Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 187-198(1980).

Lower Colorado River Peoples: Hostilities and Hunger, 1850-1857

CLIFTON B. KROEBER

HY did some aboriginal peoples con­ MOHAVE SUBSISTENCE duct hostilities over long periods of W Concerning the Mohave, it was reported time? The answers to this question have been by Brady (I860) that, many,' and one motive that is given great weight in the literature is the economic— They subsist by cultivation of the soil, raiding for wealth or for food in time of hunger. and what few fish the river affords. The soil But for the Lower Colorado peoples during the is remarkably rich in the low bottom lands early 1850's the record is not clear in associ­ adjoining the river and affords them sub­ ating occurrences of warfare with times of sistence with very little labor. They plant two crops in the year, one of wheat in hunger. Instead, the record raises questions January and February, which they gather bearing on the theory of war in aboriginal in months of April and May, and which society. ripens from the dampness of the soil alone. Whereas the subsistence activities of The second crop which is the largest and by Quechans, Mobaves, and Cocopas were sim­ far the most important is planted after the ilar, their responses to shortages of food annual overflow, which generally takes differed. Their war customs were alike but the place about the middle of June, at which importance and incidence of warring differed time they plant considerable quantities, of strikingly. In explaining those hostilities, corn, pumpkins, beans, and melons. They scholars have mentioned a wide variety of also gather large quantities of the mesquite bean and grass seed, which affords them reasons, including national pride, religious some support. inspiration, prestige desires of career warriors (kwanami), a game-like enjoyment, response Earlier, Balduin MoUhausen (1858:249- to trespass, revenge, and, most recently and 262) mentioned the planting of gourds. He also emphatically, the search for wealth or for food.^ described Mohave food storage in pots inside We will first survey the subsistence activities in the bouses, and4n wickerwork containers set each territory, then the pattern of recurrent high above the ground to hold mesquite pods, hostilities, and finally review the extent to screwbeans, and dried corn. But as the white which hunger or famine was accompanied by captive Olive Oatman discovered (Stratton war. 1857:122-124; see Tuttle 1928), "In their producing season, the Mobaves scarcely raised Clifton B. Kroeber, Dept. of History, Occidental College, 1600 Campus Road, Los Angeles, CA 90041. a four months' supply . . . There was little

[187] 188 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY game in the Mohave Valley and of necessity grow grass seed for food. It is prepared by little meat was used by this tribe" (Stratton pounding the seed in wooden mortars, 1857:118; Brady 1860). Olive Oatman kept made of mesquite, or in the ground. With body and soul together in time of famine by water the meal is kneaded into a mass, and digging roots, seeking birds' eggs, and by then dried in the sun. The mesquite bean is fishing. prepared in the same manner, and will keep till the next season. The pod mesquite begins to ripen in the latter part of June; QUECHAN SUBSISTENCE the screw bean a little later . . . The great The Quechans farmed and gathered under dependence of the Indian for food is upon the mesquite and his fields.^ almost exactly the same conditions (Heintzel- man 1857:34-35): Standing crops could easily be lost. In the The river bottom is wide and fertile, U.S. Army garrison at Fort Yuma, Lieutenant covered with a heavy growth of arrow Tom Sweeny's crops failed, and he reflected wood, grease wood, cotton wood, willow (Sweeny 1956:176, 200; see also Stratton 1857: of three varieties, and mesquite of two 187, 200) that "nothing can be raised in these kinds, the flat pod and screw beans, and is diggings except by the Indians, or those who intersected by a great number of sloughs adopt their plan of encamping on the planting- and lagoons, former bends of the river. On grounds and protecting them from the animals these the Indians plant in the month of and insects that swarm around the young July, or so soon as the waters of the annual plants, and will certainly destroy them if not rise commence to subside. No vegetables driven off." will grow beyond the influence of the overflow. COCOFA SUBSISTENCE They cultivate water melons, musk melons, pumpkins, corn, and beans. The As for the Cocopa, William H. Kelly water melons are small and indifferent, (1977:23) concluded: musk melons large, and the pumpkins No other Indians in the Southwest, not good. These latter they cut and dry for even the other River Yuman tribes, pos­ winter use. sessed the quantity, diversity, and the sea­ Their agriculture is simple. With an old sonal spread of wild food resources avail­ axe . . . knives and fire, a spot likely to able to the Cocopa [and while] the Cocopa overflow is cleared. After the waters sub­ of the 19th century should have been well side, small holes are dug at proper intervals, fed and prosperous . . . they were not [but a few inches deep, with a sharpened stick, instead were on] chronic short rations having first removed the surface for an during the late spring and early summer, inch or two, as it is apt to cake. The ground and [in] near-famine conditions in some is tasted, and if sah the place rejected; if years when the summer floods failed. not, the seeds are then planted. No further care is required but to remove the weeds, In their lands of broad lagoons and exten­ which grow most luxuriantly wherever the sive flooding, Cocopas raised all the crops water has been. already mentioned, and they also harvested the Wheat is planted in the same manner, wild rice (Fig. 1). Their supply of fish and near the lagoons, in December or January, shellfish was significant. Still, as with other and ripens in May and June. It has a fine Lower Colorado River peoples, the Cocopas' plump grain, and well filled ears. They also food usually lasted no later than March or HOSTILITIES AND HUNGER 189

April, and they would then be on "short rather than in hit-and-run assault. It is clear rations" (Castetter and Bell 1951:54, 68; see that Maricopas and Cocopas wished to com­ also Derby 1969:46, 48). bine against the Quechans; but they never managed to coordinate such an attack. HOSTILITIES IN THE So, most of the hostilities were between HISTORIC PERIOD Quechans and Cocopas, often affecting only By the early 1850's, the most frequent hos­ one or two rancherias or villages. Both peoples tilities conducted by the above three peoples lived so widely dispersed, and both moved so were damaging raids upon each other by frequently, that it was rare for any attack to Quechans and Cocopas. Sometimes Mobaves involve even a sizeable proportion of all fight­ went with the Quechans. Rarely, the Maricopa ing men in the nation. Finally, records do not villages on the Gila River were raided by Que­ show whether the nearby Kamia and Dieguefio, chans, sometimes accompanied by Mobaves. long-standing allies of the Quechans, became Some of those trips to the Gila were mere involved."* damage raids, but others were much larger In the early 1850's, the Quechans were expeditions that resulted in formal battles already suffering because of the heavy traffic of

Fig. 1. Cocopa Indian garden, Colorado River delta, Baja California, ca. 1902. Although late in the historic period, this is one of the few known photographs of a native garden along the Colorado River. The structure at the right in the background is a platform built of poles and is identified on the photo as a seed cache. Photo taken by the California-Mexico Land and Cattle Company. Courtesy of the Sherman Library, Corona del Mar. 190 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

white emigrants at Yuma Crossing. The worst event occurred (Russell 1908:44-45). damage was done by a U.S. Army detachment In the summer of 1851, the Colorado did which came to the Crossing to prevent Que­ not overflow in Quechan territory and prob­ chans from interfering with white travelers and ably not in Mohave Valley (Heintzelman 1857: ferry keepers. As time went on the Cocopas 37; Stratton 1857:119). The Quechans were sub­ had distant but friendly relations with the sisting on mesquite early in the summer, but white soldiers; thus the Quechans came to fear there were no stored foods from the previous an alUance of whites and Cocopas against year, and they had not been able to plant for a themselves. The Quechans did suffer heavy coming crop. During summer almost all the casualties, shortages of food, and even danger people were moving down the Colorado to a of extinction during the early 1850's. stretch just below the mouth of New River, In the fall of 1850, the State of California where the stream had overflowed; and there, in sent an improvised military expedition against the territory of their close relatives and friends the Quechans, who fled from their homes in the Kamia, they planted. The people made this September and October, 1850, losing the crops move in groups leaving during July, as the around Sakwiye village near the Gila-Colorado supply of mesquite in the home territory finally junction. Probably they also abandoned plant­ gave out (Sweeny 1956:73, 75, 121-122, 132, ings at Xuksil near Algodones, more than a 137; and Heintzelman 1857:36). dozen miles downstream. Part of the nation Before leaving home the Quechan warriors fled upriver, to gather food and then to plant did carry out three raids. In June, they struck a crops in the Colorado River bottomlands in a Cocopa village, killing many of the people, long stretch unoccupied or only very thinly taking prisoners, and carrying away "all the inhabited, which intervened between the cen­ spoils esteemed valuable" (Sweeny 1956:72). tral homelands of Quechans and Mobaves Another attack went against the Maricopas (Forbes 1965:321-322). who had come down the Gila River to the After the California troops departed late in neighborhood of present-day Gila Bend to October, whites living in fortified quarters at gather cactus fruit, as they did each year. The the Gila-Colorado junction continued to eat Quechan raid was successful, killing some up whatever food remained in the Quechans' enemies and bringing back two captives fields at Sakwiye, and these white people also (Cremony 1868:111-112). gathered in the local mesquite supply. In early The Maricopas did not respond to that November, 1850, a small garrison of U.S. attack. But the Cocopas planned to retaliate soldiers arrived at Yuma Crossing and they for the damage done to them, by inviting also began taking mesquite. So the Quechans Quechan leaders to a feast where they would be lost much of what would have been good crops ambushed. The plan reached Quechan ears in and good gatherings. During that period, so time for them to strike first, killing a number of far as we know, the Mohaves were also on Cocopas and "taking some women and chil­ short rations, presumably for lack of river over­ dren captive" (Heintzelman 1857:43; Michler flow in their valley. But during that year and 1857:107). Whether these attacks against for early 1851 we know of no hostilities among Maricopa and Cocopa were meant to gather the Lower Colorado tribes. The Quechans did food we cannot say. make a very large battle expedition against the While some Quechans went southward in Maricopas, and lost more than a hundred war­ July in search of food, others moved far north riors, but there is no telling at which season, or along the Colorado. They were seen by a U.S. during which of the years, 1850 or 1851, this government expedition in November, 1851, HOSTILITIES AND HUNGER 191 giving the impression of having arrived but to establish their crops in time. recently. They had no stores of food and were Meanwhile the situation in Mohave Valley subsisting on mesquite beans and screwbeans was much worse. Although the Colorado had (Sitgreaves 1853:19, 184). They were encamped overflowed during the winter of 1851 and rains in lands lying a long eight days' march above had followed (Stratton 1857:119), the wheat Yuma Crossing. crop of 1852 was much less than needed to tide Meantime, there is reason to believe that over until after fall harvest time. Gathering of the Mobaves did bring in a small spring wheat mesquite went on apace during the summer but crop in 1851—but too little to tide them over yielded too slender a store for future needs. into fall. They probably had a poor harvest, The Colorado did not overflow in Mohave too, when summer came (Stratton 1857:119; Valley in 1852, there were no spring rains, and Sitgreaves 1853:18).5 the fall harvest was disappointing (Stratton By spring of 1852, many or all the Quechans 1857:124). had returned to their homes. They were set During the spring, the wheat had been used upon by U.S. soldiers determined to subdue up and women were out hunting for mesquite, the Quechans so as to end hostilities between taking pods overlooked the previous year. Indians and white immigrants. From March After the fall harvest, and when seed had been until September, the troops raided, attacked, set aside against the next planting, only a and scorched the land. Both north and south of month's supply of food remained. As Olive the Gila-Colorado junction they burned settle­ Oatman remembered that summer and autumn ments, wrecked standing crops, and pursued "nothing but starvation could be expected" the Indians over long distances. In July they (Stratton 1857:184, 187ff.).6 She was one of a drove all inhabitants out of the vicinity of the party of women who traveled more than sixty Army post. Fort Yuma. The Commandant miles out of Mohave Valley where tree crops wrote that his operations had prevented could be gathered and carried home in baskets. Indians from planting "below, between us and In late fall, some of the Mohave children, and the Cocopa, and above within fifty miles" Olive's younger sister, starved. (Heintzelman 1857:37; Sweeny 1956:154, 155- The Quechans' affairs also took a brief turn 157, 178, 204). for the worse during late 1852. In September, So although the Colorado overflowed the U.S. soldiers marched all the way north to strongly that summer of 1852, near and below the temporary Indian settlements on the Colo­ Fort Yuma, the Quechans bad no good from rado, probably wasting crops and certainly their best-yielding lands that lay within about frightening the people away. In early October, five miles of the Fort, both north and south, the leading men decided to submit at last, and and in the "forks" between the Gila and the they gathered near Fort Yuma at the behest of Colorado (Sweeny 1956:200-201). Some of the the Army officers. They said that "They had people now took refuge even farther from the suffered a great deal in consequence of having soldiers than before, farther to the north. been driven off their planting-grounds" Others traveled westward into the desert to (Sweeny 1956:175-182; Forbes 1965:334-336). refuge with the Kamia (Sweeny 1956:167). For the time being, they had food, brought Those who went north along the Colorado put home with them from temporary fields lying in melons and pumpkins during the summer even beyond the range of the Army's Septem­ from sixty to forty-five miles above Fort Yuma ber attacks. But wintertime brought dire need: (Sweeny 1956:167). They were making every "our camp was filled with men, women, and effort to stay out of the Way of U.S. troops and children, begging for something to eat" 192 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

(Heintzelman 1857:37); and many of the husbanding their food supplies (Stratton 1857: people made no attempt to return to their 136-144). homes that fall and winter of 1852. By early 1854, both Quechans and By March, 1853, they were coming back in Mobaves bad food, although the Quechans large numbers. They prepared large plantings were probably selling too much to the Army after a bounteous overflow of the Colorado in garrison (Whipple 1853:1, 114). Famine condi­ early June, and they were still planting in July tions had lifted for the time being. Even though (Sweeny 1956:197, 206; Heintzelman 1857:46). the Quechans did not see an overflow of the And they were soon at war against the Cocopa. Colorado in the summer of 1854, and the out­ In May, the Cocopa had approached them look for food was bleak for a time, an unseason­ for a peace conference to be held in Cocopa able and heavy rainfall watered the river- territory. The Quechan tribal leader, bottom lands and permitted a special effort Massedon, unsuspectingly answered this that yielded "tolerable crops" (Harvey 1854). invitation, going south with some men and For the time being, the U.S. Army Com­ dozens of women and children. It was a trap mandant at Fort Yuma could not persuade the they walked into, and in ambush many of them Quechans to make a final peace with the were killed and more captured on May 22, Cocopas, during 1854 (Thomas 1854; Harvey 1853 (Sweeny 1956:205-206; Heintzelman 1854). Finally, early in 1855, a formal treaty 1857:43, 45; Michler 1857:108-109). Soon after­ was brought about, with the leading men of ward more groups of Quechan warriors began both nations present (Michler 1857:108-109). to arrive near Fort Yuma with arms in hand, to Beyond that lay the question of the long-stand­ build up a war party. After many preparations, ing enmity between Quechans and Mohaves on between two and three hundred warriors went one side and Maricopas on the other, peoples to attack the Cocopa (Sweeny 1956:209) and who had been fighting each other intermit­ were successful. Their friends the Mohaves tently since at least the sixteenth century. now sent a contingent of men to help against There was one further episode in that intermit­ the Cocopa, and in September both Quechans tent series of hostilities. Mohaves and Que­ and Mohaves traveled south for another raid­ chans, probably accompanied by a few Yava- ing expedition (Sweeny 1956:209, 210). They pais, made a formal battle expedition against took many prisoners, destroyed much prop­ the Maricopa villages and, on September 1, erty, and suffered few casualties (Sweeny 1956: 1857, lost most of their invading force. When 211-212; Heintzelman 1857:44).^ this final battle expedition left the Colorado Meantime, the Mohaves had had good River there was no shortage of food among the luck during the winter of 1852, with an Mohaves (Ives 1861:44, 48, 58, 65-68, 70, overflow of the river followed by rains. The 72-73).8 river overflowed again during the summer of 1853, allowing for crops better than "for REVIEW OF THE DATA several years past." Mesquite gathering went For the early 1850's, it is difficult to see a much better, too. So Mohave warriors staged relationship between occurrences of war and their September attack, with the Quechans times of hunger. Attacks against enemies against the Cocopa, at a time when food supply occurred in good years and bad, and not in any was good and the outlook for the future very one season although usually during summer or promising. Olive Oatman noticed that from fall. War was waged not only when food was then on until she left Mohave Valley in 1856 scarce, not only in times of plenty, not only the people were taking much greater care in when good crops were in prospect. HOSTILITIES AND HUNGER 193

There were different forms of hostilities. but they knew so many wild food plants, and Most incidents of which we know were damage could find them in such large, nearby, and raids—wasting property and taking prisoners uninhabited territories, that we cannot so and booty wherever possible. But during the much as guess at how much food each nation large-scale, formal war expeditions, such as had in any year. those of 1848-49, 1851, and 1857, attackers did As for agricultural yield, there are too not hit and run but waited, until all available many factors of variation of which we have no enemies could be brought to the field to con­ record earlier than in the twentieth century. front the attackers. The 1851 Quechan expedi­ Did the river overflow in a certain year—once, tion was a total disaster with ninety warriors or twice—and in which seasons? Were the dead on the battleground, and in 1857 things people at hand to plant, when the opportunity went as badly for them. It is difficult to suppose offered? Were crops destroyed in some years, that such events were intended to obtain food. by enemy attack? There are other variations in the picture. To compound these uncertainties, we Raiding between nearest neighbors — know little enough of the social mobilization of Quechans and Cocopas—was accompanied by Lower Colorado peoples for normal subsis­ negotiation, diplomatic parley, stratagem, and tence or in times of emergency. Probably all treachery, partly due to the cross-tribal family three peoples lived in seasonal rancheria settle­ relationships and other personal associations ments,'" each of one or several families; and across national lines (Michler 1857:107; also during some seasons of some years they Sweeny 1956:128). No such atmosphere sur­ clustered in "villages" of many families each. rounded the hostilities between Mohave and But the record is silent as to the size or compo­ Quechan on one hand, and Maricopa and sition of groups that did the harvesting and Pima on the other. Those attacks arrived gathering. Nor do we know how food was dis­ without warning, nor were they followed by tributed in times of shortage or whether chil­ truce or other arrangements. dren were the first to starve, or old people, or Indeed, mysteries as to subsistence activi­ those too weak to travel. ties and hostilities remain. As for the food Faintly we can see national differences supply, we see clearly only some of the factors between the reactions to food shortage. that made for plenty, sufficiency, shortage, or Mohaves seem never to have moved away from famine. Even the aboriginal population figures Mohave Valley no matter how hungry the are known only in casual estimates. Probably year; and this, despite the fact that Mohaves the numbers of each people diminished slowly claimed and occupied long stretches of the after the sixteenth century, then rapidly begin­ Colorado River southward from the Valley ning in the late 1840's with so many whites itself. We have no record of people from passing down the Gila Trail and with the U.S. Mohave Valley moving to those lands of theirs Army bringing hostilities during the 1850's. almost a hundred miles south of the Valley, But we have no sure figures. where some Mohaves lived permanently Attempts to estimate amounts of watered (Brady 1860). land available to each nation have been vain The Quechans, already under heavy pres­ (Castetter and Bell 1951:11, 16, 38, 69-77).« sure from whites during the early 1850's, Today we cannot recapture the more interest­ moved long distances to find food and re­ ing fact—the total food available to each mained away from home for months if need be, people from year to year. The Indians relied to plant and to harvest crops. The Cocopa, as heavily on crops planted in the river bottoms. yet infrequently visited by whites, went their 194 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

annual round of planting, gathering, fishing, danger of extinction. Perhaps their own attacks hunting, and harvesting that took them long were planned so as to do greatest damage to the distances through the delta lands and in moun­ enemy's food supplies; but whether Yumas tains far and near. The impression is that at any raided to obtain food we do not know, any moment they were more widely and more thor­ more than we know the reasons why Cocopas oughly dispersed than were the Quechans or continued to attach the Quechans. Mobaves. As for war, its objectives and incidence DISCUSSION OF HYPOTHESES during the aboriginal times are still unclear. Recently, a sweeping new interpretation of Reasons for warring must have differed some­ these facts has been proposed, for peoples of what—more so than has been assumed from the large region from southern California into the many close similarities in weapons, warrior central Arizona, to show that there existed two class, post-expedition ritual, and many other alliance systems acting in a long-run sense to specifics of the waging of war. For instance, assure resources and protection within each of whatever their reasons for offensive war the the two groups of allies. Emphasis is placed Mohaves were never under attack during this upon "ecological conditions that made warfare final stage of aboriginal life. They had peaceful a necessary strategy for survival" (White 1974). relations with their nearest neighbors, the What is pictured is a homeostatic system that Chemehuevis on the River and westward in the aimed at survival of aboriginal peoples. This desert, and the Walapais to the east. There is hypothesis may reflect the situation that neither record nor tradition of Mohaves fight­ existed in that territory during the eighteenth ing either of those peoples until years later, and nineteenth centuries. Intertribal relation­ when the whites' conquests in northwestern ships may have helped peoples to make up Arizona, Utah, and eastern California led to temporary lack of resources, or may have fur­ progressive deterioration and hostility in nished protection from nearby enemies. The Indians' mutual relations. During the 1850's, anthropologist A. L. Kroeber once identified the Mohaves chose their moments for attack the outlines of two such alliance systems in his on Cocopas and against the Maricopa. They earlier work; and his final word on the subject brought back captives from those expeditions, was that, "There seems little doubt that the and between wars they bought women and much larger size of tribes in the lower Cali­ children from other peoples; but we know fornia area, their subsistence by farming and nothing of their having raided for food. the military attitude, are all connected" (1961: During the 1850's, the Quechans continued 105). But that remark leads back into the ques­ and intensified their warlike activities. They tion of the functioning of each individual suffered very heavy losses when the Maricopa culture, rather than forward into the question attacked them in 1848 or 1849. On that occa­ of whether active alliance systems met serious sion attackers scattered the population of needs. Amities and enmities did exist, but facts several Quechan settlements while inflicting to prove the existence of two alliance systems such casualties that the people moved away are vestigial at best. from Yuma Crossing for a time. Over the next Perhaps this question as to why the peoples few years in several raids by and against the fought each other may better be divided into Cocopa and twice against the Maricopa, the two queries. One has to do with the original Quechans lost several hundred men and almost reasons for development of two alignments of all their war leaders and principal chiefs. From peoples, each group recognizing the other as the late '40's to the middle '50's they were in consisting of peoples indifferent, unfriendly, or HOSTILITIES AND HUNGER 195 hostile to themselves. We will likely never ships and workings within societies, the resem­ know why the alignments first appeared be­ blance to Gila-Colorado life begins to fade. cause the matter is historically too remote and Some elements are missing, and others did not now gone from human memory. function as the theory indicates. Chiefs were The other question asks why some peoples prestigious indeed, but they had no special in each of the two broad alignments continued power over property, nor could they order war­ to fight each other intermittently over several riors into the field. While the peoples were very centuries until changing conditions impelled conscious of landed property, few if any of them to desist. The most recent of economic them felt "pressure on the land"; and several of viewpoints that may cast light upon this ques­ these peoples farmed almost anywhere within tion is Marvin Harris' (1979) theory of cultural their national territory. The extent to which materialism, which incorporates whatever can members of descent groups identified perma­ be learned from Old World prehistory and nent boundaries of landed property has never from recent research among living aborigines. been clear for the lower Colorado peoples. Very briefly put, Harris sees a stage in Nor do the records speak of chiefs who laid aboriginal life just preceding that of earliest hands on harvested crops so as to redistribute state organization. In those cultures, the chief- these from one family to another. dom is crucial, acting to dominate the society As for warfare, there is no sign that chiefs by redistributing economic surpluses. The soci­ could control or direct it. In most or all of these eties reflecting this pattern all possessed food Gila-Colorado societies there was another surpluses either of domesticable ruminants or functionary, the war leader, who had much pigs, or of storable grains. Harris dubs the more to do with campaigning. But even he chiefs as "intensifier-redistributor-warriors" seems not to have possessed the power to pro­ whose policies eventually worked fundamental hibit an expedition suggested by someone else. changes in those societies. Throughout, Harris In fact, all the various functions of national argues that the imprint of the chiefs' long- leadership seem to have been spread among a continued policies can be seen in the nature variety of figures—the chief, the fiesta man­ and functioning of descent groups in those ager, the war leader, older men as powerful societies. advisers, and shamans. Indeed, numerous elements found in For the Harris theory to fit, one would Harris' theory were present generally or univer­ need to see that the Gila-Colorado peoples sally among the Gila-Colorado peoples. The gave great importance and effort toward chiefdom was there, and sometimes confined accumulating property in stored grain. But to but one descent group as among the although the Gila peoples did usually have size­ Mohave. There was a well-developed sense of able surpluses, the case of the lower Colorado property among all the peoples, and some of peoples is not as clear. We do not know them experienced periodic conflict among whether they did all they might have done, to descent groups for continued possession. All of produce a surplus of storable grain each year. the peoples tried to accumulate stores of grain, In addition, the custom of including all a man's and a few may have had sizeable enough stores possessions in the cremation ceremony was each year for the surplus to have become a still strong, a usage Harris mentions as typical significant factor in political power. Finally, of peoples not included in his theoretical scope, there was among all those peoples a well- "less affluent and less sedentary band and defined status, a career, for the warrior. village societies" (1979:95). In all, then, Harris' However, as Harris explains the relation­ theory sheds light most clearly in suggesting 196 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

that the peoples of the middle Gila and lower even as late as the 1850's they did not yet stand Colorado had not—perhaps not quite yet — at the threshold of state organization. developed the roles, behaviors, and relation­ ships that would reflect the theory of cultural NOTES materialism. 1. See Wright (1942); Vayda( 1976:1-7); Harris What then can we say, as to why warfare so (1977:Ch. 4); Hallpike (1975); Colson (1979); and long continued between peoples of the middle notes by Vayda and Brush (1976:645-647). Gila and those of the lower Colorado? Why did 2. For motives of Lower Colorado aboriginal some roles such as that of kwanami, career warfare, some leading writings are discussed in warrior, continue to be designated for Mohave Kroeber and Kroeber (1973:1-4, 92); in Castetter men born early in the twentieth century and Bell (1951); and especially in Dobyns ei al. although the last Mohave warfare ended in (1957). 1868? At this time, it looks safest to suggest that warfare recurred because it had long pos­ 3. Full listing of many other plants these tribes sessed the strongest sanctions of approval in encouraged, gathered, or harvested is in Castetter and Bell (1951), while Kelly (1977:23-45) presents each society, while threatening the extinction the very specific accounting of all Cocopa food of none of the peoples and while obligating no sources. At the time, the feeling among whites was person ever to join any expedition. that foods most frequently used were corn, beans, The record is clear that offensive warfare melons, pumpkins, and wheat, with mesquite and was not a national enterprise, but came about screwbeans as the first and emergency resort: MoU­ through initiative on the part of any warrior, or hausen (1858:249); Stratton (1857:123); and perhaps any shaman, who might be followed Harvey (1854). by others and by any other men or youths. 4. Sweeny (1956:205) reported Dieguenos as Some expeditions organized and departed casualties and as prisoners of the Cocopa in May, even in the face of the strongest disapproval by 1852. Perhaps these were Kamia. national leaders. 5. Mohaves offered to barter "small quantities" Meantime there is no doubt that peoples of of the fall crops and "in one or two instances" some the middle Gila and lower Colorado possessed wheat, when Sitgreaves passed by in mid-Novem­ strong national consciousness, probably even ber, 1851. A problem in interpreting this informa­ before the middle sixteenth century. That tion is in the fact that Mohaves and Quechans strong feeling of commonalty was most graph­ sometimes traded away food even when supplies ically to be seen in the rallying of the people, were scanty. taking up arms at a moment's notice in the face 6. Olive Oatman's account of her captivity of an enemy attack against even a single (told to the Rev. Royal Stratton) either telescopes rancheria. But the social organization of those events from spring 1852 through spring 1854 or peoples, their permissive arrangements in omits one year. I assume she describes the year government and the infrequency and volun­ 1852-1853, because she mentions but one Mohave tarism to be seen in their resort to offensive expedition (against the Cocopa) and we know that warfare, seem not to reflect the theory of cul­ one occurred in 1853. Her account is important in tural materialism. That theory rests on the use showing the Mohave war expedition departing at a of food surpulses in organizing and in wielding time when food, and prospects for future political and military power. All that we know subsistence, were becoming ampler. of the Gila and Colorado peoples suggests that 7. I assume these hostilities are the same Olive their societies were not yet so closely regi­ Oatman gives as of summer-fall 1854 (a season mented, which is another way of saying that when a temporary Indian agent was present at HOSTILITIES AND HUNGER 197

Yuma Crossing and reported no war against the Derby, G. D. Cocopa (Harvey 1854). Mohaves could have gone 1969 Derby's Report on Opening the Colo­ against the Cocopa without Olive or the agent rado, 1850-1851 . . . O. B. Faulk, ed. knowing of it, but I fee! the attack occurred in 1853 Albuquerque: University of New Mexico. because she placed it just after a season of famine. Dobyns, H. F., P. Ezell, A. W. Jones, and G. Ezell Such was not the case in 1854 when Whipple and 1957 Thematic Changes in Yuman Warfare. MoUhausen, who were there in February, found In: Cultural Stability and Cultural ample crops in the stalk and storage bins bulging. Change, V. F. Ray, ed. Seattle: American 8. Ives heard of the attack while still near Fort Ethnological Society. Yuma, and he ascended the Colorado late in ! 857, Forbes, J. finding "promising fields of grain." He bought 1965 Warriors of the Colorado: The Yumans provisions at every stop along the way in Mohave of the Quechan Nation and Their Neigh­ country. He was told of earlier starving times, some bors. Norman: University of Oklahoma. years previous, when "great numbers of Mohaves had died of starvation." Forde, C D. 1931 Ethnography of the Yuma Indians. 9. Castctterand Bell( 1951 )discuss some of the University of California Publications in imponderable factors, such as variation in the dura­ American Archaeology and Ethnology tion of the growing season at various points along 28. the river, and change in amounts of land watered by overflow in different vears. Hallpike, C R. 1973 Functionalist Interpretations of Primi­ 10. Brady (I860) found that Mohaves "live in tive Warfare. Man 8:451-470. ra:7r/7f/;'a.s composed of four to six or eight families sometimes more;" and the same may have been true Harris, M. for Quechans and Cocopas: see Forde (1931:140) 1977 Cannibals and Kings. New York: Random House. 1979 Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture. New York: Random REFERENCES House.

Brady, P. R. Harvey, W. H. I860 Report to Major G. O. Haller, Fort 1854 Letters, Fort Yuma, July 15 and Sept. 3. Mojave, N. M. Oct. 9. Ms. in National Ms. in National Archives, Letters Re­ Archives, War Department, Continental ceived, Office of Indian Affairs, 1824- Army Commands, Fort Mohave. 1881, California Superintendency, 1853- 1854. Castetter, E. F., and W. H. Bell Heintzelman, S. F. 1951 Yuman Indian Agriculture. Albuquer­ 1857 Report. Fort Yuma, July 15, 1853. Wash­ que: University of New Mexico. ington, D. C: Government Printing Colson, E. Office. 1979 In Good Years and in Bad: Food Strate­ Ives, J. C gies of Self-Reliant Societies. Journal of 1861 Report Upon the Colorado River of the Anthropological Research 35:18-29. West ... 1857 and 1858. Washington. D.C: Government Printing Office. Cremony, J. C 1868 Life Among the Apaches. San Francisco: Kelly, W. H. A. Roman. [Reprinted 1951, Arizona 1977 Cocopa Ethnography. University of Silhouettes, Tucson.] Arizona Anthropological Papers 29. 198 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

Kroeber, A. L. Garland Publishing Company, New 1961 The Nature of Land-Holding Groups in York.] Aboriginal California. In; Aboriginal Sweeny, T. California. Three Studies in Culture His­ 1956 Journal, 1849-1853, A. Woodward, ed. tory, pp. 81-120. Berkeley: University of Los Angeles: Westernlore Press. California. Thomas, G. H. Kroeber, A. L. and C B. Kroeber 1854 Letter, Fort Yuma, Aug. 8. Ms. in 1973 A Mohave War Reminiscence, 1854- National Archives, War Department, 1880. University of California Publica­ Army Commands, Department of Cali­ tions in Anthropology 10. fornia, Fort Yuma T-13. Michler, N. Tuttle, E. D. 1857 Report, Washington, D.C, July 29. In: 1928 The River Colorado. Arizona Historical Report of the United States and Mexican Review 1:50-68. Boundary Survey, 1, pp. 101-133. Wash­ ington, D.C: Government Printing Vayda, A. P. Office. 1976 War in Ecological Perspective: Persis­ tence, Change, and Adaptive Processes in MoUhausen, B. Three Oceanian Societies. New York: 1858 Diary of a Journey from the Mississippi Plenum Press. to the Coasts of the Pacific. London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, Vayda, A. P., and S. B. Brush Roberts. [Reprinted 1969, Johnson 1976 Communications. American Anthro­ Reprint Corporation, New York.] pologist 78:645-647. Russell, F. Whipple, A. W. 1908 The Pima Indians. Bureau of American 1853 Report of Explorations for a Railway Ethnology Annual Report 26. Route . . . Washington, D.C: Govern­ ment Printing Office. Sitgreaves, L. 1853 Report of an Expedition down the Zuiii White, C and Colorado Rivers .... Washington, 1974 Lower Colorado River Area Aboriginal D.C: Government Printing Office. Warfare and Alliance Dynamics. In: Antap, L. J. Bean and T. F. King, eds., pp. 113-135. Ramona: Ballena Press. Stratton, R. B. 1857 Life Among the Indians ... the Captiv­ Wright, Q. ity of the Oatman Girls. San Francisco: 1942 A Study of War. Chicago: University of Whitton, Towne, & Co. [Reprinted 1977, Chicago.

yi-