peaceable
people"(Kroeber 1925: 497).
"All the Yokuts tribes from the Kaweah River south, except perhaps
the Wowol and Chunut of Tulare Lake, and at least most of the
adjacent Shoshoneans, were friendly and appear to have ranged over
one another's territory amicably and almost at will. The northern
Yokuts were more divided by distrusts and hostilities: definite
intertribal boundaries are known in several cases; and southern
tradition speaks of invading war parties from the north" (Kroeber 1925:
479-480).
The war parties from the north referred to above were probably Chauchila
who of all the Yokuts tribes were considered quite warlike (Latta 1949: 3; Koreber 1925:
485). Fights occurred among tribes of the north as well (Kroeber 1925: 484).
It was stated that Tulare Lake belonged to three warlike Yokuts tribes:
Wowol, Chunut, and Tachi (Kroeber 1925: 483). Hostilities between these three tribes
and other tribes probably resulted because they -may have tried to keep the other Yokuts
from the lake. The Washo around Lake Tahoe came into conflict with other tribes in
their area for this same reason (Lowie 1939: 301). Some tribes not adjacent to Tulare
Lake were, however, granted permission to use it. Gayton wrote that the Choinimni
group from the north bank of the Kings River visited Tulare Lake annually to fish and
hunt, as guests of the Tachi. On the other hand, tribes along the Kings River drainage
were quite friendly, sharing fishing and seed and acorn gathering areas (Gayton 1948b:
143-144).
72
The relations among the Wowol, Chunut, and Tachi were not always friendly
either (Kroeber 1925: 483). One informant stated that theChunut and Wowol were on
bad terms with the Tachi and Nutunutu to the north. Yet in another account the Tachi
were reported as being "on friendly terms with all the groups bordering the lake, but
particularly with the Wowol" (Gayton 1948a: 7, 9). So it was with most of the Yokuts
tribes. Some times a Yokuts tribe was on good terms with all or most of its neighbors
and at other times, a tribe may have only been on favorable terms with one or two
of its neighbors.
As among themselves, the interactions of each Yokuts tribe with its foreign
neighbors varied considerably. Naturally, Yokuts tribes on the borders had more
contact with outsiders than interior Yokuts, simply because of their close proximity
to alien tribes. In one case, the Wobonuch (Western Mono) and Entimbich (Yokuts),
who bordered each other's territory, were on friendlyterms. They fought two other
tribes, the Waksachi (Western Mono) and the Wukehumni (Yokuts), who had the same
intertribal relation (Gayton 1930: 383).
Further to the north near the upper Fresno River, the Chukchansi Yokuts
bordered the Southern Miwok. They were friendly with the Miwok and "had no hesi-
tation in entering their territory" (Kroeber 1925: 481).
With the Paiute from the Sierra who the Yokuts greatly feared, a long-
standing enmity appears to have existed. According to Stewart, "if a small party of
mountain Indians appeared in Yokut territory, they were generally attacked to even up
old scores; but if the party was a large one, there was no fighting unless the invaders
were the aggressors. The Yokuts attacked only small numbers unless forced to
fight" (Stewart 1927: 392).
Yokuts maintained trade with the Western Mono (Monachi) and the Eastern
Mono (Owens Valley Paiute), even though hostilities existed between the Yokuts and
these two Paiute groups. Amicable relations did exist between the Yokuts and
Western Mono after 1860, but only due to pressure from the white man forcing them
intG mutual contact (Gayton 1948b: 143, 159).
Before 1860, relations were reported as being hostile. Lieutenant Estudillo
in 1819 wrote:
"From the people of the interior I learned some particulars of
the people who live on the other side, who, they told me, gather
their harvest of pine nuts and seeds from both sides, but that
they themselves did not go far into the mountains for the inhabitants
were very bad people" (Gayton 1936: 75).
The people Estudillo speaks of are probably both Western and Eastern Mono.
73
Although Gayton thought the "bad people" were just Western Mono (Gayton 1936: 67),
intertribal relations between the Eastern Mono and Yokuts were unfriendly, also.
In a later article, Gayton wrote that:
"... .trade relations between Eastern Mono (Owens Valley Paiute)
east of the Sierra Nevada, and their linguistic relatives and
neighbors of the Yokuts, the Western Mono, were limited tc few
summer weeks when known mountain passes were open to foot
travel. The trans-Sierra visitors, not welcome in Yokuts villages,
rarely ventured alone beyond the Western Mono groups. The
topographic barrier was surmounted, but the weather barrier
could not be, and it presumably served to maintain the strangeness
and hostility between Eastern Mono and Yokuts, which only was
assuaged temporarily and periodically by the presence of the
mutually acculturated intermediaries, the Western Mono" (Gayton 1946:
258-259).
A war between the Yokuts and Eastern Mono was recounted by an informant
which took place before she was born.
"Long ago (before E. M. was born) a number of Yokuts people from
the Chukchansi, Kechayi, and Gashowu tribes were camping east of
Friant. They had all gone there for acorn-gathering. It was the
general practice that the men, immediately after the morning meal,
went out to shake down the acorns. Leaving these to be collected by
the women, they then went off for the day to hunt or fish. Toward
sundown they returned and helped the women crack the nuts.
"Now some Monachi (Eastern Mono) had come over the mountains:
their chief had told them to 'go over and kill those people like birds.'
While the Yokuts men were away, the Monachi surrounded the women's
camp. One man came closer to spy. He saw the women cracking
the acorns with their teeth and thought they were eating. He went
back and reported this. Several times he came close to spy and each
time say the women putting the nuts to their mouths: he 'thought they
just ate all day long. '
"Next morning the Yokuts men went out very early to knock down
more acorns. They found a series of stakes, with feather bunches
(so nil) tied to their tops, which had been set up by the Monachi.
They knew the Monachi were near by, so they returned to camp and
sent the women off. The women fled across the river (San Joaquin),
leaving everything behind. The men went in pursuit of the Monachi.
Their camp was located, and the Monachi were found asleep. Rushing
in, the Yokuts killed all of them, save one man who smeared himself
with his comrades' blood and pretended he was dead. Later on
this man went back to his village and reported ewvents to his chief.
The chief was very angry; he determined on revenge.
"Soon after that a Yokuts was working for a white man and was
sent up into the mountains with some hogs. Some Monachi
lurking about on this side of the ridge saw him; they came down
to him and asked him who he was. When it was time for the Yokuts
man to return to the valley, his employer warned him not to make
the trip alone. But the man was anxious to get back home and went
anyway. The Monachi were ambushed along the way and killed
the man and his horse" (Gayton 1948b: 159-160).
That trade was carried on with hostile neighbors seems quite odd, but the
trade relations were for the "mutual benefit" of each group. The direction of trade
seems to have been east to west. The Yokuts reportedly never went to the east
side of the Sierras; and the valley Yokuts traveled west to the coast (Gayton 1948b:
2, 160).
The Yauelmani Yokuts lived on the southern edge of Yokuts territory. They
reportedly once had a fight with a Mohave war party who invaded their territory and
killed some women. The Yauelmani hired some neighbors and drove the Mohave out
(Driver 1937: 134).
A myth of the Yaudanchi Yokuts tells of a fight between them and probably the
Tubatulabal (or Pitanisha). Another Yaudanchi myth is about a war between the
foothill and plains people (Kroeber 1907: 221,223). The Yaudanchi bordered on
Tubatulabal territory which could account for conflicts between the two tribes.
The Yokuts carried on trade relations w ith the Salinan and/or Chumash.
The Wowol obtained shells from the Tokya (Salinan) (Gayton 1948a: 7). One informant
believed the Yokuts went out to the coast rather than the coast people coming inland
(Gayton 1948a: 9). The was generally the case, but reciprocal visits are not
unheard of. Another informant, a Yowlumne Yokuts, told of the trails taken to trade
with the inhabitants on the coast (Latta 1949: 67-68).
One incident of hostility between the Yokuts and either the Chumash or
Salinan is r eported. Here is the account with a forward by Gayton:
"A shaman's raiding party. -- The tribes lving on the Pacific Coast
were known to the Wobonuch as the Tolkya. The Tokya are properly the
Chumash or Salinan, but both M. J. and G. D. placed them at Monterey.
Certainly they were known to the upland Western Mono only by hearsay,
and the following story of an event which took place in the youth of G. D. 's
grandfather can scarcely be accepted at its face value. An encounter
75
undoubtedly occurred, but the length and motivation of the raiding
party's trip as stated is scarcely credible. One suspects that
tales of mission raids for converts may lhave generated the explan-
ation of the stranger's presence in the foothills, for the time was
probably in the first quarter of the nineteenth century. The account
follows as given by M. J., G. D. interpreting.
"Mutulu was a bit shaman from the Tokya. He had a lot of
companions who also had much supernatural power. Every year they
would come over to get young girls. One year Mutulu brought his men
over as far as lower Mill Creek where the Choinimni lived. They
picked up all the nubile girls, no matter how hard the people fought,
and went on to the next village and did the same. They took all the
girls back to the coast. The next year they came up as far as the
Waksachi, and the year after that to the Michahai, Entimbich, and
Wobonuch. They came right up to Ko'onikwe.
"The people there had been warned of their approach. The girls
were all taken off and hidden far from camp. Supana and Wilolohi were
young men then. Supana conferred with the old people in the village
and discussed whether or not to have an open fight. The men replied
that, if Mululu and his companions were backed by more supernatural
power than themselves, 'they'd die anyway and if they could manage
to kill him it would be good riddance. ' So they decided to try. When
the Tokya shaman came, followed by his men and the girls they had
collected, he walked up to Supana, who was standing out to meet him,
and said, 'We want girls. ' Supana told him to get out, but Mutulu
replied, 'No, we'll have war first.'
"The Wobonuch had planned just what to do. They suddenly jumped
on all the intruders. Supana, Wilolohi, and a third man seized
Mutulu and held him while another man shot at him. They they
'threw him down and broke his neck, they cut his throat and threw
his head away off. ' And far over there they heard the head say, 'It's
a good thing you killed me. I've been doing this just for meanness.'
"Supana then told the men from the coast to go back at once and
tell their own chief what had happened and, if they did not go, the
Wobonuch would drive them out. After they went the girls came out
of hiding. Many of the girls who had been captured were returned to
their homes, but some stayed right there (at Ko'onikwe) from preference"
(Gayton 1948b: 259).
Fighting among Yokuts tribes was caused by suspicion of witchcraft, revenge
for murder, squabbles between women over seed-areas, killing of women (probably
raped before killed), and quarrels in general. "Sometimes arguments between women
did grow into family feuds, which the chief attempted to control by council" (Gayton
1948b: 160). Often the chief settled quarrels between individuals or families involving
serious injury or death (Gayton 1930: 381).
Trespassing among themselves does not appear to be a reason for hostilities
as it was among most California tribes. Gayton writes:
"Adjacent tribes between whom relations were friendly often
asked permission to come onto each other's territory to obtain
food if there was ashortage within their own bounds. The pro-
perty sense in regard to land was so undeveloped that there was
little formality regarding such invasions, and they rarely if
ever resulted in hostilities" (Gayton 1930: 365).
"Generally members of a village moved about as they pleased...
On moving into another village or camping in its vicinity, the
chief of that place was notified by the customary call. Persons
who camped without advising a chief in the neighborhood of their
business were open to suspicion " (Gayton 1930: 381).
Conflicts with outside groups were caused by some of the same reasons already
mentioned. Although among themselves trespassing was not amajor reason for hostilities
trespassing or invasion by foreign groups resulted in fighting. A traditional enmity
existed between the Yokuts and the Western Mono. The original reason for this enmity
was probably invasion of Yokuts territory by the Mono. After that, the fact that they
were traditional enemies was enough to cause conflicts.
Quite often battles were prearranged. At other times, ambushes involving
only a few men occurred (Gayton 1948b: 176). As for another technique in a war, the
Yauelmani and possibly the Paleuyami Yokuts hired neighboring tribes (Driver 1937:
94). For Yokuts of Valley speech on the San Joaquin River, fighting was preceded by
a dance of incitement (Aginsky 1943: 434). Dances of incitement were also reported
among the Plaeuyami Yokuts (Driver 1937: 94).
A Chunut Yokuts informant, J. A., gave her account of warfare:
"There was no war chief, nor did an ordinary chief take any special
part in battles, though the account secured by Newman indicated the
contrary. Any brave man, particularly one with Raven (ho' toi) as a
supernatural helper, would lead war expeditions. Rarely were more
than two or three persons killed. J. A. thinks the bodies remained
unburied (which seems unlikely unless the losers were completely
routed). She disclaims knowledge of motives of war" (Gayton 1948a: 9).
An informant of another Yokuts tribe described warfare among tribes in his
77
area:
"B. 0. stated that the Wechihit, Choinimni, and Hoshima
(Northerners in general) would come over jointly to fight the
allied WVaksachi and Wukchumni. These fights were rare and
were tactically simple; they were called una' na pi 'dikan.
There were no special officers of war, but certain brave men would
be acknowledged leaders on these occasions. The leader stood
back and directed the fighting while the opposing warriors lined
up, each man shooting at the one directly opposite. Bows and
arrows were the only weapons; no spear or shield was used. There
was no waiting for a dream or omen before going into conflict. The
causes of these hostile interludes are obscure'"' (Gayton 1948b: 215).
There are discrepancies in the record concerning post-battle activity. An
informant for Gayton said that shamans were "sought out as victims in battle; and
vengeance was wreaked by flaying and impaling their corpses. Head-taking was prac-
ticed as well as flaying" (Gayton 1948a: 9).
According to the data collected by Driver, scalps and head-taking was not
practiced by the Yokuts; however, a Yauelmani quoted his stepfather as saying that a
hand may have been cut off and taken home as a trophy. Also, for the Yauelmani
Yokuts, a hand on a pole was reported. From this same data, victory dances only took
place among the Yauelmani and the Paleuyami Yokuts, but a Yauelmani informant
denied this existed for the Yauelmani (Driver 1937: 94, 134-135).
Kroeber, on the other hand, wrote:
"It has been said that they did not scalp. As an absolute
statement, this is surely incorrect, for a myth tells how the
prairie falcon after a battle hung the hair of his slain foes on
trees, where it can be seen to-day as moss. But this is certainly
a strange use to which to put trophies, and one arguing a lack of the
usual Indian sense of such matters. There also appears to be no
record of any Yokuts scalp celebration or victory dance. It -can
accordingly be concluded that scalping customs were of relatively
little moment in Yokuts life"i (Kroeber 1925: 497).
Aginsky also recorded that no victory dance or scalp on a pole occurred among the
Yokuts (Aginsky 1943: 434).
Although these discrepancies exist, what matters is that scalping and victory
dances or war, for that matter, did not play a large part in the everyday world view of
the Yokuts.
Most of the material on the Western Mono (Monachi) has already been pre-
sented with the Yokuts. Only a few things need to be added. Powers described the
Western Mono as warlike and that they "were anciently a great terror to the Yokuts...
Many years ago -- it is impossible to ascertain how long ago -- they came over from
Owen's River Valley, and conquered for themselves a territory on the upper reaches
of the San Joaquin and King's River, .. (Powers 1877:397).
Although there were hostilities between the Yokuts and Western Mono, the
latter served as middlemen in trading between the Yokuts and Eastern Mono. The
Western Mono were very close with the Eastern Mono, their cultural kin. Of the
Northfork Mono (Western Mono around the Northfork of the San Joaquin River,
Gifford wrote:
"Some Northfork Mono crossed the Sierra Nevada into Eastern
Mono territory to gather pinenuts, sometimes remaining a year or
two. People from a number of villages traveled together in the
trip to Owens valley, always in summer, on account of the deep
winter snows" (Gifford 1932: 19).
The Western Mono probably were on friendly terms with the Southern Miwok,
visiting them at Yosemite Valley in the summer (Barrett & Gifford 1933: 256). Inter-
tribal relations with the Tubatulabal are not mentioned in the literature. TIe re was
also fighting among themselves and combination Yokuts and Mono fighting against
Yokuts and Mono or just Mono tribes (Gayton 1930: 383; Driver 1937: 134).
The following is a quote from Steward about what Owens Valley Paiute
(Eastern Mono) informants said on warfare and tribal relations. The initials are
those of the informants.
"AC thought all Indians had formerly been at peace with one
another. GR had heard only of wars with Indians west of the
Sierra and thought the battles had been fought by Paiute who
crossed the mountains. TS recounted only a single minor local
engagement with a small party of invaders from the south.
Paiute bands did not fight with one another or with Shoshoni.
Conflicts over pinenut areas were brief and never involved
weapons more dangerous than the sling, which did little damage"
(Steward 1938a: 55).
Another informant, Panatubiji, related one conflict between Owens Valley
Paiute and Tubatulabal, who came to raid Paiute villages. Two invaders stayed
behind to hunt rabbits. One left, being forewarned by a supernatural power; the
other was killed for revenge bya Paiute war party formed from different villages.
79
Panatubiji and several other men made a trading visit to the Western Mono
about this time and then participated in a deer drive below Owens Lake into Monachi
territory (Steward 1938b: 188).
In addition to the Owens Valley Paiute trading with Western Mono, Mono
Lake Paiute traded with Miwok who made reciprocal visits (Steward 1933: 258).
Steward summarized warfare of the Owens Valley Paiute as follows:
"Fights between Paiute bands were rare, amounting only to rock
throwing -- slings sometimes used -- during squabbles over food
territory. Relations with Shoshoni were generally peaceful.
Chalfant recounts a foray against 'Diggers' (Western Mono?).
District head men were war leaders upon occasion.
."War paint and dances were denied. Scalping was not usual.
T. S. says the scalp -- i. e. all of the hair -- of a 'Digger' chief,
Pohoiwic, was brought back by a war party for exhibition, then
thrown away" (Ibid.: 306).
Disputes were settled by head men, if possible. Fear of
witchcraft aided pacific settlement. Disputes between members
of different districts were sometimes handled by head men" (Ibid.: 305).
Kroeber and Voegelin sum up Tubatulabal intertribal relations and warfare
fairly well. Kroeber stated:
"The Tubatulabal are the people upon whom in particular has been
fostered the slander, or the undeserved reputation, of issuing in
warlike mood from the highland fastness and raiding the sluggish,
peaceable Yokuts of the plains, dispossessing these, indeed, until
the southernmost Yokuts were almost separated from the main body
to the north. The story even goes on to picture how they could have
seized the entire Tulare Basin had they not become enervated by
malaria -- somewhat as Greek and Latin civilization perished before
the same disease, according to a more recent and famous fancy. Even
the fact that the Tubatulabal were all found living in the mountains
when the white man came is explained: the same scourge drove them
back to the salubrious hills whence they had emerged, and utilized
their conquests only for an annual or occasional visit" (Kroeber 1925:
605-606).
"As a matter of fact, the visits took place; but they were the visits
of guests. The southern Yokuts tribes, both of the plains and of the
foothills, were generally quite thoroughly friendly, and joined one
80
another in their respective territories to such an extent,
according to the season of the year, that it is almost
impossible to assign an exact habitat to any of them. The
Tubatulabal, in spite of their separateness of origin and
speech, were also in the main on amicable terms with these
Yokuts tribes; and so came to join them in their little migra-
tions. Just as they came down to Bakersfield, to Kern Lake,
and to White River, probably even to Tejon and San Emigdio,
the Yokuts, as occasion warranted, ascended the Kern for miles
to fish, and to its forks, the center of the Tubatulabal home,
to visit.
"The entire little pseudo -history rests neither upon evidence
nor even native tradition, but is solely an immagination developed
from a knowledge of the facts that the Tubatulabal are Shoshoneans
and that eastern tribes are often more aggressive than those of the
Pacific coast area.
"Of course the amity between Yokuts and Tubatulabal suffered
intermissions. But the Yokuts tribes fell out among each other
also, now and then; and the relations do not seem to have been
different in more than moderate measure" (Kroeber 1925: 606).
Voegelin, on the other hand, believes the Tubatulabal fought more than
Kroeber suggests and gives a more detailed picture of relations with outside groups.
"Although Tubatulabal were probably, as Kroeber points out
(Handbook, 605- 606), not markedly aggressive group, never-
theless they engaged in hostilities with neighboring tribes to
greater extent that did, for example, their Shoshonean neighbors,
Owens Valley Paiute (Steward, 1938, 306). Various central
Yokuts groups made raids into Tubatulabal territory, which were
followed by reprisals on part of Tubatulabal. 'The Kawaiisu used
to go and fight with the Tejon people (s. Yokuts), but the Tubatulabal
never did. ' Although SIM, FP said that to their knowledge relations
with Koso and Kawaiisu had always been friendly, Tubatulabal even
engaging Koso as allies during war with Yokuts (below), FM said he
had been told by 'Little Bill; Chico that Tubatulabal ' often fought with
the Kawalisu, who had no friends, and with the Koso; the Tubatulabal
and the Koso once had a big fight at Walker's pass.' FC had picked up
arrowheads on a battlefield on Nichols peak, which lies on border of
Tubatulabal-Kawaiisu areas. As among most California tribes, wars
did not last long, nor were fatalities heavy.
"Motives. -- Motives for making war of usual variety (Kroeber,
Handbook, 843), except witchcraft not mentioned by informants. Not
81
every quarrel led to war; when Tubatulabal on one occasion
broke formation at communal antelope drive and Yokuts killed
some of Tubatulabal taking part in drive, revengeful actions
by their hosts did not lead to Tubatulabal-Yokuts war; 'the
Kawaiisu, Tubatulabal, Tejon, and Ventura people who were
taking part in the drive just went home right away, and the
Tubatulabal didn't keep fighting with the Yokuts because of
this' (SM). On the other hand, theft of seeds from women by
strangers might promulgate series of intertribal raids" (Voegelin
1938: 49).
Voegelin also gave two accounts of actual fighting which occurred between
Tubatulabal and Yokuts. In the first, a Tubatulabal man killed a Yokuts man who
had stolen seeds from his wife; the Yokuts' relatives raided the Tubatulabal and
killed six women, which led to a confrontation between the two tribes in which they
"settled up." In the second account, Yokuts had been killing Tubatulabal women and
taking their beads from them, and finally a group of Tubatulabal men attacked the
raiding Yokuts and fought with them all afternoon, eventually chasing them off
(Voegelin 1938: 50).
According to the record, the Tubatulabal took no prisoners and no scalps,
nor did they hold dances for incitement or victory. One informant mentioned that a
"round dance" was sometimes given by the chief prior to a battle, with war songs
performed for the dancers, but such a dance was not held in the event of a retalitory
war (Ibid.: 49-50).
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRIBES
Specific information on many of the tribes along the Southern California
coast below the Chumash and in the adjacent interior is rather sparse. In most cases
there is no information as to which tribes were friends and which were enemies.
Even so, a general idea of how they might have interacted can be inferred.
Practically the only detailed account of the Indians on the coast comes from
Father Boscana at Mission San Juan Capistrano between 1812-1826. Boscana describes
the battles of these Indians as being frequent
"...and often declared from the most trivial causes.. . War was never
waged by them for conquest, but for revenge; and in many cases
for some affront given to their ancestors, which had remained
unavenged. Their quarrels and disputes arose from trivial
motives... Also, when a chief neglected to return the customary
present at their festivities, of which I have before treated, war
was declared, and without even giving him notice. Again, if an
Indian of one place stole anything from one of another place,
although it might be so trifling a thing as a rabbit, a squirrel,
or, ornament of some kind, it was sufficient among them to cause
a war.
"Whenever a captain determined to make war upon another chief,
he called together the puplem, and revealed to them his desire to
made war upon such a town, for reasons which he explained, and
it was discussed by the body, whether they were sufficient to them-
selves to conquer. If sensible of their inferiority, some other
friendly tribes were invited to join with them, to whom they sent
presents of as costly a kind as their treasury would admit...
"When celebrating their grand feasts, it was customary to expose
in public the scalps taken in war; and for this purpose they were
suspended from a high pole . . " (Boscana, in Robinson 1846: 306-309).
According to Kroeber, the Indians around San Juan Capistrano were Juaneno
but he says that a large part of Boscana's information was about the Gabrielino who
were also at the mission. On Juaneno warfare, Kroeber quotes and paraphrases
Boscana, so possibly the warfare patterns mentioned by Boscana were for the Juaneno
(Kroeber 1925: 647).
In a more recent article, however, Bernice Johnston applies Boscana's in-
formation on warfare to the Gabrielino (Johnston 1962: 25). More than likely the war-
fare practices of each group were quite similar so the Boscana had no reason to dif-
ferentiate between the two groups. At any rate, an idea of warfare practices and how
tribes or groups in the area interacted with each other can be gained from Boscana.
83
After a battle, the victors killed the wounded of the defeated group who
were left behind on the field. Women and children were taken as slaves while male
prisoners were decapitated. Wars were decided by council action and were fought
purely for revenge. The process of avenging could take generations to complete
satisfactorily, since a council proclaimed war only if sufficient means had been
gathered to insure a victory. The slights which created hostility were the failure to
reciprocate gifts, the theft of goods or women, and witchcraft (Johnston 1962: 25).
For Gabrielino warfare, Johnston also quoted a paragraph by Hugo Reid
describing a war of songs between two families. These two families once lived at
San Bernardino but were moved separately to Missions San Gabriel and San Juan
Capistrano, where they continued their verbal war (Technically speaking, Kroeber
placed San Bernardino in Serrano territory, but the two families could have been
Gabrielino since the division between Serrano and Gabrielino is so near San Bernar-
dino). The "song fight" lasts eight days and according to Reid, "animosity between
persons or families was of long duration particularly between those of different tribes"
(Reid, in Johnston 1962: 26). Song wars or enemy songs are also reported for the
Cahuilla.
Intertribal relations among the Luiseno bands were quite interesting. Accord-
ing to Sparkman, the Luiseno lived in the San Luis Rey Valley, on Mount Palomar
during the acorn harvest, and migrated to the coast in winter.
"Each band seems to have guarded its allotted territory with
the greatest jealousy, and more quarrels are said to have arisen
over trespassing than from all other causes combined. When
questioned as to when or how the land was divided and subdivided,
the Indians say they cannot tell, that their fathers told them that
it always had been thus. Many of the older ones remember how
they were cautioned when young never to trespass on the land of
others in pursuit of game or food without permission. Yet
occasionally a band would become dissatisfied with its habitat,
and forcibly intrude itself into that of another. An instance of
this took place so recently as still to be remembered and spoken
of" (Sparkman 1908: 191).
Below the Luiseno were the Diegueno. Longinos Martinez reported that
"in the vicinity of San Diego they are warlike and proud, and are to be feared because
of their treachery" (Simpson 1961: 59). K roeber wrote that in their attitude to the
missionaries, the Diegueno were unlike the "passiveness" of the other California
Indians. "Not especially formidable as foes, they at least did not shrink from warlike
attempts." A month after its founding, the Diegueno attacked the mission at San
Diego; and seven years later, they attacked, burned, and killed three Spaniards, one
of whom was a priest (Kroeber 1925: 711).
84
On the Cupeno, Kroeber wrote:
"They represent a southernly advance guard which was crowded
back into intimacy with its congeners by an expansion of the Diegueno.
In either event, relations with the Diegueno appear to have been an
important factor in Cupeno tribal history" (Kroeber 1925: 690).
Koreber does not say just what these relations were.
For the Kamia, the only mention of any kind of tribal interaction was with
the Mohave. The Mohave distinguished between the Kamia and the foreign or strange
Kamia awhe.
"Kamia awhe they identify with the Diegueno, state that they did not
farm, but ate snakes and other strange foods, and place them in
the mountains that run south of San Jacinto Peak. Alone of all the
Yuman tribes, they did not travel or visit -- hence their name as
foreign people; and captive women from them made no attempts to
escape" (Kroeber 1925: 724).
For the Cahuilla, information on tribal relations comes from an ethnography
by Lucile Hooper. In the section on war she states:
"The Cahuilla, like most of the California Indians, have been a
very peaceful people. Their main troubles were between villages,
and were caused by boundary disputes. Each village had definite
boundaries, within which the inhabitants lived, hunted, and gathered
mesquite and other food products. Food was very scarce in the old
days and any infringement of one group on the land of the adjacent
group was considered grounds for enmity and often subsequent war.
"Long ago, there was a clan or village called Simotakiktem about
six miles south of Agua Caliente. There was one man in the clan
who caused a great deal of trouble for the surrounding groups. So
these got together and decided to make war on the entire group. Wlhen
the Simotakiktem say the other Cahuilla coming, they hid in a big
round rock which was just like a room and had a stone door. The
Cahuilla surrounded them, forced the door, and threw firebrands inside,
and then closed the door. They were all suffocated.
"There was a village by the name of Sewekiktem. The people there
were very wicked. Once, while they were in the big-house, the
Cahuilla surrounded them and killed them all" (Hooper 1920: 355-356).
She mentioned that the war tales she related may have been mythical.
85
The use of enemy songs are also recorded for the Cahuilla. According to
Hooper, at fiestas claps sang certain songs to other clans who were their enemies.
Hooper believes this custom probably began with real troubles. After some years
the actual incident had been forgotten, yet the descendants still sang these songs.
The purpose of these songs was to show the other clan that their secret name was
known. Sometimes fighting broke out among the women as a result of these songs.
The following are a few songs:
1. His food gave out, his water gave out,
Leave him now, go away from him:
Isilwelnet (enemy name)
(Repeated as many times as desired).
2. Bury him now, plant him now:
And then they buried him, and then they planted him:
Pehuetematewilwish.
3. There stands the whirlwind, there stands the whirlwind,
Where they burned him, where they burned him:
Puechueulchalmalmia.
4. In the middle of the desert land,
Lying on his back,
Lying on his stomach:
Tamiotingish.
5. They are coming back again,
They are coming back again,
Those moon-eaters and sun-eaters,
Those moon-eaters and sun-eaters.
(Hooper 1920: 345)
There are few references to conflicts with outside groups. According to
one recollection of pre-white times, the three Palms Springs Cahuilla clans "went
together to fight with a desert group that had trespassed upon their food-gathering
territories" (Strong 1929: 103). The "desert group" was unidentified. Other
accounts of Cahuilla warfare describedbattleswhich occurred after white settlement.
One was a battle between the Cahuilla and the Luiseno in 1847 at Aguanga, in which
the Luiseno were defeated. The reason for this battle was due to Caucasian influence,
but possibly an old emmity was an underlying factor. Evidence for this is lacking,
however.
In examining this last battle, Strong wrote that "exactly what the facts were
86
is hard to determine at this late date, and is a problem historical rather than ethno-
logical" (Strong 1929: 149). At this time the U. S. -Mexican War was then taking place.
Evidently the Cahuilla sided with the Mexicans, and the Luiseno sided with the
Americans. This situation between the two tribes casued the fight.
Another war in historic times is reported between the Mohave and the
Chemehuevi. Since this occurred after contact, Caucasians could have disrupted the
patterns of these two tribes, causing friction between the two who were formerly
friendly to each other. Kroeber, however, believes that the conflict occurred with-
out influence from the white man.
"The Chemehuevi are one of the very few Californian groups that
have partly altered their location in the historic period, and
that without pressure from the white man. Their shifts emanated
in disturbances of the still more mobile and more compact Yuman
tribes on whom they border.. ." (Kroeber 1925: 593-595).
Kroeber continued with an account of the Chemehuevi movement into land that the
Mohave had cleared of its owners, and the subsequent removal of them by the Mohave.
The interactions between these two tribes will be discussed later.
Further information on this war comes from the Cahuilla and the Mohave.
"The Cahuilla state that these Indians (Chemehuevi) did not formerly
lived at Twenty-nine Palms, but to the east near the Mohave, and that
when they fought that tribe many years, ago, they were defeated and
fled to this place. This statement corresponds with a q':otation made
by Dr. Barrows from an Indian Office report, according to which a
number of Chemehuevi had in 1867 fled from their enemies, the Mohave,
across the desert into Cahuilla territory. Mohave accounts also tell
of this war about this time with the tribe with which they had previously
maintained friendly relations" (Kroeber 1908b: 37).
Apparently after their defeat,_ the Chemehuevi went to "their friends the Cahuilla
living just below Palm Springs" (Woodward 1953: 64-67) .
The Serrano groups are composed of the Kitanemuk, Alliklik, Vanyume,
and Serrano proper. Information on their intratribal relations could not be found;
and the intertribal relations of each group varied.
Kroeber wrote:
"The Mohave or 'Amahaba' of the Colorado River were known as
'muy bravos' and were welcome guests among the Kitanemuk,
87
penetrating even to the Yokuts, Alliklik, and perhaps Chumash.
They came to visit and trade. It is characteristic that the local
tribes never attempted to reciprocate. Their range was not
as confined as that of the northern Californians, but they still
had no stomach forlong journeys to remote places inhabited
by strange people. The Mohave refer to the Tehachapi-Tejon
region in their myths; it is not known and not likely that the
Kitanemuk traveled as far as the sacred mountains of the
Mohave even in imagination" (Kroeber 1925: 612).
The Vanyume were the Serrano of the Mohave River. Of them, Kroeber
wrote that "the Mohave and Chemehuevi were at times friendly to the Vanyume, but
hostile to the Serrano of the San Bernardino Range" (Ibid: 614).
Most intertribal relations for the Kawaiisu appear amicable. One Kawaiisu
informant denied that warfare existed (Driver 1937: 135). Kroeber wrote:
"An offshoot of no great antiquity, apparently, from the Chemehuevi,
the Kawaiisu have become differentiated from the parent body as
a result of a new setting. They lived in the Tehachapi Mountains,
and therefore half across the watershed that separates the great
valley of California from the undrained Great Basin. Behind them
remained the westernmost of the Chemehuevi; and nominally the
two bodies were in contiguity. Actually, however, the Chemehuevi
tract in question was perhaps the least frequented of all the barren
lands of that people; and the Kawaiisu had more to gain by clinging
to the timbered and watered slopes of their mountains than by wandering
among the rare vegetation and dry soda lakes of the desert.
Intercourse between the two groups was therefore probably not
specially active.
"On the other side of the crest, however, the Kawaissu were pressed
close against a variety of neighbors. In the plains below them were
the Yauelmani, and beyond them otherYokuts tribes. Relations
with these seem to have been friendly, and intermarriages took place.
"On both sides were Shoshoneans, but of quite distinct history and
speech; to the north the Tubatulabal of Kern River, to the south the
Serrano Kitanemuk; and a journey of less than a day led into
Chumash territory" (Kroeber 1925: 601).
Even though relations between the Kawaiisu and other tribes were apparently
friendly, in one conflict that was reported, the Panamint Shoshone fought the Kawaiisu
because of women stealing (Steward 1941: 255).
Intertribal relations for the Panamint Shoshone were not specifically given,
88
but on the whole warfare does not seem important. A fight between the Panamint
and Kawaiisu was mentioned above.
The Kuhwiji are a Shoshone band around Little Lake and the Koso Mountains.
One informant thought they fought with no one. In a brief account, "he recalled but
one fight, when some people from far south invaded the country. The fight occurred
at Coso Hot Springs. The invaders were all killed" (Steward 1938a: 83).
Likewise, warfare for the Northern Death Valley Shoshone was not important.
Another informant related that
"Sigai women picking sunflower seeds in upper Panamint Valley
saw strangers. The next morning Sigai men pursued them into a
dry cave and killed them. The identity of the invaders and the
final disposal of them was unknown" (Steward 1938a: 91).
Although these accounts are vague as to the identity of the other tribes
involved, trespassing and women stealing seem to be reasons for fighting. In talldng
about the Nevada Shoshone which included the Panamint Valley people, Steward said
that "causes of strife seem most often to have been woman stealing" (Steward 1941:
255).
89
THE COLORADO RIVER TRIBES
For the Mohave, warfare was described as being an "obsession" (Stewart
1947: 257). This tribe, along with the Yuma and the'other smaller tribes along the
Colorado River in the southeast corner of the state were unlike other groups in
California in that their social structure was geared to warfare. They were also
different in that they were agriculture-based societies in which women were able to
contribute substantially to the main part of subsistence activity. Economically,
this made these people independent of hunting and gathering cycles, and created free
time (Forde 1931: 162). Agriculture also lessened the need to trade, making these
tribes less dependent upon their neighbors than other California Indians (Kroeber
1925: 727). On the other hand, Mohave and Yuma agriculture was dependent upon
the flooding of the Colorado River which fluctuated (White 1974: 116; Ives 1861: 73).
When crops failed, gathering had to be done and alliances with neighboring groups
allowed a greater range of subsistence activity; at the same time warfare with weaker
tribes had the effect of displacing them from areas of potential food resources in what
White (1974: 119-122) called "competitive exclusion." As with the rest of California
the poorer tribes may have attacked the wealthier ones for food.
The reasons given for Yuman warfare were different from those given by
informants from the rest of California; beign the retaliation of past raids and for
glory (Kroeber 1925: 843). Warfare had a "spiritual" nature (Forde 1931: 162).
It did not gain overt economic aspects until the Spanish introduced the horse, which
became such a dominant factor in warfare that raids were made to take horses and
to take captives to trade for horses (Dobyns 1957: 48-49). Yuman warfare, like
the subsistance pattern, showed characteristics from areas outside California: some
of the ritual aspects and decorations came from the Plains Indians and the method of
scalping came from the Southwest (Forde 1931: 174-175).
The presence of the whites began early in this area, so that white influence
on the native way of life and the original intertribal relationships is difficult to
determine. The earliest source consulted was a military report to the Senate from
1861, which was well after the Spanish had come into contact with the Yumans, and
later sources contain evidence of further influence by the Americans. The land
farmed by the Mohave and the Yuma was not in great demand after the first settlers
because the Colorado River was too unpredictable, but while the Yumans did not lose
all their fields to the whites, their water supply was made even more unpredictable
by white irrigation which reduced the flow of the river from upstream (Wite 1974:116).
As mentioned, the economic raiding for horses arose from white contact,
and in addition the shifting of tribes, due to white pressure, disturbed the relationships
between neighbors (Dixon 1907: 92). Discrepancies arose in the testimony of inform-
ants presented in the texts because the original warfare pattern had never been observed
90
by them. There is no way to tell how much of the ritual involved in warfare was
native and how much was adapted from the whites.
It appears that warfare occurred between traditional enemies with the
smaller tribes in between being involved in minor skirmishes (Kroeber 1925: 596),
such as the raids staged by the Paiutes on Mohave fields and the retaliations by the
Mohave (Woodward 1953: 65). The Mohave, aided by the Yuma, were chronically
hostile to the Cocopa, and the Yuma, with the Mohave, were chronically hostile to
the Maricopa and their Pima Allies (Stewart 1947: 135). Russell (1908: 38-46)
described in detail a series of hostilities between the Yuma-Mohave and the Maricopa.
The last big battle between these traditional enemies occurred in either
1857 (Kroeber and Kroeber 1973: 97) or 1858 (White 1974: 125) with the Mohave,
Yuma, and their allies being decisively beaten at Maricopa Wells by the Pima,
Maricopa and their allies. Kroeber and Kroeber (1973: 97) said it was the "last of
a ritualistic exchange of formal raids that had been going on for generations. " The
Mohave lost 60 of their 200 men, and the Yuman 80 of their 82 men (White 1974:
125). The Pima and the Maricopa were more successful as farmers; they used the
Gila River for their water supply, which was more dependable than the Colorado,
and in addition the Pima practiced irrigation rather than the flood water farming d
the Mohave and the Yuma (Ibid.: 117). At the time of the battle, the U. S. military
reported that the Mohave were starving while the Pima had a large agricultural
surplus which they sold to the whites (Ibid.: 125).
In 1857 the first white settlers took the home valley of the Mohave and the
tribe divided into smaller groups to farm the remaining lands. White encroachment
upon the land and the water supply, the subsequent introduction of the horse which
allowed greater mobility, and the division of the tribe into smaller, less militarily
powerful groups intensified the chronic hostilities and turned neutral tribes into
potential threats.
A report of 1861 stated that both the Mohave and the Yuma were friendly
to the Chemehuevi (Ives 1861: 72). The Mohave allowed the Chemehuevi, who were
under pressure from the whites (although there is some doubt as to this fact, accord-
ing to Kroeber (1925: 593-595)) , move into the area along the Colorado River low-
lands from which the Mohave had driven the smaller prior inhabitants (Dixon 1907: 3).
The loss of the Mohave home valley made the presence of the Chemehuevi a threat to
the Mohave food supply in the other valley. After Fort Mohave was built, and liquor
was brought to the Indians, drunken brawling resulted, and the friendly pattern of
interaction was disrupted (Stewart 1947: 258). In 1864 the Chemehuevi killed a
Mohave woman which was retaliated by the death of a Chemehuevi man by the Mohave;
later 100 Mohave marched up the Colorado River to the south end of Chemehuevi
Valley, killed one Chemehuevi and lost one of their own warriors in an attack which
ended in a tenuous peace agreement that lasted two years or so (Kroeber and K roeber
1973: 19). The former allies had become enemies and fought an indecisive long war
91
over possession of a valley which they both inhabited (Kroeber 1925: 726).
In 1866 the Chemehuevi attacked, killing five Mohave and wounding two boys,
and while the Mohave sent for help to Fort Mohave, 50 more Chemehuevi attacked,
wounding a Mohave woman, until they were driven off by Mohave reinforcements
(Kroeber and Kroeber 1973: 39-43). Finally, the Mohave drove the Chemehuevi
completely from the Colorado River lowlands and back into the desert (Kroeber 1925:
727).
In a more documented source, the war is dated 1865, based on newspaper
accounts from that time. According to this source, the Mohave fought and defeated
the Chemehuevi in September, 1865, then fought the Paiute and were defeated by them
(Woodward 1953: 65). The Mohave fought the Chemehuevi first so that they would
not have to deal with them at the same time that theyr were feuding with the Paiutes.
However, in 1866, the Chemehuevi allied with some Paiutes fought with the Mohave
(Ibid.: 67). The basis for hostilities with the Paiutes was probably the robbing of
Mohave fields.
The Chemehuevi moved out of Chemehuevi Valley to Parker, Arizona
(Kroeber and Kroeber 1973: 43). While this action did not end the emnity between the
two tribes, it eased the tension because the Parker area was rich land and the
Chemehuevi were content to stay there. However, from 1867 - 1869, Superintendent
George Dent of the Colorado Riber Reservation brought many of the Chemehuevi back
into Mohave lands in order that they might be budgeted for government food; this, of
course, created tension between the two tribes, to such a degree that the Mohave began
peace negotiations with their traditional enemies, the Maricopa, in an attempt to move
to more fertile lands along the Gila River (Kroeber and Kroeber 1973: 87-88).
Devereaux (1951: 36-37) recounted a Mohave informant's story of this period of
negotiation with the whites and other Indian tribes in this area.  Before the move
occurred, a Chemehuevi was killed near Fort Mohave on the crowded reservation land,
and his tribe staged a retalitory attack on a Mohave settlement in which "many" Mohave
and 3 Chemehuevi were killed on October 15, 1870 (Ibid.: 44-45).
Warfare between traditional enemies consisted of small-party raids by
young men wanting prestige (Fathauer 1954: 111), and of tribal war-parties, which
probably occurred rather infrequently. Both Spier and Stewart estimated that two
attacks could have occurred within one year, but that probably several years elapsed
between wars (Spier 1933: 161; Stewart 1947: 266). For the Mohave and the Yuma,
all attacks had to be counter-attacked and all scalps taken had to be avenged (Forde
1931: 165), but rebuilding the ranks, equipment, and morale for a retaliation took
time. Also, if warfare occurred during times of crop failure, it was probably infre-
quent because even though the Colorado River flooding was unreliable, it rarely failed
enough to cause starvation.
There is no reason given in any of the texts as the basic cause which created
traditional enemies. Each battle was perpetuated by the battle preceeding it, the
hostilities were long-standing -- the Congressional report of 1861 mentioned that the
Yuma fought the Maricopa and that the Mohave "hated the Cocopa bitterly" (Ives 1861:
71-72)-- and the hatred was kept alive from generation to generation through ritual.
Trippel described in detail the retaliation of a Yuma death against the Cocopa which
happened prior to 1887 (Trippel 1889: 567). It is interesting to note that until white
involvement traditional enmity existed between the numerically largest groups, that,
because of their agricultural surplus, had a population of uninvolved men with no basis
for social status and that could theoretically afford to lose relatively large numbers of
the population in warfare. The predisposition toward this form of status-seeking could
have come from the Southwest with farming, since enemies could be afforded economic-
ally. In fact they were almost a necessity, for at the same time feeding a large pop-
ulation needed a large food supple and when the crops failed, it was logical that more
successful neighbors should be attacked.
Warriors were not part of the functioning farming population, and their
social class gave them prestige and honor even when they were old men who could no
longer fight (Fathauer 1954: 105; Stewart 1947: 261). The process of becoming a
warrior began in boyhood with dreams that influenced the subsequent behavior of the
child; young men who "dreamed properly" went first on raids to gain prestige and then
on war-parties as full warriors (Stewart 1947: 260-261). This preoccupation with
becoming a warrior filled a boy's life and produced adults who, even if they were not
warriors, were more interested in warfare than subsistence, and this interest kept
alive hostility between traditional enemies.
Ritual was important in reinforcing a warrior's status. Prior to a battle,
a meeting or dance of incitement was held (Stewart 1947: 266-167; Drucker 1941: 134).
The main idea was to remind the warriors that they were "expecting to die soon
(Fathauer 1954: 104), in short that they were different. The glory of warfare was
stressed. Old scalps were used in the ceremony (Spier 1933: 134); this renewed the
hostility toward the enemy in the minds of the fighters. Incitement rituals were a
combination pep-talk for the warriors and reinforcement of the fact that they were
different.
The importance of warfare is emphasized by the fact that the war-chief was
more powerful than the peace-chief. The latter, as within other California tribes, was
not a warrior and did not fight (Stewart 1947: 260); on the other hand, the war-chief
was probably the bravest warrior and quite possibly a shaman (Forde 1931: 138).
The peace-chief did not become important until the whites attempted to make him so,
in order to make their dealing with the Mohave and the Yuma "more organized"
(Fathauer 1954: 109-110).
Shamans traveled with the warriors to battle and could themselves kill
people (Fathauer 1954: 104), and like warriors, they got their power through dreams
93
and were indifferent to death (Stewart 1947: 260). However, they had an extra
magical quality that made them fairly immune to the contamination of the enemy.
Scalps could only be taken by a special shaman (the ahwe samadj) -- who took only
one scalp despite the number of enemies killed -- and they were kept between wars
by the kowxot (Yuman, Mohave kohota) (Spier 1933: 137). The kwoxot and kohota
also kept captives. All warriors, especially those who had killed an enemy, had to
be purified ritually of the contamination upon their return (Dobyns 1957: 51).
This idea of contamination is important in two ways: 1) it pointed out that
while warfare was glorified, it had potential evil aspects; 2) it justified continued
conflict with traditional enemies who, while the original cause was forgotten, were
thought to be dangerous.
The Mohave and the Yuma took captives, generally killing the men and
purifying the women and children to remove the contamination. Children could be
adopted and absorbed into Mohave life, but women were thought to cause " insanity"
and remained apart, untouched by Mohave men (Dobyns 1957: 51).  The record does
not mention much about final settlement on captives, but women probably took part
in subsistence activity since they did not function as mothers. Their presence
served also to remind the group of its traditional enemies. After the whites, of
course, captives became an item of trade. Stewart (1947: 258) described such an
instance:
"The other war with the Chemehuevi was also when the American
troop was already here (1867). The Mormons in Nevada wanted some
Mohave women for wives, so they gave guns to about fifty Ute (?),
Paiute, and Chemehuevi, and told them to go down and kidnap some
Mohave girls for them. They came through up at Forty Nine Road,
the old military road up above Ghost Mountain (Avikwame). They
went through on the south side of the big wash by Hardyville. Then
they came to a place called Moss Mine (Kawacuthomb). A lot of
Mohave were gathered to fight over a piece of land at a place called
Sand Hill (Anikockwamb). So there were lots of Mohave there.
They were camped and big dances were going on, singing nearly all
night and day. At daylight the enemy attacked. Most of the Mohave
were unarmed; so the Chemehuevi shot their guns and killed quite
a few."
Scalp dances occurred after wars and were repeated at harvest time with
ritual purification (Stewart 1947: 271). The purification aspect is interesting because
it took the group's interest from the subsistence activity and redirected the attention
to warfare; it strengthened the status of the warrior agianst that of the farmer because
it was the warriors rather than the farmer who obtained food for tne tribe through
warfare, and it strengthened the traditional enmities by emphasizing the tribal interest
94
in war, because warriors took part in the dances (Drucker 1941: 136). The cele-
bration itself would serve to take the collective mind of the tribe off starvation, if
that have been a factor in the fighting.
Warfare increased "tribal strength" (Forde 1931: 174). According to
Dobyns, it held the Mohave and the Yumna together against the Spanish (Dobyns 1957:
50). Thus, when the Americans moved in and shifted the tribes along the Colorado
River, warfare served a dual purpose: 1) it showed the intruders, both white and
Indian, that they were coming against a powerful fighting group; 2) it strengthened the
already existing solidarity within and between the two tribes. In the latter point, the
Mohave and the Yuma were like other California tribes, but in the institution of a high-
status warrior class and the tribal preoccupation with war -- seeing warfare as a
positive occupation -- these tribes were very different. Warfare also was a means
of obtaining new food resources and retaining previously held areas of resource from
other tribes, and in this economic sense it became an exaggeration of the basis for
warfare in the rest of California, since for the Yuman tribes, warfare could sa
tribal group from actual starvation.
White influence in this area was blatant. It brought the Mohave to the point
of starvation by taking the tribe's land and water, and shifted the tribe's relations with
its neighbors such that her allies, the Chemehuevi, became enemies and her chronic
enemies, the Maricopa, became seen as potential friendly neighbors. The whites
facilitated the ease and possibly the frequency of warfare (certainly giving a reason
for raiding) with the introduction of the horse, although it is impossible to determine
the extent of the effect that the horse had on Colorado River warfare. More important
than the horse was the rearranging of social relationships that the whites caused.
95
DISCUSSION
From the information available on California Indian warfare, it is difficult
to get a true picture of aboriginal interaction because white influence was such a
disruptive force. Most of the conflicts reported in the ethnographies occurred after
European contact. With the introduction of the horse, a profound influence was
exerted on the Indians by giving them greater mobility which could result in either
increased warfare or in peaceful contact between originally isolated tribes. Certainly
the pressure of white settlement increased economic competition, and tribes that were
not directly in contact with the whites were influenced by them. The removal of
certain tribes may have allowed other tribes to expand their territory, such as the
Yokuts who freely moved through Costanoan territory to Monterey Bay; and white
pressure created enmity between formerly friendly tribes, as between the Mohave and
the Chemehuevi.
Warfare, in general, was concerned with retaliation for economic offenses.
Poaching was a direct threat to survival; trespassing was a potential threat; and
murder disrupted the normal pattern of social activity within the group. On the other
hand, with the exception of the Pomo-Wappo conflict over Alexander Valley and the
Chemehuevi-Mohave conflict over the Colorado River lowlands, there was no warfare
which involved long-term takeover of another group's territory. Because of increased
pressure from the whites, the economic factor became more important, and perhaps
it was easier to fight another Indians group than the whites, who after all, had superior
numbers and arms. This is true of the Mohave-Chemehuevi conflict since the whites
had taken the best Mohave lands, and the Mohave, who had held the Colorado River
lowland area prior to giving it to the Chemehuevi, found it easier to fight their former
allies than the whites.
Witchcraft was another cause of conflicts which was used to explain myster-
ious deaths. In this way, someone was accused of practicing witchcraft and could be
held responsible for a murder, thus precipitating fighting between two groups. In
another way, witchcraft could be used just to take revenge upon someone by killing
him without a large scale battle, or any fighting at all, taking place.
Trading between groups sometimes caused conflicts to arise. Breaking a
trade agreement could result in an actual battle. Likewise, it is interesting to note
that tribes who fought each other frequently also engaged in trade, as in the case of
the Paiutes and the Atsugewi, and the Western Mono and the Yokuts. Both of these
pairs of tribes were traditional enemies, but a trading relationship was maintained
for the benefit of each tribe. For some tribes, war parties were distinguished from
trading parties by paint, i. e. the Nisenan.
By the way Indian groups lined up on the battlefield and shouted insults at
96
each other, in some respects, their confrontations could be compared to a dangerous
sport, a contest between two tribes. Bennyhoff suggested this for the Plains Miwok,
and Kroeber mentioned this idea for other groups. Although a fight was a serious
affair, a battle could have served to break up the monotony of cyclical activities of a
hunting and gathering society. Whether the California Indians themselves considered
a fight as a sport or contest will never be positively known. Certainly the ritual
dances before and after fighting could be looked upon as a form of entertainment
besides being the enlistment of supernatural support.
Generally, a major attempt was made to avert actual fighting, usually done
in a well-defined, ritualized manner; and if warfare occurred, attempts were made to
stop it before too many were involved. Peace usually lasted until new killings or
trespassings occurred. Northern California tribes attempted to avert warfare by
replacing actual fighting with monetary compensation. In Southern California, some
tribes like the Cahuilla replaced warfare with enemy songs, as these songs were
known. The Mohave and the Yuma were the only tribes that glorified warfare; yet,
the evil aspects of it were still seen in the idea of contamination from the enemy
necessitating ritual purification.
The chief in all tribes was primarily concerned with averting war and
establishing peace. He acted as a mediator between feuding groups within the tribe
and negotiated peace settlement with hostile neighbors. Despite efforts of the chief,
in-group feuding was quite common. In fact, the only group that was exempt was
the Colorado River tribes, because agriculture tended to unify them as a group and
removed the tension of economic competition which faced the other hunting and
gathering tribes. There was no over-all sense of tribal unity throughout the rest of
California; groups fought each other within a single tribe, but at the same time,
temporary alliances could be formed to fight other groups.
There was no strong political organization within each tribe, and thus, no
lasting political alliances between tribes occurred. There was also no real organiza-
tion of warfare outside the Colorado River area, even with the existence of traditional
enemies, in the sense of nationalistic struggles. Nor did any Indian group attempt to
obliterate another Indian group, as the whites did; the first bloodshed usually ended
the conflict.
From an analysis of the data, it was found that within each tribe, the groups
on the borders of the tribal area tended t o fight with their outside neighbors more
frequently than those groups in the interior of the tribal area. The primary reason,
of course, was proximity of border tribelets to alien tribes. It can also be noted that
most traditional enemies were members of different language stocks. In fact, of the
fifteen conflicts between traditional enemies which were studied, eleven occurred
between tribes of different linguistic families as compared to four conflicts between
tribes of the same linguistic stock. Conversely, for the twenty- seven reported
97
conflicts which were not between traditional enemies, the results were about equal;
fifteen conflicts occurred between tribes of different linguistic stocks, and twelve
were between tribes of the same linguistic stock (See appendix).
Along these same lines, there seems to be a schism which quite often
caused friction between hill tribes, and those tribes living in the valley below. This
schism can be seen up and down the eastern side of the Central Valley and the
adjacent Sierra Nevada foothills. In the Coast Ranges, opposition between hill and
valley tribes seems to have occurred as well. The traditional enmity between the
Yokuts and Western Mono is one manifestation of this type of conflict.  Fighting
between valley Nisenan and foothill Nisenan is another example, because warfare was
more organized than among other Nisenan tribelets (Beals 1933: 366). The rationale
behind this hill-valley type of conflict is that of the have and the have nots. The hill
tribes generally viewed the valley tribes as having more food resources than them-
selves. Also, a sort of myth was built aroud the hill people as being fiercer,
stronger, and more aggressive.
Because of the emphasis on peace, on averting fighting and stopping it as
quickly as possible when it occurred, the number of casualties for California tribes
outside the Colorado River area was slight. Each member of the group was too
important, socially and economically, to be spared easily; thus, warfare could not be
seen as a method of limiting population expansion. The number of casualties for
the Mohave was higher than that for the rest of the tribes in California. F(r example,
in the battle at Maricopa Wells in 1857, the Yuma lost 80 of their 82 men (White 1974:
125). But here too, it does not seem as though warfare served the function of keeping
the population down because while these tribes had agriculture, it was unreliable
(White 1974: 116), and the agricultural food source itself limited the population.
In concluding, warfare for the California Indian tribes served to maintain
the balance between tribes be discouraging neighbors from taking advantage of other
groups economically. Compared with other Indian groups, for example the Plains
Indians, war played a very minor part in the lives of the California Indians, except
among the Colorado River tribes. War was usually limited to small, yet intense,
sldrmishes which never lasted more than a day or so. Temporarily, wartime
encounters strengthened the solidarity between members of the graips involved. Over-
all, war was viewed as a serious business, as shown by the attempts to avert blood-
shed and by the ritual preparation involved in fighting, but one which was necessary to
insure economic survival by protecting group territory.
98
APPENDIX 1 -- DATA FOR MAP 1
(Number next to tribe corresponds to number on map)
A LIST OF WARFARE ENCOUNTERS BETWEEN TRIBES
Traditional Enemies
Northern Paiute (41) vs. Atsugewi (19)
Huchnom (13) vs. Pomo (22)
Yuki (13) vs. Nomlaki (34)
Yuki (13) vs. Kato (7)
Shasta (17) vs. Achomawi (18)
Wintu (33) vs. Yuki (13)
Modoc (32) vs. Achomawi (18)
Valley Nisenan -- Maidu (35) vs.
Plains Miwok (38)
Modoc, (32) vs. Shasta (17)
Paiutes (41) vs. Achomawi (18)
Modoc (32) vs. Paiutes (41)
Mattole (9) vs. Wiyot (12)
Costanoan (39) vs. Salinan (25)
Northern Miwok (38) vs. Plains
Miwok (38)
Yokuts (40) vs. Western Mono (44)
Mohave (31) vs. Cocopa (Ariz.)
Yuma (29) vs. Maricopa (Ariz.)
Reported Conflicts
Pomo (22) & Kato (7) vs. Yuki (13)
Wailaki (6) vs. Yuki (13)
Wappo (14) vs. Pomo (22)
Costanoan (39) vs. Esselen (24)
Costanoan (39) vs. Yokuts (40)
Pomo (22) vs. Patwin (34)
Washo (23) vs. Northern Paiute (41)
Miwok (38) vs. Southern Maidu (35)
Tubatulabal (46) vs. Yokuts (40)
Western Mono -- Monache (44) vs.
Owens Valley Paiute (43)
Tubatulabal (46) vs. Koso (45)
Cahuilla (57) vs. Luiseno (56)
Panamint Shoshone (45) vs. Kawaiisu (48)
Yurok (11) vs. Hupa (2)
Wintu (33) vs. Nomlaki (34)
Yana (20) vs. Atsugewi (19)
Costanoan (39) vs. Plains Miwok (38)
Salinan (25) vs. Yokuts (40)
Washo (23) vs. Maidu (35)
Miwok (38) vs. Mono Lake Paiute (42)
Yokuts ( 40) vs. Eastern Mono (43)
Tubatulabal (46) vs. Owens Valley
Paiute (43)
Tubatulabal (46) vs. Kawaiisu (48)
Cahuilla (57) vs. Yuma (29)
Mohave (31) vs. Chemehuevi (47)
Kawaiisu (48) vs. Yokuts (40)
1.
v-H
0 4.1N
0 O 0    3i
1t 0 H   co
,1 X D: P4
4   *
0 C0 (0 %1
P~4 Cn) C',C
o o
-H
33-
o
0 0
.-  p   u
0
X0     O
Do 0    0:
;) 4o  4   4o
O  U) 0  04.1
co 0   V! 0
0  0 04    0 0 ~   ~ O
(', CO) C', C', C',-
0
0   0    0
H.d    -   0    s
N0        ,i  4H  >               co
co >   9:           la 0 V -4oHo o V-
0  ~4 .)4  4      (fl0  -I   0 : r-
to C  m  -:  4i  44 1  C: W     (1) -H  9
"=:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c      co e- < 4  l  +a
z JJ       E- Z"  > :"4  N
0
cn  in OO 3          OHOn  O H
0o..  1 0   *     -,0 0... .. ..... ....n
4.   H   J  C e   <   n  ' 0   I _~  C O c O ~   H   ("   C ' <   itn  % O  ft %  0
0~~~~~~
S  O  HX e 4   Z0H a ot       a    S
ri           k  co  4) O
0       0               0  S-           0
X ,!HHp4  CV    c <   I X  n   m =   ) X
P9 co    vc 6==   4i  Cd 0  co  co XH  Cd 0 O
>4       b4 cn v 4 uz  >4 >4  M 4 cn C.) 0 a >4 w
13 4 1;   o un % rl- co o~ C;  mONX
>4 r- r   P: v- r- r4 r- r -   s  sc  N N"
1$4
U)  Z4      4.H     *i- X   g  v
0   o 0        0           0d
4.1   HE 4   (   I   '. 0  r   C o  0
AP,_ __-,
99
to
to
10
-4.
-H
0
0
.44
441
.1-I
k
0
0
un
LrH
U)
0)
H
r14
0
0
v-I
0
"V
91
I
I
I
I
11
01
I
t
b
100
BIBLIOGRAPHY
List of Abbreviations of Serials
American Anthropologist
American Museum of Natural History
Bulletin
Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin
Contributions to North American Ethnology,
U. S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
D. C.
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology
Southwest Museum Papers, Los Angeles
University of California Anthropological
Records
University of California Archaeological
Research Facility
University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology
Aginsky, B. W.
1940.
1943.
The Socio-Psychological Significance of Death Among the Pomo
Indians. American Imago, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 1-18.
Culture Element Distribution  XXIV, Central Sierra. UC-
AR, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 393-468.
Anza, J.
1930.
Anza's Diary of the Expedition to San Francisco Bay in 1774,
in Anza's California Expeditions, Vol. II, ed. Herbert Bolton,
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Barrett, S. A.
1908a.
The Ethno-Geography of the Pomo and Neighboring Indians.
UC-PAAE, Vol. 6, No. L
AA
AMNH-B
BAE-B
CNAE
SJA
SM-P
UC-AR
UC-AR F
UC-PAAE
101
The Geography and Dialects of the Miwok Indians. UC-PAAE
Vol. 6, No. 2.
Barrett, S. A. and E. W.
1933.
Beals, R.L.
1933.
Beechey, F. W.
1831.
Gifford
Miwok Material Culture. Public Museum of the City of
Milwaukee, Bulletin, Vol. 2, No. 4.
Ethnology of the Nisenan. UC-PAAE, Vol. 31, No. 6.
A Narrative of a Voyage tothe Pacific and Bering Strait,
Vol. II. London: Colburn & Bently.
Bennyhoff, J. A.
1961.
Bolton, H. E.
1926.
1927.
Choris, L.
1913.
Cook, S. F.
1956.
Devereaux, G.
1951.
Dixon, R. B.
1907.
Dobyns, H. F.
1957.
The Ethnogeography of the Plains Miwok.
tion, University of California, Berkeley.
Ph. D. Disserta-
Historical Memoirs of New California by Fr. Francisco
Palou. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Fray Juan Crespi, Missionary Explorer on the Pacific Coast,
1769-1774, ed. by H.E. Bolton. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
San Francisco 100 Years Ago. San Francisco: A. N.
Robertson.
The Aboriginal Population of the North Coast of California.
UC-AR, Vol. 16, No. 3.
Mohave Chieftainship in Action. Plateau, Vol. 23, pp. 35-38.
The Shasta. AMNH-B, Vol. 17, Part V.
Thematic Changes in Yuman Warfare. In Cultural Stability
and Cultural Changes. American Ethnological Society,
Proceedings, Seattle.
1908b.
102
Driver, H. E.
1936.
1937.
1939.
Drucker, P.
1941.
DuBois, C. A.
1932.
1935.
Essene, F.
1942.
Fages, P.
1937.
Fathauer, G.H.
1954.
Faye, P. L.
1923.
Font, Father
1931.
Forde, C. D.
1931.
Foster, G.M.
1944.
Wappo Ethnography. UC-PAAE, Vol. 36, No. 3.
Culture Element Distribution: VI, Southern Sierra Nevada.
UC-AR, Vol. 1, No. 2.
Culture Element Distribution: X, Northwest California.
UC-AR, Vol. 1, No. 6.
Culture Element Distribtuions: XVII, Yuman-Piman.
UC-AR, Vol. 6, No. 3.
Tolowa Notes. AA, n.s., Vol. 34, pp. 248-262.
Wintu Ethnography. UC-PAAE, Vol. 36, No. 1.
Culture Element Distribution: XXI, Round Valley. UC-AR,
Vol. 8, No. 1.
A Historical, Political, and Natural Description of California.
(Translated by H. I. Priestley, 1937).
The Structure and Causation of Mohave Warfare. SJA,
Vol. 10, pp. 97-118.
Notes on the Southern Maidu. UC-PAAE, Vol. 20, pp.35-53.
Font's Complete Diary, ed. H. E. Bolton. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Ethnography of the Yuma Indians. UC-PAAE, Vol. 28,
No. 4.
A Summary of Yuki Culture. UC-AR, Vol. 5, No. 3.
103
Garth, T.R.
1953.
Gayton, A.H.
1930.
1936.
1946.
1948a.
1948b.
Gifford, E. W.
Atsugewi Ethnography. UC-AR, Vol. 14, No. 2.
Yokuts-Mono Chiefs and Shamans. UC-PAAE, Vol. 24, No. 8.
Estudillo Among the Yokuts. In Essays in Anthropology
Presented to A. L. Kroeber. Berkeley: University of
California Press, pp. 67-86.
Cultural-Environmental Integration: External References in
Yokuts Life. SJA, Vol. 2, pp. 252-268.
Yokuts and Western Mono Ethnography I: Tulare Lake,
Southern Valley, and Central Foothills Yokuts. UC-AR,
Vol. 10, No. 1.
Yokuts and Western Mono Ethnography II: Northern Foothill
Yokuts and Western Mono. UC-AR, Vol. 10, No. 2.
1923.        Pomo Lands on Clear Lake. UC-PAAE, Vol. 20, pp. 77-92.
1926.        Clear Lake Pomo Society. UC-PAAE, Vol. 18, No. 2.
1932.        The Northfork Mono. UC-PAAE, Vol. 31, No. 2.
1965.        The Coast Yuki. Sacramento Anthropological Society,
Sacramento State College.
Gifford, E.W. and S. Klimek
1937.        Culture Element Distributions: II, Yana. UC-PAAE, Vol. 37,
No. 2, pp. 71-100.
Gifford, E.W. andA.L. Kroeber
1937.        Culture Element Distribution: IV, Pomo. UC-PAAE, Vol. 37,
No. 4.
Goddard, P. E.
1903.        Life and Culture of the Hupa. UC-PAAE, Vol. 1, No. 1.
Goldschmidt, W. R.
1951.        Nomlaki Ethnography. UC-PAAE, Vol. 42, No. 4.
Goldschmidt, W. R. and H. R. Driver
1940.        The Hupa White Deerskin Dance. UC-PAAE, Vol. 35, No. 8.
104
Goldschmidt, W., G. M. Foster, and F. Essene
1939.        War Stories From Two Enemy Tribes.   In R. F. Heizer
and M.A. Whipple, eds., 1971, pp. 445-458.
Gould, R.A.
1966.
Hall, A. F.
1921.
The Wealth Quest Among the Tolowa Indians of Northwestern
California. From the Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society, Vol. 110, No. 1.
Handbook of Yosemite Park. New York: G. P. Putnams's
Sons.
Harrison, E. S.
1892.
History of Santa Cruz County, California.
Pacific Press Publishing Co.
San Francisco:
Heizer, R. F.
1955.
. Heizer, R. F. and M.A.
1951.
1954.
1971.
Holt, C.
1946.
Hooper, L.
1920.
California Indian Linguistic Records in The Mission Indian
Vocabularies of H. W. Henshaw. UC-AR, Vol. 15, No. 2.
Whipple
The California Indians: a Source Book, 1st. ed. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
The California Indians: A Source Book, 2nd. ed. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
The California Indians: A Source Book. 2nd. ed., revised
and enlarged. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Shasta Ethnography. UC-AR, Vol. 3, No. 4.
The Cahuilla Indians. UC-PAAE, Vol. 16, No. 6.
Ives, J.R.
1861.
Kelly, I. T.
1932.
Report Upon the Colorado of the West. Senate Executive
Document, 36th Congress, 1st Session.
Ethnography of the Surprise Valley Paiute. UC-PAAE,
Vol. 31, No. 3.
105
Kniffen, F. B.
1928.        Achomawi Geography. UC-PAAE, Vol. 23, No. 5.
Kostromitonov, P.
1974.        Ethnographic Observations on the Coast Miwok and Pomo by
Contre-Admiral F. P. von Wrangell and P. Kostromitonov
of the Russian Colony Ross, 1839. UC-ARF.
Kroeber, A. L.
1907.        Indian Myths of Soath Central California. UC-PAAE, Vol. 4,
No. 4.
1908a.       A Mission Record of the California Indians. UC-PAAE,
Vol. 8, No. 1.
1908b.       Ethnography of the Cahuilla Indians. UC-PAAE, Vol. 8,
No. 2.
1925.        Handbook of the Indians of California.  BAE-B, No. 78.
1928.        A Kato War. In Fetschrift Pub. d'Hommage Offerts, Wein,
pp. 396-398.
1932.        The Patwin and Their Neighbors. UC-PAAE, Vol. 29, No. 4.
195L         A Mohave Historical Epic. UC-AR, Vol. 11, No. 2.
Kroeber, A.L. and C.B. Kroeber
1973.        A Mohave War Reminiscence, 1854-1880. University of
California Publications in Anthropology, Vol. 10. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Landberg, L. C.
1965.        The Chumash Indians of Southern California. SM-P, No. 19.
Langsdorff, G.H.
1814.        Voyages and Travels in Various Parts of the World. London:
Colburn.
Latta, F. F.
1949.        Handbook of Yokuts Indians. Kern County Museum.
Bakersfield.
106
Loeb, E. M.
1926.
Lowie, R.H.
1939.
Mason, J. A.
1912.
1918.
Merriam, C. H.
1955.
Moraga, Lt. J.
1930.
Nomland, G. A.
1938.
Pilling, A.R.
1950 .
Powers,
Ray, V.
S.
1877.
1963.
Robinson, A.
1846.
Russell, F.
1908.
Pomo Folkways. UC-PAAE, Vol. 19, No. 2.
Ethnographic Notes on the Washo. UC-PAAE, Vol. 36, No. 5.
The Ethnology of the Salinan Indians. UC-PAAE, Vol. 10,
No. 4.
The Iinguage of the Salinan Indians. UC-PAAE, Vol. 14,
No. 1.
Studies of California Indians. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Moraga's Account In Anza's California Expeditions, ed. H.
Bolton. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bear River Ethnography. UC-AR, Vol. 2, No. 2.
The Archaeological Implications of an Annual Coastal Visit
for Certain Yokuts Groups. AA, n. s., Vol. 52, No. 3.
Tribes of California. CNAE, III.
Primitive Pragmatists: The Modoc Indians of Northern
California. American Ethnological Society. Seattle:
University of Washington Press.
Life in California. New York: Wiley & Putnam.
(Contains translation of Fr. Geronimo Boscana's Chinqchinich
in the second half of the book, pp. 231-341).
The Pima Indians.  BAE-B, Vol 26, No. 1, pp. 38-46.
107
Sapir, E. and L. Spier
1943.        Notes on the Culture of the Yana. UC-AR, Vol. 3, No. 3.
Simpson, L. B.
1961.        Journal of Jose Longinos Martinez, 1791-1792. ed. L. B.
Simpson. San Francisco: John Howell Books.
Sparkman, P. So
1908.        The Culture of the Luiseno Indians. UC-PAAE, Vol. 8,
No. 4.
Spier, L.
1933.        Yuman Tribes of the Gila River.  Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Spott, R. and A. L. Kroeber
1942.        Yurok Narratives. UC-PAAE, Vol. 35, No. 9.
Steward, J. H.
1933.        Ethnography of the Owens Valley Paiute. UC-PAAE, Vol. 33,
No. 3.
1938a.       Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Socio-Political Groups. BAE-B,
No. 120.
1938b.       Pantubiji, An Owens Valley Paiute.  BAE-B, No. 119, No. 6.
1941.        Culture Element Distribution: XIII, Nevada Shoshone.
UC-AR, Vol. 4, No. 2.
Stewart, G. W.
1927.        The Yokuts Indians of the Kaweah Region. Sierra Club
Bulletin, Vol. 12, pp. 385-400.
Stewart, K. M.
1947.        Mohave Warfare. SJA, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 257-278.
Stewart, 0.
1943.        Notes on Pomo Ethnogeography. UC-PAAE, Vol. 40, No. 2.
Strong, W. D.
1929.        Aboriginal Society in Southern California. UC-PAAE,
Vol. 26.
108
Thompson, L.
1916.
Trippel, E. J.
1889.
Voegelin, C. F.
1935.
Voegelin, E. W.
1938.
1942.
von Loeffelholz, Baron
1952.
Wallace, W. J.
1949.
White, C.
1974.
Woodward, A.
1953.
Yates, L. G.
1891.
To the American Indian. Eureka, California.
Yuma Indians. Overland Monthly, ser. 2, XIII.
Tubatulabal Texts. UC-PAAE, Vol. 34, No. 3.
Tubatulabal Ethnography. UC-AR, Vol. 2, No. 1.
Culture Element Distribution: XX, Northeastern California.
UC-AR, Vol. 7, No. 2.
In Heizer and Mills, The Four Ages of Tsurai.
University of California Press, pg. 161.
Berkeley:
Hupa Warfare. Southwest Museum Leaflet, No. 23.
Lower Colorado River Area Aboriginal Warfare and
Alliance Dynamics. In L. Bean and T. King, Ballena
Press Anthropological Papers, No. 2. 'ANTAP California
Indian Political and Economic Organization. Ramona:
Ballena Press.
Irataba -- "Chief of the Mohave." Plateau, Vol. 25, No. 3,
pp. 53-68.
Fragments of the History of a Lost Tribe. AA, Vol. 4,
No. 1, pp. 373-376.
109
The following sources were consulted but not used and are added here for
a more complete reference list:
Densmore, F.
1923.        Yuman and Yaqui Music.  BAE-B, no. 110.
Dixon, R. B.
1905.        The Northern Maidu. AMNH-B Vol. 18.
Drucker, P.
1936.        The Tolowa and their SW Oregon Kin. UC-PAAE, Vol. 36,
pp. 221-300.
1937.        Culture Element Distribution:  V, Southern California.
UC-AR, Vol. 1, No. 1.
Fiy, W.S.
1904.        Humboldt Indians (Yurok, Karok). Out West, Vol. XXI,
pp. 503-514.
Gifford, E. W.
1931.        The Kamia of Imperial Valley. BAE-B, No. 97.
Goddard, P. E.
1914.        Notes on the Chilula of Northwest California.  UC-PAAE,
Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 265-288.
Kroeber, A. L.
1929.        The Valley Nisenan. UC-PAAE, Vol. 24, No. 4.
Loeb, E.
1932a.       Western Kuksu Cult. UC-PAAE, Vol. 33, No. 1.
1932b.       Eastern Kuksu Cult. UC-PAAE, Vol. 33, No. 2.
Spier, L.
1923.        Southern Diegueno Customs. UC-PAAE, Vol. 20, pp. 297-
358.