7 DIVISION OF LABOR AMONG THE INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA Nona Christensen Willoughby EDITOR'S PREFACE . 9 INTRODUCTION 11 ABORIGINAL CALIFORNIA . 14 DIVISION OF LABOR IN HUNTING 15 Table 1: Division of Labor in Hunting . 17 Notes on Division of Labor in Hunting 19 DIVISION OF LABOR IN FISHING . . 21 Table 2: Division of Labor in Fishing . . . 22 Notes on Division of Labor in Fishing 24 DIVISION OF LABOR IN GATHERING . . 26 Table 3: Division of Labor in Gathering 28 Notes on Division of Labor in Gathering 30 DIVISION OF LABOR IN PREPARATION AND COOKING OF FOOD 34 Table 4: Division of Labor in Preparation and Cooking . 36 Notes on Preparation and Cooking of Food 38 DIVISION OF LABOR IN AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES 40 DIVISION OF LABOR IN CRAFTS a . . . . 41 Household Articles . . . . . 41 Implements Used in Hunting, Fishing and War . 43 Transportation 44 Housing 44 Musical Instruments 45 Clothing 45 Skin Dressing 46 Table 5: Division of Labor in Crafts 47 Notes on Manufacturing . . . 50 CHIEFS, SHAMANS AND BERDACHES . 57 Table 6: Chiefs, Shamans and Berdaches 59 Notes on Chiefs, Shamans and Berdaches 61 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 64 BIBLIOGRAPHY 69 MAPS Kroeber's (1925) Map of Native Tribes, Groups, Dialects, and Families in California in 1770 frontispiece Map 1: Division of Labor in Hunting 20 Map 2: Division of Labor in Fishing 25 8 Map 3: Division of Labor in Gathering of Pine Nuts and Acorns . . Map 4: Division of Labor in Obtaining Water Map 5: Division of Labor in Collecting Wood Map 6: Division of Labor in Preparation and Cooking of Food . . Map 7: Division of Labor in Cordage Making Map 8: Division of Labor in Manufacture of Cradles Map 9: Division of Labor in Manufacture of Clothes Map 10: Division of Labor in Manufacture of Rabbit Skin Blankets . . . 0 Map 11: Division of Labor in Manufacture of Moccasins Map 12: Division of Labor in Preparation of Skins Map 13: Sex of Berdaches Throughout California Map 14: Sex of Shamans Throughout California . 31 32 33 39 51 52 53 54 55 56 62 63 9 EDITOR'S PREFACE The following paper on the division of labor among the Indians of California was submitted by the author, Nona Christensen Willoughby, in 1948, as a Master's thesis for the degree of Master of Arts in Anthro- pology at the University of California in Berkeley. In 1954, Professor A. L. Kroeber and I, as expert witnesses working in behalf of the Indians of California, plaintiffs in a suit against the United States Government, were engaged in accumulating materials to be presented before the Indians Claims Commission, which held hearings in Berkeley in June and July, 1954. Mrs. Willoughby at that time granted permission for her thesis to be microfilmed and presented in evidence, and the information served a useful purpose in documenting the fact of use and occupancy of land by California Indians. The present work is restricted to an examination of the situation on California Indians. Readers interested in comparative data may wish to consult other published data on the same subject by N. M. Giffen,1 G. P. 2 - Murdock, H. E. Driver and W. C. Massey,3 and D. W. Heath.4 R. F. Heizer 1. N. M. Giffen, "The Roles of Men and Women in Eskimo Culture." University of Chicago Publications in Anthropology, Ethnological Series, Vol. 13. Chicago, 1930. 2. G. P. Murdock. "Comparative Data on Division of Labor by Sex." Social Forces, Vol. 15. Baltimore, 1937. 3. H. E. Driver and W. C. Massey. "Comparative Studies of North American Indians." Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 47, Part 2, pp. 312, 314, 371-373, map 106. Philadelphia, 1957. 4. D. W. Heath, "Sexual Division of Labor and Cross-cultural Research." Social Forces, Vol. 37, pp. 77-79. Baltimore, 1958. 11 INTRODUCTION There exists in the economic structure of all societies a system, designated as "the division of labor," of cooperative and competitive relationships among the members of the group. This plan involves "the splitting up of the total amount of work needed to keep the economy of a given group operating at its customary rate of efficiency" (Herskovits 1940:100). The primary division, based on sex, is extremely rigid in some societies. This rigidity cannot be logically explained in terms of biological differences only for inculturation plays a significant role in determining what is men's work and what is women's work. Often there is so much emotional loading connected with traditional laws governing the division that rarely if ever are they broken, except for transves- tites. In some cases, as among the Indians of California, the potency of the sexual dichotomy is lessened by the need for close cooperation of all members of the society in order to secure an adequate food supply. The secondary division, craft specialization, may or may not be found in a particular nonliterate society, although it is always found among literate groups. When it does occur among peoples living near the survival level, as did the California Indians, rarely is the indi- vidual exempt from providing for his or her own subsistence. Craft specialization, in such instances, offers merely a means 3f attaining prestige and recognition for excellence of workmanship. This study seeks to determine the division of labor among the California Indians, most of whom possessed a subsistence economy based upon hunting, fishing, and gathering. Although consideration of the sexual dichotomy in religious affairs, political activities, and games, as well as the mythological explanations for such divisions, could be included in this work, the inquiry is limited to the economic aspects gL-the problem. The facts are based on library research, including ethnographic monographs, historical publications, and travelers' accounts. Several questions arose in the course of this study; for example, just what economic tasks are assigned to men and to women? How rigidly is this dichotomy upheld? How does age affect the assignment of these tasks? Does craft specialization, as found in Western society, exist? If not, what type of specialization,, if any, does occur? What are the rewards for the specialist or expert? These questions can be answered in varying degrees, but others, such as the amount of time an 12 individual spends at a particular task, the importance of one occupation as compared to another., or the amount of time spent in daily routine activities, must be left unanswered or merely surmised for the sources rarely consider such problems. In order to present an organized summary of the data, the various economic practices of each tribe surveyed are divided into major occupa- tional categories: hunting; fishing; gathering; preparation of food; agriculture; craftsmanship; and chiefs, shamans, and berdaches. These are broken down into separate traits and recorded on tables included in this paper. Where there is sufficient information to warrant it, maps plotting the distribution of traits are included. Naturally, there are many gaps on the tables and maps due to lack of information as to the sex of the worker in a particular occupation. Negative traits are only occasionally considered as the few instances of such reports are too limited to be of value. The quantity and quality of the data on the various tribes are extremely variable since many of the older ethno- graphic accounts contain minute descriptions of techniques without any reference to the workers, while more recent studies pay greater atten- tion to the question of the division of labor. Trade is not included in this survey as it played a relatively minor part in the economy of most California aborigines. Fifty California Indian tribes are included in this report. These are as follows: Northwest California Tolowa Mattole Chimariko Sinkyone Karok Wailaki Yurok Kato Hupa Yuki Proper Wiyot Coast Yuki Nongatl Lassik North Central California Wappo Pomo Patwin 13 Northeast California Kiamath (southeast Oregon) Modoc Shasta Eastern - Shasta Valley Western - Klamath and Atsugewi Achomawi Eastern Wes tern Yana Rogue Rivers - Hammawi - Achomawi Proper Wintu Northern - Trinity, McCloud, and Sacramento rivers Central - Nomlaki Maidu Northeastern - Mountain Northwestern - Foothill and Valley Maidu Nisenan (Southern Maidu) Foothill - Yuba River Mountain - Northern Nisenan Southern - South mountainous area Northern and Central Washo Northern Paiute Paviotso Surprise Valley Paiute South Central California Coast Cos tanoan Salinan Chumash Fernandeino Gabrielino Southern California Serrano Cahuilla Desert, Pass and Mountain Diegueino Western or Northern Eastern or Southern (Desert) Luiseino Cupeino Kamia Interior of California-Sierra Miwok Yokuts Mono Banklachi Tilbatulabal Kawaiisu Panamint Southern Paiute - Owens Valley Chemehuevi Colorado River Region Yuma Mohave Voegelin has subdivided the tribes of Northeast California to a greater extent than did Kroeber, but these variations have been correlated in the above list. 14 For each occupational category, tables are given listing the tribes and the traits studied. Tribelet variations or specific trait peculiar- ities are indicated by a superscript directing the reader to the notes on the following page. A five-scale rating of the division of labor is used, but as the various authors seldom follow a similar system, it is of little value. The symbol "M' designates tasks performed by men only; "F" for exclusively feminine tasks. The symbol "M" means that generally men did the job, with women occasionally participating, while "F" has the reverse significance. Where the symbol "B" occurs, both sexes did the work, supposedly equally. The latter is misleading, however, for often an ethnographer will say that both sexes engaged in a particular occupa- tion without any reference to the frequency of masculine or feminine performance. With "?" the trait is present but complete information is lacking, whereas "-" points out that the trait is definitely lacking. "+" indicates the presence of the trait. Maps are included with the general discussion of each occupational category, and where possible the variations in the division of labor according to subgroups are indicated. However, only traits with fairly wide distribution are mapped. A legend is given with each map, except for the blank areas which signify "no information." ABORIGINAL CALIFORNIA Aboriginal Californians, essentially marginal peoples, shared traits with adjacent Northwest Coast, Great Basin, and Southwest tribes. Although various groups differed ecologically, historically, linguisti- cally, and culturally, they all possessed a subsistence economy based on hunting, fishing, and gathering. Subsistence agriculture was absent except in the Colorado River region. Gathering was of primary importance, with acorns the staple where available; these were supplemented by other nuts, berries, grasses, seeds, and roots. Hunting never played a dominant role in the economy, but fishing did, particularly in northern California and the Santa Barbara area. California as a whole offered a favorable ecological balance and mild climatic conditions. Indian technology was simple; tools. utensils, implements and weapons were few but adequate. Clothing was scant: women wore an apron front and back and men went naked or tied a piece of skin around the hips. In cod weather a skin blanket was worn. Much variety existed in house types. but they were usually simple structures except for the plank house of the Yurok and Hupa. which was related to those of the Northwest. Basketry, 15 which. was a highly developed art, furnished hats, carrying baskets, cooking utensils, cradles, fish traps, and various containers. Tribal organization as reported for most of the United States was absent in California except for the Mohave and Yuma. The Yokuts tribe- lets, some of whose groups included four or five hundred individuals with dialectical differences, were the closest approximation to such organization. Each village or tribelet had its own chief, even the small settlements with only a few families. The chief had only nominal power and occasionally a potent shaman could exert more influence over his neighbors than the leader. DIVISION OF LABOR IN HUNTING Hunting, primarily a male activity, was found among all California tribes, and while its importance in the total economy varied with the area, it never furnished the major portion of the food supply. Much of the hunting was done on an individual basis or with only a few partici- pating, but at favorable times large communal hunts were undertaken. Most of the birds and animals of the state were utilized, those of greatest economic significance being the deer, antelope, rabbits and other rodents, and birds. Although traps, snares, and deadfalls were used to a limited extent, the bow and arrow was the most important weapon. Disguises were worn, particularly in the north, allowing the hunter to creep up on the animal stalked. The seal was hunted by the Tolowa, Wiyot, Yurok, Mattole, Sinkyone, and Kato; it was a particularly dangerous task for the Pomo and Coast Yuki men. (C. A. DuBois 1932:254; Curtis 1924:8:73; Driver 1939:314; Loeb 1926:169; Gifford 1939:318-319) Excellent swimmers went out to the rocks, clubbed the seals, and swam back to shore with them. At times a seal or sea lion attempted to get free by diving with its captor, occasionally drowning the hunter. Hunting was not the principal male economic activity for all groups; in northwest California salmon fishing was dominant. Also, there were cases where the animal products were supplied solely by proficient or professional hunters among the Wiyot, Miwok, Pomo, and Patwin. (Curtis 1926:13:72; Aginsky 1943:396; Loeb 1926:180; McKern 1922:249) The size of the hunting groups varied; among the Mattole, Sinkyone, Nongatl (Nomland 1938:110), Modoc (Payne 1938:10), and Yuma (Forde 1931: 118) never more than three or four would hunt together, but the majority 16 of the tribes held large communal hunts in which most, if not all, of the village men assisted. The Tubatulabal groups, though generally involving only four or five men, had as many as five hundred people participating in the July antelope hunt (Voegelin 1938:11, 13). Women assisted in the communal drives of the Wintu, Foothill Maidu, Yokuts, Paiute, and Mohave (C. A. DuBois 1935:10; Voegelin 1942:62; Steward 1933:252; Schoolcraft 1860:VI:78), as did Owens Valley Paiute and Wintu children (Steward 1933:252; C. A. DuBois 1935:10). Northern California hunters generally butchered large game in the woods and then packed it home. Wailaki men would leave the deer for their wives and children to cut up and carry back to camp (Curtis 1926:14:24), Deer were generally prepared by men as women were considered "unclean," particularly during their menstrual period, and therefore dangerous to a hunter1 s success. No information is available for the southern half of the state except for the Serrano, where the men butchered the meat (Benedict 1924:392). The incongruity of sex activity and menstruation with deer hunting in the native mind is evident in the frequency of associated taboos. Among thirty-three tribes men were prohibited from hunting deer at the birth of an infant, with the taboo lasting from one to forty days, the extremes being rare. A similar restriction of from three to ten days was imposed on men during their wives' menstrual period by twenty-five tribes. In many cases the hunter had to be sexually continent for about four days prior to going after deer. These prohibitions, however, had little economic consequence as the men were generally free to hunt for other game animals. 17 TABLE 1 Division of Labor in Hunting oc 0 0 0 ci cu .o co 0 0 o 4 H n t )CZ 0 4 Co 4 o 0 .s w) e ' S S 4 - e 0 CU > rC CU CU 0 4 o 0 CU - '-I 0cot 0 g 4C/ k C 04 44 0 T) w 4- -'4 Q) -r4 C) cU 'v 4 tO < CU C 0 '- -H C vU D tocCU o "A S CU 3 CE 3 -H 3 CJ C ~ 0 PL4c Z$ 60 0 ct r E co 7 :J ,l4 0:.t : > a: > 4 si v 44 5 'H ) 4 44 Q ) c 44 C U _ S C C cU 4 IC 'H C k 3J )4 0 C 0 3 U 3 44 44 ) H H C- O 4 a O CO C- C) CO Y P p~ ~ ~ - .3 W.- 0P Tolowa m M M M M M M M M 6 51 Chimariko M M M M M M - M - - Karok M M M M M M - M 7 ? Yurok M M M M M M M M 10 201 Wiyot M M M M M M M M - - Hupa M M M M M M - M M 10 ? Nongatl M M N4 M M M - M 5 30' Mattole M M M4 M M M M M 5 1 Sinkyone M M M4 M M M M M 5 101 Wailaki M M M M M M F F ? ? Kato M M M M M m M M 6 301 Yuki M M M M M M M ? 3 02 Coast Yuki M M M4 M M M M M M ? Lassik M M M M 3 7 Patwin M M M. M M M ? Pomo M M M M M M M M M ? Wappo M M Yana M M M M N3 Klamath M M M M F M M M - - Modoc M M M4 M M M M - 5' Shasta M M M M M M M ?s 28' Atsugewi M M M M M M M - ? Achomawi M M M M M M M ?9 ? Washo M M M 7 Paiute-North N M M M F M M ? Wintu M M M M F M M M ?9 286 Maidu M M M M F M M M ?9 ?8 18 TABLE 1 [cont'd. ] -r4 -r4 U to4 U) to a z N 0) 0 rH cr ;> c ? X 00r- :Je j. , 04 CUc r E3.. co tO CU "O CUX r4 04 > a 4.1 04r H O 4-) 4.) H ca 1 r -4 0) la 0 C) 4-i 0 C04 0 0 4-J :5 C. to 4-i :5 Ca Q) Co b) O 4-i X 0 04 -H cn r:4 0 a4 r-4 04 -H4 C C?) Cf4 N a) c ,d: -v.4 4-) 44 o COi CD) CU o0 0 0 0, CU H 4-J C :5 C 0 4r-4 :5 4-J U) C U) co m 0 0 ,0 4- Cd 4J 4-H Nisenan Miwok Yokut s Mono Bankalachi Tilbatulabal Kawaiisu Panamint Paiute- South Costanoan Salinan Chumash Gabriel ino F ernandeino Serrano Cahuilla Cupeno Luiseino Di egueino Kami a Chemehuevi Mohave Yuma M M M M M M M M M13 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 14 M M 14 1 4 1 4M M M M lv 14m m m M4 M M4 M 4 14 M44 14 I M M M F B M M M ? 67 710 710 ? ? 710 710 - 7 M - 30 F B M - 10 F B M M M M4 F 1412 14 M M M M M M M M M M M 14 - ? ? ? ? 7 ?11 30 40 711 Refer to p. 14 for explanation of symbols Superscript refers to Notes on following page 19 Notes on Division of Labor in Hunting 1. Only deer hunting taboo (Voegelin 1942:118; Driver 1939:350). 2. Only deer hunting taboo, but there is a question as to duration, thirty or seven days? (Driver 1939:350; Essene 1942:33) 3. Game not butchered until taken home (Sapir and Spier 1943:252). 4. Hunting groups are small. (Nomland 1938:110; Payne 1938:10; Gifford 1931:26; Forde 1931:118) 5. Only among the Western Shasta is deer hunting taboo during a wife's menstrual period (Voegelin 1942:129). 6. The number of days taboo is enforced varies with subgroups. Twenty-eight days for the Trinity and Sacramento Wintu, and four days for the McCloud Wintu (Voegelin 1942:118). 7. Number of days taboo enforced varies. Duration not given for Foothill and Southern Nisenan, but it lasted six days among the Mountain Nisenan (Voegelin 1942:118). 8. Number of days taboo enforced varies. Forty days for the Valley Maidu, three days for the Mountain Maidu, and no duration given for the Foothill Maidu (Voegelin 1942:118). 9. Hunting taboo at wife's menstrual period for Western Achomawi, McCloud Wintu, Valley and Foothill Maidu, but not for other tribelets in groups (Voegelin 1942:129). 10. Deer hunting taboo at birth and menstrual period. Duration of taboos vary for Miwok, Yokuts, and Mono tribelets, and informants do not agree for the Owens Valley Paiute (Aginsky 1943:436, 438; Driver 1937: 96, 98). 11. Taboo varies from three to forty days (Drucker 1937:31). 12. Communal rabbit hunts. Men club rabbits and women pick them up (Schoolcraft 1860:VI:78). 13. Large communal hunts with all participating. In Owens Valley young men chase deer and older men shoot them (Steward 1938:53). 20 DIVISION OF LABOR IN HUNTING ONLY MEN HUNT ,1 7c. V..... BOTH SEXES HUNT, BUT MEN PREDOMINATE 16b -- - 20a. I'm 'l . - 149 14f 14.1 14h a 46--l 21j \v.> ( 15.) 21n 21w" MAP 1 [See Frontispiece for explanation of coding] 21 DIVISION OF LABOR IN FISHING Fishing was practiced by all tribes but the Chemehuevi, Panamint, and Desert Cahuilla, who lived in an arid region (Drucker 1937:7-8). Although it was primarily a male occupation, women fished in the north and in the Southern Sierra tract. The place of fishing in the native economy depended upon the availability of fish. Salmon, trout, eels, lampreys, and perch were the commonest species caught, with salmon serving as a staple in northwestern California. Various kinds of shell fish, including crabs, mussels, and clams were usually procured by the women. Spears, harpoons-, nets, clubs, traps, and weirs were the fishing devices used by the men. Women among the Northeastern tribes, the Western Mono, and Foothill Yokuts scooped up the fish in baskets (Voegelin 1942:62; Gayton 1948:263, 276). Fish poisons, where found, were used solely by the men except for the Yuki and Eastern Achomawi (Foster 1944: 172; Voegelin 1942:174). The hook and line played only a minor part, serving primarily in areas having a large body of water. Fishing was practiced either individually or communally. In the joint enterprises a definite division of labor existed; for example, Thbatulabal men drove the fish into nets, then threw them on the bank, where the women piled them up for a later division of the catch (Voegelin 1938:14). A similar practice, which reversed the procedure, occurred among the Achomawi (Curtis 1926:14:136). Yuki families went on coopera- tive fishing trips with everyone helping to catch and dry the fish that were then divided among the group (Foster 1944:164). Women and children of the Woponuch and Entimbich Mono and the Wukchamni Yokuts assisted the men in fishing. Men drove the fish into the traps and the others scooped up the fish in baskets or with their hands (Gayton 1948:263, 75-76). The prohibiting of fishing at the birth of a child or during a wife's menstrual period is not nearly as common as the deer hunting taboo. New fathers did not fish from three to thirty days in Northeastern Cali- fornia and for an indefinite period among several of the Southern tribes (Voegelin 1942:118; Drucker 1937:31). Husbands of menstruant women abstained from fishing among a few of the Northeastern groups, the Northern Miwok, the Choinimni Yokuts, the Northfork Mono, the Chumash, and the Yuma (Voegelin 1942:129; Drucker 1937:34; Aginsky 1943:438). 22 TABLE 2 Division of Labor in Fishing cni co Nm 0 ) 4r 4-i CD to C o E 4-' r 43 d 1 44 4 Cor Co c .r4 -'-44X4 4 r4 U co Co4) 'r4 v-i 0) a H 4 -H r4 44 'H 0ta .r4 0 Os 0 CU 0 0 Z 0 < -4 cn Z C-) P4 t0 .r4 4 co 'r4 rX4 '0 .r4 0) 0 :3 0 0 .0 CU 4i Co Cd 'H 44 CU U) Co N CU 0 0 4 Co 'IC .F 44 4-I 'H Siq Po6 . Tolowa Chimar iko Karok Yurok Wiyo t Hupa Nongat 1 MattoLe S inkyone Wai laki Kato Yuki Coast Yuki Lassik Patwin Pomo Wappo Yana Klamath Modo c Shasta Atsugewi Achomawi Washo Paiute-North Wintu Maidu B B M M M M B B B M B B B M B B1 B M B B B2 B M M B B B M B M M B M M B B B M B M B M M M M M M M M M N M B M M M M M M M M M M M F M M5 N N N N F5 F F F F F B M M M M M M M M F M m F M M F M M F M M F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F 6 I? - 5 - 287 ? ? ?6 ? 7 -6 ?7 76 77 M M F M M F M M F 23 TABLE 2 [cont'd.] o C1) 4 C) to 0 4 Ca [44 r-4 C1) Cd z 3 C, " to 'H .4 Fz~ .,, .r4 I-" ,C$ "0 'H "-q ,1 to ,4 rZ4 4 co .4 F14 3-4 C) P4 u) co 1 Ca ;: cn 4 4, Ca Y .j ) 'H 'rH 0 Cd r4 4 0 C Ca - 44i 4-3 94 0 C1) Cd 0 0 z 0 - to d 'H 4 CD '1 *ol C3) 0 :3 U) Cd a 0 0 1.0 cd o .,4 Ca 0 4-J Cd :3 $4 4-4 cal C) co Cd~ o E-4 0 n PC4 4- ~4 $,4 'HI Nisenan Miwok Yokuts Mono Bankalachi TUbatulabal Kawaiisu Panamint Paiute-South Costanoan Salinan Chumash Gabrielino Serrano Cahuilla Cupeino Luise'no Dieguefno Kamia Chemehuevi Mohave Yuma B N B M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M3 F M M B M M M M M M M M M F ?6 ?6 76 F -6 F ?7 F - F - 77 B N N N N N N8 N8 le M M M4: M M M M M B M F M M M M ? ? 7 7 7 7 7 7 M M M M 7 - Refer to p. 14 for explanation of symbols Superscript refers to Notes on following page 24 Notes on Division of Labor in Fishing 1. Several families go on fishing trips together and share catch after it is dried (Foster 1944:164). 2. Only men fish among the Coast Pomo. Women gather abalone, mussels, barnacles, lamprey, and eels (Loeb 1926:164). 3. Most tribelets speared or harpooned fish, but this is denied by Michahai and Waksachi Yokuts (Gayton 1948:222). 4. A few men go out fishing together in boats (Heizer 1938:196). 5. Yurok women fish at some unappropriated spot, not at regular fishing place (Driver 1939:379). 6. Hupa women must not go near weir (Driver 1939:379). Fishing taboo at wife's menstrual period only among the Western Achomawi, Foot- hill and Valley Maidu, Foothill and Mountain Nisenan, most of the Northern Miwok, and the Choinimni Yokuts. (Voegelin 1942:129; Aginsky 1943:438; Driver 1937:98) 7. Fishing taboo at birth for varying number of days. Western Shasta, twenty-eight days; Eastern Shasta, unknown; Trinity Wintu, twenty-eight days; McCloud Wintu, four days; Sacramento Wintu, thirty days; Mountain Maidu, unknown; Foothill Maidu, three days; Valley Maidu, thirty days; Foothill and Southern Nisenan, unknown; Mountain Nisenan, six days (Voegelin 1942:118). 8. Fishing of little importance in most of Southern California except on the Coast and on the Colorado River. 25 DIVISION OF LABOR IN FISHING BOTH SEXES FISHED ONLY MEN FISHED Vc.1 USUALLY MEN FISHED, OCCASIONALLY WOMEN 16 b *. . ., TRAIT DENIED, ARID REGION 20o -..*.-.-.-. . * .- .... . 21d ............... ....|^^. ,, ,, ., 2. : - 211% 21rvn MAP 2 [See Frontispiece for explanation of coding] 26 DIVISION OF LABOR IN GATHERING Gathering of plant materials was the most important source of food and general supplies. A whole complex of traits was fashioned around the treatment of forest and meadow products, particularly around the utiliza- tion of the acorn. Various seeds, nuts, grasses, greens, berries,'bulbs, roots, and cactus products were used by the women, who spent most of their day gathering and preparing them. At certain times of the year, particu- larly in the fall, everyone would participate in the gathering in order to collect the year's supply of acorns and pine nuts during the short harvest season. In these joint enterprises the men often did little more than climb the trees to knock down the nuts, but among some groups they helped pick the nuts off the ground and transported them home. Generally, however, men did not gather, this being a woman's job, but, as pointed out by a Modoc informant, "if man not good hunter, he helps gather wokus, or digs roots; he has to eat" (Voegelin 1942:181). Men would occasionally aid in gathering more incidental vegetable products; for example, among the Karok the men gathered berries (Powers 1877:23). Recently, since selling baskets to tourists has become a profit- able business, Karok and Yurok men have begun to-help gather materials for basket making (O'Neale 1932:137). Both men and women of the Chunut and Tachi Yokuts of Tulare Lake gathered tule roots, but only the former col- lected the tules (Gayton 1948:11, 13). Michahai and Waksachi Yokuts men gathered and cooked yucca (Gayton 1948:222). Children took an active part in collecting activities. Girls and young boys went out with the women on gathering trips as did the old men on occasion. Various kinds of insects, grubs, and larva were collected. As a rule the task was allotted to women, but occasionally only men went out after a particular kind of insect or other small species. Pomo men looked for snails, Nisenan for grasshoppers, and Surprise Valley Paiutes for crickets. (Loeb 1926:164; Beals 1933:348; Kelly 1932:93) Joint insect hunts were sometimes undertaken. Communal grasshopper drives would bring together a number of people. In the Sinkyone gathering parties, men would fire the grass and then the women and children collected the insects in baskets (Nomland 1935:153). The Miwok had a similar drive in which not only all the men, women, and children of a particular village, but often two or more villages, would cooperate (Barrett and Gifford 1933:190-191). The task of wood gathering can not be ascribed as either predominantly feminine or masculine in California. The general tendency was for women to 27 bring in the wood if it was easily available, but men often assisted and almost always brought in the larger logs. For example, among the Wukchumni Yokuts, the men chopped down and cut up the fir trees, whereupon both sexes packed the wood home (Gayton 1948: 78). Water was frequently brought to camp by the women, but in many tribes either sex might assume this job. In northeast California men usually went after the water if the source was far from camp (Voegelin 1942:63). Occasionally the chief, a shaman,' or a specially appointed man directed the time and place of gathering. This was found among the tribelets of the four major tribes located in the Central and Southern Sierra region. The Central and Northern Miwok had such a director, as did the Gashowu Mono, Northfork Mono, Yokuts living along the San Joaquin River, and Owens Valley Paiute. (Aginsky 1943:400; Steward 1933:241) The Patwin chief served as director, whereas the Klamath shaman set the time for gathering wokus (McKern 1922:244; Voegelin 1942:176). Only in northwestern California is there any record of women being prohibited from gathering during their menstrual period. The restriction lasted from four to ten days, depending on the tribe, and was found among the Chimariko, Karok, Yurok, Mattole, Sinkyone Kato, and Lassik (Driver 1939:353). Although gathering was primarily feminine, there was no rigid rule preventing men from participating. In some cases they lost prestige by assisting with women's work, but references to a good man helping his wife are surprisingly frequent. Women, however, were not as free to take part in men's work-hunting and fishing-due primarily to the negative attitudes toward sex, pregnancy, and menstruation. The greater laxity in gathering was largely due to necessity, for it would have been impossible to harvest all the acorns and pine nuts during the short season without mutual coop- eration. 28 TABLE 3 Division of Labor in Gathering 44) 0 CO 44 .. z ,fl 0) 14: 4 Cd "d 0) 4 0) 4 c) N4 4-' 4L co CO 44 0 o 44 N 1j H CO Z , ~ 0 N 0 W o r4 r-4 o *,1i - < p cq a) 0 0 p4 4J .,4 9 0 44 z 44 C) Ci) 4J 0 0 CO 0 ri) a) 0) Co 44 0O ,I: CO cri ,0 :j N 0 Cd 144 C) CO) I-' co 0 0 CO N 0 0 4 CO ED cU t) N 44J 0 r4 0 C- to r4 c4 44 0 10 N $4 44 (1) I'd 0 44 co '0 ~4 44 a) Cd 0 Cd ar c4 0) 44 CU 44 0 I44 CO Cd CO 0 C4 '0 u co '0 CO '0 0) 44 0) 40 44 44 44J ,0 N Cd 0 0 o '0 0 4 "O (1 o 44 Cd o cd N :3 3 EH 60 0. 4 o0 44J 0 0 co , fl CdO(L riq E-4 P4 44J cJ bor- C) ta-i 0) rco N r-U3j .,i NN 4 cn i 44 CV z o Tolowa Chimariko Karok Yurok Wiyot Hupa Nongat I Mattole Sinkyone Wai laki Kato Yuki Coast Yuki Lassik Patwin Pomo Wappo Yana Klamath Modoc Shasta Atsugewi Achomawi Washo Paiute-North Wintu Maidu F B B B F F F F F F F B F B F F F B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B B B2 B.2 B B B B B B B B B B B B B - B - B m B M B - B M B - B M B M M B M B M F F F B' M M M F F F F F B F F B F1 F F F F F F F1 F B F 5 7 10 5 4 B F1 B B M B F F B F B B M F M B M B M B M B M B M B B B M B M Fl F M F F F F B B M F M F F B1 F1 F F B B F F B M F F B B4 F M F M F B M F M B M M B F B B B F F F B F M B B F B F F F F F B B F M M B B B F F F F B B B 6 29 TABLE 3 [ cont'd. ] s- .. ".0 ci) ci) 4 s- 4-i 01) Ca 4 -i co Z C: ? ) o C: C) 'ri -4 P4 .1i : 3 o 0) 4) 04 ut z 4 4-o 01) ',4 14 C C/) 0 U) 01) U) a) 4-i la Z 0 uC 0 I' co 4-i 0 0 U) 0) ,l 0) Uq IN 0L) 03) co 4-i 0 c: U) 10 W% cii CU U-) a) 0) 4-i 0) U) N 01) 0 04 0 U) c) CU3 N co 4. CL) 0) 0 tO .1-4 0L) 4-i CU a- "0 0) $4 CU 4-, 4-i co Co "0 s4 0) 10 co 0) r4 CUJ -1-4 N a) 4-3 4-i 0) Ui) CU U) 0 u b ) t4 CU s4 "0 CU PC4 P41 4-i CU z "0 0 0 C) U) CU 4 En -H 4 U) rX4 ,CU x --4 cU 0 0 rX4 to .4 5-1 C 0 0 1.0 co E- 0 0 0 Id 5:i U) o 0 i 0 o rI z H P-I rX4 4i to to cU to 0 to 0 -H Id -H 4 -v 5 g 4i v En o -H 44 cU O 4-i SI -H CU CU En 0 CO u 4 z . Tolowa Chimariko Karok Yurok Wiyot Hupa Nongatl Mattole Sinkyone Wai laki Kato Yuki Coast Yuki Lassik Patwin Pomo Wappo Yana Klamath Nodo c Shasta Atsugewi Achomawi Washo Paiute-North Wintu Maidu Nisenan F1 F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F B F F F F F F F F F F F N1 F F M F F2 F M M M M M F1 B F M F M F M F M F F F F F F F F F 6 5 7 10 F 10 F 5 F - F 5 6 M7 N M M B M F3 F F F M F N - F M - F m B F M M F M B - F M F F3 F3 B F F M F M - B M F B M F B F -4 -4 74 4 .74 ?4 ?4 ?4 ?4 F B B B F M F M F M F F F 37 TABLE 4 [ cont'd. ] 0 4-J Ce N CIO 04 a) N "04 0 0 rz4 a) N Ce) Ce U) 4-J z Co a a 0 'ri 0 "0 0 04 04 CIO CeJ 5-4 S-d p4 p4 U) (1 .,4 4i "0 PCe H 4-) Q) -d o r4 C Ce 4-) C4 e a) to4 Ce4 "0 4-i z "0 Ce 0 0 0 C) Ce 4 U) .- V0 Co~ rH "0 x Co 0 0 PM4 beD 'H Nr O 0 oo 'O " H N r 4 - 4 C C: U 0 0 E-4 bo ~0 to -44 0 0 0 Cn 4-J 0 =1 0 Z 'Hl 4-) to Ce d4 4 C) a) 4 z Miwok F Yokuts F Mono F Bankalachi F TUbatulabal F Kawaiisu F Panamint F Paiute-South F Serrano F Cahuilla F Cupeino F Diegueino F Luiseino F Kamia F Chemehuevi F Mohave F Yuma F F F F F 1' F F F F F F F F F F F F F F B M F F F6 F F F F F F B F F F F 75 ?5 ? ?5 ?5 7 75 7 ? F Refer to p. 14 for explanation of symbols Superscript refers to Notes on following page 38 Notes on Preparation and Cooking of Food 1. Tolowa men prepared and cured nearly all provisions (Drucker 1936:233). They worked in pairs butchering meat or whales (Drucker 1936:235). Women dried the fish (C. A. DuBois 1932:254). Drucker's and DuBois' statements conflict. 2. Hupa men aided in shelling acorns and pine nuts (Goddard 1903:27). 3. Male berdaches assisted the women preparing acorns and meal (Chesnut 1902:335). Women or old men would prepare and cook the fish (Loeb 1926:164). Men built bush houses for drying meat, but the women did the actual drying (Loeb 1926:173). 4. Cooking of meat tabooed during menstrual period among the Northeast Californians (Voegelin 1942:128). Extended to vegetable food among the Eastern Shasta and all the Nisenan but Southern group. 5. Taboo on cooking for others during menstrual period varies with tribelets (Aginsky 1943:438; Driver 1937:97; Drucker 1937:34). 6. Old men helped fix acorns (Spier 1923:334). 39 I'l lIIi DIVISION OF LABOR IN PREPARATION AND COOKING OF FOOD II, ,if II BOTH SEXES PREPARED FOOD WOMEN PREPARED AND COOKED ALL FOOD BUT MEAT 16b WOMEN PREPARED AND COOKED MOST OF THE FOOD, MEN HELPED OCCASIONALLY 2E111 ONLY WOMEN PREPARED AND COOKED FOOD E Q 14h Zim a1rr MAP 6 [See Frontispiece for explanation of coding] 40 DIVISION OF LABOR IN AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES The California Indians seldom engaged in subsistence agriculture, although some groups planted tobacco. The Owens Valley Paiute irrigated wild crops and gathered fish from the diverted water beds, but no domestic plants were cultivated (Steward 1933:247). True farming occurred only in the extreme southwest. For the Yuma, Kamia, and Mohave this was a joint occupation, whereas only Chemehuevi men farmed (Dorsey 1903:198; Powers 1889:13:564; Drucker 1941:95; Gifford 1931:22). In the case of the Kamia and Mohave, the men loosened the ground and the women dropped the seeds (Drucker 1941:95; Gifford 1931:22). Small Yuma and Mohave boys stood guard over the fields as the maize ripened, to scare away the birds (Forde 1931:113; Drucker 1941:95). The harvesting was done by the women. 41 DIVISION OF LABOR IN CRAFTS The division of labor is most sharply defined in craftsmanship. While there tends to be a more logical explanation for the dichotomy set-up in subsistence activities, reason plays little part in deter- mining which sex specializes in a given craft. As the technology of the California Indians was simple, every individual knew the various techniques necessary for the manufacture of the tools, utensils, or implements assigned to his or her sex according to tribal tradition. True craft specialization, freeing the individual from the food quest, did not exist except to a limited extent among the Pomo, Patwin, Miwok, Yuki, and some Yokuts tribelets, where the chief or special persons were exempted from hunting, fishing, or gathering. (Gifford 1926:386; Loeb 1926:177-181; McKern 1922:246; Aginsky 1943:432; Foster 1944:173; Gayton 1948:163, 195 [Kechayi and Wukchumni Yokuts]) Persons particu- larly gifted at making arrowheads, baskets, bows, and various implements often could sell their wares, but this supplied only occasional luxuries and prestige for workmanship. Household articles The women probably made most of the every day utensils, implements, and containers that they used. However, the available information indi- cates that men made bone, horn, wood, and stone implements. Exceptions, of course, are to be found. For example, Klamath women made mortars, metates, and pestles, and Owens Valley Paiute women assisted their hus- bands in this task (Spier 1930:145; Kelly 1943:79). Baskets and mats were a feminine speciality. The art of basketry was one of the few means by which women could gain prestige. Baskets were made and used extensively throughout the state except in the Colorado River region where the Indians generally obtained them by trade. In a few instances, men did some coarse twined work. Tolowa, Nongatl, Mattole, and Sinkyone men made fish baskets; Pomo men made basketry baby carriers, carrying and storage baskets, and woven fences; Yuki men made coarse carrying baskets. (Drucker 1937:232; Nomland 1938:114; Kroeber 1909:243; Foster 1944:172) Pottery making, found only in the southern half of the state, was a feminine occupation. There is reference to women potters among the Wintu, but the accuracy of this report for aboriginal times must be questioned. It is probably based on recent innovation, as the trait was completely lacking among other tribes in the area (Hodge 1905:969). Pottery was found as far north as the Choinimni, Sotolo, and Chukchansi Yokuts, but 42 was denied by all the Tulare Lake informants (Gayton 1948:148, 51, 226, 17). On occasion Western Mono women made pottery, as did their TUbatulabal and Owens Valley Paiute sisters (Driver 1937:80; Underhill 1944:38). The typical Southern California tribes shared the practice of anvil and paddle pottery in continuous distribution with the pottery makers to the east (Gifford 1928:353, 364; pottery of Mono, Yokuts, etc., was of the Pueblo variety, not paddle and anvil, p. 356). The Chumash had no need for pottery as the men made steatite dishes which served the same purpose (Heizer and Treganza 1944:300). Cordage making was distributed generally between both sexes; however, it was primarily a masculine job with women assisting in their spare time. Often the task fell to the aged. Old Wailaki men made hemp rope from spring to fall, as did the Pomo elders of Mendocino (Curtis 1924:14:24; Chesnut 1902:379). Both old men and old women among the Shasta made cordage except for the deer-snare rope which was a man's job (Holt 1946: 303). Spier reports that Klamath women made the rope and cordage, but Voegelin's informants said that both sexes made it (Spier 1930:145; Voegelin 1942:63). Nets, almost always made by men, were used throughout the state for fishing, carrying loads, and snaring game. They might be made by any man or just by a few experts. Only one or two men worked on the Wintu fish nets (Voegelin 1942:173). Yuki and Pomo men specialized in net-making (Foster 1944:172; Loeb 1926:179). Klamath women occasionally helped their husbands, and Chukchansi Yokuts women made carrying nets (Spier 1930:145; Gayton 1948:226). Cradles were made either by men or women, depending on the tribal tradition. In the Southern California culture area the task was predom- inantly masculine, while in the southwestern Sierra Yokuts women generally made the cradles (Drucker 1937:22; Driver 1937:122). Both sexes made them among the Mono (Driver 1937:122). There was considerable variation in the north, although the task was usually feminine. Occasionally the sources state that aged individuals made the cradles-old men among the Wappo, and the grandmother among the Northern Paiute of California and Nevada and the Chukchansi Yokuts. (Driver 1936:209; Underhill 1944:32; Gayton 1948:188) Although the firedrill was used throughout California, only for the Hupa and Achomawi was the sex of the makers-in each case male-reported (Goddard 1903:37; Curtis 1924:14:235). Several tribes used shell money, but only for the Pomo has the sub- ject been thoroughly covered. In this case, men who were recognized 43 professional experts made the clam shell beads or discs. Special chest drills for making this money were manufactured by specialists who in- herited the trade matrilineally (Loeb 1926:177-178; Heizer and Treganza 1944:300). Shell ornaments were made by men, according to the few instances reported, with the exception of Pomo women who drilled clamshells (MacGregor 1941:79). The bead makers among the Yuki, Pomo, and Wappo were males, as were the makers of woodpecker belts among the Wappo and ornamented hair nets among the Pomo (Foster 1944:173; Loeb 1926:176, 179; Driver 1936:209). In the latter instance the job was a profession. Mohave women did a great deal of bead work, using the nests of a black insect for the purpose (Curtis 1924:15:51). Most of the above were used by several tribes and were probably made by men as luxury items. The available information indicates that the making of pipes was a masculine task except in the southern part of the state, where the women made clay pipes for their husbands (Underhill 1941:27) Implements used in hunting, fishing, and war The tool and weapon assemblage of the California Indians included a variety of traps, weirs, snares, knives, bows and arrows, quivers, spears, slings, harpoons, clubs, and bolos. These were probably made exclusively by men, but little information is available. The chief exception was among the Yuki, Sinkyone, Modoc, and Achomawi women who occasionally helped their husbands in making fish traps. (Essene 1942: 6; Nomland 1945:156; Voegelin 1942:63) Bows and arrows, as a rule, were made by every man in the tribe, but specialists occurred. In areas where bow wood was poor, the hunters would obtain the bows in trade with their neighbors, but made their own arrows (Gifford 1926:329). The sinew-backed bow was made only by a few of the Wukchumni Yokuts, but any man could and did make the plain bows (Gayton 1948:72). The Patwin and Pomo had professional bow-makers and arrow-makers; however, in the former instance families controlled the profession (McKern 1922:249; Loeb 1926:179). Often it was the older yokuts men who made the arrow points, and, according to reports by Wilkes and Lyon, the Shasta obsidian arrowhead makers formed guilds (Powers 1877:375; Bancroft 1883:342). The Miwok arrow specialists received beads for their labor; Yuki bow makers were given clam shell money; and at the Southeast Pomo village of Elem the arrow specialist was paid forty clam shell beads (twenty-five cents) for each arrow. (Barrett and Gifford 1933:219; Foster 1944:173; Gifford 1926:329) 44 Transportation Most travel by the California Indians was on foot, with loads carried in nets and baskets. However, a network of rivers, particularly in the north, made navigation profitable. Ocean sailing was limited as most of the coast was too rugged, but Chumash and Gabrielino men made seaworthy plank canoes with double-ended paddles; these were used in traveling between the islands and the mainland (Underhill 1941:28). In the north the dugout canoe, with single-ended paddles, predominated. They were made by men who, as in the case of the Patwin, might be pro- fessionals (McKern 1922:250). Occasionally, if a Klamath woman had no man to make her a boat, she did it herself, but this is the only reported feminine instance (Spier 1930:145). Tule balsas and log rafts were found through the state, but informa- tion as to which sex made them is scarce. Where available the data indi- cate these to be masculine occupations. The only exception refers to small rafts which the Klamath and Modoc women made and used in collecting wokus (Barrett 1910:255). Housing The permanent house, though generally built by the men, was frequently a cooperative family enterprise. However, the latter involved a definite division in the building process. Patwin men cut and assembled the posts, stringers, rafters, and stakes, whereas the women and children collected the brush and creepers. Everyone aided in digging the floor pit, but the men dug the post holes and set up the posts. Women constructed the retain- ing wall, children brought the material into the pit, and the men tied the rafters into place (McKern 1923:164). The Surprise Valley Paiute similarly had the men set up the frame and the women cover it (Kelly 1932:79). Often the neighbors would assist the Shasta family with their house building. Men cut the trees and made the poles, the women helped peel off the bark. Men excavated the area while the women brought in materials from the bush. Although the men did the actual construction, women prepared and smoothed the floor and built the fireplace (Holt 1936:306). Both sexes assisted in building the Washo and Yuma house (Stewart 1941:406; Forde 1931:122). Wintu women collected the light materials and carried away the dirt from the floor pits (C. A. DuBois 1935:23). Thbatulabal men built the frame and the women and children collected the tule for cover (Voegelin 1938:2) Kechayi and Wukchamni Yokuts men set up the frame and tied on the upper layers of thatch "as climbing was not seemly for women" (Gayton 1949:161, 61-63). A similar dichotomy was found for the Chukchansi Yokuts except that the women did all the thatching (Gayton 1949:187). The house building 45 of the Woponuch and Entimbich Mono followed a similar division (Gayton 1949:259-260), but the task among the Kamia involved the help of all the village men with the women cooking for the workers (Gifford 1931:19). There is little information as to who built the summer house., the ceremonial houses, menstrual huts, or sweat houses. In the first in- stance, the job is variously assigned in the north as is evident in Table 5. Yuki and Shasta men built the ceremonial houses, but the women kept them clean (Foster 1944:172; Holt 1946:306). Among the Patwin both sexes cooperated in building all communal houses, but only the Shasta women constructed the menstrual huts (McKern 1923:162; Holt 1946:306). There is no further information on the builders of the sweat houses, but probably men predominated. Musical instruments Musical instruments are found in California, but rarely is the sex of the maker recorded. Wappo men made flutes; Maidu men made rattles, drums, and flutes; and Achomawi men made rattles (Driver 1936:209; Densmore 1939:113-117; Curtis 1924:14:235). Clothing The California Indians wore little clothing. Both men and women had breech cloths after white contact, and the women frequently wore grass aprons or skirts. Skin robes or blankets were used; moccasins protected the feet; and several kinds of shell, bone, and horn ornaments were worn. The sexual correlation of clothes-making tasks varied considerably although there is no information on over half of the tribes. Most available data refer to the north, where the occupation assignment was variable, but probably women predominated, with men assisting or making their own garments and ceremonial robes. Only the Pomo, Washo , and Wappo assigned the task solely to men; except for the latter instance. women made their own double aprons (Loeb 1926:176; Stewart 1941:406; Driver 1936:209). The few reports on the south indicate that clothes- making was primarily feminine. Relative information on skin clothing is sparse, and, as evident in Table 5, no general trend can be determined. Skin robes or blankets were made by the majority of tribes, rabbit skin blankets being favored. The association of the task with sex is variable. Occasionally there was variation among the tribelets. Thus, 46 Desert Cahuilla and Southern Diegueino women made the rabbitskin blankets, but this was a masculine task among the remaining tribelets (Drucker 1937: 21). The Kato present a conflict in ethnographic reports. Essene notes (1942:22) the occupation as masculine, Driver (1939:335) as feminine. A Similar difference was found for the Yuma. Drucker reports (1937:21) the skill as possibly masculine, whereas Forde says (1931:96) it was considered feminine. Leggings and snowshoes were made and used in California, the former more extensively than the latter. Only the Surprise Valley,Paiute account notes the sex of the leggings maker-female. Snowshoes were made by men among the Achomawi and Surprise Valley Paiute. (Kelly 1932:109, 79; Curtis 1924:13: 235) Moccasins were made by either sex, but of the twenty-nine tribes surveyed, most of them in northern California, fifteen associate the task with men. In the case of the Yuki proper, it is a joint occupation, but moccasins are not used by the Coast Yuki. (Essene 1942:19; Gifford 1928: 114; Gif ford 1939:339) Skin dressing Among the California Indians, the men were the characteristic skin dressers, particularly in the southern half of the state, except that both sexes did this work among the Southern Diegueino, Mohave, and Owens Valley Paiute (King n.d., 118-119). The situation in the north was not as well defined. Both tribal and tribelet variations existed. It was a feminine occupation among the Western Shasta and Eastern Achomawi, but a joint one with the Eastern Shasta and Western Achomawi (King n.d., 117- 118). As pointed out above, hunting was primarily masculine. However, in a few instances women and children assisted in the procurement of game. Skin dressing, closely related to hunting, also tended to be predominantly masculine, and it is significant that where women hunted they likewise helped to dress skins. However, female skin dressers were considerably more frequent than women hunters, probably, as pointed out by King (n.d., 113), because skin dressing was of minor importance in such cases. 47 U, 3 Ec Ci) Co 44 co p r. ,4 *-, 0 10 cU -44 0 0 '-I to .r4 'H sus eoooj 2U-lgjo{9 UINS LjauOD '2uT1l.0Ta S4la)uu[ig uiNsqqpj sla?Uuwg UpIS asnoH flUammnS asnoH uauaunlj Sl6WH 202 'sJPa poompag saoUPD SPSTPq 1 Tn,J s4luamuuao TT19S 2unyeu adrj oISsaj pUP 1P4J0J alsa upala 911 2UTNaoM P?0M 2UTThoM au0lS I r I I iP z pq rI 4 1 ZI 1 z z z zz N I I z z z z z z z 2uTssauG UTIS pq I pq z z z z z z Hr-i - z z z sluouaTdmid auog PUV U1OH sXaGAnO z SMOISX puP Snog suodEaM sawuuS 's1T9^ 'sdeal SaiTPPD a2epsoo SION Ala 4 z 4a Ala4asPg z zz z z z1z z CM z z : z z z r-, z z zz 1 z 1 z PAp z z z z z :5i1z z~ z m m a:F m m m Z Z Z m Z ZI Z m tZ Z z E:Z z ;: 44 1 PLI r--l PLf rl-4 rX4 44 1 P14 1 44 1 rZ4 rl-l 44 1 rX4 I ?? P14 44 I PL4 co 0 0 H-- 0 14 N r C4 0 14 0 4 Ce s4 Q) r4 c0 o CH 00>~ Ce. 604-J44 -r-4 7 'H - 0 Ce H Ce > 3 = z z cI Z? .H 4X4 >4 0 0 4-i .H 14 >? 44 .H C,) C,) co uz4 'H~ 0 ., 0 C c o 0 T P4 PL 3:3 48 Sulssala UnIS r P 1 m z SUTSIDOOW rz S m m 1 maeuao '2uTlmfloTa q r-T q~r X slawuvD gupjs;?T qqe- - m m p1 CA m m Slo1f@UBI UIe X | z Iz i p IasnoH amlnS Z: prc asnoH luouveaaa z z m pq p S : 1 SI JBe 2crj 'Sljp- poowpaa rX4 z I saou-is I SuippN ada 4j aoisaa pup aPriow r Z L 0 2UTNIOM POOM 1 Z 0 s;uauxaTdmi auog pue uaoH ? SfSAiTb z z snoxsxjpupestog zzzEz zz: SuodeaM z : z z z saletiuS 'SaTaM'sdJlI Z Z SaTPuaD r- rZ Pr 44 rX P a o2vpaoo q 2 S:I;N z1 z >~ zi z lk 1 S1EJ4N r4 PL PMr4r= P4f4 Aaaoi :ioj ~rX4 L 4i - Ne *dcd vN r4d Z co 4r CCrl z r c d J 4C 044bOS I _ C4. c CO *S4 4' 0 V1 ct bXO(D ct En r4 71 -4 'S g 4i 6 Oi 0 4) OJ =: ~ 4 4- CO 4O D XH ci 0o C : o4 C 4-J -0 C 0 Cj 0 -4 CZ CIC cC C C0 CC C) 4 C H C 'H CO 3 X d 0 P CC r-4 0 4 44 C CZ CC 'H C 'H 'H 0 0 Cu :: C C >4 S Z En ?: ?C ~3 4 23: Z Z Z >4 Z c H P4 49 lxz z z: Xl L z : : taz z m z rTz4 PA4 Fz4 P4 F4 PZ4 Z4 01) ut Q60 coCc 0 0 o ' 0 4-1 0 4-jo Cu Q CW V rH- 4Ji Q4 0 x z 0) 0 4f CO N4J -W (0 r -4 -1 0) o~4 4-J *-4 a)N3 PNO0 0)J 0)0 rz r14 r34 %I. .U4 Cu Pdf z z Z: Z Z1 r-> Z Z Z zi9 z pq z z z T;L z Z ~z Id I r-T4 j:14 r4~4 r 4~i a) 0 C., *rl 0) p,dr4 0 t ci Cu r1 cu Cu Cud Cu 0)0) to 0 0 z4 UE rz4 "-4 .4 Cu C-, 0 0 ?0 ?C 0 ) Q, r1 ;: ux z *, 0 to 0 r4 .r4 co Cu4 0) 4 0L) 01) 0 01) CZC 50 Notes on Manufacturing 1. Men made horn spoons (Nomland 1938:114). 2. This particular task was a speciality. Workers had professional standing. 3. Patwin men specialized in bows and sold them to the Pomo (Gifford 1926:329). 4. Men made wood and horn spoons and wood mush paddles (Holt 1946:303). 5. Women helped make traps (Essene 1942:6). 6. Among the Trinity Wintu only one or two men made fish nets. Among the Southern Nisenan only a few old men made nets. (Voegelin 1942:173) 7. According to Voegelin (1942:63) only men did the skin dressing, but Dixon (1905:141) reports that generally women prepared skins. 8. Surprise Valley Paiute women twisted the bark fiber for the nets, but the men made the nets (Kelly 1932:79). 9. Most tribelets are "men only." Notes on Maps Map 10 (p. 54). Southern Valley Yokuts: both sexes made blankets among the Tachi and Nutunutu, but only men among the Chunut and Yauelmani. Western Mono: only women made the blankets for the Northfork, Auberry, Hodogida, and Entimbich, but among other Western Mono groups men did the job. Map 11 (p. 55). Men made moccasins for the Southern Valley Yokuts, except the Tachi, Chunut, and Yauelmani who did not use moccasins. Map 12 (p. 56). Men dressed the skins except among the Nutunutu and Chunut Yokuts of the Southern Valley. 51 X 16b 1 =b 1 b -y T DIVISION OF LABOR IN CORDAGE MAKING BOTH SEXES MADE CORDAGE ONLY MEN MADE CORDAGE MEN USUALLY MADE CORDAGE, WOMEN OCCAS IONALLY 200 209 .- .................... - -- - - - - - - - f- ,- - - - - - - - -. ---- - - - -6 ,-- - - - - 11 z - - - - - - - * *. ... -P 14h 21n 2lyn IZN N ISc MAP 7 [See Frontispiece for explanation of coding] 52 6a DIVISION OF 6d rr e. 316 ig 6s I I ................ ...... ., .f I LABOR IN MANUFACTURE OF CRADLES BOTH SEXES MADE CRADLES ONLY MEN MADE CRADLES MEN USUALLY MADE CRADLES, WOMEN OCCASIONALLY ONLY WOMEN MADE CRADLES 18. ? 1, I 11 N tig aid INh l2zv-1 MAP 8 [See Frontispiece for explanation of coding] 53 DIVISION OF I 7c, ...... -- '.7t D 2 16b 406 .............t.- 1" mmu111 LABOR IN MANUFACTURE OF CLOTHING BOTH SEXES MADE CLOTHES MEN USUALLY MADE CLOTHES, WOMEN OCCASIONALLY ONLY MEN MADE CLOTHES ONLY WOMEN MADE CLOTHES WOMEN USUALLY MADE CLOTHES, MEN OCCASIONALLY 11] 18C :.. 1d.. 1-, < ..... ) 18e 18f 209 Zif 21j 14h 21n Zlrn lz:?- ll?? MAP 9 [See Frontispiece for explanation of coding] 54 0- - - ' :-- '17 r- - = AL- - - - . DIVISION OF LABOR IN MANUFACTURE OF RAI BLANKETS - MADE BY BOTH SEXES LOCAL VARIATION : MADE ONLY BY MEN USUALLY MADE BY MEN, BY WOMEN OCCASIONALLY MADE ONLBYB WOMEN L'A&-%"JLJ W&I AJ J6 AJ J6 VT WA7A&J LI CEi3 I -E3 USUALLY MADE BY WOMEN, BY MEN OCCASIONALLY BLANKETS NOT MADE 13b ZOg 21j 2ti 14h 21tn i.) Zim 2.ivm MAP 10 [See Frontispiece for explanation of coding] 55 DIVISION C- * , . k... OF LABOR IN MANUFACTURE OF MOCCASINS BOTH SEXES MADE MOCCASINS LOCAL VARIATION ONLY MEN MADE MOCCASINS MEN USUALLY MADE MOCCASINS, WOMEN OCCASIONALLY ONLY WOMEN MADE MOCCASINS MOCCASINS NOT MADE 16 b , t: z Zid .i 21j 1 , .......... ..... 2le 21i 14h 21n Zlrn IZI.b MAP 1 1 [See Frontispiece for explanation of coding] 56 DIVISION OF LABOR IN PREPARATION OF SKINS BOTH SEXES PREPARED SKINS 7c ....... a 1 1 I II Hil 'i LOCAL GROUP VARIATION ONLY MEN PREPARED SKINS 11I MEN USUALLY PREPARED SKINS, WOMEN OCCASIONALLY ONLY WOMEN PREPARED SKINS WOMEN USUALLY PREPARED SKINS, MEN OCCASIONALLY 2Oa 9 i 149 -"%14f r= 0 li"'. .? a .- - i . 14c ....... 21i 14e I+h C:n6 %C, I?Z;? 21; ~1,n 'V MAP 12 [See Frontispiece for explanation of coding] 57 CHIEFS, SHAMANS, AND BERDACHES Chiefs were generally males in California. However, except for the Colorado River tribes, they were chiefs in the limited sense of loosely governing the local group or village and not the tribe as a whole. A few instances of women chiefs existed, but this was usually because of special circumstances. For example, a Western Diegueino woman might per- form the duties of her dead chieftain husband (Gifford 1918:173), or occasionally, in the absence of a male heir, a Serrano woman would become chief if she was capable (Gifford 1918:181). The same has been reported for the Pomo (Gibbs 1860:112). As a rule, chieftainship tended to be hereditary throughout the state; however, fully adequate information is not available. Assistant female chiefs, who led in women's activities, were found among many of the tribes except in the northwest. In most cases the chief's responsibilities and powers were merely advisory. Usually he was obliged to work like other men. In some groups he was wealthy, and though he might take part in menial labor much of his time was spent making luxury items. For example, Miwok chiefs generally did not hunt, nor did those of the Gashowu and North- fork Mono, or the Kechayi Yokuts (Aginsky 1943:432; Gayton 1948:163). In the case of the Patwin, neither the chief nor his family worked (McKern 1922:246). Such practices depended on the customs of the group in question. Becoming a shaman or berdache was often the method used by a person not conforming to the personality norm of the group to express himself or herself. As shown in Table 6, berdaches-predominantly male-were found throughout the state. The male berdaches usually did feminine tasks and often dressed like women. However, in some cases they also hunted, for example, among the Woponuch and Entimbich Mono (Gayton 1948:274). Among some Mono and Yokuts tribelets such individuals acted as undertakers (Driver 1937:90, 99). Comparable information on female transvestites is lacking. Instances where the trait was denied are probably a reflection of recent attitudes. All the tribes included in this study had shamans. In the north, members of either sex could become shamans, the distribution of males and females varying with the tribe. Women predominated in the northwest, but the reverse tended to be true for the northeast (Driver 1939:360; Voegelin 1942:152, 158-159). The majority of tribes in the southern half of the state had only men shamans, the only exceptions being noted among some Mono and Yokuts tribelets, the Costanoan, Luise'no, Diegueno, Yuma, Chemehuevi, and Mohave. (Driver 1937:102; Gayton 1948:21; 58 Harrington 1942:39; Drucker 1937:41; 1941:158; Park 1938:89-90) However, even in these cases women shamans were definitely rare. Information on the sex division according to type of shaman is slight. Only in the northeast has this problem been investigated to any extent (Voegelin 1942:152, 158, 159). Similar information, though not as complete, is available for the San Joaquin Valley region and the Yuma. Sucking shamans were widespread, with women primarily exercising this function in the northwest. Men were generally the soul-recovering, weather, rattlesnake, or bear shamans, though women were occasionally found in these fields. Herbalist and midwives practiced throughout the state, but there is little information on the former in the south. In most cases, herbalists could be either male or female; however, only women were midwives. 59 TABLE 6 Chiefs, Shamans, and Berdaches ,44 .4 . ct 0 0 rX5 2 co -A o ce C) C 4C$ o 4 4 Ce Zt 4 U) 3 5 5 S- 5 Co 5 Co 4i -H 0 o C C X Z ) Co 4 C)Co 3 4 g a ~ 4 c e S4 r4 ) c C 0 o Ce 0 0 0) C C C ) - C oU -H 4. U l ci, C C O '- '4-, 44 'd C 44 44 44 44 CZ 0 C oo Ce I 4c *- CI -H C O -H C C Q ) Q ) O"d 3 Co 5 _- 4 4J) 4 Q 3 -d 5- Co -H -H -H -H S - C) Ce C) D Ce 4 l C e S -i r4 C4 Co 4 4 4 4 ?4C) 0o4 C C C o4 - H 0 0 0 0 ? :1c o to C t3 a Z :E Tolowa M + - + M M MF F - B F Chimariko M + + + - F F - B F Karok M + - F F - B F Yurok M M M M F F - B F Wiyot M B M M F F M B F Hupa M M M F F B M F Nongati M + + - F F F B F Matto le M + + M M M F F M B F Sinkyone M + + M M M M3 M B F Wai laki M M M B M Kato M + + +1 + M NM M M M B M F Yuki M + + +1 + + M NM F B M NM F Coast Yuki M Lassik M + +1 + + M M M B B B B F Patwin M + + +2 + M M M B M Pomo M + + M M M B B B B Wappo M + + B M M Yana M + + B M F Klamath M- -+ + B M M M M - M M - B F Modoc M + -+ - + - B B - M M - B F Shasta M + + +8 + + B M M F F - B B B B F Atsugewi M + + + + B MMM M M M M F M B F Achomawi M + + - + B M M M M B M B M B F Washo M + + B B B Paiute-North M B M M B B F Wintu M + + 8+4 +8 B M M B B B M M M B F Maidu M +4 + + +8 - + M M M M M M M B M B F Nisenan M + + + - + e6 M M M N M M - M B F Miwok M + + + + M M M M M M M M F 60 TABLE 6 [cont'd.] cn 4 -,, 10 : .1 a) t.. CoJ r4 4o CO .r4 *,t ?) En u4 443 0 Eo Cq cn Co $14 0 :3 4-4 01) .4 C, Co CU u4 CZ 4-4 -r4 4z c', $4 .44 10 0) 4-i C :3 4J 0 z Co 01) 0 44I 0) 4 .' 4z 44J 'I4 co 0) 3:3 144 0) .,H 4 C- o 0 Co 0) 01) 0) -r4 0) 04 a) -r cJ $4 uC b e n CI 0 0 CU 'H CU U 3 co $ 4 co 0 CU 0) C 0 Co 4 >4'? CU vt d > 11 coX Co U) U) CU 0) C Co o C CU 4 0 CU ) $4 Co 4 CU 0 Co C ' I 4 - "0i C )o 5 '4 '-4444$ 10 aJ: X d 4i : X $4 0) CU U : CU 44J CU 0) 0 $44 :i 0) CU 0) C C U U )n u) 3 P P 44 ,{ co 1-0 $4 0L) 0) '44 .rl z co C CUO la -~~~ .J . . . Yokuts Mono Banka lachi Tlubatulabal Kawai i su Panamint Cos tanoan Salinan Chumash Paiute- South Gabrielino F ernandeEio Serrano Cahuill a Cupexio Luiseeno Diegueino Kamia Chemehuev i Mohave Yuma N N M M M N M N M N N N N M N N N + + + +7 + + + + + + + + + + + + + F + + +5 +1 +s +1 + +1 +1- +1 + + + 5 + + + + N M M N N B B N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M B B M M B M M M M M M M M M M B M B M M M M M M M M N M M M M M M M F M F B F M F B F -F F F F F F F F B F F F F F F F F F + M M M B M M M Refer to p. 14 for explanation of symbols Superscript refers to Notes on following page 61 Notes on Chiefs, Shamans, and Berdaches 1. Son or other relative hunts for chief. Varies among the Mono and Yokuts tribelets. (Driver 1937:92; 1939:357; Voegelin 1942:105) 2. Neither chief nor his family works (McKern 1922:246). 3. Women can be shamans only after menopause (Nomland 1935:168). 4. Foothill Maidu chiefs not always hereditary; Trinity Wintu chiefs were wealthy (Voegelin 1942:104-105). 5. Mohave and Yuma had true tribal chiefs, other California tribes did not (Kroeber 1925:830). 6. Berdaches denied by Voegelin's informant (1942:134), but admitted by Beal's helper (1933:376). 7. Ford (1931:135) reported that tribal chiefs must have ability in order to inherit office, but Drucker (1937:28) denied this. 8. Chief did not hunt; others brought him game. This varies among the Mono and Yokuts tribelets. (Voegelin 1942:105; Driver 1937:92) 62 '-: '.5 . .'. .. SEX OF BERDACHES THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA BOTH SEXES WERE BERDACHES ONLY MEN WERE BERDACHES P- I 7c . -7== .-----5- - - = - ....7 Z -1a - 16b 7 1 - =- V..- USUALLY BERDACHES WERE MEN, WOMEN OCCASIONALLY BERDACHES DENIED BY RESPONDENTS 17c 20a. - s-~~~~. ..- .........- . -. 2tf *......... 21fi 21K ,alj 21e * . .:2IK. 7 :. IW 141h O: ,C zz,-: 1?1? 21n 21YA lz:b lk??, MAP 13 [See Frontispiece for explanation of coding] 63 SEX OF SHAMANS THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA i ~6e -t E 6t ,= 1- b;---- - - - - - - BOTH SEXES WERE SHAMANS ONLY MEN WERE SHAMANS [- 7 --- USUALLY MEN WERE SHAMANS, WOMEN OCCASIONALLY [77 USUALLY WOMEN WERE SHAMANS, LLLLLLLI MEN OCCAS IONALLY use - 18o. * iSa IS 19 i9d- N.* .o iBe - - - - -- -* - - - -- - - - - - - - -z- - - - -- Sf- W - - - - f - \ - - - . - - - - - - - . - - - =-=-- 21b =- - - - - - - - . - - -; - - - - - - - - * - - - - - - - a- - - - - - - - - .- - - - - - - - .- - - - - - . - - ,% - - - 4 * c - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | - - - i- - - - - - - - - m- - --,,- = - ,0- - - -F w b- s- - - . . - - - --. i 14h 15e Zlm 21mn --=-___ - 7 ISc~ iS5c MAP 14 [See Frontispiece for explanation of coding] 64 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The California Indians lived relatively simple lives unadorned by the tapestries of "civilization," but their cultural patterns were not so base as implied by many unobservant investigators. Bancroft (1883: 1:399) writes: Il.@. although nearly all travelers who have seen and described this people, place them in the lowest scale of humanity, yet there are some who assert that the character of the Californian has been maligned. It does not follow, they say, that he is indolent because he does not work when the fertility of his native land enables him to live without labor; or that he is cowardly because he is not incessantly at war; or stupid and brutal because the mildness of his climate renders clothes and dwellings superfluous. But is this sound reasoning? Surely a people assisted by nature should progress faster than another, struggling with depressing difficulties." However, Bancroft overlooked the fact, as did others, that while the technological level of the aborigines prevented them from making use of many of the natural resources, they did utilize such items as acorns, pine nuts, and insects, which their white neighbors rejected. Further- more, their cultural elaborations in the social sphere, as, for example, the Kuksu-Hesi cult, have been almost completely ignored. A rigid division of labor system did not develop in California since the aborigines' simple but efficient subsistence economy required the cooperative effort of all to make life successful. The primary division, based on sex, was weakest within the family group. "The husband ... assists liberally in gathering acorns and berries and brings in considerable portion of the fowl. He good-naturedly tends the baby for hours and in fact helps about the house" (Powers 1875:302). However, women worked harder or at least more steadily than men owing to the nature of the economy. The prevailing "assistance attitudes" were particularly evident in the gathering of acorns and pine nuts, and in the manufacture of arti- facts used by both sexes. However, men generally manufactured their own weapons and tools, even basketry fish traps; women made their own uten- sils. A generalized occupation such as house building, although associ- ated with both sexes, often required the allotment of various phases of the job to either men or women. 65 Cooperative work within the local group was furthered by the seasonal variation in food supply. There were annual migrations to the mountains or foothills for the ripening vegetable products, necessitating the collab- oration of everyone, including the children. Grasshoppers, deer, rabbits, and fish were caught communally if the corresponding swarms, herds, or runs were large enough to make group action profitable. These seasonal rushes tended to focus energies along particular lines of endeavor for a short time. With the harvest in, the general smooth routine of life was resumed; men would do some hunting or fishing, sit around repairing their equipment or making new weapons, take care of current secular and temporal affairs, or just take life easy. The women would take up their housekeep- ing chores, do some gathering, care for the children, and, in their spare time, weave baskets and make needed utensils. Though they worked steadily during the day, some of their tasks afforded opportunities for gossiping and visiting. The bedrock grinding places were excellent for such social intercourse. The sexual division of labor transcended biological differences and abilities. Tribal tradition played an important part in the assignment of work; thus, in manufacturing the cradles, except in a few cases, there was a definite allocation to one sex or the other. The extent to which emotional factors can affect the labor dichotomy is clear in the north, where women were often prohibited from butchering or cooking meat owing to a fear of female functions. Age naturally affected the division. Young children did little beyond helping their mothers, either with household chores or in gathering. Small Yuma and Mohave boys were responsible for keeping the crows away from the maize fields (Forde 1931:113; Drucker 1941:95). Older boys, usually prior to puberty, began to hunt small game and received instruc- tion in fishing and tool making. Hupa and Yokuts boys hunted rabbits. (Wallace n.d., 30; Gayton 1948:194; Nomland 1938:110 [Yuki boys' instruc- tion]) By eight or nine years of age the young Atsugewi had been indoc- trinated with the ideals of industriousness and pursuit of wealth (Garth 1945:555). Tolowa boys were taken deer hunting and taught the care and safe-keeping of bows and arrows (C. A. BuBois 1932:251), and Yuma youths received sporadic military training (Forde 1931:173). Girls of the same age not only aided in gathering, but also cared for younger siblings and were often familiar with housekeeping, cooking and basket-making. Karok and Yurok girls of ten and twelve are known to have made baskets for sale to tourists (O'Neal 1932). After puberty the young adult, then eligible for marriage, was expected to take on the customary jobs of his or her sex. The obligations of the aged were, as in most societies, less 66 rigorous. Among the Pomo old men served as menials, assisting the women. Such changes in activity were greater for the men than for the women. However, approaching old age sometimes freed the individual from much of the food quest, allowing more time for manufacturing various articles. For example, only the middle aged or old Kamia women made blankets (Gifford 1931:32), and the older Wintus did not need to go on gathering expeditions, but stayed in the permanent village doing odd jobs at home (C. A. BuBois 1935:28). Old people often served as teachers, story tellers, and baby-sitters, besides doing housework. Their place in society varied with the group, being largely dependent upon economic conditions. If the tribe was located where the food supply was relatively plentiful, the aged individuals had a more secure position than if food was scarce . Desertion of the aged, as occasionally practiced in the Great Basin, apparently did not occur in California. An important aspect of the problem was craft specialization. In a majority of tribes there was little of the European type of specialization. As a rule every man could and did perform "man's work" and every woman could and did perform "woman's work." In some cases each sex was familiar enough with the tasks and technics of the other to be able to handle almost any job required for survival, that is, each person could be economicallly independent if necessary. However, there were those who were better work- men, by virtue of ability and training, than others, and such individuals were the specialists in the various groups. Their talents were employed by less gifted members of the group, who gave something in return for the services of the expert. These experts, however, were not freed from the food quest. They still hunted, fished, gathered, and made their own tools and equipment. Only in their spare time did they manufacture objects for sale. True specialization was lacking because the groups were small, the food supply not stable, and the techniques employed relatively simple and could be easily mastered by everyone. Only in the northwest were conditions more favorable to specialization, and even there it served primarily as a means of obtaining a few extra luxuries and prestige. The most conspicuous instances of specialization occurred among the Pomo, Wappo, and Patwin. (Gifford 1926:328; Loeb 1926:178-181; Driver 1936:209; McKern 1922:249-251) In these groups there were recognized experts in almost all fields of endeavor-shamans, hunters, fishermen, gamblers, singers, beadmakers, pipemakers, woodpecker belt makers, fishnet makers, ducknet makers, money makers, money-drill makers, ornamented hair net makers, canoe makers, basketmakers, and bow and arrow makers-yet rarely were they freed from the general activities of their sex. Only one Clear Lake Pomo money-maker had everything supplied him (Gifford 1926:386). The Patwin chief and his immediate family were freed from hunting, gather- ing, and fishing (McKern 1922:246) and the Miwok chief was freed from 67 hunting as his son or relatives would bring him game (Aginsky 1943:432). In the northwest rich men often had slaves do the menial labor, while they themselves spent their energy making luxury items to reinforce their wealth. However, these men were generally not specialists in one field. Shamans were often recognized as specialists, although their prestige varied with their professional success. The main opportunity for women specialists was in basketry or shamanism. Karok and Yurok women who excelled in basketry had a wide reputation and a regular market for their work (O'Neal 1932:188). Occasionally the expert would inherit professional rights. For example, Clear Lake Pomo fishnet makers inherited the songs and charms they used to insure success (Gifford 1922:328). Pomo money-drill makers inherited their rights matrilineally and hunters and fishermen similarly received special songs and charms (Loeb 1926:178-181). Patwin special- zation ran in families, the charms and formulas being handed down for most occupations (McKern 1922:248). If complete data were available, it is probable that specialization of the above sort would be found among most California Indian tribes. However, it must be reiterated that rarely did this phenomenon allow the individual to spend all his time at his craft. For example, the Wintu had arrowmakers, but as theirs was only a part time job, it took six months to manufacture twenty arrows (C. A. DuBois 1935:21). A Miwok man would spend about ten days making a bowl (Barrett and Gitford 1933:215), and a Panamint woman required a month to complete a basket (Coville 1892:359). Had these implements been made by individuals who could devote all their time to the job, the periods required would have been a fraction of the actual time spent. Because of the time and effort required to make their equipment, the Indians placed considerable value upon it. The division of labor patterns among California Indians were quite similar to those of surrounding peoples. Among the neighboring Paiute and Shoshoni hunting was generally a man's work, as was fishing, except for some of the Northern Paiute. Gathering was primarily a feminine task although men aided by collecting and transporting pine nuts to camp. Wood and water were obtained by both sexes, though some of the Paiute and Shoshoni tribelets alloted the task variously to men or women. Most of the tribes adjacent to southeast California assigned these latter two jobs to women. Women cooked and prepared the food for most of the tribes bordering the state. The home industries followed a similar division allotment. Basketry was solely feminine except for the fish traps of the Paiute and the Oregon Indians. Pottery making, where practiced, was a feminine occupation. Nets 68 were made only by men except among the Walapai and Akwa'ala (Drucker 1941: 122). The making of cordage was variously assigned to men or women, depending on the tribe. In the case of the Northern Paiute and Oregon Indians both sexes made string, but it was a masculine task for the Southern Paiute, Nevada Shoshoni, and Arizona tribes. This may explain why cordage was made primarily by men in the Central and Southern Sierra regions as well as in most of Southern California. Allocation of the remaining traits was as variable as in California. In summary, it can be said that most of the California Indians tended toward cooperative assistance rather than toward an inflexible labor dichotomy. Life was too difficult not to require work by both sexes, especially during harvest time. Women worked somewhat harder than men, but this was due to the nature of the economy. Either sex might be recog- nized as specialists in a particular art, as basketry or arrow making, but this was primarily a side line and afforded chiefly prestige opportunities, Taken as a whole, the California Indians can be characterized as having a subsistence economy with the division of labor developed only to a slight degree. 69 AA AMH -B CNAE PMCM -B SI -BAE-B UC -AR -PAAE Anonymous 1858 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbreviations Used American Anthropologist American Museum of Natural History Bulletin Contributions to North American Ethnology. Dept. of the Interior, U. S. Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region Public Museum of the City of Milwaukee Bulletin Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin University of California Anthropological Records Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology A Trip to Walker's River and Carson Valley. California Magazine, Vol. III, pp. 529-538. Hutchings' Aginsky, B. W. 1943 Central California. UC-AR 8:393-468. Berkeley. Bancroft, H. H. 1883 The Native Races: Wild Tribes. Vol. I. A. L. Bancroft and Co., San Francisco. Barrett, S. A. 1908 The Ethno-geography of the Pomo and Neighboring Indians. UC-PAAE 6:1-332. Berkeley. 1908 Pomo Indian Basketry. UC-PAAE 7:133-308. Berkeley. 1910 The Material Culture of the Klamath Lake and Modoc Indians of Northeastern California and Southern Oregon. UC-PAAE 5:239-292. Berkeley. 1917 The Washo. PMCM-B 2:1:1-52. Milwaukee. Barrett, S. A. and Gifford, E. W. 1933 Miwok Material Culture. PMCM-B 2:4:117-376. Milwaukee. 70 Barrows, D. P. 1900 The Ethno-botany of the Coahuilla Indians of Southern California. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Beals, R . L. 1933 Ethnology of the Nisenan. UC-PAAE 31:335-410. Berkeley. Benedict, Ruth 1924 A Brief Sketch of Serrano Culture. AA 26:366-392. Menasha. Berger, J. A. 1941 The Franciscan Missions of California. G. P. Putnam & Sons, New York. Bolton, H. E. 1930 Anza's California Expeditions. University of California Press, Berkeley. Boscana, G. 1933 Chinigchinich. Fine Arts Press, Santa Ana, California. Castetter, E. F. and Bell, W. H. 1937 The Utilization of Mesquite and Screwbean by the Aborigines in the American Southwest. University of New Mexico, Bulletin 5, pp. 1-55. Albuquerque. Chalfant, W. A. 1922 The Story of Inyo. Hammond Press, Chicago. Chesnut, V. K. 1902 Plants Used by the Indians of Mendocino County, California. Contributions of the U. S. National Herbarium, Vol. VIII, pp. 295-408. Washington, D.C. Clark, G. 1904 Indians of Yosemite Valley and Vicinity. Galen Clark, Yosemite Valley. Coville, F. V. 1892 The Panamint Indians of California. AA 5:351-361. Menasha. 1902 Wokas, A Primitive Food of the Klamath Indians. U. S. National Museum, Annual Report, pp. 725-739. Washington, D.C. 71 Curtis, E. S 1924 The North American Indian, Vols. II, XIII, XIV, XV. Plimpton Press, Norwood, Mass. 1926 The North American Indian, Vol. XVI. Plimpton Press, Norwood, Mass. Cutting, T. A. 1947 California Indians. Carmel, California. Densmore, 1939 Frances Musical Instruments of the Maidu Indians. AA 41:113-118. Menasha. Dixon, R. B. 1905 The Northern Maidu. AMNH-B 17:19-346. New York 1907 The Shasta. AMNH-B 17:381-498. New York. 1908 Notes on the Achomawi and Atsugewi Indians. AA 10:208-220. Menasha. 1910 The Chimariko Indians and Language. UC-PAAE 5: 293-380. Berkeley. Dorsey, G. A. 1903 Indians of the Southwest. Passenger Departient, Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway, Chicago. Driver, H. E. 1936 Wappo Ethnography. UC-PAAE 36:179-220. Berkeley. 1937 Southern Sierra Nevada. UC-AR 1:53-154. Berkeley. 1939 Northwest California. UC-AR 1:297-434. Berkeley. Drucker, P. 1936 The Tolowa and Their Southwest Oregon Kin. UC-PAAE 36:221-300. Berkeley. 1937 Southern California. UC-AR 1:1-52. Berkeley. 1941 Yuman-Piman. UC-AR 6:91-230. Berkeley. DuBois, Constance Goddard 1908 The Religion of the Luise'no Indians of Southern California. UC-PAAE 8:69-186. Berkeley. 72 DuBois, Cora Alice n.d. Girls Adolescent Observances in North America. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1932. 1932 Tolowa Notes. AA 34:248-262. Menasha. 1935 Wintu Ethnography. UC-PAAE 36:1-148. Berkeley. Dutcher, B. H. 1893 Piinon Gathering Among Panamint Indians. AA 6:377-380. Menasha. Engelhardt, Z. 1912 Missions and Missionaries of California. James Barry Co., San Francisco. Essene., F. 1942 Round Valley. UC-AR 8:1-97. Berkeley. Essig, E. 0. 1934 The Value of Insects to the California Indians. Scientific Monthly 38:181-186. Fages, Pedro 1937 A Historical, Political, and Natural Description of California. University of California Press, Berkeley. Faye, P. L. 1923 Notes on the Southern Maidu. UC-PAAE 20:35-53. Berkeley. Forde, C. D. 1931 Ethnography of the Yuma Indians. UC-PAAE 28:83-278. Berkeley, 1949 Habitat, Economy, and Society. E. P. Dutton and Co., New York. Foster, G. M. 1944 A Summary of Yuki Culture. UC-AR 5:155-244. Berkeley. Freeland, L. S. 1923 Pomo Doctors and Poisoners. UC-PAAE 20:57-73. Berkeley. Fry, Winifred S. 1904 Humboldt Indians. Out West, Vol. 21, pp. 503-514. 73 Garth, T. R., Jr. 1945 Emphasis on Industriousness Among the Atsugewi. AA 47:554-566. Menasha. Gatschet, A. 1890 The Klamath Indians of Southeastern Oregon. CNAE 2:711. Washington, D.C. Gayton, A. H. 1929 Yokuts and Western Mono Pottery Making. UCPAAE 24:239-251. Berkeley. 1930 Yokuts and Mono Chiefs and Shamans. UCPAAE 24:361-420. Berkeley. 1948 Yokuts and Western Mono Ethnography. UC-AR 10:1-301. Berkeley. Gibbs, G. 1860 Gifford, E 1918 Journal of the Expedition of Colonel Rednick McKee, U.S. Indian Agent, Through Northwest California, Performed in the Summer and Fall of 1851. In H. R. Schoolcraft, Archives of Aboriginal Knowledge, III:99-177. Philadelphia. W. Clans and Moieties in Southern California. UCPAAE 14:155-219. Berkeley. 1926 Clear Lake Pomo. UC-PAAE 18:287-390. Berkeley. 1928 The Cultural Position of the Coast Yuki. AA 30:112-115. Menasha. 1928 Pottery Making in the Southwest. UC-PAAE 23:353-373. Berkeley. 1931 The Kamia of Imperial Valley. SI-BAE-B 97:1-94. Washington, D.C. 1932 The Northfork Mono. UC-PAAE 31:15-65. Berkeley. 1939 The Coast Yuki. Anthropus 34:292-375. Freiburg, Switzerland. Gifford, E. W. and S. Klimek 1937 Yana. UC-PAAE 37:71-100. Berkeley. Gifford, E. W. and A. L. Kroeber 1937 Pomo. UC-PAAE 37-117-254. Berkeley. 74 Goddard, P. E. 1903 Life and Culture of the Hupa. UC-PAAE 1:1-88. Berkeley. 1923 The Habitat of the Wailaki. UC-PAAE 20:95-109. Berkeley. Harrington, J. P. 1929 The Karuk Tribe. El Palacio 26:316-319. Santa Fe. 1932 Tobacco Among the Karuk Indians of California. SI-BAE-B 94:1-284. Washington, D.C. 1942 Central California Coast. UC-AR 7:1-46. Berkeley. Heizer, R. F. 1938 The Plank Canoe of the Santa Barbara Region, California. Gothenburg Ethnographical Museum, Ethnologiska Studier 7:193-227. G6teborg, Sweden. Heizer, R. F. and A. E. Treganza 1944 Mines and Quarries of the Indians of California. California Journal of Mines and Geology 40:291-359. Sacramento. Herskovits, M. J. 1940 The Economic Life of Primitive Peoples. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York. Hodge, F. W. 1905 Handbook of the American Indians North of Mexico. SI-BAE-B 30:I, II. Washington, D.C. Holmes, W. H. 1902 Anthropological Studies in California. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report for 1900, pp. 161-187. Washington, D. C. Holt, Catherine 1946 Shasta Ethnography. UC-AR 3:299-349. Berkeley. Hooper, Lucil 1920 Hopkins, S. W 1883 Hudson, J. W. 1897 .6 The Cahuilla Indians. UC-PAAE 16:316-380. Berkeley. Life Among the Paiutes. G. P. Putnam and Sons, New York. Pomo Wampum Makers. Overland Monthly 30:101-108. 75 Jackson, H. and A. Kinney 1883 Report on the Condition and Needs of the Indians of California. U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Office of Indian Affairs. Washington, D.C. James, G. W. 1902 1905 Indian Basketry. Pasadena. In and Out of the Old Missions of California. Brown and Co., Boston. Littlee, Kelly, Isabel T. 1932 Ethnography of the Surprise Valley Paiute. UC-PAAE 31:67-210. Berkeley. 1939 Southern Paiute Shamanism. UC-AR 2:151-167. Berkeley. King, A. R. n.d. Kniffen, F. 1939 Kroeber, A. Aboriginal Skin Dressing in Western North America. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1947. B. Pomo Geography. UC-PAAE 36:353-399. Berkeley. L. 1905 Notes on Obsidian Blades of California. AA 1:690-695. Menasha. 1907 Religion of the Indians of California. UC-PAAE 4:219-356. Berkeley. 1908 Ethnography of the Cahuilla Indians. UC-PAAE 8:29-68. Berkeley. 1909 California Basketry and the Pomo. AA 11:233-249. Menasha. 1920 California Culture Provinces. UC-PAAE 17 :151-169. Berkeley. 1922 Earth-Tongue, a Mohave. American Indian Life, pp. 189-202. 1923 The History of Native Culture in California. UC-PAAE 20:125-142. Berkeley. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. SI-BAE-B 78. Washington, D.C. t 1929 The Valley Nisenan. UC-PAAE 24:253-290. Berkeley. 1932 The Patwin and Their Neighbors. UC-PAAE 29:375-391. Berkeley. 76 Kroeber, A. L. [ cont'd.3 1939 Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America. UC-PAAE 38:1-242. Berkeley. Kroeber, A. L. and T. T. Waterman 1934 The Kepel Fish Dam. UC-PAAE 35:49-81. Berkeley. La Farge, Oliver (ed.) 1942 The Changing Indian. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Latta, F F. 1949 Handbook of Yokuts Indians. Bear State Books., Oildale, California. Loeb, E. M. 1926 Pomo Folkways. UC-PAAE 19:149-405. Berkeley. Loud, L. L. 1918 Ethnogeography and Archaeology of Wiyot Territory. UC-PAAE 14:221-436. Berkeley. Lowie, R . H. 1923 The Cultural Connections of California and Plateau Shoshonean Tribes. UC-PAAE 20:145-156. Berkeley. 1939 Ethnographic Notes on the Washo. UC-PAAE 36:301-352. Berkeley. MacGregor, F. C. 1941 Twentieth Century Indians. G. P. Putnam and Sons, New York. McKern, W. C. 1922 Functional Families of the Patwin. UC-PAAE 19:235-258. Berkeley. 1923 Patwin Houses. UC-PAAE 20:159-171. Berkeley. Mason, 0. T. 1904 Aboriginal American Basketry. Report of the U. S. National Museum for 1902. Washington, D.C. 1911 Woman's Share in Primitive Culture. D. Appleton'and Co., New York. 1912 The Ethnology of the Salinan Indians. UC-PAAE 10:97-240. Berkeley. 77 Merriam, C. Hart 1918 The Acorn, a Possibly Neglected Source of Food. National Geographic Magazine, 34:129-137. Washington, D.C. Murphey, E. V. A. 1941 Out of the Past. California Historical Society Quarterly 20:349-364. San Francisco. Nomland, G. A. 1935 Sinkyone Notes. UC-PAAE 36:149-178. Berkeley. 1938 Bear River Ethnography. UC-AR 2:91-124. Berkeley. O'Neal, L. M. 1932 Yurok-Karok Basket Weavers. UC-PAAE 32:1-184. Berkeley. Parcher, F. M. 1930 The Indians of Inyo County, California. SWM-M 4:146-153. Los Angeles. Park, W. Z. 1938 Shamanism in Western North America. Northwestern University Studies in Social Science II:1-166. Evanston. Parsons, E. C. (ed. ) 1922 American Indian Life. The Viking Press, New York. Payne, D. P. 1938 Captain Jack, a Modoc Renegade. Binford and Mort, Portland. Powers, Stephen 1872-74 The Northern California Indians. Overland Monthly, Vols. 8-13. 1875 California Indian Characteristics. Overland Monthly, 14:297-309. 1877 Tribes of California. CNAE 3:1-635. Washington, D.C. Purdy, Carl 1903 Pomo Indian Baskets. Out West 16:9-19. Redding, B. B. 1881 The California Indians and Their Food. The Californian 4:442-445. Los Angeles. 78 Reid, Hugo 1926 The Indians of Los Angeles. Los Angeles. Sapir, E. and L. Spier 1943 Notes on the Culture of the Yana. UC-AR 3:239-297. Berkeley. Schoolcraft, H. R. 1860 Archives of Aboriginal Knowledge, Vols. I-VI. J. B. Lippencott and Co., Philadelphia. Schumacher, Paul 1879 The Method of Manufacturing Pottery and Baskets Among the Indians of Southern California. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Twelfth Annual Report, pp. 521-525. Cambridge, Sparkman, P. S. 1908 The Culture of the Luiseino Indians. UC-PAAE 8.:187-234. Berkeley. Spier, Leslie 1923 Southern Diegueino Customs. UC-PAAE 20:297-358. Berkeley. 1930 Klamath Ethnography. UC-PAAE 30:1-338. Berkeley. Steward, J. H. 1933 Ethnography of Owens Valley Paiute. UC-PAAE 33:233-350. Berkeley. 1935 Indian Tribes of the Sequoia National Park Region. U.S. Dept, of the Interior, National Park Service. Washington., D.C. 1938 Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. SI-BAE-B 120:1-346. Washington, D.C. Stewart, 0. C. 1941 Northern Paiute. UC-AR 4:361-446. Berkeley. 1943 Ute-Southern Paiute. UC-AR 6:231-356. Berkeley. Strong, W. D. 1939 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. UC-PAAE 26:1-358. Berkeley. Taylor, A. S. 1863 The Indianology of California. The California Farmer, Vols. 12-20, 1860-1863. Los Angeles. 79 Thompson, Lucy 1916 To the American Indian. Eureka, California. Underhill, Ruth 1941 Indians of Southern California. U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Office of Indian Affairs. Washington, D.C. 1944 The Northern Paiute Indians of California and Nevada. U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Office of Indian Affairs. Washington, D.C. Voegelin, E. 1938 Tulbatulabal Ethnography. UC-AR 2:1-84. Berkeley. 1942 Northeast California. UC-AR 7:47-252. Berkeley. Wallace, W. J. n.d. Hupa Education. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1946. Waterman, T. T. 1910 The Religious Practices of the Diegueino Indians. UC-PAAE 8: 271-358. Berkeley. 1918 The Yana Indians. UC-PAAE 13:35-70. Berkeley. 1920 Yurok Geography. UC-PAAE 16:177-314. Berkeley. Wissler, C. 1940 Indians of the United States. Doubleday, Doran, and Co. New York. Woodward, A. 1934 An Early Account of the Chumash. SWM-M 8:118-123. Los Angeles.