Resource Competition and Population Change: A ...

The American Society for Ethnohistory

Resource Competition and Population Change: A Kaibab Paiute Ethnohistorical Case Author(s): Richard W. Stoffle and Michael J. Evans Source: Ethnohistory, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Spring, 1976), pp. 173-197 Published by: Duke University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/481516 . Accessed: 11/11/2014 11:37 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Duke University Press and The American Society for Ethnohistory are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ethnohistory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 150.135.135.70 on Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:37:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RESOURCE COMPETITION AND POPULATION CHANGE: A KAIBAB PAIUTE ETHNOHISTORICAL CASE by RichardW. Stoffle and MichaelJ. Evans ABSTRACT This paper is a case analysis of resource competition, population fluctuations, and ethnicity change resulting from Euroamerican intrusion into Kaibab Paiute territory. The various adaptive strategies employed by the Paiute to cope with resource depletion, pressures to relinquish traditional ethnicity patterns, and depopulation are examined. Since the Kaibab Paiute were one of the last Native American peoples to resist Euroamerican expansion, a study of their case permits an assessment of the process and implications of the "Invasion of America" (Jennings 1975) from a perspective of more than 300 years.

Today as never before the talents of behavioraland social scientistsare being focused upon the issue of how ethnic groups compete with one another for scarce social and environmentalresources.Some researchersare discussing the process of group competition from a cultural ecological perspective (Bennett 1969, 1976; Harner1977;Polgar 1975). Others perceiveof the issue in terms of cultural persistence(Barth 1969; Depres 1967, 1975; Fitzgerald 1966; Hoetink 1971; Spicer 1971 ;Whitten 1974). Still others see the issue in terms of population fluctuations (Dobyns 1966, 1976; Cook 1971, 1974, 1976; Denevan 1976; Montgomery 1977). Spicer (1971:797) has even suggested that competition for resources and attempts at forced cultural " change set up an oppositional process that . . . is the essentialfactor in the formation and development of persistent identity systems." Whateverthe point of departure,all of these discussionsindicatethat in culturallypluralistic settings there is a clear relationshipbetween the way a group manipulatesits ethnicity and its access to subsistence and prestige resources. While technological, biological, and numericaldifferences are critical factors when different ethnic groups come into contact, resource competition will eventually be conducted by ethnic manipulation unless one group is exterminated. ETHNOHISTORY 23/2 (Spring 1976)

173


174

RICHARD W. STOFFLE and MICHAEL J. EVANS

This paper is a case analysis of resource competition, population fluctuations, and ethnicity change resultingfrom Euroamericanintrusioninto KaibabPaiute territoryin northernArizona and southern Utah. Specifically, it is an ethnohistoricalreconstructionof how KaibabPaiuteshave dealt with loss of essential subsistence resources, depopulation, and Euroamerican pressureto relinquishtraditionalethnicity patterns.The analysisexplores the various adaptive strategies(Bennett 1976:273) that the Kaibab Paiutes have utilized in their effort to hold their population and culture intact in an environmentthat has been ecologically, economically,and socially alteredby Euroamericanintrusion. In addition to expanding the extant materialon resource competition and population, this paper is importantin another way. The KaibabPaiutes were one of the last groups of Native Americansto be contacted, conquered, and exploited by Euroamericans.They were, in other words, one of the last Native American peoples to resist the expansion of the Euroamerican frontier. This case, then, permits us to assess the process and implication of the "Invasion of America"(Jennings 1975) from a perspectiveof more than 300 years.

TraditionalKaibabPaiuteAdaptation The Kaibab Paiutesare one of a numberof wide-rangingsemisedentary Southern Paiute bands that controlled the Arizona Strip from as early as A.D. 1150 (Euler 1964:9) until the mid-1800s. Their aboriginal territory incorporated much of the Colorado Plateau region lying north of the Colorado River in northern Arizona and southern Utah. It is a topographically diverse land with elevations that rangefrom 2,300 feet along the banks of the Colorado River to over 9,000 feet at the top of the KaibabPlateau. Because rainfall and temperatureare closely correlated with elevation, the regioncontains most North Americanecologicalzones. The boundary of traditional Kaibab Paiute territory can best be determined through oral history accounts collected by Kelley in 1932.1 Her informants were able to pinpoint resident locations, name of families that primarily lived at those camps, describe the food resources that made the localities attractive, and explain seasonal movements within the region. Drawing upon these detailed data, Kelly (1934:551) determined that the southern boundary of KaibabPaiute territoryextended from the junction of the Paria and Colorado Rivers downstream until just beyond KanabCreek Canyon. The westernboundaryextended northwardcrossingthe VirginRiver just east of Toquerville and ending at the Kolob Plateau. The northern boundary proceeded from that point to the PariaRiver, which formed the


Resource Competition and Population Change

175

easternboundary.Using riversas firm boundariesand subtractingeight miles from the western and northern boundaries yields a conservativeterritory estimateof 4,824 squaremiles (M2). Although it is impossible to ascertain the total range of naturalfood sources actually utilized by the Kaibab Paiutes we can proceed toward an estimate by listing (1) those foods these people claim to have utilized, (2) foods that Euroamericansobserved Kaibab Paiutes utilizing, and (3) foods present in the area and known to have been utilized by neighboringNative Americans. Natural Flora. Our ethnohistorical investigation of Kaibab Paiute ethnobotany indicates that they utilized 32 families of flora encompassingat least 96 species of edible plants. These food sources ranged1from cacti to grasses, to berries, to trees such as pifion and juniper. Leaves,stalks, bark, fruit, roots, and any other edible portion of these plants was utilized(Palmer 1878; Kelly 1964; Woodbury1965). The list would be greatlyexpandedwere it to include an equally impressivearray of medicinal plants that often have nutritional value. These data indicate that the Kaibab Paiutes were highly sophisticated botanists willing to incorporate into their diet any available source of nutrition. The data also indicate the likely presenceof botanical specialists such as have been noted among Native American groups in southernCalifornia(Shipek 1977:86-138). Natural Fauna. In similarfashion, the Kaibab Paiutes utilized most of the varieties of fauna found within their territory (Kelly 1964:47-55). Hoofed animals utilized included bighornsheep, antelope, mule deer and elk. Rodents eaten included cottontail rabbit, chipmunk, deermouse, muskrat, rat, beaver and porcupine. Carnivoresincluded mountain lion and bobcat. Birds of many varietieswere taken from specially constructedhuntingblinds. Reptiles includingsnakesand lizardswere frequently eaten. Insects consumed included locusts, green caterpillarsand ants. Euroamericanscommented at great length on the fact that no portion of the area'sfauna from ants to deer was overlooked as a food source. The pattern of total faunal utilization was extended to Euroamericananimalssuch as horses, cattle, sheep and donkeys when these were brought into the area - much to the consternation of Euroamericans. Horticulture. Kaibab Paiutes were not merely effective consumers of naturalfoods, but also planted irrigatedgardens of maize, beans, and squash near permanent water sources. Although it has been suggested by some researchersthat the Kaibab Paiutes were non-cultivators(Kelly 1964:36), such a position is not supportedby historic and archaeologicalevidence.An early Spanish explorer, Escalante,in 1776 described the Southern Paiutesas cultivating the irrigable lands within their territory (Euler 1966:33). The Mormonexplorer, John D. Lee, in 1852 observed Paiutes in the Santa Clara


176


River Valley cultivating 100 acres of corn and squashes (Woodbury 1944:140). A few days later, in the narrowbut fertile streambottoms of the Virgin River at the edge or possibly in Kaibab Paiute territory, Lee again observed that: "Their corn was waist high; squashes, beans, potatoes, etc. look well. They had in cultivation four or five acres;their wheat had got ripe and was out" (Woodbury 1944:143). When Euroamericansfirst travelled down the Colorado River, past Kaibab Paiute territory, they found small fields of maize planted along the river(Powell 1957:100). Powell stated that all of the Southern Paiutes cultivated the soil prior to settlement of the area by Euroamericans(Powell and Ingalls 1874:53). Eyewitness accounts, then, document the presence of cultivated fields next to or just within Kaibab Paiute territory. Those few observers who passed through Kaibab Paiute territory and described the Kaibab as non-cultivators, as a rule either contacted them in hunting and gathering portions of the territory or traveled during non-growing seasons (Fowler 1972:90). Most portions of Kaibab Paiute territory were not explored by Euroamericansuntil long after contact and disruption of traditional subsistence patterns. Another reason for classing the Kaibab Paiutes as cultivators is archaeologicalevidence interpretedby inference from culture change theory. Drawing upon evidence from more than 250 archaeological sites, Euler (1964:380) maintained that the Puebloan (Anasazi) peoples of the Virgin River moved into that region from the Great Basin around A.D. 1. They arrived with a Desert Culture pattern, maize and squash horticulture, and then acquired ceramicsfrom the south. A second wave of Great Basin Desert Culture people, the ancestors of the Southern Paiutes, came into the region before A. D. 1150 and replaced the Puebloan peoples. If this hypothesis is correct, the second migrantgroup replacedits distant cousins. Artifactual evidence indicates that these two groups came into contact. Puebloanand SouthernPaiutepottery are found together in three archaeological sites within aboriginalKaibabPaiute territory(Aikens 1965). Corroborative evidence of mixed Pueblo and Paiute site utilization is availablefor other locations in Utah and southern Nevada (Euler 1964:379). Shutler (1961:69) even suggested that as the Paiute population grew, it strained existing resources, causing interethnic competition, which contributed to Pueblo withdrawal from southern Nevada. One inevitable consequence of these extensive interethnic contacts was mutual transferrence of subsistence information. By 1150, then, the Southern Paiute had the land, the cultigens, and the technology for horticulture. Inasmuch as horticulture is easily incorporatedinto a huntingand gatheringsubsistence patternand has obvious advantages,there appearsto be no reasonwhy the Paiutes could not or would not continue to cultivatethe formerfields of the Pueblos. Quite the contrary,



177

the contact situation exhibited the basic criteria deemed essential for the acceptance of such innovations (Kushner etal. 1962:12-15). With most evidence pointing to them as part-timecultivators,a more pertinentquestion is: "Why did the Kaibab Paiutes become part-time instead of full-time horticulturalists like the peoples they replaced?" Kaibab Paiutes in our opinion rejected full-time horticulture with its corresponding permanent settlementsas a subsistence strategy. Water was a major resource within their territory. Where permanent water sources existed, Kaibab Paiutes were able to irrigate gardens. Kanab Creekwas the major perennialstreamand much of the rest of the gardening occurrednear a series of artesianspringsalong a geological fault line formed by the upthrust of the VermillionCliffs. Elsewherein their territory,Kaibab Paiutes intensively hunted and collected the full rangeof faunaand flora as it became available throughoutthe year. In orderto utilize such a wide rangeof food sources, these Paiuteshad to move frequently,producinga transhumant adaptation. Population. The effectiveness of transhumancein this harsh environment was evidenced by a rather dense aboriginal population. Dobyns (1976:13) has argued that nowhere in North America could peak aboriginal population have been less than the 1.12 persons per M2 that Aschmann (1959:177-180) found for the central desert of Lower California.In view of the superiorityof the KaibabPaiuteenvironment,their effective exploitation of wild foods, and their cultivation of domestic plants, we suggest that the pre-ColumbianExchange (Crosby 1972) population of the Kaibab Paiutes should not have been.less than 5,500 persons(see Table 1). Columbian Exchange pathogensmust have reduced the KaibabPaiutes the mid-I800s when face-to-facecontact with Euroamericansbegan. Kelly by (1934:25) estimated that more than 500 Kaibab Paiutes resided in this territoryjust prior to contact. In an areaof 4,824 M2,Kelly's estimate would yield a 9.6 M2 per person population density. That pre-contact figureseems quite conservative when compared with groups residingjust north of the Kaibab Paiutes and exploiting similar envornments. Steward (1938:49) estimated that the Sevier Lake Utes had 2.6 M2 per person and the Sampits Utes had a 4 M2 per person pre-contactpopulation density. A comparable population density for the KaibabPaiutesis expectable. RecalculatingKaibab Paiute pre-contact population using these densities yields estimates of 1,206 to 1,855 persons. The Kaibab Paiutes apparentlyexperienced considerabledepopulation before settlement of their territory by Euroamericansin the mid-1800s. Steward's figures suggest a decline of 66 percent from 5,500 to 1,855 persons, while Kelly's figuressuggest a decline of 91 percent from 5,500 to 500+ persons. Recognizing the wide margin of error clearly inherent in


RICHARDW. STOFFLEand MICHAELJ. EVANS

178

Date

Pre-1492 Pre-1863 1871 1873 1880 1898 1901 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1912

Table 1 KaibabPaiutePopulationTrends Date Population %Change Population %Change

5,500 1,175 232 207 99 106 105 76 83 83 81 83 89

80

18 -52 + 7 -28 + 9 3 -

+ 7

1920 1925 1927 1928 1930 1931 1933 1935 1936 1937 1969 1972

105 94 93 94 96 95 96 91 89 85 140 126

+10

1 + 2 1 + 1 5 2 5 -

SOURCES: Pre-1492 extrapolation from (Aschmann 1959:177-180); Pre1863 (Steward 1938:49); 1871 and 1873 (Powell and Ingalls 1874:42, 50); 1880 (Fowler and Fowler 1971:22); 1898 (C.I.A. 1898:600); 1901 (C.I.A. 1901:702); 1906 (C.I.A. 1906:483); 1907 (C.I.A. 1907:179); 1908 (C.I.A. 1908:186); 1909 (C.I.A. 1909:146); 1910 (C.IA. 1910:60); 1912 (C.I.A. 1912:166); 1920 (U.S. Census 1920:42); 1925 (C.I.A. 1925:32); 1927 (C.I.A. 1927:211); 1928 (C.I.A. 1928:265); 1930 (C.I.A. 1930:35); 1931 (C.I.A. 1931:42); 1933 (C.I.A. 1933:114); 1935 (C.I.A. 1935:159); 1936 (C.I.A. 1936:210); 1937 (C.I.A. 1937:252); 1969 (U.S. Department of Commerce 1974:39); 1972 (OfficialTribalRoll). Kelly's and Steward's figures, we suggest that the mid-point between 500+ and 1,855, namely 1,175, is as reasonable an estimate of mid-nineteenth century KaibabPaiutepopulationas can presentlybe achieved.

HispanicInfluence 1540 to 1846 Despite its effectivenessin supportingpeople, the transhumantstrategy caused Kaibab Paiutes to possess a number of social and technological characteristicsthat negatively influenced*their relationshipwith Euroamericans. Generally, their housing - the wickiup - was temporary in construction. It reflected a need to move when food was exhausted in one area and became available somewhere else. This group failed to make permanent settlements. Pottery was crude at best, being replaced by some of the most


ResourceCompetitionand PopulationChange

179

elaboratebaskets made in North America(Mason 1902:491496). Clothing, when worn for protection in the winter, consisted primarilyof woven rabbit skin blankets. Fluctuations in the supply and distribution of foods caused Kaibab Paiutes to develop an egalitarian social structure in which an individual could function equally well in isolated kin-based family groups when food was scarce, or in largeband clusteringswhen food was plentiful. Access to resourcessuch as artesianspringsand eagle nests could be partially restricted by usufruct, but Euroamerican patterns of ownership were unknown. Finally, most of the foods KaibabPaiutes consumed Euroamericans perceived as inappropriatefor human consumption. Briefly, then, the pre-contact Kaibab Paiutes were as different technologically, socially, and culturally from Euroamericansas any Native Americangroup ever contacted. Southern Paiutes were indirectly influenced by Hispanic presence in Mexico and the Southwest from 1520 until 1846. The 1520-1524 smallpox and 1531-1533 measles pandemicsthat spread north from central Mexico along Aztec trade routes to the Southwest (Crosby 1972) probably reached the Southern Paiutesthroughtheir Hopi neighbors.Even though the Hispanic frontier never reached the Paiutes(Spicer 1962), travelerssuch as Escalante passed through the area and epidemicsspreadbeyond the frontier.Although Europeancultigenssuch as wheat, peas, and potatoes diffused to Paiutebands west of the Kaibab (Domenech 1860:221), the major Hispanicimpact was depopulation. For the Kaibab, new foods could not offset disease as their populationfell from an estimated5,500 to around 1,175. Native American populationsmust have remainedunstablethroughout this period. In 1853, Lieutenant A.W. Whipple observed that the Indians then residing in the Colorado River Valley from the Mojave villages downstream to the mouth of the Gila River had declined since they were enumeratedby Jose Cortes in 1799 from 17,000 persons to 13,500 (Whipple etal. 1856:17-18). Although the cause of this 21 percent decline in 54 years was not specified, Whipple noted that despite outward signs of well-being, something was wrong. In the polygynous families of Mojave band chiefs, "Childrenseem to be less in numberthan adults;givingevidence of a gradual decay of the tribe" (WhippleetaL 1856:17). Between the Mojavesand the Kaibab Paiutes lived a contiguous series of Southern Paiute bands which provided the networks through which both goods, ideas, and disease could pass.

Encroachmentand Competition:1863 to 1873 Settlement and Resource Loss. The early 1860s marked the beginning of Mormonencroachmenton KaibabPaiute territory.Unlike their neighbors along the major riversto the west (Euler 1972:70), the Kaibabhad followed


180


their aboriginalway of life with only occasionalEuroamericancontact.2 The fertile grasslandsof the ArizonaStrip and the desire of the Mormonpeople to expand their planned nation of the desert caused settlers to establish stock ranches at the Short Creek, Pipe Springs, and Moccasin artesian springsby 1863 (Woodbury 1944:166). The next year other rancheswere establishedin the Utah mountains to the north and at the presentsite of Kanab.Thus, in a single year the Mormons usurped the major water sources within Kaibab territory, precluding most of the horticultural component of their transhumant adaptation.There is no indication in Mormon records that land was purchasedfrom Kaibabsin any of these instances.In many other areasof the United States where land or water was "purchased"from the Indians, it is clear that the Native Americanswere accepting the compensation for the rights to use (usufruct) rather than the fee simple title transferenceof the resourceitself (Jennings1975:128-145). The Mormonintrusionalso affected the remainingcomponents of the Kaibab Paiutes' transhumantadaptation. With many fewer cultigens, the Kaibabswere forced to more intensively harvestthe natural fauna and flora. This process, if left unchecked,might have led to ecological disasterbecause the Kaibab population was adjusted to a larger territory with a greater carrying capacity. Disruption of the local ecology, however, came primarily from the herds of Euroamericanhorses, cattle, and sheep that expanded quickly, replacingnative fauna as they did in other parts of the New World (Crosby 1972). Dellenbaugh(1908:186) as early as 1872 noted that herdsof wild horses made well defined trailsin the dry plains and stationed themselves near water sources. As both wild and domestic herds grew in number the grasslands were overgrazed;even the intensive gathering of wild flora was threatened. Native fauna, too, was drastically reduced in number through competition with Old World domestic animals and wasteful Euroamerican hunting practices(Fowler 1972:45). Fence post cutting and fire wood gatheringactivities of Euroamericans were a further threat to KaibabPaiute subsistence. In the lower elevations, which furnishedthe best grasslands,few trees were available for use as fence posts and fire wood. For this reason Euroamericanscut down thousands of Pifions and junipers to meet their need for fencing, stake corralsand fuel. Whilejunipers had little nutritionalvalue for KaibabPaiutes, pifnonssupplied one of the few majorresourcesnot being consumed by herd animals. Thus, the one remainingplant that could have staved off rapid starvationwas being destroyed by Euroamericans. Declining Population.Within the decade after Mormon intrusion, the Kaibab Paiute populationdeclined significantly(Figure 3). According to the memory of an elderly KaibabPaiute who had been a child duringthis period, "After the Mormons come, all the Indians died" (Kelly 1964:24). The



181

estimatedpre-contactpopulationof 1,175 personsdeclined to an enumerated total of 207 personsin 1873, a reductionof 82 percent (Powell and Ingalls 1874:50). The KaibabPaiuteexperienceof rapid depopulation immediately after contact was shared by most other North American peoples. Dobyns (1966) suggestedthat 90 percentdepopulationrates were common throughout the New World.The unusualaspect of the Kaibabexperience, however, is that they were primarilystarvedto death (Ratliff 1973). Disease,a factor in later periods, was not mentionedin contemporaryMormonjournals.Warfare, alcoholism, culture shock and other common depopulatorshad little impact during this period. All evidence indicates that the loss of 82 percent of Kaibab Paiute population occurred because they lost essential subsistence resourcesduringa ten-yearperiodof resourcecompetition. An extremely imbalancedchild/adultratio in 1873 reflected the degree of biological stress the Kaibab Paiutes experienced during this ten-year period. Like their Mojaveneighborsto the south 20 yearsbefore, the Kaibabs had fewer childrenthan adults:4.3 adultsto one child. Inasmuchas a ratio of one child per adult is expected in a stable population, these data suggest that KaibabPaiute population had not reachednadirby 1873. Peaceful Response. The reaction of Kaibab Paiutes during this first decade of Mormon intrusionwas mixed. With starvation a real alternative, some sought subsistence by residingnear Mormon settlements where they might receive handoutsand occasionalemployment. Accordingto Powell and Ingalls(1874:42): All the Pai-Utes subsist in part by cultivating the soil, some of them raising the grain and vegetables introduced by white men, others cultivating native seeds.They also collect uncultivatedseeds, fruits, and roots. A few of them occasionallywork for white men, and they also depend very largely on begging, and are a serious burden to white settlers. The presence of Kaibab Paiutes near these communities was probably permitted only because of the Mormondesire for converts,and their need for protection from Navajoand Ute raids. Wage labor opportunities for the Kaibab Paiutes who went to these settlements seeking work were limited because the Mormon communities were planned to be self-sufficient and communal. In his analysis of agriculturalvillages along the VirginRiver Valley in southern Utah, Spencer (1940:186) noted that: Until after 1900, almost no cash money was to be found in the valley, and all manner of transactionswere conducted by barterat rates fixed by decisions of the villagers,the Church,the county court, the county assessor, or the import trader.A large share of the county taxes was paid in labor and the balanceoften in produce.


182


Kaibab Paiutes were sometimes employed at menial tasks while Mormon communitieswere being established. In Orderville,"The bucks, perhaps, did but little work but it is of record that 'squaws thrashed our beans and peas and washed our dirty clothes'" (Pendleton 1939:148). These tasks were, however, soon performedby the land hungry poor of Great Britain, Ireland and Denmark(Pendleton 1939:151) who arrivedto accept a rewardfor their recent Mormon conversion.Stabilizedvillageswith communal economies had little use for additionalunskilledlabor that could not be integratedinto the prevailingsystem of laborexchange.Those few KaibabPaiuteswho were able to find work in Mormoncommunities were probably reimbursedin food or locally producedgoods. During the mid-1860s,Navajo and Ute raids caused more resourcesto be restored to Kaibab Paiutes than any other factor. Mormons, unable properly to defend their communities from these raids, permitted some Kaibab Paiutes - probablythose recently converted (Euler 1972:84) - to have access to water and land for farming near Kanab along Kanab Creek. These Paiutes paid for such resources by warning community members of pendingraidsand helpingthe Mormonsto fend off attacks. Inasmuchas these Kaibab Paiutes were in close proximity to the Mormon herds that were the primarytarget of raids, they themselves became more vulnerableto attack. During the winters of 1867-1870, unusually frequent and effective raids caused KaibabPaiutesand Mormonsto keep constant guard along the trails leading from Navajo territory across the Colorado River (Little 1881:92). During this time, Kaibabwarriorsconfronted and killed raiders on several occasions. Their actions probably resulted in Navajo retribution, as occurred when Pueblo warriorsserved in the Spanisharmy against the Navajo (John 1975:71). Despite Paiute participationin the defense of Mormon communities, this Mormon sharingof natural resources proved to be both minimal and temporary.Kanab village,which was partly abandonedin the late 1860s, was rebuilt and resettled by many new Mormon families by 1870. The town became so populousthat the water and resourcesbecame overtaxed.This fact is brought into sharpfocus by Jacob Hamblin'sstatement (Little 1881:139) that in 1877, "I found the land had been so divided in the Kanab field that what was consideredmy. share was nearlyworthless. I sowed some wheat but it proved a failure." With Mormon settler demands exceeding available irrigation resources, and with a new Mormon-Navajopeace, it is doubtful whether Kaibab Paiutes stood much chance of retaining resources they acquired during the period of hostile raids. Dellenbaugh (1908:166-168) described Kanab in 1872 as a prosperousvillage of about 100 families, but made no mention of KaibabPaiutesfarmingeither in or near the community.



18 3

Hostile Response. While some KaibabPaiutes chose to work with the invadingMormons, others took more aggressiveaction by joining with their former enemies, the Navajos, in raiding Mormon settlements (Woodbury 1944:167). On one occasion, raiding Kaibab Paiutes were captured by Mormon settlers, tortured for information as to the whereabouts of the Navajo raiders,and then killed (Woodbury 1944:168). Although there was little long rangeefficacy in the armedconflict strategy, it provideda reason for Mormonsto shareresourceswith "friendly"Paiutes. During this period, some of the Kaibab Paiutes' neighbors actually withdrew from their territoryin the face of Mormonadvancement.Portions of the Shivwits Paiute band retreatedsouthwardacross the ColoradoRiver to become refugees among the Pine Springband of Walapais(Dobyns and Euler 1970:38). Until defeated in 1868, at least 24 adult male Shivwitsfought with their Pai neighbors against U.S. military conquest. By 1870, the refugee Shivwits had returnedto theirformerterritory.There is no evidence that any portion of the KaibabPaiuteband chose the retreatoption. Declining Kaibab Paiute population figures, then, indicate actual loss of lives rather than emigrationfrom traditionalterritory. Competition. Unhamperedby U.S. governmentintervention, Mormon settlers continued to encroachupon Kaibabresources.Typical of this process was the Mormonconquest of Long (Parunuweap)Valley in northernKaibab Paiute territory. Paiutes in the valley first experienced Mormon settlers in 1865. Within a year, Navajosand probablydissident Kaibabs,began raiding these settlers, killingsome and drivingthe others away (Pendleton 1939:142). As a result, the valley reverted to Kaibab Paiute control and remained unoccupiedby Euroamericansuntil 1871 (Arrington 1954:8). A second wave of Mormonsettlers residedpreviouslyalong the Muddy River on farms taken from Shivwits Paiutes. When that territory was incorporatedinto the State of Nevada,excessivetaxation forced the colonists to abandon their newly acquiredproperty. Driven by political relocation, regional economic depression, and limited territorial alternatives, these Mormonsdesperatelywantedresources. In late springof 1871, 200 formerMuddy River colonists united with other Mormon settlers and proceeded300-strong to Long Valley. Advanced exploring parties had found 1,300 acres of tillable land and extensive ranges suitable for grazing(Arrington1954:8). Theirarrivalresulted in land loss and population displacement for the Kaibabs. Powell and Ingalls (1874:42) reported that in 1871 an estimated 125 Paiutes resided in Long Valley and another 107 in Kanab Valley, totaling around 232 Kaibab Paiutes. In their first-handenumerationof 1873, Powell and Ingalls(1874:50) reported only 36 Long Valley residents,and 171 in the Kanab region, totaling 207 Kaibab


184

andMICHAEL J. EVANS RICHARD W.STOFFLE

Paiutes. Subtractingthe 25-person discrepancy from the 1871 Long Valley estimate, the figuresindicate a population displacementof at least 64 Long Valley residents or about two-thirds of the population. Comparingthe 1873 Long Valley adult/childratio of two to one with the Kanabadult/child ratio of 5.3 to one, one can conclude that the latter group had experienced the greater hardshipsprior to the migration.Thus, Long Valley refugeesclearly were pushed, not pulled, into the Kanab region.This movement must have overtaxed already insufficient resources,much as did the return of Shivwits refugees to their home territory about this same time. The Long Valley population displacementmust have directly contributed to the 50 percent depopulationof the KaibabPaiutes duringthe next seven years. Mormonneedsmotivated and their beliefs rationalizedland acquisition. Settlers expressed the belief that the resourcesof their new home were either (1) natural and availablefor the taking, or (2) could be acquired from a people who did not know their value. Pendleton, after reviewing original Orderville Ward documents, illustrated these two beliefs. The Orderville people acquired fertile, tillable land, the Virgin River for water and power, nutritious grasseson the slopes for summer grazing, and the vast desert in nearby Arizona for winter pasturage,and "all these natural advantageswere free" (Pendleton 1939:144). The formal acquisition of the forest and grasslands of the Kaibab Plateau in 1877 was described by Pendleton as rivalingthe classictransactionin which ManhattanIslandwas reputedto have sold for trinkets valuedat $24. The OrdervilleWardrecords"show that for a rifle and some ammunition,Chief Quarats granted the Order the perpetual right to graze its cattle on Buckskins (Kaibab) Mountain" (Pendleton 1939:154). Mormon settlers perpetuated one of the most basic Euroamerican myths supporting the conquest of North America - that the land was not effectively utilized by Native Americans and was thus free to groups that could utilize it (Jennings 1975:15-32). The local version of the myth specifically assumesthat (1) KaibabPaiutes landswere at the disposalof one powerful chief, and (2) that this chief was foolish enough to relinquishmost of these resources to his enemies. Such rationales must have seemed incredulous to those colonists who had been driven from the valley just five years before. Why, unless under duress, would a people exchange the best grazing areas in the region for a gun and ammunition?The evidence speaks for itself. These Mormonstook the land with a gun, not for a gun. During the first ten years of KaibabPaiute-Mormoncontact there had been group competition for the resourcesof the region. In other words, the two ethnic groups freely contended with each other to limit one another's access to scarce resourcesor positions (Hoetink 1975:9). While there were power imbalancesin this early period, the outcome of the interactionwas not



185

determined until the dissident Paiutes lost their Navajo allies. After tilhe Mormons and Navajos negotiated a peace agreement in 1872, the Kaibab Paiutes had no hope of regainingtheir territory by force. Mornionsettlers ceased to require the services of Paiute warriors. In tile ensuing period, Kaibab Paiute resources were monopolized by Mormonswho overwhelmed their Paiute competitors. If, during open group competition one competitor

drastically changes the power equilibrium, gaining domination over all resources and positions, then organized monopoly

replaces competition

(Hoetink 1975:9). For Kaibab Paiutes, this meant reassessing previous adaptive strategies geared to group competition and experimenting with new

survivalalternativesmore suited to a rigidlystratifiedsociety.

Dominationand ReciprocalManipulation:1874 to 1909 The 35-year period from 1874 until 1909 marked the stabilizationof relationshipsbetween the Mormonand KaibabPaiute peoples. Unlike most other Native Americans,the Kaibab Paiutes did not during these years (1) have a treaty agreement with the United States government, (2) have any territory officially recognizedas a reservation,or (3) receive regularwelfare subsidiesfrom either the MormonChurchor the federalgovernment.It was a time of hunger,disease,and rapidculturalchange for the KaibabPaiutes.Yet, they were ignoredby the peoplesand institutions that had set these processes in motion. Resource Loss. Mormonsettlementconstituted only one component in Anglo-Americanencroachmenton KaibabPaiute territory.Beginningaround 1871 and continuing for a number of years, hundreds of miners and prospectors came to hunt for gold in the Grand Canyon. Frederick Dellenbaugh(1908:174) wrote that in Januaryof 1872, one of Powell'sparty found gold at the mouth of KanabCreek. This information was then telegraphedas a news item to Salt LakeCity. By March6, 1872, Dellenbaugh found a party of miners at Pipe Springs on its way to the mouth of the Kanab. He reported that they were soon followed by hundredsmore, making a steady stream down the KanabRiverValley (Dellenbaugh 1908:185). Jack Hiller reportedan earliermeetingwith two prospectors.In his diaryhe wrote on October 6, 1871, of meeting them about half a mile upstreamfrom the Crossingof the Fathers: "They said that they had come all along up the river from the Virgin. Found gold everywhere. . ." (Fowler 1972:85). On March 10, 1872, Hiller met a party of six miners near Pipe Springs, whom lie said "were on their way to the Riverafter gold" (Fowler 1972:99). These miners generallyfound gold that had been deposited on alluvial flood plains at the junction of creeks and rivers.The conditions that caused


186


gold bearingsoils to be deposited by the water also producedfertile farming lands. This unfortunatecoincidencecaused hundredsof Euroamericanminers to compete for the remainingcultivable KaibabPaiute fields. The resultwas furtherterritorialloss. One indication of just how desperate KaibabPaiutes became for farm land is the very marginalniches they began to cultivate. Duringa trip through Johnson Canyon in 1870, John D. Lee and BrighamYoung found a small field of green corn and a patch of squash planted by the Paiutes in a place where " . . . the stream was a shallow trickle and of tillable land there were

only uncertainpatchesclose on the bank" (Brooks 1962:289). While they ate the corn, Young askedLee "Whatdo you see here that would be of benefit to us?" and Lee replied"I wouldn't bringa wife of mine to such a place as this" (Brooks 1962:290). Surely the KaibabPaiuteswould not have chosen such a location for horticulture had their former fields near Kanab Creek, the Coloradoand Virginriversand the artesianspringsbeen available.Encroachment upon KaibabPaiute fields begun by Mormonsand continued by miners resulted in almost complete loss of horticultureas a Kaibab Paiute adaptive strategy. The hunting and gathering components of Paiute subsistence diminishedcontinually both in total varietyand in quantity. Adding to stock from private Mormonranchesand non-Mormonhomesteaders, the Church elected to graze its extensive herds in the area. The United Order of Orderville, "within six years of their establishment in 1875, owned 5,000 head of sheep and the cattle had increasedten-fold" (Pendleton 1939:149). These successful endeavors caused the Mormon Church to give the Order chargeof the largechurchcattle ranch at Pipe Springs (Arrington 1954:36). During the late 1880s, the Ordervillecompanydissolvedas a resultof federal prohibition of polygyny. The Kaibab Paiute holdings were sold to John Young, representingthe MormonChurchin England.He plannedto make the "Kaibaba great huntinggroundand center of tourist travel with hotels and lodges for Englishnobility"(Woodbury1944:190). Without access to adequate means of subsistence, the Kaibab Paiutes might have expected assistancefrom the two socio-political institutions that had acquiredeitherde facto or de jure control over their land. The paucity of either statistical or cultural information about Kaibab Paiutes during this period, however, indicates that they received little government or church attention. Once the Mormon frontier of settlement expanded beyond their territory, the Paiutes were largely ignored by the Mormon Church which turnedits attention towardthe Native Americansof the Little ColoradoRiver (Peterson 1973). Although the church was largelyindifferent to the Kaibabs' needs, the U.S. governmentwas even more neglectful.A search of the annual


Resource Competition and Population Changec

187

reports of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs reveals no federal resource allocations to Kaibab Paiutes until after the turn of the century. The general welfare of the Kaibab Paiutes is evident in an obscure letter from Jacob Hamblin to John Powell dated 1880 (Fowler and Fowler 1971:22). These two mnenknew as much about the condition of the Kaibab Paiutes as any Euroamerican of tilhetime. Il an, 1S73 special commission report, Powell and Ingalls had recommended tIat tilhe Kaibab Paiutes be placed under federal jurisdiction so that they might at least have food to cat and access to land for farming. Seven years later no assistance had been provided and the condition of Kaibab Paiutes had worsened. In hopes of acquiring relief supplies for the forty remaining Kaibab Paiutc famllilies, Hamblin wrote in November, 1880, to Powell, then director oftlhe Bureau of Ethnology of the Smithsonian Institution and soon to be made director of the U.S. Geological Survey. The Kanab or Kaibab Indians are in very destitute circumstances; fertile places are now being occupied by the white population, thus cutting off all their means of subsistence except game, which you are aware is limited. They claim that you gave them some encouragement in regard to assisting them eak (sic) out an existance. Later in the same letter, Haimblinnoted that: The foothills that yielded hundreds of acres of sunflowers which produced quantities of rich seed, the grass also that grew so luxuriantly when you were here, the seed of which was gathered with little labor, and many other plants that produced food for the natives is all eat out (sic) by stock (Fowler and Fowler 1972:22). In response to Ilamblin's poignant request, Powell recommended that Kaibab Paiutes must either go to the Uinta or to tile Muddy Valley reservations, inasmuch as Indians who did not report to agencies were not assisted. At this time, Powell had been making extensive profits in Washington for over six years by selling photographs of Kaibab Paiiutes. Taken by Hiller onl the 1873 expedition, these views depicted Paiutes in various stages of

undress or brand-new Plains-styleclothing. During tile first six months of 1874, the proceeds from the sale of these photographs totaled S4,100. In addition, Powell used sets of photographsto influence key congressmenwhen it came time to decide on the continuanceof appropriationsfor his various surveysand expeditions (Fowler 1971:7-8). There is no evidence that any of the remaining9() KaibabPaiutes was able or willing to make the recommendedmoves. Beyond tlhe fact that emigration would mean total loss of renlaininglands, the two alternatives were less than attractive. Movement to Uinta was totally unten:ible because of

previouswarfarebetween the two peoples(Sale 18(5:1 55). and frequent Ute



188

slave raids upon Paiute groups (Malouf 1945). More importantly, these reservationsalready had populations exceeding their carrying capacities. NevadaAgency agent Spencer(1880:125-126) noted that the Moapa(Muddy Valley) reservation is entirely desertedby the Indianssolely because it is unprotected from stock owned by herders,whose cattle and horses ... are left, if not encouraged,to strollover the lines and devourevery green thing in their way ... as a consequencethe Indiansare scattered over the surrounding country for 200 miles around, eking out a precarious existence by working, begging, root-digging,and insect-eating - a life not of their choice ...

For these reasons, KaibabPaiutes remained on their traditional lands and sought subsistencethroughnow limited strategies. Disease, always a problem for Native Americans, must have taken its toll on the Kaibab Paiutesduring this time. Mormon settlers in 1877 passed through Kaibab Paiute country on the way to establish settlements in the valley of the Little Colorado River. As they passed through communities, they spread smallpox to their own people and Indians alike. As far away as Zufii Pueblo in New Mexico, this epidemic took as many as 200 lives (Peterson 1973:207), and it spread to all the principal Arizona settlements (Quebbeman1966:157). Other diseases such as measles and malaria also took Kaibab Paiute lives. Diaries of Mormons living in and passing through Kaibab Paiute territory reveal measles to have been common (Brooks 1962:293, 295). Malaria,a major depopulatorof Native Americansin the wet lowlandsof the Americas,was recordedat the boundariesof KaibabPaiute territoryalong the Virgin River. It may be suggestedthat the spreadof malariafrom the Virgin River to the KaibabPaiuteuplandswas facilitatedby the Mormonpractice of building fish ponds, cattle troughs, and irrigationditches. Depopulation by these and other diseases had to be a major factor in the lives of Kaibab Paiutes even though no chroniclerwas present to recount the experience or the extent of its impact. Population. There are few Kaibab Paiute population figures available for this period. The earliestis the 1880 observationof forty familiesmade by Hamblin(Fowler and Fowler 1971:22). Using the adult/child ratio of these people just seven years before yields a population estimate of 99 persons. This 52.2 percent depopulationsince 1873 must have resulted in part from the 1871 territorialloss and dislocation of the Long Valley KaibabPaiute group. During the seventeenyears from encroachment in 1863 until 1880, this populationdeclinedfrom 1,175 to 99 persons,or 96.6 percent. There is no direct population evidence for Kaibab Paiutes from 1880 until 1898. The conditions just described indicate that further depopulation



189

took place. It may havebeen duringthese decades that depopulationreached nadir. The first federalgovernmentprogramdesignatedfor the KaibabPaiutes began in 1898. That year a day school was establishedat St. George, Utah, for the "hitherto neglected" 167 Shivwits and 106 Kaibab Paiutes (C.I.A. 1898:21, 610). Laura Work (1902:571, 702), teacher in charge of the St. George Indian school, noted in 1901 that she had no resources for 105 Kaibab Paiutes under her jurisdiction and very few for the 128 Shivwits despite a harsh winter, many diseases, and a continued drought that had caused almost complete failure of all crops. Not until 1906 did she again mention KaibabPaiutes. Then, Work(1906:366-367,483) noted that the 76 Kaibabs,"are very destitute but a few of them are employed as herdersat a fair salarywhich is some help to all." At this time, there were 154 Shivwits under her jurisdiction. Within five years, then, the Kaibabslost 29 persons and the Shivwits gained 26. These figures are the first to suggest that the Kaibab Paiutes had adopted a strategyof emigrationin search of subsistence. The implicationsof that new strategywill be discussedlater. Ethnic Manipulation. Confronted with resource loss, nutritional insecurity, disease, and depopulation, Kaibab Paiutes began to innovate adaptive strategies for dealingwith Euroamericanintruders.One innovation was reciprocalmanipulationof religion.3Mormon leaders in the early 1850s found that rapidterritorialexpansionhardenedPaiute resistance.To facilitate their expansion, Mormons began a policy of "peaceful penetration." Missionaries,whose role involved advance exploration, assessing economic potential of new areas, cultivating friendships with gifts and acting as emissariesin times of conflict, spearheaded"peaceful penetration"(Brooks 1944:3-45; Woodbury 1944:137-138, 146). Once missionaries gained a foothold, settlers followed and capturedPaiute resources.In order to regain access to some of their resourcesas well as those of the Mormons, many Paiutesallowed themselvesto be baptizedin the Mormonreligion. Not only did the KaibabPaiutes manipulate religious variablesin an effort to increase their competitiveness, but they also readjusted their sociopolitical system. Traditionally,leadershippositions could be earnedand were task-specificsuch as war or rabbithunt leader. It is not clear whether the various local groups ever functioned together as a tribe under the leadership of a single person or council as did their Pai neighborsacross the Colorado River to the south (Dobyns and Euler 1970). Kelly's (1964:26) informants in 1932, one of whom was the daughter of Chuarumpeak,said that Kaibab Paiutes traditionallydid not have a head chief. Powell, on the other hand, discussed the presence of a tribal leader before Euroamerican contact disrupted Kaibab Paiute society, but did not indicate the source of his information (Powell and Ingalls 1874). The exact nature of traditional


190


Kaibab Paiute leadership is not clear. Soon after Euroamericancontact, however,they functionedwith only task-specificleaders. For reasons at which we can only guess, Powell labored during the 1870s to institute the position of tribalchief among the KaibabPaiuteband. In order to accomplish this, Powell selected an adult male through whom goods were distributed and information passed. This person, known as Chuarumpeakby the Paiutes and as "Frank" by the Euroamericanswas finally "accepted" as head chief of the KaibabPaiutesin the late 1870s. This may seem a strange behavior, because by that time there were many fewer people and much less territory to administer, so there was less, not more, need for central authority.PerhapsKaibabPaiutesfinally acceptedChuarumpeak and the position of head chief in an effort to negotiate more resources away from Euroamericans. Steward (1938:228) observedfor the Sevier Desert Utes that after loss of resourcesand domination, "the necessarytransactionswith the white man rapidly elevated the chief to a prominant position. Euler (1966:102) and Manners(1974:213) reacheda similarconclusion for other Southern Paiute groups. By adopting a political structure that reflected the stereotypic society, Kaibab expectation and structuralcharacteristicsof Euroamnerican Paiutes created an interculturalrole position (Vogt 1970) that could help them deal more effectively with invading foreigners. In so doing, Kaibab Paiutes demonstrated their ability to adjust to a changing socio-political environmentas had many other conqueredpeoples from the Pueblos(Pandey 1968; Spicer 1962) to the Palauiansof Micronesia(Useem 1952). The period of Euroamericandomination and reciprocalethnic manipulation closed once Kaibab Paiutes were allocated subsistence resourcesand wage labor became available locally. As in previous times when power or environmental conditions changed, Kaibab Paiutes correspondinglyshifted their modes of adaptation. Probably just prior to 1907, the Mormon Churchprevailedupon the residentsof MoccasinRanch to reallocateone-thirdof the artesianwater flow to its former owners. Whena governmentinspectorvisitedMoccasinin 1907, he observedthat: A group of about 80 Paiutes ... have a fenced pasture of several thousand acres and some 10 to 15 acres of tillable land watered by a spring on Moccasin Ranch of whose flow the Indians own one third (C.I.A. 1907:132). In June of 1906, the governmentbegan to fulfill its obligations to Kaibab Paiutes by appropriating $10,500 for their use the next year (C.I.A. 1907:131, 143). In 1908, the Kaibabs received a portion of a $15.500 gratuity (C.l.A. 1909:145). Then on May 28, 1909 (C.I.A. 1909:52), the government officially designated a 12 by 18 mile reservation for Kaibab



191

Paiutes (Farrow 1930:58). That same year their gratuity was $1,500. Not surprisingly, when these lands were removed tfrom Mormon ownership and

placed under Kaibab Paiute -- federal government control. it was recorded that the lands "are thought to contain valuablemiineralsand there has been increasing demand tfor permission to prospect on these lands" (C.I.A. 1909:52). Ulterior motives aside, these actions marked tlhe beginlning of a

processof resourcereallocationto KaibabPaiutes. Wage labor opportunities increased as Mormloncommunities became increasinglya part of the national economy (Spencer 1940). Local Mormon settlements began to shift their production to reflect national marketsand cash exchanges. This new Mormon adaptive strategy opened up wage labor positions on largerranchesand farms. LauraWork noted the importanceof these positions to overallKaibabPaiutewelfare by 1906. Kaibab Paiutes responsesto these new opportunitiestook the form of entreprenurialcapitalism largely cattle herding and non-local wage labor (Dobyns etaL. 1975). These new strategies caused increased standardsof living, population increases, and off-reservationresidence for most of tlhe population. -With most wage positions controlled by Mormons, nominal membershipin the church continued to be necessary.Thus ethnic manipulation continued to be a viable strategy for some Kaibab Paiutes living off-reservation, but some on-reservation residents had more options. The ethnic manipulation strategy declined in importanceafter the end of this period.

The diasporaof KaibabPaiutesoccurredjust before their homelandwas officially secured. Laura Work's population figures implied that approximately one-quarterof the Kaibabpopulation left the homeland during the droughts in the early 1900s. In ensuing decades, the reservation-based population remained steady in size, although Kaibab Paiute population expanded, reflecting increasingaccess to resources.Not until the late 1960s when tribally controlled jobs became increasinglyavailableon-reservationdid a shift back to the traditionalhomelandsbegin. The period from 1909 until 1977 might best be termined "renewed competition and ethnic revival." Once again having access to subsistence resources,KaibabPaiutes began to compete for land, jobs, and even tourists (by constructingnew tourist facilities). Today, one importanttribaldevelopment goal is to create sufficient on-reservationemployment so that any KaibabPaiute who desirescan live on his traditionalhomeland.

Conclusion Human populations tend to expand to the carryingcapacity of their territory. If territory is precipitouslylost, the population will die off until it


192

RICHARD W. STOFl:LE and MICHAEL J. EVANS

reflects the carryingcapacity of the new range.This pattern should hold for situations where no new food sources through welfare or emigrationare available.Although this observationmight seem to be common sense, a quick review of the ethnic competition literature reveals that little attention has been devoted to the subject. Who, for example, has askedwhy in 1873 there were 9,117 Navajosand 9,579 Pueblos(C.I.A. 1874:342), but by 1970 there were 96,743 of the formerand only 30,971 of the latter(Census 1970:188)? A detailed documentation of differential resource allocation by the United States governmentshould providemuch of the explanation. The analysis suggeststhat the adaptive strategiesof all groupsinvolved in ethnic competition should be known. What, for example, motivates the federal government and other conquest institutions such as the Mormon Churchto rewardhostile adaptivestrategiesand largelyignoregroupsthat are willing to compromise?Relationswith Navajoand Pueblo groupsare a case in relationsare another. The governpoint, and Southern Paiute-Euroamerican ment perspectivewas clearly expressedby Powell and Ingalls(1874:64), "No able-bodied Indian should be either fed or clothed except in payment for labor," unless he must be conciliated to prevent war. The Nevada Indian Agent, JamesSpencer(1880:124), commented upon this policy: It seems to be a rule in the Indianservice,as in many other departments of life, that the most deservingreceive the least. Other tribes, wild. hostile, often on the warpath,often defiant, are the recipientsotfa most liberal bounty from the governmentwhile these peaceable,industrious people are turned off with a mere pittance and left to struggle on almost alone and unaided. There has been too much researchfocused upon the problemsof the defeated ethnic groups and too little upon adaptivestrategiesof conqueringsocieties and their "frontline" representatives. Once the process of competition and conquest and its consequences, such as population fluctuationand shiftingadaptivestrategiesare understood, the myths that arise to rationalize them must be considered. Such myths become important because they appear as epistemological postulates of history and scientific researchand the bases for future interethnicrelations.4 The Southern Paiutes, for example, have been shown to be effective usersof their. environment. Their transhumant adaptive strategy with its total fauna-flora and horticulture utilization patterns could support a larger population more securely from climatic fluctuations, thiancan the mixed ranching-farmingstrategy of Euroamericans. Because of its differences. transhumantadaptation has been called "subhuman"by competing groups, and Steward(1963) rankedit technologicallybelow full-tlimehorticulture. Rewriting history and questioning the epistelmological

underpinnings of

an academic profession is to most researchersan ulncomfortable responsibility. This is especially so when it involvesthe racistand ethnocentricbiasesof


ResourceCompetitionand PopulationChange

193

highly respected persons. Unfortunately, it is often these very people who have had significant impacts upon ethnic minority policies. These people, because of their national or local prestige, also validate ethnic myths. Not until interethnic situations like the one analyzed in this paper are reexamined will new generationsbe forced to reassesstheir relations.

NOTES 1. Manners (1974:218-232) may be consulted for a fuller discussion of Southern Paiute territory. His inclusion of all information, regardless of quality and date, leaves him doubtful that boundaries can be determined. Much of his confusion derived, however, from using reports from different times. Euroamerican dislocation did force Paiutes into new areas, but the fact that it did does not disprove the assertion that they had territorial stability before contact. 2. The first recorded contact between Kaibab Paiutes and Mormon missionaries occurred in 1858 when a party of Mormons led by Jacob Hamblin explored the area seeking a way across the Colorado River and a new area for settlement (Olsen 1965:12). 3. A strikingly similar pattern of ethnic manipulation occurs among the contemporary "Rimrock" Navajo converts to either the Mormon or Nazarene Church. Blanchard (1977) found that these Navajo converts perceive of baptism primarily as a means of protecting their health. Gaining access to church economic and educational resources is shown by this research to be a major function of conversion. 4. These myths not only affect history and scientific research, but are also influencing the thinking of the general public. The Arizona Bicentennial Commission recently financed publication of a book in which the following statement is found: An Indian, wandering his way over the hills, down the canyon and through the valleys, stopped at bubbling spring, was refreshed by its clear water, and left his moccasined footprints in the soft earth. Later a white man, finding the spring with Indian moccasin footprints and a lone moccasin left by other Indians, called it Moccasin Springs (Malach 1975:44). This statement perpetuates the myth of the free-living, wandering Indian with no ties to anywhere. The fact of the matter is that there were perhaps 1,175 people living in this region and using this spring constantly to irrigate their farms.

REFERENCES Aikens, C. Melvin 1965 Excavations in Southwest Utah. University of Utah, Department of Anthropology, Anthropological Paper N? 76. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Arrington, Leonard J. 1954 Orderville, Utah: A Pioneer Mormon Experiment in Economic Organization. Utah State Agricultural College Monograph, Series Vol. 2, N? 2. Aschmann, Homer 1959 The Central Desert of Baja California: Demography and Ecology. IberoAmericana: 42. Berkeley: University of California Press. Barth, Fredrick 1969 "Introduction," in F. Barth (ed.) Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Boston: Little, Brown, pp. 9-38.


194


Bennett, John W. 1969 Northern Plainsmen: A daptive Strategy and Agrarian Life. Chicago: Aldine. 1976 The Ecological Transition, Cultural Anthropology and Human Adaptation. New York: Pergamon Press, Inc. Blanchard, Kendell A. 1977 The Economics of Sainthood: Religious Change Among the Rimrock Navajos. Cranbury, N.J.: Associated University Presses. Brooks, Juanita 1944 "Indian Relations on the Mormon Frontier." Utah Historical Quarterly, 22:1-48. 1962 John Doyle Lee. Glendale: Arthur H. Clark Co. Census 1973 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population: 1970 Subject Reports, American Indians. Washington: Government Printing Office. C.I.A. 1869-1937 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior. Washington: Government Printing Office. Cook, Sherburne F. 1976 The Conflict between the California Indian and White Civilization. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Cook, Sherburne F. and Woodrow W. Borah 1971 Essays in Population History: Mexico and the Caribbean, Volume I. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1974 Essays in Population History: Mexico and the Caribbean, Volume II. Berkeley: University of California Press. Crosby, Alfred W., Jr. 1972 The Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Publishing Co. Dellenbaugh, Frederick S. 1908 A Canyon Voyage. New York: G. P. Putnam & Sons. Denevan, William A. (ed.) 1976 The Native Population of the Americas in 1492. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Depres, Leo A. 1967 Cultural Pluralism and Nationalist Politics in British Guiana. Chicago: Rand-McNally. 1975 Ethnicity and Resource Competition in Plural Societies. Paris: Mouton. Dobyns, Henry F. 1966 "Estimating Aboriginal American Population: An Appraisal of Techniques with a New Hemispheric Estimate." Current Anthropology, 7:395-416. 1976 Native American Historical Demography: A Critical Bibliography. Bloomington: Indiana University for the Newberry Library Center for the History of the American Indian. Dobyns, Henry F. and Robert C. Euler 1970 Wauba Yuma's People: The Comparative Socio-Political Structure of the Pai Indians of Arizona. Prescott: Prescott College Press. Dobyns, Henry F., Richard W. Stoffle and Kristine Jones 1975 "Native American Urbanization and Socio-Economic Integration in the Southwestern United States." Ethnohistory, 22:2, 155-179. Domenech, Emmanuel 1860 Seven Years Residence in the Great Deserts of North America. London: Longman, Green, Longman and Roberts, 2 vol. Euler, Robert C. 1964 "Southern Paiute Archaeology." American Antiquity, 29:3, 379-381. 1966 Southern Paiute Ethnohistory. University of Utah, Department of Anthropology Anthropological Paper N? 78. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. 1972 The PaiutePeoplc. Phoenix: Indian Tribal Series.



195

Farrow, E. A. 1930 "The Kaibab Indians." Utah Historical Quarterly, 3:2, 57-59. Fitzgerald, Thomas K. (ed.) 1966 Social and Cultural Identity. Southern Anthropological Society Proceedings N? 8. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Fowler, Don D.

1972 "PhotographedAll the Best Scenery" Jack Hiller's Diary of the Powell Expeditions, 1871-1875. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Fowler, Don D. and Catherine S. Fowler

1971 A nthropologyand the Numa:John WesleyPowell'sManuscriptson theNumic Peoples of WesternNorth America,1868-1880. SmithsonianContributionsto

Anthropology N? 14. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Hamer, Michael 1977 "The Ecological Basis for Aztec Sacrifice." American Ethnologist, 117-135. Hoetink, Harmannus

4:1,

1971 CaribbeanRace Relations: A Study of Two Variants.New York: Oxford University Press. 1975 "Resource Competition, Monopoly, and Socioracial Diversity," in Leo Depres

(ed.) Ethnicityand ResourceCompetition.Paris:Mouton. Jennings, Francis

1975 The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism,and the Cant of Conquest.

Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Va. John, Elizabeth

1975 Storms Brewed in Other Men's Worlds. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Kelly, Isabel T. 1934 "Southern Paiute Bands." American Anthropologist, n.s. 36:548-560. 1964 Southern Paiute Ethnography. University of Utah, Department of Anthropology Anthropological Paper N? 69. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Kushner, Gilbert et al.

1962 WhatAccounts for SocioculturalChange:A PropositionalInventory. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Institute for Research in Social Science. Little, James 1881 Jacob Hamblin. Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office. Malach, Roman 1975 TheArizona Strip in Mohave County. New York: Graphicopy. Malouf, Carling and A. A. Malouf 1945 "The Effects of Spanish Slavery on the Indians of the Intermountain West."

SouthwesternJournalof A nthropology,1:378-391. Manners, Robert

1974 Paiute IndiansI. SouthernPaiuteand ChemehueviAn EthnohistoricalReport. New York: Garland Publishing_Co. Mason, Otis Tufton

1902 AboriginalA mericanBasketry:Studies in a Textile Art WithoutMachinery. Washington: Government Printing Office. Montgomery, Edward 1977 "Human Ecology and the Population Concept: The Yelnadu Reddi Population

in India."AmericanEthnologist,4:1, 175-189.

Olsen, Robert W. 1965 "Pipe Spring, Arizona, and Thereabouts." Journal of Arizona History, 6:1, 11-20. Palmer, Edward 1878 "Plants Used by the Indians of the United States." American Naturalist,

12:646-655.



196

Pandey, T. N. 1968 "Tribal Council Elections in a Southwestern Pueblo." Ethnology, 7:71-85. Pendleton, Mark A. 1939 "The Orderville United Order of Zion." Utah Historical Quarterly, 3:141-159. Peterson, Charles S. 1973 Take Up Your Mission. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Polgar, Steven (ed.)

1975 PopulationEcologyand Social Evolution.The Hague:Mouton Press.

Powell, John W. 1957 The Exploration of the Colorado River. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Powell, John W. and G. W. Ingalls 1874 "Report of J. W. Powell and G. W. Ingalls, Special Commissioners to Enumerate Indians in Nevada and Adjacent Places." Annual Report of the

Commissionerof IndianAffairsto the Secretaryof the Interiorfor the Yearof

1873. Washington: Government Printing Office, pp. 41-58. Quebbeman, Frances E. 1966 Medicine in TerritorialArizona. Phoenix: Arizona Historical Foundation. Ratcliff, James L. 1973 "What Happened to the Kalapuya? A Study of the Depletion of their Economic Base." Indian Historian, 6:27-33. Sale, Thomas

1865 "Communication."Commissionerof IndianAffairs, AnnualReport. Washington: Government Printing Office, pp. 155-156. Shipek, Florence 1976 A Strategy for Change: The Luisefio of Southern California. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii, Manoa. Shutler, Richard 1961 Lost City, Pueblo Grande de Nevada. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Paper N? 5. Carson City. Spencer, J. E. 1940 "The Development of Agricultural Villages in Southern Utah." Agricultural History, 14:181-189. Spencer, James 1880 "Navada Agency Report." Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Washington: Government Printing Office, pp. 123-127. Spicer, Edward H.

1962 Cycles of Conquest:The Impact of Spain, Mexico and the United States on

the Indians of the Southwest 1533-1960. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. 1971 "Persistent Cultural Systems." Science, 174:4011, 795-800. Steward, Julian H.

1938 Basin-PlateauAboriginalSociopolitical Groups. Bureau of AmericanEthnol-

ogy Bulletin 120. Washington: Government Printing Office. 1963 Theory of Culture Change. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. United States Census

1920 Fourteenth Census of the United States 1920 VoL 1. Washington,D.C.: Government Printing Office. United States Department of Commerce

1974 Federal and State Indian Reservationsand Indian Trust Areas. Washington,

D.C.: Government Printing Office. Uscem, John 1952 "South Sea Island Strike: Labor Management Relations in the Caroline Islands, Micronesia," in E. H. Spicer (ed.) Human Problems in Technological Change. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.



197

Vogt, Evon 1970 "Intercultural Relations," in E. Z. Vogt and Ethel Albert (eds.) People of Rimrock. New York: Athencum, pp. 46-82. Whipple, A. W., T. Ewbank and W. W. Turner 1856 "Report Upon the Indian Tribes, Part 3." United States Senate Reports of Explorations and Surveys. Washington, D.C.: Beverly Tucker Printer, Vol. 3, pp. 1-27. Whitten, Norman E., Jr.

1974 Black Frontiersmen:A SouthAmericanCase.Cambridge:Schenkman. Woodbury, Angus M. 1944 "A History of Southern Utah and Its National Parks." Utah State Historical Quarterly, 12:3-4, 11-223.

1956 Notes on the Human Ecology of Glen Canyon. University of Utah,

Department of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers, N? 74. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Work, Laura 1903 "Report of School at St. George, Utah." Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, pp. 472474. 1906 "Report of Superintendent of Panguitch SchooL" Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, pp. 366-367.


Resource Competition and Population Change: A ...

Resource Competition and Population Change: A ...

Suggest Documents

Coexistence and resource competition

Classical and resource-based competition: A

Resource partitioning and asymmetric competition

competition for a continuous resource: polygenic ...

Extractive industries, livelihoods and natural resource competition ...

Resource endowments, market positioning, and competition in ...

Local resource competition and local resource ... - Social Sciences

Resource competition and coexistence in heterogeneous ... - PeerJ

LOCAL RESOURCE COMPETITION AND THE ... - Semantic Scholar

LOCAL RESOURCE COMPETITION AND THE ... - Semantic Scholar

Resource competition and within-host - People

Herbivory and plant resource competition: a ... - Wiley Online Library

competition, organisational change and employment ... - CiteSeerX

Technical Change, Competition and Vertical Integration ... - MIT

Satellite Communication: Structural Change and Competition

THEORY COMPETITION AND THE PROCESS OF CHANGE ...

Resource heterogeneity and ungulate population dynamics

endogenous population, resource substitution, and ... - DEPOCEN

Natural resource development, population and ...

ESTs as a Resource for Gene Discovery and Population ... - MedCrave

Anemia, leukocytosis and eosinophilia in a resource-poor population ...

Climate Change and Population Displacement - Working Notes

Population Dynamics and Climate Change - UNFPA

LANDCOVER CHANGE AND POPULATION DYNAMICS OF FLORIDA ...