UC Merced The Journal of California Anthropology Title For Sale: California at 47 Cents Per Acre Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9zm9w0z6 Journal The Journal of California Anthropology, 3(2) Authors Heizer, Robert F Kroeber, Alfred L Publication Date 1976-12-01 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California For Sale: California at 47 Cents Per Acre ROBERT F. HEIZER and ALFRED L. KROEBER OT very much has been written about examination of expert witnesses on each side N the claims case of the Indians of were held.- These are recorded in an official California versus The United States of Amer­ transcript running to 3838 typewritten pages. ica which was allowed by the federal govern­ This testimony has not been, and probably ment under the Indian Claims Commission never will be, published. Copies are in the Act (H.R. 4497) of August 13, 1946 (60 Stat. National Archives and in the files of the 1049; 25 U.S.C. Sec. 70ff). Omer C. Stewart, Wilkinson, Cragun, and Barker law firm of one of the expert witnesses on behalf of the Washington. During the hearings, the peti­ petitioners (Indians of California), reviewed tioners introduced 469 exhibits; the defendant the work of another expert witness for the peti­ entered 160. It is my intention to publish tioners, Alfred L. Kroeber.' As Kroeber's main shortly a partial list ofthe petitioners'exhibits, back-up helper and runner, as well as having together with a tabular abstract referring to served as an expert witness, 1 feel that I can evidence in these of aboriginal use and speak of the proceeding through firsthand exclusive occupancy. knowledge. The petitioners' efforts were concentrated In a review of the eight volumes recently on presenting, in an organized way, already issued by Garland Publishing Inc. under the recorded ethnographic and historical testi­ umbrella title American Indian Ethnohistory: mony and archaeological data to demonstrate California and Basin-Plateau Indians, com­ the fact of aboriginal ownership, exclusive use, prising certain exhibits placed before the and occupancy of lands lying within tribal Indian Claims Commission in The Indians of boundaries. The defendants' method to par­ California vs. The United States of America tially disprove this was by reference to a (Dockets 31 and 37), I observed that these are detailed ecological analysis in which each heavily overweighted with items presented in tribal area was evaluated for productivity and evidence by the defendant (The United States an assessment made of what percentage ofthe of America) against whom the commissioners land was used to secure the preponderance of decided on July 31, 1959. In short, with the the food collected and eaten.^ This argument exception of three exhibits totaling 229 pages became known as the "ecological theory," and prepared by the petitioners' expert witnesses, there was much discussion of it in the com­ the eight volumes under consideration com­ mission's hearings. But in the end it was prise the defendant's arguments which the rejected, as it should have been, by the commissioners rejected. unanimous opinion of the three commis­ The series of hearings occupied a total of sioners, Edgar E. Witt, Chief Commissioner, 38 days in which direct testimony and cross and Louis J. O'Marr and William M. Holt, CALIFORNIA AT 47 CENTS PER ACRE 39 Associate Commissioners. I believe that the can also now understand why I never wanted defendant did not really expect the commis­ to become a lawyer. sioners to accept its argument in toto and deny Kroeber and 1 believed that this particular wholly that ofthe petitioners, but rather hoped testimony was probably of some influence in to materially reduce the amount of land which leading the commissioners to reject the would be compensated for and thus substan­ ecological theory of the defendant and to favor tially lower the settlement dollar figure.'* the direct testimony of Native Californian Kroeber and I were the principal expert consultants (i.e., informants) which was witnesses for the petitioners, and it fell my lot recorded in earlier years before there was any to give the direct testimony in rebuttal and thought that it would serve as evidence in such submit to cross examination on our anthro­ hearings. In the written decision*' of the pological evaluation of the ecological theory. commissioners of Dockets 31 and 37 consoli­ Part ofthe rebuttal was printed in a reply brief dated, reached on July 31, 1959, they said: of which only a limited number of copies were issued.5 The full testimony, taken from the We believe the study of the economic resources of the state and their relationship stenotype transcript, appears below. I am in­ to the quantity of land required to support debted to Mr. Robert Barker of Wilkinson, the Indians in their way of life has value in Cragun, and Barker, for supplying me with a understanding the economic picture. xerox copy of my testimony which comprises However, we cannot accept the Govern­ pages 3221-3298 of the official court steno­ ment's thesis that the resources ofthe state or any part thereof can be determined grapher's transcript. Since Dr. Kroeber and I mathematically by assigning a large per­ together planned the way in which the direct centage of subsistence derived from a small examination would proceed, I have added his part of a given territory and reduced name as co-author here. Kroeber, it goes with­ percentages of subsistence in other areas of out saying, could have done a better job in the a territory claimed by a particular tribelet. witness chair than 1 did, and, of course, a very The testimony and the ethnographic literature, of which there are volumes in much better job than 1 managed under Mr. evidence, show that the Indian groups Ralph Barney's questioning. Mr. Barney, of ranged throughout their respective terri­ the U.S. Department of Justice, and 1 sparred a tories in their gathering, hunting and bit in the cross-examination, and in this 1 did fishing excursions. While these Indians not come off very well. Perhaps this was due were never considered nomads, their exploitation of the available resources in a to the fact that he was an experienced lawyer given territory required frequent and ex­ and I was a 40-year-old professor whose tended travelling within the territories courtroom experience was limited to appear­ claimed. We believe it unrealistic and ing briefly before a judge after a night spent in contrary to the Indian mode of life to re­ the Sacramento city jail 20 years before, while strict Indian territorial rights to the lands which would simply provide adequate sub­ a junior college student, for belting a neighbor sistence and disallow their land claims to for being abusive to me for allegedly using bad the areas which were of secondary im­ language which his no-doubt virginal daughter portance or supplemental to the main allegedly heard out of the window of my $25-a- source of supplies. We suspect territorial month boarding house room. It is amusing to expanse was as much the desire of these primitive peoples as it is characteristic of read, 22 years later, my testimony. 1 can the white man for there is much ethno­ scarcely believe that my sentence construction graphic evidence that the Indian groups in was that bad, but it is a matter of record and California moved about their respective cannot be changed, so here it is, warts and all. I domains gathering wild foods as they 40 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA ANTHROPOLOGY ripened or captured available wild game, ifornia under the Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty and during a normal season would visit or under conditions which existed in Califor­ and use the whole territory to which they nia in the period of gold and settlement rush asserted ownership as their exclusive places of abode. which followed the 1848 period? A. The answer to that is that I do not TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARINGS consider this the method to prove those points. AFTERNOON SESSION - 1:30 P.M. Q. Well, then. Doctor, will you please state [September 28, 1955]. upon what you base that conclusion? A. The use of ecology or ecological COMMISSIONER O'MARR: Proceed. analysis is, as 1 believe generally admitted by MR. [REGINALD] FOSTER: 1 would all parties concerned here, old and well- like to call Dr. Heizer. I will call the Com­ established. It was used by Kroeber, by mission's attention to the fact that Dr. Heizer Merriam, by Barrett and Gifford, by Kniffen, has been already sworn in [Docket] 31-37. by Omer Stewart, by Julian Steward, and others who perhaps do not have to be men­ ROBERT F. HEIZER tioned. recalled on behalf of Plaintiffs in Rebuttal. The point 1 make is that the ecological DIRECT EXAMINATION factors have never been disregarded and BY MR. FOSTER: reference to Dr. Kroeber's handbook, which I Q. Dr. Heizer, you have heard or read the think is [Exhibit] RH-50, will show that transcript of the testimony of Dr. Beals in this practically every chapter contains statements case, have you not? or facts whici. might be called ecological in A. Yes, sir, I have. nature. Q. And you recall, do you not. Doctor, Dr. The main value of ecological analysis is Beals' ecologic theories as applied by him to primarily as a basis for understanding the determine use and occupancy of California external environment and as the background lands under aboriginal conditions up to 1848? for understanding the means of subsistence, A. Yes, sir. that is, the day-to-day making of a living; Q.