Pestilence and Persistence: Yosemite Indian Demography and Culture in Colonial California

Pestilence and Persistence: Yosemite Indian Demography and Culture in Colonial California
Pestilence and Persistence: Yosemite Indian Demography and Culture in Colonial California
Author : Kathleen L. Hull
Published : 2009-10-05
Amazon Price : $50.30

Kathleen Hull’s Pestilence and Persistence: Yosemite Indian Demography and Culture in Colonial California, above all, is a timely book, if not a necessary book. Timely in that current relations between Yosemite Indians and the park administration are showing signs of mutual accommodate after decades of mistrust. In fact, the Yosemite Valley’s cultural landscape will shortly have in place a new Ceremonial Roundhouse near Camp 4 designed by the American Indian Council of Mariposa County and endorsed by the National Park Service.

Perhaps this is what Ms. Hull means by persistent, that a history of survival by California Indians so rigorously pursued by former and current scholars, like Albert Hurtado in his path breaking book Indian Survival on the California Frontier, represents a generational shift in the way we think about the perverse “vanishing peoples” narrative.

But unlike some historians, even unlike some of her anthropological colleagues, Ms. Hull’s vested interest in the Yosemite Indian transcends the murky world of narrative, where scholars have shown a tendency to overstate their conclusions. Her scholarship, moreover, is based firmly in painstaking fieldwork, and her conclusions hardly sway from the material evidence procured over decades of careful study. To do this and then write a coherent book, despite its rich anthropological nomenclature, is testament to her skill as a scientist and writer.

Indeed, Ms. Hull has delivered a persuasive monograph that is provocative and satisfactory to her academic brethren who, since the 1970s, have begun to successfully deconstruct a colonial literature that all but dismissed the American Indian as victims to a dominant European culture.

The author’s core argument is one that scholars like Richard White, William Cronon, James Ronda, Sylvia Van Kirk, Peter Iverson, and others have pursued since the late 1960s, when the academy was forced to confront their bourgeois ways triggered by an American Indian protest movement at Alcatraz Island in 1969. For obvious reasons, this formidable event contradicted the presumed naivety that the American Indian was content to be locked away forever as prisoners, fending off years of servitude in a corrupt reservation system. Not only had the American Indian survived a colonial and progressive mandate of forced acculturation, but their essential culture was kept alive and practiced incognito.

Ms. Hull’s thesis, however, takes us back to a pivotal time in Yosemite history, a time that would have a significant influence on the national park movement. In March of 1851, a local militia, the Mariposa Battalion, led by James D. Savage, entered the Yosemite Valley with orders to relocate the Awahnichi Indians to the new Fresno River Reservation.

As the newest state to enter the Union, California was nonetheless a powerful political force in the American West eager to reshape a once complex territory recently acquired from Mexico in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This sudden and aggressive march to progress by the Golden State had started just two years before when thousands of eager prospectors mined for what would prove to be an allusive dream of gold and riches.

Of course there were many who failed in their quest. But having already settled in the region they decided to stick around for awhile and recalibrate a productive economic future by converting California’s splendid natural landscapes into tourist destinations—Yosemite Valley being among the most desired. The presence of the Awahnichi notwithstanding, the government took a militaristic approach by trying to relocate these menacing Indians to Fresno.

As an anthropologist, Ms. Hull is not necessarily vested in the historical circumstances that led Savage and his troops into Yosemite Valley. Rather, she has spent the better part of a productive career thinking and writing about what came before, namely the transmission of destructive pathogens commuted against Indians by other coastal Indians who were living and working in the various Spanish missions roughly 60 years before Savage entered Yosemite Valley.

It’s a well-documented story and the subject of many fine books, like Alfred Crosby’s Ecological Imperialism. But here in California, beginning perhaps with the Berkeley anthropologists, the subject has been a regular source for robust scholarship. Ms. Hull is just the next in line to add significantly to the story of the Yosemite Indian by realigning some dubious work that doesn’t quite explain how the Awahnichi not only survived the onslaught of catastrophic disease, but even thrived once its impact was fully realized.

She is certain that pre-contact disease had in fact made its way from the coastal missions to Yosemite between 1790 and 1810. Ethnographic and archaeological evidence shows an already small population in flux. Remarkably, Ms. Hull is absolutely certain that the Yosemite Indian was cognizant of their precarious situation and immediately devised ways in which to protect the tribe from the devastating effects of European disease.

According to Ms. Hull’s research, a sensible solution adopted by the Awahnichi was to simply leave Yosemite, which they did by the late 1790s. Already familiar with the Eastern Sierra because of an established trade network, tribal leaders gathered their people and moved them to Mono Lake, where they set up separate quarters from their Paiute friends, at times adding to their tribe by altering marriage and social customs. Once there, elders continued to teach traditional tool-making techniques to their children, thus keeping alive a cultural identity unique to the Awahnichi.

Ms. Hull’s book is not unique in the sense that other historians and anthropologists have ignored this rather distinct way of looking at the American Indian. Take for example James Ronda’s classic Lewis and Clark Among the Indians, which is told from the perspective of the Mandan as they watched Jefferson’s mighty flotilla appear downstream on the Missouri River carrying scientific instruments and gifts in exchange for food and information.

Like Ms. Hull, Mr. Ronda simply approached the narrative from the Indian point of view and revealed an entirely dissimilar story that embraced the Indian as agents of change. The same was true for the Yosemite Indian. Rather than be ruined unknowingly, the Indians instead knew precisely the inherent danger of European pathogens and commuted various strategies to avoid a catastrophic ending.

Granted, very few can spin a story like James Ronda, and that includes Kathleen Hull. To the contrary, she is primarily an academic looking to advance her own carefully conceived argument and methodology. In this sense, for the general reader, the book can be a plow. Her confident use of anthropology, ethnography, ethnohistory, and ethnobotany is perhaps better kept for the heady crowds at Berkeley. Given that, it’s still a convincing thesis grounded in years of diligent fieldwork and the most sophisticated carbon dating techniques available.

It’s been far too long since we’ve had a good book about the Yosemite Indian. Mark David Spence’s disturbing Dispossessing the Wilderness came out over ten years ago and caused park administrators to take a good look at Indian policy, past and present. My hope is that Ms. Hull’s book will do the same. For one, the interpretive possibilities for the park are endless. Just imagine the power in having an American Indian interpreter telling an eager public about a time, long ago, when Chief Tenaya led his people over the Sierra to avoid the devastating effects of old world pathogens based on Ms. Hull’s findings. A game-changer, no less, in the way we currently think about the Yosemite Indian.

Amazon Detail : Product Description
This innovative examination of the Yosemite Indian experience in California poses broad challenges to our understanding of the complex, destructive encounters that took place between colonists and native peoples across North America. Looking closely at archaeological data, native oral tradition, and historical accounts, Kathleen Hull focuses in particular on the timing, magnitude, and consequences of the introduction of lethal infectious diseases to Native communities. The Yosemite Indian case suggests that epidemic disease penetrated small-scale hunting and gathering groups of the interior of North America prior to face-to-face encounters with colonists. It also suggests, however, that even the catastrophic depopulation that resulted from these diseases was insufficient to undermine the culture and identity of many Native groups. Instead, engagement in colonial economic ventures often proved more destructive to traditional indigenous lifeways. Hull provides further context for these central issues by examining ten additional cases of colonial-era population decline in groups ranging from Iroquoian speakers of the Northeast to complex chiefdoms of the Southeast and Puebloan peoples of the Southwest.

Comments

The part where you speak of the "new Ceremonial Roundhouse near Camp 4
designed by the American Indian Council of Mariposa County and endorsed by the
National Park Service", is at odds with other tribes in the area, namely
the Mono Paiutes, who take issue with the American Indian Council's position
with the National Park Service. Many of their members have roots in other
Native American communities in other areas, in that this group's ancestry
actually comes from tribes far removed from Yosemite. Their parents,
grandparents and great grandparents were drawn to the area because of jobs
offered by The Park, and now they think of themselves as Yosemite's Indian
authority. Many of them can track their Indian genealogy to tribes that
actually sold out Chief Tenaya's tribe of Awahneechees, being the foothill
tribes who, as the Bunnell book states, actually feared the Yosemite Indians,
who they called the Grizzly Bears. Tenaya took pride in that reputation
for his people. When the Mariposa Battalion came to route them from their
Valley, Tenaya took them to their friends on the Paiute side of the mountain at
Mono. The fearsome warlike Paiutes were also feared by the foothill
tribes, who were primarily the Miwoks. It is unlikely that Tenaya's
father's tribe, the true Awahneechees were at all associated with Miwoks, or
they couldn't have so closely aligned themselves with the Paiutes, who allowed
them to live among them, as the book does apparently talk about.

I look forward to reading the book. But, where the American Indian Council
of Mariposa County takes authority as being Yosemite Indians, and the National
Park Service's authority on the prospect of building a "Roundhouse"
in Yosemite Valley, perpetuating the myth of Miwoks being the original Yosemite
Indians, is wrong. If anything, Tenaya's father's tribe is more likely
associated with the Yokut family of tribes, but could have been western Sierra
Paiutes entirely. We'll never know for sure. But, one thing we know is
that the Mariposa Indians are not a recognized tribe. Indians, they are,
how many of them were from other tribes having nothing to do with Tenaya's
tribe, or Yosemite Indians in any sense of the word. More likely, they
are a combination of those who fought Tenaya's, alongside the Mariposa Battalion.

If there were a so-called traditional roundhouse in Yosemite Valley upon
contact, Bunnell or someone would have written about it, something that didn't
happen when the Mariposa Battalion wrote about all the various things they
found there when they routed Tenaya's tribe, chasing them up to Tenaya Lake,
via Indian Canyon, a camp more connected to Mono Lake Paiutes than any western
slope tribe. This suggests that Tenaya was probably genetically connected the
Paiutes, or perhaps Yokuts who spoke a similar language with the Paiutes.
Miwoks spoke a different language and were not warlike, which is why, as the
Bunnell Book about his Mariposa Battalion referred to the western slope Indians
as fearing the Grizzlies of Yosemite Valley, Tenaya's tribe.

At the time of Tenaya tribe were the remnants of his father's Awaneechee
tribe, which included the Paiutes of Mono.

That the Mariposa tribe is putting a round house in The Valley, not being
the original tribe of Yosemite Valley, not being a recognized tribe, and not
including the Mono Paiutes, is an affront to the Mono Paiutes. A round
house is a symbol of the Miwok community, the very people who feared Tenaya's
band of true Yosemite Indians.

I hope this book, which I will read, doesn't suggest that Yosemite Valley
was Miwok country, as historically there was no Roundhouse in The Valley, which
suggests that Miwoks didn't live there at all.

I would also like to read this book. I wonder if it is a redrafted version of her graduate thesis and if so, then even better because the tone of the book will be targeted at a more "lay" audience.

That aside, I disagree with the underlying premise that the Miwoks are the same as the traditional Ahwahneechee people that left the Valley and then came back to inhabit it. I fear that this book will be one piece of a larger patchwork of scholarly (and, in some cases, pseudo-scholarly) works that bolsters a non-Ahwahneechee claim to Yosemite when there was none previously. Because of the historical confusion concerning the Ahwahneechee and members of other tribes that came into Valley after the 1851 diaspora, I think the archeological and antrhopological data can be twisted to fit any sensible sounding conclusion that works best for the National Park Service, so long as it fits into their 1980 General Management Plan's goal for an enhanced visitor experience.

This is not to say that Ms. Hull has not crafted a valuable work that illuminates the oft-ignored history of Yosemite and the surrounding area. The need for more analysis on Yosemite is critical. Given that it's been 10 years between Ms. Hull's work and the prior one, it's obvious that Yosemite has been neglected by numerous historians, anthropologists, and archeologists. If anything, I hope people take from Ms. Hull's work is that the mission of exploration of Yosemite's abundance of data remains unfinished and there is no reason to wait another 10 years for the next book.

The quote "where they set up separate quarters from" the Mono Lake Paiutes is incorrect in that Tenaya said himself his Mother was a Mono lake Paiute, so Tenaya is Paiute! Hull want to infer that Tenaya was Miwok and we know that is false based on Tenaya's declaration. Furthemore Tenaya stated his father came from Owahnee which this word is found in the Creation Story of the Owens Valley "Paiute." Kate Hull herself stated the soil is to acidic and no one can determine the Cultural Unidentified Remains Ancestry. Yet if you review Fitzwaters 1962 Excavation of the El Portal Sewer Plant built over an ancient Uto Aztecan Paiute cemetery, the burial artifacts all origionate from the Great Basin. One example is Owens Valley Pottery! Jeanette Simons declaration states the remains of El Portal were deposited "Prior to the Miwoks arival to the area." See the Inventory record of Native American remains of Yosemite National Park. Simons stated this under oath in the Friends of Yosemite lawsuit. The Park Service knows this but wants to erase the Paiutes ancestry as in the erasing of Tenaya's story in First Discovery of Yosemite 1851. The park service used the recomendation of a non profit to start the Indian history at 1870 so to include the Yokuts claiming to be Miwok such as Frank Hookey Wilson who origionates from Madera. This is coruption of historical record such as Maria labrado as the grand daugher of Tenaya cited on YNP Signs as Miwok, which conflicts with Tenaya's testimony citing he is a Mono Lake Paiute.