Indigenous people of California

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Indigenous people of California

Estimates of the Indigenous population of California prior to exposure to Europeans are extremely variable. They range from 133,000 to 705,000 members, with some researchers today viewing these estimates as low. After Europeans arrived in California, infectious diseases and violence reduced the indigenous population to less than 25,000. It is believed that the gold diggers, like others, killed approximately 4,500 California Indians during and after the California Gold Rush between 1849 and 1870 . As of 2005, California has been the state with the largest self-identifying indigenous population in the United States. According to the US Census , this is 696,600 people.

Estimates before the arrival of Europeans

Historians used several methods to estimate the Californian indigenous population prior to the arrival of the first Europeans. These are u. a .:

  • Mission Records (Births, Baptisms, Deaths, and Total Converts at Different Times)
  • Settlement census extracted from historical, ethnographic and archaeological data and multiplied by an estimate of the average number of inhabitants per settlement
  • Estimates of the ecological carrying capacity of humans as dictated by indigenous technologies and economics
  • Population density extrapolations from better documented regions from lesser known and better known regions
  • Extrapolations from historical censuses assuming a certain population decline

Few analysts claim that these methods provide reliable figures. Different analysts' estimates vary by a factor of 2 or more. Stephen Powers was the first to estimate that the population prior to first contact was 1,520,000. He later reduced this assumption to 705,000.

C. Hart Merriam made the first detailed analysis. He based his estimates on missionary reports and extrapolated them to non-missionary areas. Its guess for the entire state was 260,000. Alfred L. Kroeber performed a detailed iteration of the analysis, looking at both the state as a whole and individual ethnolinguistic groups. He reduced Merriam's estimates to about half, namely 133,000 indigenous Californians in 1770.

Martin A. Baumhoff used an ecological basis to assess the load-bearing capacity of the habitat; its estimate was 350,000 people.

Sherburne F. Cook was the most persistent and meticulous investigator of the problem, carefully examining both pre-contact estimates and the history of the demographic decline during and after missionary work. Initially, he achieved a result only 7% higher than his predecessor Kroeber: 133,500 members (excluding the Modoc, the Northern Paiute, the Washoe, the Owens Valley Paiute and the Colorado River Yumans). He later raised the estimate to 310,000.

Some researchers now believe that waves of epidemic diseases hit California even before the Franciscans arrived in 1769. If that's true, it could mean that the population estimates, which take the beginning of the missionary period as the starting point, have massively underestimated the pre-Columbian population.

Changes after the arrival of the Europeans

The decline in California's indigenous population during the late 18th and 19th centuries was most extensively studied by Cook. Cook weighted the relative importance of the various causes of the decline (Old World epidemics, violence, dietary changes, culture shock). The declines tend to be greatest in areas affected by missionary activity and the gold rush. Other studies also identified changes in individual regions and ethnolinguistic groups.

California's Native American population bottomed out at around 25,000 by the end of the 19th century. Based on Kroeber's estimate of 133,000 people in 1770, this means a decrease of 80%, using Cook's revised assumption by over 90%. Then Cook expressed his sharpest criticism:

" The first (factor) was the food supply ... The second factor was disease. ...

A third factor, which strongly intensified the effect of the other two, was the social and physical disruption visited upon the Indian. He was driven from his home by the thousands, starved, beaten, raped, and murdered with impunity. He was not only given no assistance in the struggle against foreign diseases, but was prevented from adopting even the most elementary measures to secure his food, clothing, and shelter. The utter devastation caused by the white man was literally incredible, and not until the population figures are examined does the extent of the havoc become evident.

like: The first (factor) was delivery of food ... The second factor was disease. ...

A third factor that massively increased the effect of the other two was the social and physical disruption of the Indian. She was driven by the thousands starved, beaten, violated, and murdered with impunity in her homeland. He was not only not supported in the fight against foreign diseases, but also prevented from taking elementary measures to secure food, clothing and shelter. The total destruction by the White Man was literally incredible, even looking at the numbers reveals the extent of the devastation. "

As a result, the population grew substantially throughout the 20th century. The resurgence can be due to both real demographic growth and a change in self-perception. In the 21st century, after eight generations of close interaction between indigenous Californians, Europeans, Asians, Africans and others with Native American ancestors, only a small basis can be made for quantifying the indigenous population within the state. Nevertheless, the censuses in the reserves and the self-assessments of the census provide some information.

Individual evidence

  1. ^ A b Sherburne F. Cook: Historical Demography . In: Robert F. Heizer (Ed.): Handbook of North American Indians 1978, pp. 91-98.
  2. ^ Minorities During the Gold Rush . Archived from the original on February 1, 2014.
  3. ↑ American Indian and Alaska Native Heritage Month: November 2006 . US Department of Commerce. 2006. Archived from the original on September 29, 2006. Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Retrieved January 17, 2007. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.census.gov
  4. ↑ Stephen Powers: California Indian Characteristics . In: Overland Monthly . No. 14, 1875, pp. 297-309.
  5. ↑ Stephen Powers: The Northern California Indians, No. 5 . In: Overland Monthly . No. 9, 1872, pp. 303-313.
  6. ↑ C. Hart Merriam: The Indian Population of California . In: American Anthropologist . 7, 1905, pp. 594-606. doi : 10.1525 / aa.1905.7.4.02a00030 .
  7. ↑ a b A. L. Kroeber: Handbook of the Indians of California . In: Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin . No. 78, Washington, DC, 1925, pp. 880-891.
  8. ↑ Martin A. Baumhoff: Ecological Determinants of Aboriginal California Populations . In: Smithsonian Institution (Ed.): University of California Publications in American Archeology and Ethnology . 8, No. 49, Washington, DC, 1963, pp. 155-236.
  9. ^ A b Sherburne F. Cook: The Conflict between the California Indian and White Civilization . University of California Press, Berkeley 1976.
  10. ^ A b c Sherburne F. Cook: The Population of the California Indians, 1769-1970 . University of California Press, Berkeley, 1976.
  11. ^ William L. Preston: Serpent in Eden: Dispersal of Foreign Diseases into Pre-Mission California . In: Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology . No. 18, 1996, pp. 2-37.
  12. ↑ William L. Preston: Portents of Plague from California's Protohistoric Period . In: Ethnohistory . No. 29, 2002, pp. 69-121.