KROEBER AND THE INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION CASES
Omer C. Stewart
The role of A. L. Kroeber in Docket 31-37, Indians of California vs. The
United States of America, before the Indian Claims Commission, may well serve
as the symbol of a change in anthropology in America.  Kroeber and other an-
thropologists serving as expert witnesses on opposite sides in litigation be-
fore the U. S. Indian Claims Commission have marshalled in a new dimension of
applied anthropology. A short history of Indian claims cases, particularly for
California Indians, and a review of the contribution of anthropology to hear-
ings under Public Law 726 - 79th Congress, 2nd Session (H.R. Lh97) known as
The Indian Claims Commission Act of August 13, 1946, 60 Stat. 1049, will reveal
the extent of the changes which have come about.
At the outset we should be reminded that claims cases against the U. S.
Government by Indian tribes are not new. In 1863 the law establishing the
U. S. Court of Claims as amended bracketed Indian tribes with foreign coun-
tries and required all to obtain from Congress special permission to sue the
U. S. Government. Nevertheless, a large number of claims were adjudicated dur-
ing the last century. The procedure was for the tribe and/or its attorney to
obtain a special act of Congress, called Jurisdictional Act, to allow a tribe
to sue the government in the Court of Claims. Not only were years required to
obtain congressional approval for such special laws, but additional years were
needed to get a decision from the Court of Claims because of Its chronic back-
log of cases. Even more discouraging than the delays, from the point of view
of the Indians and their attorneys, was the frequent very explicit and limit-
ing phraseology of the bills of authorization, which in turn were followed to
the letter by both the Court of Claims and the Supreme Court.
Notwithstanding the slowness of legislation and of court action from Jan-
Uary 28, 1884 to May 7, 1945, one hundred fifty-two separate cases were author-
ized by Congress and reached the Court of Claims. It will be of interest to
review the decisions rendered before the passage of the Indian Claims Commis-
sion Act of 1946:
69 tribal claims, definite in amount, totalling almost one and a half
billion dollars, were dismissed by the Court of Claims with no payments;
35 tribal claims, indefinite in amount, were dismissed by the Court of
Claims without payment;
15 tribal claims, definite in amount, were allowed to recover as follows:
Amount claimed $303,704,145.62
Net judgment paid    20,217,227.76;
17 tribal claims, indefinite in amount, were paid:
Net judgment $ 17,536,726.37;
10 tribal claims cases pending as of May 7, 1945, with $55,942,955.50
claimed;
181
6 tribal claims cases pending as of May 7, 1945 without definite amounts
claimed.
In other words, during the seventy-one years preceding the Indian Claims
Commission Act of 1946, the Court of Claims declared that $37,753,954.13 should
be paid the Indians to satisfy legal claims against the government, whereas pay-
ment of about two billion dollars had been requested. A review of many records
reveals the curious fact that, in spite of the interest and knowledge that local
anthropologists might always be expected to have concerning the American Indians,
and in spite of the extent of the litigation, in all this time anthropologists,
so far as I could discover, had nothing to do with either the obtaining of the
permission to get into court or with the hearings in the Court of Claims, with
two exceptions. The exceptions were the remarkable work of Dr. C. Hart Merriam,
biologist turned ethnologist, on behalf of the Indians of California leading to
a decision dated December 4, 1944, requesting Congress to pay them $5,024,842.34,
and the testimony of Dr. John P. Harrington in the Alcea Case (103 C.Cls. 494)
in 1945.
The claims cases of the Indians of California rest ultimately upon original
Indian title, which was recognized by the eighteenth and nineteenth century laws
of Spain and of Mexico and by the United States in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidal.
go, proclaimed July 4, 1848. They are supported by Acts of Congress of Septem-
ber 30, 1850, and February 27, 1851, appropriating $50,000.00 to pay the expenses
of a treaty commission to negotiate with the Indians of California to extinguish
their Indian title to the lands of California, and by the 18 treaties signed by
the Indians but not ratified by Congress. Traveling to get the treaties signed
was a major exploring expedition as reported in "The Journal of the Expedition
of Colonel Redick M'Kee . .. through Northwestern California . . .1851," by
George Gibbs, and printed by Henry R. Schoolcraft in his History . . . of the
Indian Trikes of the United States, Part III, 1853.  (The Journal was reprinted
in the Hearings for the Indians Claims Commission Act, 79th Cong., 2nd Session,
June-July, 1946.) While M'Kee was negotiating treaties in northern California,
O. M. Wozencroft and G. Wo Barbour were getting treaties signed in central and
southern California.  Funds were exhausted before all tribes were visited. After
the last treaty was signed January 7, 1852, with the Diegueno Indians, the 18
treaties were delivered to the Senate by President Millard Fillmore, June 1, 1852,
with recommendation for ratification by officials of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
By coincidence, the first California State Legislature was in session when
the 18 treaties were sent to the U. S. Senate and the California Legislature mem-
orialized the U. S. Senate not to ratify the treaties because the area to be as-
signed the Indians was evaluated at $100,000,000.  It was then, on June 7, 1852,
that the California senators succeeded in having the treaties classified as se-
cret and hidden away in Senate files, where they remained until 1905 when the
injunction of secrecy was removed. In many other ways the Gold Rush miners'
disregard for the rights of the aborigines characterized California for at least
three decades.
The Century of Dishonor by Helen Hunt Jackson, published in 1881, pricked
the conscience of America to the extent that many people of good will decided to
do something about the Indian problem. The Indian Rights Association was founded
in Philadelphia in 1882 with a California branch to follow soon. In Ramona,
132
1884, Mrs. Jackson so dramatized the poverty and misery of the Mission Indians
of southern California that the Bureau of Indian Affairs bought many small
farms to be permanent rancheros for landless Indians in California. Many of
the reforms in Bureau administration were achieved by the publicity given Indian
problems by the Board of Indian Commissioners from 1881 to 1933. The Board was
composed of important citizens appointed by the President of the United States
and authorized to visit reservations, investigate conditions and recommend admin-
istrative and legislative reforms.
In 1883, Mr. A. K. Smiley, an appointee of President Hayes to the U. S.
Board of Indian Commissioners, sought to gain public support for needed changes
in Indian affairs by a conference of interested and influential citizens con-
vened at his summer lodge at Lake Mohonk, New York. The Lake Mohonk Conference
on Indian Affairs became an annual meeting of officials, missionaries, Indians,
and laymen who came together to seek ways to improve the conditions of the In-
dians. For nearly forty years the Lake Mohonk Conferences brought together an-
nually two to three hundred citizens dedicated to helping the Indians. Few
anthropologists ever attended these conferences. Many of the same people were
listed as members of the Indian Rights Association, the Lake Mohonk Conference,
the National Indian Association and many local organizations formed to help the
Indians. From the Society of American Indians (1910) to the National Congress
of American Indians (19hh) several organizations of "Indians to help Indians"
sought assistance from all friends of the Indians to get laws passed which would
allow the various tribes to have their claims adjudicated.  Again, few anthro-
pologists were members of such organizations.
Perhaps the most important man to help the California Indians get heard in
court was Frederick G. Collett.  In August, 1946, when he appeared before the
congressional committee on Indian Affairs during Hearings on the Indian Claims
Commission Act, he identified himself as follows:
I am not an attorney. As a beneficent missionary among the Indians
since 1910, I have a keen interest in their effort to secure a just and
final settlement of the claims of all Indians. A large portion of my time
for more than a quarter of a century has been devoted to advocating remedi-
al legislation by the California State Legislature and by Congress.
From 1914 until his death in an auto accident at Willits, California, November
13, 1955, at the age of 70, Collett devoted his time to getting a hearing for
the Indians of California. California Indians and their non-Indian friends
were organized into various complex corporations for the purpose of maintain-
ing Collett in Washington and Sacramento as a lobbyist. There was probably no
hearing by any congressional committee on Indian Affairs from 191L to 1955 at
which Collett did not appear.
Since there were rival associations of California Indians, it is diffi-
cult to assess the value of any one group compared to the others. Collett
claimed at times to represent 17,000 California Indians, but others questioned
his influence and his motives so that he became a really controversial figure.
However, Collett helped, without doubt, to secure the passage of the California
Indians Jurisdictional Act of May 18, 1928, which authorized the California
State Attorney General to sue for payment for the reservations the Indians had
never received.  Collett attempted later to have it amended to allow the Indians
183
to be represented by private legal counsel because he thought private counsel
might obtain a better award than the Attorney General of the State of California
working without additional recompense. It was during the Hearings before con-
gressional committees concerned with the California Indians Jurisdictional Act
from 1920 to 1928 that C. Hart Merriam testified.
No anthropologists were asked to testify before the Committee on Indian
Affairs preceding the enactment of H.R. 4497, the Indians Claims Commission Act,
August 13, 1946.  Only two names of professional anthropologists, those of
A. V. Kidder and Gene Weltfish, appeared in support of the bill, and they were
given-only as members of the Indian Committee of the American Civil Liberties
Union. One might properly inquire why anthropologists should be so conspicuous'
by their absence when legislation of such great importance to American Indians
was being considered. Since the Society for Applied Anthropology had been
formed in 1941, one might ask particularly: "Where were the applied anthropol-
ogi sts?"
Perhaps in the desire to establish anthropology as a science and profes-
sion, anthropologists have felt it necessary to keep apart from politicians,
missionaries and do-gooders, whose views might delay and confuse the acceptance
in more scientific circles of anthropology as a scientific discipline. At any
rate anthropologists, while considering themselves the experts on aboriginal
cultures of America, have seemed to avoid involvement in modern Indian Affairs.
However, America's first home-grown anthropologists did not feel this way.
Lewis H. Morgan, for example, was always involved with the practical affairs of
the Seneca. John W. Powell nmade special studies of the Great Basin tribes for
the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1872 and often testified before congressional
committees. George Bird Grinnell wrote and spoke regarding the contemporary
conditions of the Plains Tribes from the time of his first visit in 1870 until
his death in 1938. Warren K. Moorehead, archaeologist, from 1888, museum cura-
tor and teabher at Phillips Academy from 1901 to 1938, was associated with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, but only as investigator.  Moorehead was appointed a
member of the Board of Indian Commissioners by President Theodore Roosevelt in
1909, a position he kept until the Board system was dissolved in 1933. This,
however, is a very small proportion of American anthropologists over this long
period, and all four could be classified as "dedicated amateurs."
Professional American anthropology began largely as a museum science of
the strange and exotic.  Not until just before World War II when Commissioner
John Collier employed a number of anthropologists was the pattern altered. A
few remained in the Indian service during Collier's whole term of office and
beyond, but a larger number found practical, applied anthropology not congenial
to their training and interest. The War Relocation Authority, several military
services, and even President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the White House used an-
thropologists during World -ir II in some practical situations.  However, in
lhrch and June 1945, and in June and July 1946, congressmen failed to call an-
thropologists to testify regarding the proposed Indian Claims Commission Act.
It is against such a background that starting in 1950, dozens of anthro-
pologists were approached and asked to testify as expert witnesses in cases
involving millions of dollars. Kroeber received a letter from the attorneys
for Indians of California, Docket No. 37, written on June 23, 1952. The
184
attorneys for Indians of California, Docket No. 31, approached him on January 8,
1953, and were told he had "signed up two months ago . . . to work exclusively"
for the attorneys for Docket No. 37. Docket No. 31 and Docket No. 37 were
finally consolidated by order of the Indian Claims Commission.
Neither Kroeber nor his associates, Robert F. Heizer, Edward W. Gifford,
Samuel A. Barrett, S. F. Cook and Donald Cutter, had previously testified be-
fore the Indian Claims Commission. Since I had testified twice, Kroeber invited
me to Berkeley to tell him about my own experiences preparing exhibits and tes-
tifying, and also my reactions to court room procedures. Later I was invited to
be present when the Indians presented their case in Berkeley, in June, 1954, and
also to serve as Kroeber's understudy during cross-examination of the witnesses
for the Government in San Francisco, September, 1955.
In spite of the historic reluctance of anthropologists to be involved in
modern Indian problems which still prompted a few established members of the
profession to refuse employment by either side, Kroeber, past 75, entered ener-
getically and wholeheartedly into restudying the ethnohistory of California in
order to present accurately and completely the information pertinent to the
case.; Realizing the research required to prepare for the searching and detailed
questioning by Department of Justice attorneys, Kroeber and Heizer, with the
help of a number of graduate students, combed the massive literature on Cali-
fornia ethnology to assemble, reproduce if necessary, and tabulate, data on all
ethnological points at Issue.
Kroeber prepared a new map of the aboriginal linguistic groups of Cali-
fornia, changing boundaries which had been drawn for the Handbook of California
Indians in 1925 where new evidence had become available. (It is interesting
that the 1925 map needed so few modifications )
ini accordance with the Indian Claims Commission Act and with decisions of
earlier claims cases that had been reviewed by the U. S. Supreme Court, aborigi-
nal Indian title could be established by evidence that an identifiable group
used and occupied a definable area, at the exclusion of others, since time imme-
morial. Kroeber quickly recognized the types of data to he presented and then
worked to assemble and review the publications which contained the relevant ma-
terial. Kroeber's Handbook of California Indians was, of course, the primary
basis for the case of the Indians of California, but an additional 186 exhibits
were required to present ethnographic, historical, botanical and archaeological
data not covered by the HandbookO
Kroeber spoke or submitted to cross-examination for three hours a day for
ten days. It was a masterful performance by a gifted scientist and talented,
energetic scholar. Because of timing and emphasis, change of pace, and dozens
of other practices which kept the interest of the Commissioners and others in
the court room, Kroeber was an exceptionally impressive witness. The fifteen
main points covered included a definition of anthropology, an explanation of
ethnological procedures, an evaluation of ethnogeography and demography, a char-
acterization of California Indian political-territorial groups, an exposition on
land use for food and other purposes, etc. Heizer added ethnogeographic details
and the evidence for length of occupancy from archaeology. Gifford and Barrett
presented details for particular areas from their own decades of experience.
185
Cook and Cutter testified regarding evidence from Spanish documents.  All of the
witnesses demonstrated great erudition; Kroeber, however, was the most signifi-
cant presence; he seemed at all times the "ideal witness."
Because of Kroeber's age and health in 195l4, the attorneys for the Indians
wished to present their case as soon as possible, even though to do so required
them to allow a full year to intervene between the presentation of the case by
the petitioners and the presentation of rebuttal evidence by the defendants. To
have scholarly and professional ability to match the witnesses for the Indians,
the Department of Justice secured the services of some of Kroeber's most success-
ful and honored students. The University of California at Los Angeles served as'
research center and supplied graduate students to do the mechanical chores.
Ralph Beals was coordinator for the preparation of exhibits and also prepared
the opening and summary statements.
The attorneys for the Department of Justice are at a real disadvantage
when handling cases based on aborigiral use and occupancy. It is simply a mat-
ter of fact that most ethnographic reports tend to support the claims of the
Indians. - However, in order to protect the American taxpayer and comply with the
Indian Claims Comnmission Act itself, the Department of Justice must make the
best defense possible. In addition to purely legal consideration, the attorneys
for the government found that Kroeber's former students, Julian H. Steward,
William-Duncan Strong, Harold E. Driver, Erminie Brooke Wheeler Voegelin, Walter
R. Goldschmidt, Abraham M. Halpern, and Ralph L. Beals could testify that the
Indians of California gained most of their subsistence from a relatively small
proportion of their territory. Some regions, like the tops of the mountains,
deserts and dense forests were seldom visited. This was called the ecological
theory of land use. It was proposed that the Indians of California were so de-
voted to salmon, deer and acorn as food that a good approximation of total land
use could be. reached by measuring the length of the salmon streams and convert-
ing linear miles to square miles and adding that to the area of oak forests.
By such means it was calculated that the Hupa gained 80 to 90 per cent of their
subsistence from 20 per cent of Hupa area, For Northern Pomo 11 per cent of
territory supplied their needs. For most of the linguistic groups in California
the Government's anthropologists testified that less than 25 per cent of the
territory was used. Kroeber and the other experts for the Indians had expressed
their opinion that all of the territory was used for some purpose.
A separate hearing accorded the Pit River Indians (Achomawi and Atsugewi),
for which I was employed after the California Indian case, allowed me to test
the government's ecological theory in detail. There are records in anthropolog-
ical literature of 60 animals used by Pit River Indians--birds, reptile, fish,
mammals, insects--(antelope to yellow jacket larvae) which are found scattered
throughout the length and breadth of the area. Water fowl, crawfish, water
fowl eggs, frogs, mink, beaver, muskrat, otter, minnows, and suckers were taken
from streams, marshes and lakes. Fifty-five plants used for food, clothing,
weapons, boats, medicine, houses, etc. were individually of limited distribution
in the area, but collectively were spread over the entire Pit River area. Eagles
and mountain sheep were found on the mountain tops, where young men stayed during
initiation. Jack rabbits, antelope, sage hens and sage hen eggs were obtained
from the extensive sage brush plains.
186
It might be best to let Associate Commissioner Louis J. O'Iarr himself
explain why the Indian Claims Commission accepted Kroeber's interpretation of
complete aboriginal land use in California and rejected the Government's ecol-
ogical theory of partial use, by citing from the Opinion of the Commission
rendered July 31, 1959 (8 Ind. C1. Com. 1, pp. 31-36), viz.:
LAND USE AND OCCUPANCY
"One of the most difficult, if not the most difficult, questions we
have to decide is what California lands the petitioners actually occupied
and used for their subsistence, that is, the lands they exploited for
their day to day existence.
"We can proceed with our inquiry with the basic fact, which nobody
questions, that Indians occupied and used California lands from time im-
memorial and as the aboriginal inhabitants thereof. The native popula-
tion is unknown, but estimates range from a high of 700,000 to 260,000
by Dr. Merriam and 133,000 by Dr. A. L. Kroeber. (Pet. Ex. RH-125, pp.
68-71). These Indians were not an homogenous group, but were made up of
many groups or tribelets which compose many linguistic divisions or nation-
alities in California.  It has been estimated by Dr. Kroeber that there
were 500 or more Indian groups in California about the time we acquired
California from Mexico in 1848. (Record pp. 29-30, 129, 153 and 498).
These tribelets occupied and used fairly well defined areas dependent in
sizes upon the economic resources of the particular area and the popula-
tion requirements of those living in it. Of course the degree of use of
lands varies with conditions, as Dr. Beals, a witness for the defendant,
described it:
'The evidence, it seems to me, shows clearly that there was a
great deal of difference in the intensity of use. Some areas which
had no economic resources were simply, if visited at all . . . tra-
versed in getting from one place to another.' (Trans. p. 1645).
And Dr. Kroeber (Def. Ex. 188), a witness for petitioners, states respect-
ing land use by the Indians of California:
'Land "actually used and occupied" by native groups is going to be
hard to define because it slides off in a gradient. A site settled
with houses is certainly both occupied and used. But the watershed
ridge that bounds the valley of this group might never even be vis-
ited except in pursuit of a wounded deer, or perhaps chiefly at a
gap through which a trail ran to the next valley harboring a distinct
but friendly group. In between these extremes were all transitions of
utilization; frequent, limited, occasional, rare; practically none.'
The difference in use was caused, as the above statements imply, by varia-
tions in climate, topography, elevation, soil vegetation, etc., all of
which determine the quantity of economic resources in the various sec-
tions of the state. It is not necessary that the Indians prove that each
of the 500 or more tribelets occupied and used every acre of the lands
they claimed; that was not and cannot be done, as witnesses for the peti-
tioners have frankly admitted. There is comparatively little proof of
actual occupation and use of specific tribelet areas in California, and
187
if proof of such use is necessary, the petitioners have failed in their
proof, however, there is proof by noted anthropologists, based upon years
of study of Indian culture, habitats and ways of providing their subsis-
tence, that the Indian groups used and occupied the lands in accordance
with the Indian way of life. It must be borne in mind that in aboriginal
times these Indians obtained their subsistence from the natural products of
the soil and waters of the areas they occupied. Such an economy did not
require an intensive cultivation of the soil for the Indians of necessity
exploited the places which provided the necessaries of life. The resources
the Indians relied upon for subsistence were not uniformly distributed;
they were largely seasonal and in scattered places, requiring travel of con-
siderable distances in their gathering, fishing and hunting activities.
Game animals moved from place to place in search of food and had to be fol-
lowed. The importance of flora and fauna in all regions of the state can-
not be gainsaid, and the search for such resources was continuous and
covered areas that were unproductive as well as those that were, because of
the variations in the production of the natural resources from year to year
or even from season to season in many years.
"Furthermore, it is plain that because of the uneven and rather sparse
distribution of the available natural resources in the state, large areas
of land were needed to provide subsistence. The Indians' permanent and
main habitats were, in general, in locations which provided the greatest
abundance of natural resources, but they were required, and generally did,
extend their searches over large areas beyond their places of permanent
settlement. The record is replete with proof of temporary camps occupied
by the Indians in their seasonal gathering, fishing and hunting operations
which covered large areas in the mountains, plains and deserts. It is no
doubt true, as the Government contends, the higher elevations in the moun-
tains and some large desert areas produced little of economic importance to
the Indians, but such places had limited uses and were a part of the areas
claimed and defended when necessary by the tribelet occupying it.
ECOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA
"The Government has introduced into this case an ecological analysis
of the natural resources of California available to the Indians and the way
those resources affected the extent of the use of the lands by the Indian
inhabitants. The petitioners condemn the ecological approach as not only
novel in Indian litigation but speculative. However, the Government has
presented similar defenses in other cases heard by the Commission, although
not labeled ecological analysis. See Coeur d'Alene Tribe v. United States,
h Ind. Cls. Comn. 1 Chinook Tribe v. United States, 6 Ind. Cls. Com. 177.
There are several other cases in which the defendant presented testimony
concerning 'nuclear areas' and 'primary subsistence areas' which are simi.lar
to the ecological approach.
"The primary value of the ecologic approach to the problem of land use
and occupancy by the Indians of California lies in the paucity of proof of
actual use and occupancy of the lands, as we understand the Government's
position? The proof of actual use is in the main based upon anthropologi-
cal studies and research. Proof of actual use by Indians of given areas is
of the most general character, and, considering it in the aggregate, the
188
areas constitute but a relatively small part of the total lands involved
in this case, Area B. We must, as the anthropologists did, reason and
assume from our knowledge of the culture of these aborigines that they
lived and had their permanent abodes in places best suited to their econ-
omic life and which they exploited as the primary sources of their sub-
sistence and at the same time, or at least in connection therewith, they
exploited the available resources in the less productive territory sur-
rounding or in the vicinity of their settlements.
"An ecologic analysis of the area here under study involved the divi-
sion of the territory into a number of zones according to their economic
importance: (1) those of intensive use--these generally included the
settlements or surrounding territory consisting of about one-fifth of a
claimed area from which as high as 80 per cent of the subsistence was de-
rived; then follows, (2) zones of less intensive use; (3) seasonal use;
(4) infrequent use; and (5) the least use of any but, nevertheless, used
for crossing, trailing or occasional use of sacred places located therein,
and perhaps, on occasion, to defend the more important areas. Obviously,
the analysis above mentioned concerned the state as a whole in its general
application, but it was applied to specific lands, some of which are in
Area B.
"We believe the study of the economic resources of the state and their
relationship to the quantity of land required to support the Indians in
their way of life has value in understanding the economic picture. How-
ever, we cannot accept the Government's thesis that the resources of the
state or any part thereof can be determined mathematically by assigning a
large percentage of subsistence derived from a small part of a given ter-
ritory and reduced percentages of subsistence in other areas of a terri-
tory claimed by a particular tribelet. The testimony and ethnographic
literature, of which there are volumes in evidence, show that the Indian
groups ranged throughout their respective territories in their gathering,
hunting, and fishing exertions. While these Indians were never considered
nomads, their exploitation of the available resources in a given territory
required frequent and extended traveling within the territories claimed.
We believe it unrealistic and contrary to the Indian mode of life to re-
strict Indian territorial rights to the lands which would simply provide
adequate subsistence and disallow their land claims to the areas which
were of secondary importance or supplemental to the main sources of sup-
plies. 'We suspect territorial expanse was as much the desire of these
primitive peoples as it is characteristic of the white man for there is
much ethnographic evidence that the Indian groups in California moved about
their respective domains gathering wild foods as they ripened or captured
available wild game, and during a normal season would visit and use the
whole territory to which they asserted ownership as their exclusive places
of abode.
"We know of no decision by the courts or the administrative officers
of the Government which limited Indian land claims to those lands which
provided them with the common necessities of life. The requirements of
the Indians were so varied that they could only be obtained from a large
area for salt, edible seeds and insects, flint and other important supplies
were in most cases not available in the confined areas of valleys but ob-
ta/inable from desert areas."
189
Also from p. 39.
"The Commission therefore concludes that the Indians have proven
aboriginal Indian title to all of said lands in Area B except those Span-
ish or Mexican grants located therein."
California Area A lands were those of groups like the Pit River, lbsho,
Modoc, Yuma, etc. which were allowed to present separate petitions. In spite
of the fact that the Department of Justice has appealed the decision of the
Indian Claims Commission to the Court of Claims, the Opinion rendered stimu-
lates hope that the final order will be in favor of the Indians.
Since 1946 there have been at least fifty anthropologists involved in the
Indian Claims Cases as expert witnesses for the Government or for the Indians.
Attorneys did not seek anthropological testimony for either side in the initial
cases.  Following an order for a rehearing by the Court of Claims in an appeal
of a Northern Paiute case, and also a rehearing of a Chippewa case, anthropolo-
gists have participated in nearly every case since where aboriginal title was
an issue. That anthropologists have also proved useful to the government is
apparent.  Otherwise it would not have obtained their services. That anthro-
pologists have benefitted from this serious application of their knowledge to
practical problems, far more than from the monetary remuneration they received,
is also true.
Incidentally, after having participated in the Indian claims cases as
expert witnesses, anthropologists will find themselves less inclined to return
to the ivory tower of the past.  In fact, today, the ivory tower in anthropol-
ogy seems to be disappearing. Anthropologists are finding themselves useful
on all fronts, for example, anthropologist Dr. Philleo Nash is Commissioner of
Indian Affairs. I think the large number of anthropologists who assisted in
settling the claims cases has helped to bring about this situation. That
A. L. Kroeber was among those who participated helped a great deal.
190
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
MAP SERIES
No. 11
.- TLAHOMTAHOI     NATIVE TRIBES, GROUPS, DIALECTS, AND FAMIIIES OF CALTFORNIA IN 1770
ATiTAInASOAN FAMrLY
Oregon gronup
la. Rogue River (uninhabited)
Tolowa group
b. Tolowa
Ilupa group
Ic. I-t[lp
ld. 0lillula
le. Whilknct
Mattole group
If. Matntole
Wailaki group
Ig. Nongatl
Ih. Lussfik
1U. Sinkyone
11. Wailaki
lk. Kato
AtONKRIN FAMILY
Yltok
2a. Yurok
2b. Coast Yurok
8. Wiyot
YUKtAN FAMITrA
4a. Yutki
4b. Iluchnom
4c. Coast Yuki
4 d. Wappo
LUITUAMIAN FAMII.Y
5. Modloc
HolCAN FAMILJY
Shastan
6a. Shastn
Gb. New River Shasta
60. Konomihu
6d. Okwanuchu
Oe. Achomawi (Pit River)
Of. Atsugowi (Hat Creek)
Yana
7a. Northern Yana (Note)
7hb. Central Yana (Noze)
7c. Southern Yana
74. Yahi
8. Karok
9. Chimarlko
Pomn
10a. Northern
101). Central
l0c. Eastern (Clear Lake)
104. Southeastern (bower lJake)
10o. Northeastern
10f.  oluthern
] 0g. Southwestorn
1 1. Wanho
12. Rdselen
Salinan
1Ba. Antoniano
18b. Migueleflo
18c. Playano (doubtful)
Ohumnash
14a. Ohlspefio
14b. Purisimeflo
14c. Ynezefio
14d. Barbareflo
14e. Venturefio
14f. Emilgdiano
14g. Interior (doubtful)
14h. Island
Yuman
l5i. Northern (Western) Dlegueflo
15b. Southern (Eastern) Dlegueflo
1Fe. Kamia
15d. Yuma
15e. HIalchidhoms (now Ohemehuevit)
1ff. Mohave
PRNUTIAN FAMILY
Wintun
Dialect groups t
16a. Wintu (N. Wintun)
10b. Wintun (Central, Nomlaki)
16o. River Patwin (S.E. Wintun)
10d. 11ill Patwin (8.W. Winttin)
Maldu
Dialect groups!
l7a. Northeastern
17b. Northwestern
17c. Ninenan (S. Maldu)
Mlwok
18 a. Coast
1 8b. Lake
18c. Plains
18d. Northern
18e. Central
18f. Southern
"-ME KROEBER3 1955,
NEW BOUbDRRIES
Oostanoan
19a. Saklan (doubtful)
19b. San Francisco.
l9c. Santa Clara
19d. Santa Crus
19e. San Jutan Bautista (Mutbun)
19/f. Monterey (Rumsen)
l9g. Soledad
Yokuts
Dialect groups:
20a. Northern Valley (Chulamni, Chalchlla, etc.)
20b. Southern Valley (Tachi, Yauelmaui, etc.)
20c. Northern 1ill (Ohukchansl, etc.)
20d. Kings River (Choinimni, etc.)
20e. Tule-Kaweah (Yaudanchi, etc.)
20f. Posoe reek (Paleuyarmi)
20g. Buena Vista (Tulamni, etc.)
UTO-AZTRCAN (SIIOSIIONRAN) FAMItY
Plateau branch
Mono.Bin.nnock group:
21a. Northern Paiulo (Pavlotso)
21b. Eastern Mono (Paluto)
21c. Western Mono
Rhoshon-.Comanche group:
21d. Pahamint (Koso, Shoshone)
Ute.Chemehuevi group:
21e. Chemehuevl (Southern Palute)
21f. Knwaiisn (Tehachapi)
Kern River branch
21g. Tilbatulabal (and BIankalachi)
Southern California branch
Serrano group:
21h. Kitanemut (Tejon)
211. Alliklik
211. Vanyume (Mihlneyam)
21k. Serrano
Gabrielino group:
211. Fernandefo
21m. Gabriollno
21n. Nicolefio
LuiseflonCahuilk group :
21o. Juanefio
21p. Iulseflo
21q. Cupefio
21r. Pass Cahuilla
21,. Mouentain Cshtilla
21t. Desert Cashullia
14h
CN VC, %:>
21n
~lzs
UNIVRns1TY or OA.twFOtNIA
DEiARTAIRNT or ANTH!ROPOLIOnY
Compiled 1922, Reprinted 1905
lm-5,'S8
r      I ,s5