ArticlePDF Available

Inland Sanctuary: A Synergistic Study of Indigenous Persistence and Colonial Entanglements at Hiouchi (Xaa-yuu-chit)


Abstract and Figures

In this research files article, Shannon Tushingham and Richard Brooks discuss collaborative research on the history of human use of the Hiouchi Flat area near the north bank of the Smith River in California. The authors met in 2003 when Tushingham was conducting archaeological research as a graduate student. Through her research and archaeological work, Tushingham became interested in how the Native community living in the area persisted after Euro-American contact in ways that melded and introduced cultural elements within a traditional Tolowa way of life. The authors document the remembrances and stories of two families — the Cookes and the Catchings — who are examples “of how Tolowa people persisted in the aftermath of the Gold Rush at Hiouchi Flat,” and how “many Indian traditions were passed on because of this persistence.”
No caption available
No caption available
No caption available
No caption available
No caption available
Content may be subject to copyright.
OHQ vol. 118, no. 1 Tushingham and Brooks, Inland Sanctuary
 
©  Oregon Historical Society
by Shannon Tushingham and Richard Brooks
Inland Sanctuary
A Synergistic Study of Indigenous Persistence and
Colonial Entanglements at Hiouchi (Xaa-yuu-chit)
ferson, which encompasses a arge
portion of northern Caifornia and
southwestern Oregon, is unique for
many reasons, incuding its beautifu,
rugged andscape, the independent
spirit it represents, its (often quirky)
cutura miieu, and its rich and ong-
standing American Indian cutura
history. Perhaps esser known is that
the State of Jeerson payed a key
roe in the nascent deveopment of
ethnoarchaeoogy — the study of mod-
ern, distinct communities as a means
of better interpreting archaeoogica
findings — and that it is the point of
origin for a robust iterature on indig-
enous entangements and survivance
during the period of American coo-
nization. That iterature is extremey
rare in American archaeoogy and is
fundamentay informed by coabora-
tive research among anthropoogists,
historians, and oca American Indians.
In the eary s, Richard A. Goud
conducted a pioneering and inuentia
ethnoarchaeoogica study in the State
of Jeerson when he began working
with Toowa consutants, incorporat-
ing ora histories of iving American
Indian descendants in the interpreta-
tion of archaeoogica findings at the
Point St. George site in northwestern
Caifornia. Toowa eders provided the
history of sites in the Point St. George
area; gave Toowa names for viages,
cutura artifacts, animas, foods, and
such; payed a critica roe in Goud’s
ocating and outining discrete areas
of the site; and heped to interpret the
use and function of excavated artifacts,
houses, and features.
Thus, from the eary s, when
expicity coaborative ethnoarchaeo-
ogica studies were rare in archaeo-
ogy, members of the scientific commu-
nity partnered with American Indians
in the State of Jeerson. And whie
these reationships have not aways
been historicay baanced and in some
cases were quite disma, coaboration
is today a hamark of much schoary
research that is conducted in the State
of Jeerson. There is now prominent
in Americanist archaeoogy a grow-
ing body of work that has contributed
greaty to the arger discourse on coo-
nia entangements and indigenous
survivance in the American West. That
discourse incudes abundant studies
that focus on indigenous encounters
with European coonists and expor-
ers in Spanish and Russian mission
areas, but “native peopes essentiay
disappear from the archaeoogica
iterature with the advent of American
cooniaism.” Bucking this trend are
a number of groundbreaking studies
from the State of Jeerson that tacke
issues incuding agency, indigenous
negotiation of cooniaism, and per-
sistence. These incude David Lewis’s
study of a modern Toowa Dee-ni’
smet-fishing camp and cutura persis-
tence; Mark Tveskov’s examination of
American Indian persistence through
the American coonia period, women’s
agency and cutura survivance, and
more recent cutura revitaization of
indigenous communities aong the
Oregon coast; Thomas J. Connoy’s
archaeoogica and historica work at
Beatty tracking Kamath triba history
from precontact times through Euro-
American contact and the reservation
and aotment periods in south centra
Oregon; and Brian L. O’Nei and co-
eagues’ study of househod econo-
mies of marginaized communities for
the Cow Creek Tribe in southwestern
This artice detais coaborative
research conducted in a simiar spirit
and on simiar themes. Our work com-
menced in , after we met when
Shannon Tushingham, as a UC Davis
THE COOKE GIRLS are pictured in an undated photo at the Catching homestead
in Hiouchi, Caifornia. The Cookes and the Catchings were two of the Indian-White
househods researched for this study.
De Norte Historica Society
110 111
OHQ vol. 118, no. 1 Tushingham and Brooks, Inland Sanctuary
graduate student pursuing her degree
in anthropoogy, conducted archaeo-
ogica research at a series of sites
in the Hiouchi area of the Smith River
Basin. She worked cosey with oca
American Indian consutants from the
Toowa Dee-ni’ Nation (formery Smith
River Rancheria) and the Ek Vaey
Rancheria, and through this work met
co-author Richard Brooks, a oca Smith
River resident of Toowa and Yurok
The archaeoogica fiedwork
documented in Tushingham’s dis-
sertation research documented an
,-year history of human use of
the Hiouchi area at five archaeoogi-
ca sites, incuding the deveopment
of pank house viages in the area by
, BP (Before Present). Red Eder-
berry Pace (CA-DNO-), the primary
archaeoogica site where Tushingham
conducted research, was the ony site
previousy documented in the ethno-
graphic iterature. The end of human
occupation there was reected in the
archaeoogica materias found at a
sma portion of the site in and around a
men’s pank sweathouse that dates to
the mid to ate s. The archaeoogi-
ca findings reveaed cear evidence
that the inhabitants of the house had
used many traditiona toos and foods
(identica to those found in pre-contact
archaeoogica components), but
suppemented their too kit and diet
with materias and food introduced by
Euro-Americans. In short, it was cear
that a sma, remnant popuation per-
sisted at Red Ederberry viage after
contact, and that they continued to ive
in a way that meded and introduced
cutura eements within a traditiona
Toowa way of ife.
Foowing this discovery, we
became very interested in understand-
ing how the peope iving in this house
had persisted through those years.
Toowa community members regu-
ary visited the site — but there was
a papabe sense of gravity when they
encountered this particuar house and
reected on what ife may have been
ike for its inhabitants. Famiy stories
of this time were shared, many quite
painfu. There was no mistaking that
we were deaing with something very
significant and emotionay charged,
which woud utimatey take us beyond
standard descriptions of subsistence
and technoogy. From the archaeo-
ogy, it was cear that the sweathouse
inhabitants had interacted with white
setters; yet, who were their neighbors,
and what was the nature of these
inter-househod reationships? We
discussed these questions at ength,
and thus began an investigation of this
historica context of the house. This
work took Tushingham beyond her
origina research question (focused on
pre-contact deveopments and evou-
tionary hunter-gatherer theory), and
she and Brooks began a new chapter
of historica research, detaied here.
Whie Tushingham had knowedge
of historic events in the region, her per-
spective was profoundy inuenced by
her work with Brooks and other Toowa
consutants who had first-hand know-
edge of historic events and coud
personay reate, through famiy ora
histories, events and memories that
eshed out the historica context of
the excavated house and oca Hiouchi
area. Thus, in addition to consuting
archiva sources (census records,
and patent Indian aotment records,
eary newspaper artices, dissertations,
and pubished accounts), the Toowa
community aso provided information
about historic events and eary ife in
Hiouchi. This incudes Brooks’s first-
hand knowedge as we as information
derived from ora histories we recorded
with Loren Bommeyn (Toowa Dee-ni’)
and Neie Chisman (Toowa Dee-ni’
and member of the ancestra Hiouchi
Cooke famiy, discussed beow).
Historic narratives can be under-
stood from a mutitude of perspec-
tives, and reconciing those varied
perspectives does not aways resut in
a straightforward story. One reviewer
of an earier version of this paper, for
exampe, observed that the anguage
or voice of the artice switched from
that of an objective outsider (referred to
in anthropoogy as the “etic” approach)
to one that sounded more subjective
and “emic” (an insider’s point of view).
We see this as indicative of the co-
aborative process and as a natura
outcome of being co-authors with
different backgrounds: Tushingham
is an anthropoogica archaeoogist
trained to take an objective scientific
(etic) viewpoint, and Brooks is a Native
American of Yurok and Toowa descent
with deep persona ties to the area and
first-hand (emic) knowedge of the sub-
ject. We attempted a synergistic view:
a cooperative and creative meding of
mutipe perspectives and sources, and
through this, hope we have presented
readers with a humanistic and more
reaistic account than either of us coud
have produced separatey. Our views
are in accordance with post-coonia
frameworks encapsuating notions of
hybridity, persistence, and survivance,
especiay those that emphasize the
active and creative roes of indigenous
and/or coonized groups who negoti-
ated socio-poitica andscapes with
arger, dominant, or more powerfu
groups or entities.
The Toowa (Taa-aa-wa Dee-ni’) are
an indigenous Athabaskan-speaking
peope with territory in both north-
western Caifornia and southwestern
Oregon. Before the eary s, that
region was inhabited by dense popu-
ations of indigenous communities
who practiced a hunting, gathering,
and fishing way of ife and who ived
in semi-subterranean pank houses
within permanent viages custered
aong the Pacific coast, estuaries, and
rivers. The Toowa share a common
anguage and cutura heritage with
other Athabaskan-speaking peopes
iving in what is now caed Oregon,
incuding the Chetco, Umpqua, Tutuni,
Coquie, Gaice Creek, and Appegate
Vaey groups. A of these groups were
severey aected by Euro-American
contact but, prior to that time, orga-
nized their societies in substantia
pank-house dweings in viages set
aong major waterways. These viages
were inhabited for most of the year,
but peope dispersed to hunt, fish,
and gather foods and other materi-
112 113
OHQ vol. 118, no. 1 Tushingham and Brooks, Inland Sanctuary
as according to the seasons. Major
viages tended to be strategicay
ocated near prime foraging ocations
such as estuaries, river mouths and
conuences, and protected coasta
Within viages, peope ived in two
types of houses: famiy houses and
sweathouses. Women and chidren
ived in famiy houses, whie men and
post-pubescent boys ived in
sweathouses, and there were
(on average) about three famiy
houses for every sweathouse,
which formed the “sweathouse
group.” These house custers
were grouped according to
extended famiy ines. These
houses were substantia struc-
tures designed to keep out
the cod and wet typica of the
coasta rainforest. Construc-
tion of the houses was a group
project; they were typicay
owned by weathy men who fed
reatives during house-buiding,
which incuded the aborious
task of spitting and preparing
redwood panks using adzes,
maus, and wedges, part of
a substantia woodworking
technoogy aso used in canoe-
buiding that distinguishes the
Pacific Northwest Coast. Stores
of food were kept in baskets
within women’s houses, and
this food, coected for the most
part during the summer and fa,
was critica to surviva during
the cod and wet winter months.
The peope utiized the
region’s bounty to support their
substantia popuations. The Toowa
homeand encompassed an array of
productive ecozones (such as estuar-
ies, upands, coasta zones, rivers,
and interior Oak woodands) that
produced major stapes, incuding
samon, acorns, smet, and marine
mammas, which were suppemented
by a cornucopia of other foods. Indeed,
the peope were experts in the and;
THIS SKETCH by Rusty Van Rossman documents
the reconstructed Toowa Sweathouse at Red
Ederberry Pace. A sma Toowa popuation
remained at Red Ederberry after Euro-American
contact, and this is was possiby the home of
“Chief Phiips,” the ast Toowa man to ive at
the viage.
they knew where and when certain
foods woud become avaiabe and
how best to extract them using sophis-
ticated technoogy. Viages tended
to be poiticay autonomous, but
there was unity and order within the
system. Peope were oya to certain
viage districts or yvlh-’i~ (‘that which
is ooked over’), had economic ties,
shared a common pace of genesis,
and came together for ceremonies
such as the Word Renewa System.
Order was aso derived from a compex
system of torts and currency (she
bead money) and an unambiguous
sense of aw and ownership. This
socio-poitica andscape, documented
in ethnographic and ora histories as
we as archaeoogicay, persisted for
thousands of years.
Whie waves of European cooniza-
tion from about the s to the s
directy affected Indian groups in
southern and centra Caifornia and in
areas to the north, indigenous peopes
in the State of Jeerson argey main-
tained contro over their ancestra
territory. Those first encounters were
generay reativey brief and were
argey imited to interactions with
transient exporers and fur traders.
Athough direct contact was imited,
oca Indian popuations suffered
THIS EARTH COVERED Toowa sweat house was found at an unknown ocation
on the Smith River, dates from the ate s or eary s, and is another exampe of
subterranean men’s sweathouses.
De Norte County Historica Society
114 115
OHQ vol. 118, no. 1 Tushingham and Brooks, Inland Sanctuary
waves of European-introduced disease
that atered and reduced popuations,
according to ora histories coected
by Goud. More recenty, severa
studies from Coos and Curry coun-
ties in southwestern Oregon have
empoyed archaeoogica data reated
to settement-pattern changes to sup-
port the caim that disease significanty
reduced popuations during the eary
contact (or protohistoric) period. Sti,
they maintained their ongstanding
socia and poitica customs and contin-
ued to ive in many of the same ancient
viages their forebears had inhabited
for centuries.
This reative stabiity dramaticay
changed during the Caifornia God
Rush, which began in  and brought
an unprecedented wave of fortune
seekers to parts of the West that had,
unti then, argey remained unsetted
by Euro-Americans. For oca Indian
popuations, this was a devastating
period invoving massive popuation
upheava and vioent conict, incuding
genocida vioence in many paces.
Many Indians perished during the
height of the God Rush, and even after
the mining fever died down by about
 to , surviving Native peopes
faced continued chaenges incuding
forced removas to reservations, preju-
dice, and vioent conict, such as the
Modoc War and other ess we-known
The Toowa refer to the massacres
and upheava of the s as “the time
the word was turned upside down.”
Edward Curtis wrote that “With the
Toowa of Smith River, there was
troube amost from the very begin-
ning,” with vioence recorded as eary
as . The most we-known vioent
incident of this era occurred at the
sacred viage of Yontocket, the arg-
est Toowa settement at the time, with
about thirty houses. Yontocket is the
Toowa pace of genesis, where Cre-
ator made the First Redwood Tree and
the First Peope. In the winter of ,
many Toowa were gathered there for
a Word Renewa Dance. At dawn on
the third day of the ten-day ceebration,
a group of armed men from Crescent
City, who suspected the Indians of the
murder of severa prospectors, set
fire to the houses. They gunned down
men, women, and chidren as they
fed the burning houses. Hundreds
died, and ony a few Toowa survived
the massacre. One man survived by
escaping to a nearby sough. He took
cover for hours and ater reported: “I
coud hear them peope taking and
aughing. I ooked in the water, and
the water was just red with bood, with
peope oating around a over.”The
viage burned for days and became
known as “Burnt Ranch.
Other simiary deady incidents
occurred in Toowa country in the eary
s. For exampe, kiings occurred at
major viages, incuding Howonquet,
with seventy peope kied in ,
Tatatun in , and Etchuet in 
as we as many other smaer and ess
we-known incidents that have ony
recenty been documented in print.
These were not soitary events; they
were part of a period of ongoing and
deiberate terror and vioence toward
Native peopes, detaied in a recent
study documenting seventeen other
events when mutipe Toowa but no
whites were kied. Foowing these
vioent conicts, Toowa peope began
to ee to hinterand or outpost areas
in an eort to survive an era of mass
kiing that, as recenty shown by Ben-
jamin Madey, ceary fits the United
Nations’ definition of genocide.
Whie the major massacres were
over by , and the peak of the God
Rush in De Norte County was over
two years ater, vioence and prejudice
continued. During the mid s to the
s, agents of the federa govern-
ment reocated Toowa survivors to
a series of reservations in northern
Caifornia and Oregon, incuding the
Kamath Reservation from  to .
Remova to the Sietz Reservation in
southwest Oregon began in , one
resut of the Rogue River War. Mining
continued, as “Copper fever” swept
the area in the s, and sma pacer
mines were worked in the county into
the twentieth century.
Simpy put, this was a time when
it was dangerous to be Indian. Many
perished, moved away, or ost their
connection to their ancestra communi-
ties because they had to ee, had to
hide their Indian cuture, or were forced
to attend boarding schoos. The com-
bination of vioence, forced removas,
disease, and oss of traditiona ands
ed to a dramatic popuation crash.
Pre-contact Toowa popuation in what
is now De Norte County is estimated
to have been , to , individu-
as. After contact, Toowa numbers
decined to an estimated  in 
and  in . By , a government
census enumerated the Toowa at 
Despite these extreme difficuties,
many indigenous peope maintained
their identity and community cohe-
siveness. Today, there are many triba
communities comprising individuas
who are the descendants of survivors
and who have maintained traditiona
connections and rich indigenous tradi-
tions. Despite their precipitous decine
in popuation, Toowa peope did
persist, a remarkabe fact given what
we know about the extraordinary dif-
ficuties that indigenous peope faced
during this period.
How did the reative few Toowa
survive, and how did they utimatey
contribute to the demographic expan-
sion of the modern Toowa community?
How did they activey negotiate the
post–God Rush era andscape? Put
another way, what were their strategies
of persistence? Whie there is no singe
answer to these questions, we hope to
shed ight on these compex dynamics
through the foowing case study.
We address these questions by consid-
ering the histories of three househods
that ived at Xaa-yuu-chit (Hiouchi) in
the Smith River Basin, northwestern
Caifornia, during the mid to ate s.
These househods incuded surviving
viagers at Red Ederberry Pace, a
Toowa viage with an amost ,-
116 117
OHQ vol. 118, no. 1 Tushingham and Brooks, Inland Sanctuary
year history of occupation, and two
Indian-white househods, the Catch-
ings and the Cookes. A three were
part of a margina muti-ethnic com-
munity that was, sociay and physi-
cay, on the fringe of the dominant
setter community. These househods
interacted with and thrived at their
inand sanctuary for decades, unti
the Catching and Red Ederberry Vi-
age househods disintegrated in .
The Cooke househod persisted in the
oca area and, despite a odds, famiy
members maintained their Indian iden-
tity. Today, their descendants are part
of a thriving Toowa community based
in De Norte County, Caifornia. The
utimate causes of their success are
compex and incude themes of con-
nectivity, historica ties, exibiity and
independence, and the importance of
women in maintaining the cutura fiber
of Toowa society.
Hiouchi Fat is a bucoic area
aong the north bank of the Smith
River about eeven mies inand from
the Pacific coast that continues to
be popuar with sport fishermen,
campers, and nature overs. The at
encompasses a portion of Jedediah
Smith Redwood Nationa and State
Parks, and it is famous for its ta Red-
wood trees (Sequoia sempervirens)
and samon. It is aso the ocation of
modern-day Hiouchi, a sma ham-
et ocated in the same area as the
historic Toowa pace Xaa-yuu-chit,
the meaning of which is quite fitting:
in Toowa it transates to ‘important/
beautifu water,’ with xaa-yuu deriving
from the words for a headman or per-
son of high status and chit transating
to stream. “So,” as inguist and triba
eader Loren Bommeyn expains,
“they reay thought that was a nice
Beginning at east , years
ago, peope camped in the area and
eft sophisticated stone toos, some of
which were made from exotic vocanic
obsidian, obtained from sources up
to  kiometers away. Archaeoogy
reveaed house oors that are over
, years od. Peope begin iving in
Pacific Northwest Coast–stye pank
houses (substantia square or recti-
inear houses buit with Redwood or
Cedar panks) at Red Ederberry Pace
and at east two other viages by about
, years ago. Viage ife persisted
in the region unti Euro-American con-
tact. Archiva research suggests that
squatters and miners set up transient
residences on Hiouchi Fat beginning
in the s or s and that ong-
term settement of the area by Indian
famiies after the mid s was imited
to the three househods discussed
here. One was a remnant popuation
of Toowas iving in traditiona pank
houses at Red Ederberry viage, and
two were Indian-white househods, the
Catchings and the Cookes. Ony the
Cookes persisted after .
Jedediah Smith was the first white
man to venture through De Norte
County, where he came in , trave-
ing inand to Hiouchi Fat or its immedi-
ate environs. A member of the Cooke
famiy (Johnny “Cook”) provided an
account of Smith’s foray into the Smith
River basin. Apparenty, after Smith
and his party forded the Smith River,
they set up camp on its north side, pos-
siby at Peacock Fat (approximatey
two mies downriver from the Hiouchi
Bridge and the ocation of the Toowa
viage See-tr’ee-ghin-dvm). Two men,
aong with Smith, eft the camp for a
brief exporatory foray upriver; they
traveed through Hiouchi Fat, making
it as far east as the Midde and South
forks of the Smith River. Prior to return-
ing to the main camp, the sma party
reached the junction of Myrte Creek
and the Midde Fork, which is just to the
east of the area where we conducted
archaeoogica research. After this
event, the party headed north aong
the coast into Oregon, where many in
Smith’s party were kied in a conict
with the Umpqua Indians. The survivors
escaped north of the Coumbia River,
to the Hudson’s Bay Company’s Fort
Sustained white presence did not
occur unti after about , when a
deuge of peope entered the area
in search of god. They estabished
major mining centers in severa
paces within Toowa country as we
as smaer operations in the immedi-
ate area. A series of trais traversed
Hiouchi Fat, incuding the Cod
Spring Mountain Trai, the ony artery
between Crescent City and inand
mining centers in Oregon such as
Wado (previousy Saior’s Diggings).
Crescent City was founded as a ship-
ping port for suppying the mines, and
the trai was buit in  to transport
peope and suppies to the mines via
mue train. The trai crossed the Smith
River near Mi Creek at Back’s Ferry,
a stone’s throw from Red Ederberry
(see map on facing page). A stage
road was buit ater, but the Cod
Springs Mountain Trai remained in
use unti at east . The Gasquet
To Road of  foowed the Smith
River on its south bank, opposite
Red Ederberry viage. These roads
remained the main form of transpor-
tation through the area unti State
Highway  was buit in .
There is itte doubt that the Toowa
viagers who ived at Hiouchi Fat were
aware of these eary white intruders.
Whie it is unknown whether viag-
ers at Red Ederberry Pace directy
contacted or avoided Smith on his
brief visit through the at in , by
the s, the newcomers coud not
be ignored. There was a period of
extreme upheava, during the height
of the massacres and the mining, fo-
owed by a period of transition that is
our focus here. Beow we describe
the three permanent househods who
inhabited Hiouchi Fat during this
period of transition. We begin with the
at’s eariest indigenous inhabitants —
the viagers at Red Ederberry Pace
— foowed by two new muti-ethnic
(Indian-white) househods, the Cookes
and the Catchings.
Chvn-su’lh-dun, Athabaskan for Red
Ederberry Pace (CA-DNO-), was a
Toowa viage occupied from ,
BP unti AD . The viagers at
Red Ederberry Pace, aong with the
peope who occupied severa other
archaeoogica sites on Hiouchi Fat,
were of Toowa ancestry and were the
eariest inhabitants of the area. After
118 119
OHQ vol. 118, no. 1 Tushingham and Brooks, Inland Sanctuary
contact, and despite great odds, a
remnant popuation of Toowa peope
persisted in iving at Red Ederberry
Pace. According to Toowa eders
interviewed by Phiip Drucker in ,
during the atter haf of the nineteenth
century, the viage had two houses
and a sweathouse — which ikey rep-
resented an extended famiy house
custer or “sweathouse group” — and
was a “suburb” or sateite connected
to the arger coasta site of Tatatun.
This is consistent with archaeoogica
findings at the site, which documented
a sma custer of house depressions
that dates to between AD  and
. We excavated one structure in
this area of the site and determined it
to be a men’s pank sweathouse.
Archaeoogica findings at the site
demonstrate that, despite the great
socia upheava of the mid to ate s,
not ony did peope persist in iving at
Red Ederberry, they aso continued to
ive in much the way they had before
white contact whie aso incorporating
newy introduced materias (such as
gass and meta objects), technoogy
(guns and ammunition), and food (beef)
into their traditiona cutura system.
After , Red Ederberry viagers
witnessed Euro-Americans traveing
aong the nearby road and trais as we
as a number who setted in the immedi-
ate area. According to census records,
most were temporary neighbors such
as transient miners and aborers. The
Red Ederberry viage was joined
by two Indian-white famiies — the
Catchings and the Cookes — who first
appeared on census records in .
The  Federa Census record gives
us the eariest concrete evidence of an
Indian-white famiy in the Hiouchi area,
the Cooke famiy. The Cookes were
Gee Dee-ni’, upriver Toowa, and had
deep ancestra connections to viages
throughout Toowa country, a point we
wi return to ater in our discussion.
In , the Cookes incuded George
Cook (age thirty-five, born in Engand),
his Indian wife Juia (age twenty-five,
iiterate, occupation isted as “keeping
house”), and their son John (age two).
We do not know what Toowa viage
Juia was from, but she is remembered
by Toowa as Indian, a fact that is con-
firmed by the census. Later censuses
confirm that the Cookes remained at
Hiouchi Fat and had a daughter, Emiy,
who was born around .
Around the eary s, Juia and
George’s son John married an Indian
woman, Minnie Bob; they had five
daughters and two sons between 
and . Minnie Bob was from Big Fat,
an upriver viage on the South Fork of
the Smith River. Her mother was Kate
Biy, who had roots at Etchuet in the
Lake Ear area. Her brother was the
famous Toowa man Rock Biy, whose
Indian name was Wayn-t’i or Wyentae.
Rock Biy moved to Big Fat after iv-
ing at “Rock Biy Pace” on the eastern
shore of the Lake Ear estuary on the
coast (see map on previous page). Min-
nie Bob’s bioogica father (Kate Biy’s
first husband) was Litte Bob, an Indian
man whose parents were from viages
on the coast (Yontocket) and on an
isand at the mouth of the Smith River
THIS MAP documents eary roads — which typicay foowed ancient Indian trais — in
nortwestern Caifornia and southwestern Oregon from  to . The inset detai shows
Hiouchi Fat in . Readers shoud note the proximity of Red Ederberry Viage to the
Catching homestead and Catching Ferry, which connected Saiors Diggings (Wado),
Oregon, to Crescent City, Caifornia. Ephraim and Mary Catching were married in Wado.
The base map is redrawn from Dorris Chase’s They Pushed Back the Forest (), and the
inset base map is redrawn from the Genera Land Oce (GLO) Pat Map for TN RE ().
120 121
OHQ vol. 118, no. 1 Tushingham and Brooks, Inland Sanctuary
(Srdvn-das-’a~). Minnie Bob’s stepfather
(Kate Biy’s second husband) was Pete
Sontash (known to Toowa community
as “Big Fat Pete”), whose father was
Sowtas, a man from Yontocket viage.
In , after years of iving in
the Hiouchi Fat area, John Cooke
received an Indian Aotment there. His
aotment was in the eastern section of
Hiouchi Fat near a present-day tacke
shop. His brother Water Cooke, who
was born in , owned and upriver
at Wagon Whee (Tee-nee-chvn-dvn,
‘road at the foot of’), between Hiouchi
Fat and Gasquet. The Cooke famiies
ived at these aotments for many
decades. In , we interviewed one
of their descendants, Neie Chisman,
great-granddaughter of Kate Biy,
granddaughter of Minnie Bob, and
daughter of Letty Cooke. Neie grew
up at the Cooke aotment at Hiou-
chi Fat and detaied for us many
aspects of ife in the area during
the eary to mid s.
Neie aso vividy remem-
bered her grandmother Minnie,
who ived to be  and died
around . She remem-
bered that Minnie had been
brought up traditionay and
coud easiy understand and
speak Toowa and Yurok. Min-
nie was a sma, hardworking
woman of few words. Margaret
Brooks, Loren Bommeyn, and
Neie Chisman said that she
aways kept her hair ong and
in braids and wore a hat and
makeup, incuding rouge in tra-
ditiona circes on her cheeks.
Neie remembers that her
grandfather John Cooke was
a “handsome man, rea good ooking. .
. . I think he ony swatted me one time,
a the time that we were out there.” He
occasionay panned for god at French
Hi and served as a maiman, working a
route between Hiouchi Fat and Grant’s
Pass. She recaed that it took him about
a week to get to Grant’s Pass by horse.
Neie shared with us an image of
her grandparents Minnie and John at
their aotment at Hiouchi Fat. After
Minnie died, the aotment was divided
by her famiy and parts of it were sod.
The fina parce from the origina Cooke
aotment at Hiouchi Fat was ony
recenty sod. Neie’s mother, Letty, and
her first cousin, Esie Brown, aso ived
at Hiouchi Fat and ived to be .
are pictured here at their Hiouchi Aotment in
the s or s. Minnie Bob was from Big Fat,
a viage on the south fork of the Smith River.
John Cooke’s father and mother were one of the
eariest Indian-white famiies in the Hiouchi area.
The Catching famiy consisted of
Ephraim Cannon Catching, Mary
Moore, and their thirteen chidren.
Ephraim Catching, a white man
originay from Tennessee, was
one of the eariest white set-
ters of Coos County, southwest
Oregon. A few months before
his death, Catching recounted
some of his eary ife to Ephraim
Musick, a teacher at the Hiouchi
Fat schoo, who ater pub-
ished the story in the Sunday
Oregonian. Catching was an
emigre from Tennessee who
came to the Wiamette Va-
ey, Oregon, via Missouri with
two brothers in . He went
south to Caifornia with a group
of god seekers after the first
god strikes in . On his way
south, Catching caimed to have
been witness to an episode that
sparked the Rogue River War.
Whether that specific incident
was the cause of the war is uncear; as
one reviewer of this manuscript noted,
“the episode of vioence noted coud
have happened, but it was simpy one
of many things that spoke to vioence
of that era, and did not in and of itsef
start the Rogue River War.”
Catching then spent a period of
time mining in Pacervie, Caifornia,
and then, after amassing and subse-
quenty osing (to theft) a great dea
of money, as we as unsuccessfuy
pursuing his brother’s murderer, he
returned to Oregon via ship from San
Francisco and setted in an area near
present-day Roseburg. During this
time, Catching became the first pioneer
of Coos Bay: his exporations of the
coast with another white man and an
Indian guide incuded settement at
Catching Sough, a part of Coos Bay
he intended to deveop, foowed by
the “discovery” of the Coquie River
via portage canoe and settement of
present-day Myrte Point. After setting
up at Myrte Point, he abandoned his
settement at Coos Bay. In , Catch-
ing married a oca Native American
woman, Frances Quinton, who, accord-
ing to eary newspaper accounts, was
the daughter of a Coquie headman
or chief (as a Coquie, Quinton woud
Minnie Bob’s mother and stepfather, are pictured
here with their three daughters. Kate’s traditiona
face tattoos are visibe in this photograph.
122 123
OHQ vol. 118, no. 1 Tushingham and Brooks, Inland Sanctuary
We interviewed Neie (Maurer) Chisman (–) severa times in  for our
research on Hiouchi. Neie was an enroed Toowa Dee-ni’ triba member who
grew up in Hiouchi — she was born in her home on her famiy’s aotment that had
been hed since the s. Chisman recounted stories of growing up in Hiouchi
as we sat with her in her home adorned with her wonderfu basket coection and
famiy photographs — we admired two photographs in particuar that were in od
ova bubbe gass frames that she aowed us to copy (see Chisman’s photographs
on p.  and ).
During our conversations she recaed with fondness a simpe, modest, and
tough rura upbringing. As a young gir she ived with her six sisters and parents
(Letty Cooke and Harod Maurer) in a sma and sparsey furnished cabin with two
rooms and two beds, a stove and a tabe. She ater moved in with her grandparents
in their cabin that was buit by her grandfather on the same Indian aotment. It was
a sma, L-shaped cabin with a front room, three bedrooms, and a kitchen. Neie
remembered there being a woodstove, a sma cabinet or mik safe, and a big tabe.
Athough occurring severa decades ater, Neie’s memories of Hiouchi reect a
simpe, rura homeife simiar to that of the Catchings who ived on the at unti 
(see the Catching’s historica account on p. –). Hiouchi was quite remote in
those eary days, even after the Hiouchi Bridge was buit in . Chisman’s famiy,
ike many others at the time, was sef-sucient and did what they had to in order to
survive. Her grandfather hunted and panned for god, and the famiy kept a garden
and grew strawberries. Her grandmother sod the strawberries and huckeberries
and made her own bread. She canned appesauce and whatever ese grew in the
garden. Cothes were washed by hand using a scrub board. Her grandmother made
quits without a machine. There was no eectricity or indoor pumbing. When Neie
or one of her sibings was born, her grandfather had to get the midwife in Crescent
City by boat because they didn’t drive: “he had to take a boat across…the Smith River.
And, go get [the midwife] . . . and grandma deivered [the baby] . . . he waked in the
house, he’s, [“oh darn!”] ‘cause he had to turn around and take her back across the
river and the weather was bad, so the river was rough . . . he had to row across and
row back.”
Neie and her famiy went to Crescent City — by car with a Mr. Short — about
once a month to buy suppies such as aundry soap, beans, canned mik, and our.
The food they ate was pain and unseasoned. Her famiy ate a ot of pain beans
and siced potatoes which were simpy boied in water and unseasoned, and these
were suppemented with traditiona foods ike fried ees. The Maurer kids ate oat-
mea mush every morning for years, and “for a whie there, I coudn’t eat mush for
years [aughter].” Every once in a whie they woud buy a “pound of hamburger or
something, which we had to eat up right away. And that was a treat.
Neie remembered the Zophis — a famiy that ived at Hiouchi Fat on a parce
previousy owned by the Catchings and now owned by the Nationa Park Service — a
more we to do famiy than Neie’s. For exampe, they had indoor pumbing in their
arge two-story Victorian. Neie recaed that she was never aowed to go to the
house, but she did attend schoo at a one room schoohouse on the Zophi property,
which was just down the road from her house. (This schoo is ikey the one started
by the Catchings or one that repaced the Catching schoo once they moved away.)
The schooteacher at the time was Mrs. Robinson, and a of the chidren in first
through eighth grades that went to the schoo.
Both Indian and white students attended the schoo. Neie, her sibings, and
her cousins from Dougas Park were the ony Indian chidren at the schoo. Despite
pervasive discrimination against Indians in many paces in De Norte County at the
time, Neie fet that she was not treated any dierenty than other chidren. Mrs.
Robinson was firm with ALL the kids, and despite her strictness, a of the chidren
iked her: “When you waked in that door, you said, ‘Good morning, Mrs. Robinson.
When you waked out, you said, ‘Good night, Mrs. Robinson.’ And when she said
something, you did it. Yeah, you earned. I mean, we had to memorize a ot of stu . . .
she’d aways have everyone doing something.”
The schoohouse was simpe, with a woodstove in the corner and a sma coset
for coats and unches. Boys and girs sat on dierent sides of the cassroom, and
during recess and unch the chidren were aowed to go to the store in Hiouchi to
buy candy if they had money.
They usuay just payed games ike kickba and Hide ’n Go Seek, and were
aowed to wander the area: “She’d just turn us oose and we’d pay Hide ‘n’ Go
Seek, you know, ’cause there’s a those woods there. And, she never said anything
about us going into the woods, you know. As ong as we were back… ’cause the be
woud ring, and, man, that meant, ‘You get back here, right now’.” Once they gradu-
ated eighth grade, Neie and other chidren in Hiouchi traveed by bus to Crescent
City to go to high schoo.
Neie earned a ot about Indian ways through the inuence of her traditiona
grandmother, Minnie Bob. She expressed regret that she did not earn more of the
Toowa anguage from her uent grandmother, but sti knew many words and phrases
when we interviewed her in . Overa, her chidhood in Hiouchi was simiar to
other chidren who were raised in a rura setting with itte money in the Depression
era. Her attitude was proud and matter-of-fact about her upbringing: “We never had
any money, but we never went hungry . . . so, what more coud you ask for — a roof
over your head and food in your mouth?”
124 125
OHQ vol. 118, no. 1 Tushingham and Brooks, Inland Sanctuary
have spoken an Oregon Athabaskan
anguage simiar to Toowa). Ephraim
and Frances had four chidren, a isted
in eary census records as Indian, but
after Frances died of consumption in
, Ephraim started a new ife, with a
new wife, in De Norte County.
Ephraim married Mary Moore, a
Native American woman born in 
who had a white father (W.H. Moore)
and an Indian mother of Toowa or
reated descent. The cosest Triba
groups near where Mary ived when
Ephraim met her incude Toowa,
Chetco, Takema, Karuk, Modoc, and
ater aotment records ist Mary as
Toowa. At age fourteen, when the
 census was taken, Mary ived in
Wado with A.B. McIwain, a dry goods
merchant, and his famiy. As the ony
Indian in the househod, she may have
been a servant who worked in the shop
or took care of the young chidren
in the famiy. Another Indian chid,
Thomas Moore, age five, possiby her
younger brother, ived nearby with a
fifty-four-year-od white man.
Ephraim and Mary were married
in Wado, Oregon, around
 or , and they had
their first chid in De Norte
County within the year. Mary
and Ephraim had thirteen
chidren between  and
: Wiiam, Mary Ida,
Ruben, Martha Jane, Water
Frankin, Thomas Ephraim,
Rose, Benjamin, David
Jones, Margaret, George
Washington, Eizabeth
(Lizzie), and Esie (Letsy).
They owned a farming and
ranching operation cover-
ing a arge part of Hiouchi
Fat from the s into
the s. In the s,
Toowa eders gave the
viage pace-name of Xaa-
yuu-chit to the area where
the Catchings had ived:
they described the pace as
‘Ketchen Ranch at Hiouchi’
(Ketchen is amost certainy
a misspeing of Catching).
The pace-name Xaa-yuu-
chit, whie connected to the
Catching homestead, ikey
IN ABOUT 1875 OR 1876, Ephraim Catching, an
eary white setter in the State of Jeerson, married
Mary Moore, a woman born in  to an Indian mother
and white father. Ephraim and Mary Moore are pictured
here in an undated photograph.
Coos Historica and Maritime Museum, image -.
was aso a pre-contact name connected
to an ancient viage associated with
an archaeoogica site (CA-DNO-)
discovered during our fiedwork that
had been on the same ocation as the
Catching homestead.
The Catching home and severa
cabins were ocated near the modern-
day firehouse. Barns and outbuid-
ings were ocated to the north. A
sacred pace is aso documented in
the immediate area, Ts’a~s-k’wvlh,
‘The Widow’ rock. Other than the
above, ora histories among the
Toowa community about the Catch-
ings are acking. Census records and
other historica documents, however,
have fied in some of the gaps. The
Catching farming and ranching opera-
tion grew to as arge as  acres
and covered most of Hiouchi Fat. (A
gimpse into the sef-sucient rura
ifestye the Catchings ed on their
homestead is incuded in the sidebar
on the foowing pages.)
The persistence of the remaining
viagers at the traditiona viage at
Red Ederberry in the aftermath of the
Caifornia God Rush can be attributed
to a combination of factors, incuding
distance from major white settement
at Crescent City. Each individua’s
story was dierent, and sheer uck
THE WALDO STORE is pictured here in the ate s. Wado (Saior’s Diggings) is the
frontier mining town where Mary Moore ived with dry goods merchant A.B. McIwain
and his famiy. McIwain sod the store in , and it was ater sod to Chares Decker,
whose name is on the store in this photograph, in .
Josephine County Historica Society
126 127
OHQ vol. 118, no. 1 Tushingham and Brooks, Inland Sanctuary
undoubtedy payed a roe in the sur-
viva of many, especiay during the
height of the massacres. According to
ora histories, many Toowa survived
simpy by taking refuge in the inand
mountains or other hinterand areas
to ee vioence near Crescent City.
In the years foowing the massacres,
some Toowa resetted viages,
continuing to inhabit severa into
the twentieth century. Theirs was an
extremey tenuous existence, how-
ever. Native peope had to navigate a
andscape where vioence and kiings
were common, and where they faced
reguar reservation round-ups by oca
enisted brigades.
Toowa today sti recount stories
of this time that their oder rea-
tives passed aong to them: Persis-
tence through the mid to ate s
depended on “ying under the radar,”
or hiding one’s “Indianness,” for exam-
pe by wearing western cothing (rather
than Indian garb), engaging in the wage
economy, and not speaking Indian
anguages in pubic settings. Toowa
cuture persisted, but in genera, pubic
aspects of traditiona ife (such as major
dances, incuding the Word Renewa
Ceremony or Nee-dash) were forced
underground; peope had earned from
the massacres that it was simpy too
dangerous to congregate. Even ater
BATTISTA ROBERT J. SARINA, pictured here at the Catching homestead, was an
eary setter of De Norte County and an immigrant from Switzerand, Readers shoud
note the outbuidings and barns, which were once ocated north of the Catching home.
De Norte Historica Society
peope suered prejudice, and were
reuctant to speak Toowa or practice
Indian ways. Indeed, many agree that it
was not unti recenty that being Indian
was “coo.”
We suggest that another impor-
tant factor in the persistence
of Red Ederberry was that the
cosest permanent setters to the
viage — the Catchings and the
Cookes — were ikey friendy to,
or at east toerant of, oca Indi-
ans, especiay given the Native
American ancestry of the women
and chidren in those househods.
The Cookes and Catchings ived
on the Fat at the same time and
evidenty were friendy with each
other (see image on p. ).
Another strategy of persistence that has
not been emphasized in pubications
about the Toowa, but is quite evident
among the Toowa themseves and has
been written about for groups in south-
western Oregon, is the importance of
women to the persistence of the Toowa
community. Beginning with the God
Rush, white men began ooding areas
of the West that had previousy been
argey exempt from significant white
settement. As has been pointed out
PICTURED HERE is the Catching home under construction in about  or . The
Catchings were one of three famiies studied who ived at Hiouchi Fat during the mid to
ate s. Hiouchi Fat is ocated aong the Smith River about  mies inand from the
Pacific coast in northern Caifornia.
De Norte Historica Society
128 129
OHQ vol. 118, no. 1 Tushingham and Brooks, Inland Sanctuary
In , Raph Hughes, a resident of Hiouchi, pubished a historica account of Hiouchi
in the January and February  editions of the De Norte County Historica Society
Buetin. Hughes’s commentary, excerpts of which are reproduced here, provides a
rich gimpse of the sef-sucient rura ifestye the Catchings ed on their homestead.
A pioneer [Ephraim Catching] who had come to the Oregon country in the 1840s and
had explored and lived in Coos Bay, Coquille, Myrtle Point and Roseburg, came to
Del Norte and purchased land that, when cleared and developed, became known
as the Catching Ranch.
Mr. Catching began clearing ground and in the course of time had built a house,
cabins, barns, poultry houses, and fenced in the various fields. The sidehill on the
north was cleared of trees and planted to grass. This was used for a large ock
of sheep.
Pasture and barns for livestock were located on the north side of the present high-
way. Just west of the present Hiouchi Café was the location of the family home and
several cabins. A shop and a store room made up the balance of the buildings.
Fences were built all over the place to enclose the pastures, gardens and orchards.
These fences were made of split rails and were built by laying the rails horizontally
in a worm or zigzag fashion. Some of the higher and stronger fences were made
by driving split pickets into the ground.
The walls of some of the buildings were made of split Redwood planks that were
placed in a vertical position. The planks used in the family homes were hand-planed
to give the walls a smooth appearance. Split Redwood shakes covered the roofs of all
the buildings and they were also used on the outside walls of some of the structures.
A private school room was built for the children of the Catching family.
The gardens and several orchards were placed on the south side of the present
highway. Near the house were planted apple, pear, and plum trees, and further east
was the two-acre peach orchard that was located on the south side of the highway
opposite the settlement now known as Fertile Valley.
Herb Pomeroy, a former timber cruiser, told me that when he was a boy he had seen
this peach orchard and it had produced some of the biggest and finest peaches
he had ever seen.
In addition to fruit, every kind of vegetable was produced on the place. There were
crops of potatoes, tomatoes, corn, beans, peas, squash, pumpkins, watermelons,
cantaloupe and many kinds of berries. Water was ditched in to the orchards and
gardens, and fertilizer was gathered from the barns and corrals. Oak leaf mold was
also used for a mulch in both the garden and berry patch.
This farm was self-sustaining. Nearly everything the family needed for food was
raised here. Besides the fruit and vegetables, there were eggs, milk, cream, butter,
poultry, beef, pork and mutton for meat. Catching hauled most of his produce to
Crescent City, selling some of it to Hobbs-Wall and the rest around town. Wool, too,
was a good source of revenue and was as good as money in the bank.
At that time there was no county road to the Catching ranch. The only way to Cres-
cent City was by the old Grants Pass-Crescent City Stage Road that was on the other
side of the river. To reach that road Catching stretched a heavy cable across the
river, anchoring a couple of pulleys, mail, freight or passengers could be transported
across the river at any hour of the day regardless of the weather. The cable is still
suspended across the river and is only used now to keep tab on the rise and fall of
the water in Smith River.
The first school was a private one and was operated for the Catching children. By
1891 several families resided north of the present bridge, with enough children to
organize a public school. The necessary trustees were chosen and Edwin Moore
was hired as the first teacher. Eph Musick as a boy attended this school and nine
years later he served as a teacher for a year in the district. The Catching children
received their schooling here and a number of the younger members of the family
attended the Del Norte High School on J St. in Crescent City.
Mr. Catching was one of the first pioneers in this part of the west, coming into the
Oregon country in the early 1840s. He pioneered and helped develop several settle-
ments before coming to Del Norte. Since coming from his home in Tennessee as a
young man, he had seen much of the development of the west and in his own way,
helped make some of those developments come true.
Time has a way of changing things. After a long adventurous and useful life, Epherem
[sic] Catching passed on to meet his maker and was buried on the at just north of
the present highway near the drive that starts up the hill to Sawyers. Several mem-
bers of his family were also buried there. With the passing of the elder Catching the
other members of the family moved away
Hughes, Raph, “Hiouchi.” Del Norte County Historical Society Bulletin, January–February, .
130 131
OHQ vol. 118, no. 1 Tushingham and Brooks, Inland Sanctuary
esewhere, very few white women were
part of the eariest waves of emigration,
and white men often sought Indian
women as sexua partners and as wives,
at east in part for domestic hep.
According to the  Caifornia
State census for Kamath County
(Kamath County then incuded pres-
ent-day De Norte and Humbodt
counties, which were not formed unti
ater), men outnumbered women on
a -to- ratio. A of the women were
white, and Indians were invisibe in
this census; there was not a singe
“domesticated Indian” and apparenty,
“undomesticated” Indians were not
counted. Note that  was at the
height of the massacres, so it was a
time when the Toowa were iteray
running for their ives.
Indian women coud escape res-
ervation round-ups and other dangers
by marrying or entering into part-
nerships with white men. As in the
exampes we detai here, this was
common in Toowa country: Toowa
women “married to Pioneers managed
to remain on in the Oregon Territory
at ocations ike Agness, God Beach,
Harbor and Port Orford. Being
attached to househods headed by
white men coud aso provide sanctu-
ary for Indian men; for exampe, five
members of an Indian famiy are isted
as part of the Catching famiy in ,
incuding two men.
WHITES  
TOTAL  
IN 1852, men outnumbered women on a -to- margin in Kamath County. This tabe
compies information taken from the  Caifornia State census for Kamath County, which
encompassed present-day De Norte and Humbodt counties. Readers shoud note that
the census did not enumerate indigenous peopes uness they had been “domesticated.
The termina occupation of Red Eder-
berry can be paced at , when
oca white residents shot and kied
its ast resident, “a renegade,” whie he
was eeing into the forest. The mur-
dered man may have been “Chief Phi-
ips,” who was buried on a prominent
kno severa mies downriver. That
same year, Ephraim Catching died of
heart disease, and shorty afterwards,
the Catching househod dissoved at
Hiouchi Fat.
It is impossibe to know what
happened first in : was the Red
Ederberry man murdered before or
after Ephraim’s death? Did the murder
inuence Mary’s decision to eave the
Hiouchi area? As Indians, were they
simpy too scared to stay at Hiouchi
without Ephraim, the white head of
househod? Or, if Ephraim died first,
perhaps with him gone and not there
to protect oca Indians, another white
setter decided to ki the ast inhabit-
ant of Red Ederberry viage?
However this occurred, the fact
remains that  marked the end of
these two househods. After that year,
the Red Ederberry viage cemetery
was maintained by oca Toowa who
ived in Smith River and near Crescent
City, but we do not know the fate of Red
Ederberry descendants. No Toowa
today are identified as direct descen-
dants of the viage inhabitants.
Shorty after Ephraim’s death in
, Mary Catching and the chidren
moved out of the area. Perhaps main-
taining a househod on the frontier
was too much for Mary and her chi-
dren. Perhaps it was too sad to stay in
the region, or maybe they were simpy
ooking for opportunities esewhere.
In any case, by , the remaining
Catchings had moved to Seatte,
where Mary was isted as head of
househod; she owned her home
free and cear and had her chidren
with her. Her oder chidren’s occupa-
tions incuded boiermaker, teamster,
schoo principa, oce cerk, receiving
cerk at a furniture store, and aborer.
In , the Bureau of Indian Aairs
estabished that Mary Catching and
Pete Sontash (of the Cooke famiy)
were “competent to own their and”
and transferred ega tite of their
Indian Aotments at Hiouchi Fat to
them. Mary apparenty ony sporadi-
cay visited her aotment.
Despite the end of the Catching
and Red Ederberry househods, the
Cookes remained at their Hiouchi aot-
ment. The Cookes, unike the Catch-
ings, had many more intact connections
to the oca Toowa community. Whie
Mary Catching was Indian, and ikey
Toowa or from a cosey reated Atha-
baskan speaking Group, she seems to
have been uprooted and was iving in
Wado when she married Ephraim and
moved to Hiouchi. In any case, she did
not seem to have maintained the same
deep roots in Toowa country that the
Cookes enjoyed, possiby because her
Indian famiy members had died or had
been dispaced. In contrast, the Cookes
had far-reaching and ong-standing
132 133
OHQ vol. 118, no. 1 Tushingham and Brooks, Inland Sanctuary
connections throughout Toowa ances-
tra territory — incuding at key viages
in inand areas at Hiouchi and Big Fat
(upriver on the South Fork of the Smith
River) as we as at viages on the
coast, at the mouth of the Smith River,
and on the Lake Ear estuary.
Later generations of Cookes con-
tinued to ive in Hiouchi, incuding the
famiy member we interviewed, Neie
Chisman. Cooke famiy descendants
today identify as Toowa and are part
of the arger Toowa community that
persists in De Norte County.
The Toowa faced what might appear
to be insurmountabe odds: as a
peope they ived through genocide,
extreme popuation upheava and
terribe hardship, prejudice, and per-
secution during the reservation period
and beyond. To navigate this post-
apocayptic andscape, Indian peope
activey empoyed a number of strate-
gies. For many, this invoved ight to
hinterand areas away from white com-
munities. Domestic sanctuary aso was
important. Many Indian women entered
into domestic partnerships with white
men, which was ikey a practica deci-
sion that aowed a woman and her
chidren to survive.
Here, we provide an exampe of
how Toowa peope persisted in the
aftermath of the God Rush at Hiouchi
Fat, an inand refuge at and near an
ancient Toowa viage site ocated
aong the Smith River in extreme
northwestern Caifornia. Remaining
viagers at Red Ederberry were part
of a surviving remnant popuation of
Toowa that were refugees within their
own ancestra ands. By the s, the
viagers at Red Ederberry ived aong-
side new Indian-white househods at
Hiouchi Fat. The three famiies essen-
tiay formed a transition community at
an inand sanctuary on the edge of the
dominant white community.
The paths these famiies foowed
varied, but during the mid to ate
s, a were iving a marginaized
existence, surviving in a word that
had been uttery shattered by historic
events. For many years, they persisted
in iving in the area, and many Indian
traditions were passed on because
of this persistence. Some perished,
others moved away, but some stayed.
And the descendants of the ones who
stayed, the Cookes, utimatey contrib-
uted to the cutura and demographic
surviva of the Toowa. Many descen-
dants of the Cookes continue to ive in
De Norte County, participate in Toowa
cuture, and are members of the Ek
Vaey Rancheria and Toowa Dee-ni’
Nation Tribes.
Today, there are over two thousand
Toowa peope who trace their ancestry
to the hundred odd survivors of the
God Rush era. The Toowa remain
deepy connected to the Hiouchi area,
its archaeoogica sites and sacred
paces, and the natura environment.
The area is recognized not ony for its
significance to Toowa history, but aso
for its importance to the commu-
nity’s continued sense of identity.
Today, Hiouchi Fat is owned by a
combination of private andown-
ers and federa, state, and triba
entities. Red Ederberry Viage
is within Redwood Nationa and
State Parks (RNSP) property, and
the od Catching homestead is
on property owned by the Ek
Vaey Rancheria and RNSP. The
Toowa activey participate in the
management of cutura resources
and panning in partnership with
RNSP — much of the work is done
through the Triba Heritage Pres-
ervation Oce (THPO) and pro-
grams of the Ek Vaey Rancheria
and Toowa Dee-ni’. Both tribes
have active cutura programs and
sponsor a wide variety of cutura
rejuvenation initiatives, incuding
Nee-Dash (Word Renewa) dances
and ceremonies. Red Ederberry and
its environs continue to be used by the
Toowa community for traditiona gath-
ering, dances, ceremonies, and com-
munity get-togethers, and members of
the Toowa community continue to visit
the area to pray, to enjoy the environ-
ment, and to gather food, medicine, and
other traditionay used materias. Many
consutants expressed the desire to
continue or resume traditiona cutura
practices in the area, such as fishing
and gathering. They are aso deepy
concerned about the preservation of
the area, incuding oca archaeoogica
sites and reigious paces.
The synergistic research detaied
in this paper drew on a mutitude of
sources and was inuenced by our
varied backgrounds and perspectives,
but coaboration with the modern
Toowa community was most critica.
Many modern iving communities carry
with them histories that can funda-
mentay contribute to the burgeoning
discourse on coonia entangements
and indigenous survivance in the
American West. Goud recognized the
vaue of indigenous knowedge in his
groundbreaking ethnoarchaeoogica
research with the Toowa in the eary
s, and today, the State of Jeerson
pictured here in od age.
Coos Historica and Maritime Museum
134 135
OHQ vol. 118, no. 1 Tushingham and Brooks, Inland Sanctuary
We are gratefu to the Ek Vaey Rancheria,
Toowa Dee’-ni Nation, and many Toowa
community members, incuding Eunice
Bommeyn, Loren Bommeyn, Margaret
Brooks, Meford Brooks, Neie Chisman,
Dae Mier, Kara Mier, John Green,
Wanda Green, Kim Krokodios, Machee
Lopez, Brock Richards, Vioa Richards, and
Wiiam (Bi) Richards for their insights
and contributions to the study. We are
especiay thankfu to Loren Bommeyn for
his insights regarding the Toowa genocide
and steadfast encouragement to pubish
this history. Archaeoogica studies at Red
Ederberry Pace were funded by the Canon
Nationa Parks Science Schoars Award, the
Society for Caifornia Archaeoogy Bennyho
Award, Caifornia State Parks, Nationa Park
Service, Toowa Dee-ni’ Nation, and UC
Davis Anthropoogy. Tushingham thanks the
Ek Vaey Rancheria for the opportunity to
serve as their Triba Historic Preservation
Ocer and to work cosey with their Cuture
Committee. Thanks to De Norte County
Historica Society and Coos Historica and
Maritime Museum for their assistance with
ocating and for their permission to use
the archiva photographs in the paper. We
thank Christy Sarina for detais about her
grandfather Robert Sarina. Finay, we wish
to thank Mark Tveskov for encouraging us to
contribute to this specia voume, and to Eiza
Canty-Jones for her patience, enthusiasm,
and editoria prowess.
. Richard A. Goud, Archaeology of the
Point St. George site and Tolowa prehistory
(Berkeey: University of Caifornia Pubications
in Anthropoogy , ).
. For recent discussions and modern
assessments of Goud’s ethno-archaeoogica
work, see Shannon Tushingham and Jennifer
Bencze, “Macro and Micro Scae Signatures of
Hunter-Gatherer Organization at the Coasta
Sites of Point St. George, Northwestern Ata
Caifornia,” California Archaeology : ():
; and Adrian Whitaker and Shannon
Tushingham, “A Quantitative Assessment of
Ethnographicay Identified Activity Areas at
the Point Saint George Site (CA-DNO-) and
the Vaidity of Ethnographic Anaogy,” Journal
of California and Great Basin Anthropology
: (): .
. Kent G. Lightfoot, “Missions, Furs,
God, and Manifest Destiny: Rethinking an
Archaeoogy of Cooniaism for Western
North America,” in Historical Archaeology, ed.
Martin Ha and Stephen W. Siiman (Oxford:
Backwe, ), .
. David Lewis, “Toowa Deeni Fish Camp
Ethnographies” in Changing Landscapes
“Telling Our Stories” Procedings of the
Fourth Annual Coquille Cultural Preservation
Conference, ed. Jason Younker, Mark A.
Tveskov, and David G. Lewis (North Bend,
Ore.: Coquie Indian Tribe, ), ;
Mark A. Tveskov, “Socia Identity and Cuture
Change on the Southern Northwest Coast,”
American Anthropologist : (): ;
Thomas J. Connoy, “Archaeoogy, History,
and Community: An Enduring Legacy at Beatty,
Kamath County,” Oregon Historical Quarterly
: (Spring ): ; Brian L. O’Nei, Guy
L. Tasa, and Robert H. Winthrop, “A Cutura
Resource Evauation of the Mary Furong and
Crispen Ranch Locaities, in the Canyonvie
to Tier Section of the Tier-Trai Highway (of
Highway ), Dougas County, Oregon,” OSMA
Report -, (State Museum of Anthropoogy,
University of Oregon, ).
. Shannon Tushingham, “The
Deveopment of Intensive Foraging
Systems in Northwestern Caifornia,”
(Ph.D. diss., University of Caifornia, Davis,
); Shannon Tushingham, Archaeology,
Ethnography, and Tolowa Heritage at
Red Elderberry Place, Chvn-su’lh-dvn,
Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park
(Sacramento: Caifornia Department of Parks
and Recreation Archaeoogy, History and
Museums Division, Monograph , ).
. A separate paper incudes an in-depth
anaysis of the house contents. Shannon
Tushingham, “Toowa House: The Contact
Period in Northwestern Caifornia,” paper
presented at the thirty-ninth annua meeting
of the Society for Caifornia Archaeoogy,
Sacramento, .
. A great dea of the research took pace
when Tushingham served as Triba Historic
Preservation Ocer (THPO) for the Ek Vaey
Rancheria from  to , which faciitated
work with Brooks and other Toowa community
. See aso T.J. Ferguson on the
“synergetic eect” of reciproca archaeoogy
as practiced by Triba communities in
Archaeoogica Anthropoogy conducted by
Indian Tribes: Traditiona Cutura Properties
and Cutura Aiation,” Archeological Papers
of the American Anthropological Association,
:, .
. For a recent discussion of hybridization
(and probems with the framework), see
Stephen W. Siiman, “A requiem for hybridity?
The probem with Frankensteins, purees, and
mues,” Journal of Social Archaeology :
(): ; for persistence summarized,
see Lee Panich, “Archaeoogies of persistence:
Reconsidering the egacies of cooniaism in
Native North American,” American Antiquity
 (): ; and for “survivance,
see Stephen Siiman, “Archaeoogies of
survivance and residence: Refections on
the historica archaeoogy of indigenous
peope,” in Rethinking Colonial Pasts Through
Archaeology, ed. Ferris, Harrison, and Wicox
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, ), .
. Phiip Drucker, “The Toowa and
Their Southwest Oregon Kin,” University
of California Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology : ():
”; Thomas Tabot Waterman, “The
viage sites in Toowa and neighboring
areas in northwestern Caifornia,” American
Anthropologist : (): .
. A.L. Kroeber, Handbook of the Indians
of California, Bureau of American Ethnoogy,
Buetin  (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian
Institution, ), . See aso Tushingham,
“The Deveopment of Intensive Foraging
Systems in Northwestern Caifornia”; and
Tushingham, Archaeology, Ethnography, and
Tolowa Heritage at Red Elderberry Place,
Chvn-su’lh-dvn, Jedediah Smith Redwoods
State Park.
. Goud, Archaeology of the Point St.
George site and Tolowa prehistory, 
. Ibid., .
. Loren Bommeyn, persona
. Robert L. Bettinger, Orderly Anarchy:
Sociopolitical Evolution in Aboriginal
California (Berkeey: University of Caifornia
Press, ).
. For a recent exampe of Toowa
ethnography, ora history, and archaeoogy,
see Tushingham, Archaeology, Ethnography,
and Tolowa Heritage at Red Elderberry Place,
Chvn-su’lh-dvn, Jedediah Smith Redwoods
State Park.
is the point of origin of many studies
incorporating coaborative research
on the American coonia period.
Criticay, in addition to its contribu-
tion to schoary discourse, synergistic
coaborative studies can hep make
research more reevant to descendant
communities. This research frame-
work is not without its chaenges —
mutipe views do not aways mesh,
and reating them can sometimes be
messy — but we embrace this messi-
ness as an opportunity to deveop a
truer view of the past.
136 137
OHQ vol. 118, no. 1 Tushingham and Brooks, Inland Sanctuary
. Robert F. Heizer and John E. Mis, The
Four Ages of Tsurai: A Documentary History of
the Indian Village on Trinidad Bay (Berkeey:
University of Caifornia Press, ); Richard
A. Goud, “Toowa,” in Handbook of North
American Indians, vo. , California, ed. Robert
F. Heizer (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian
Institution, ), .
. Goud, Archaeology of the Point St.
George site and Tolowa prehistory, .
. John A. Draper, “A Proposed Mode of
Late Prehistoric Settement Systems on the
Southern Northwest Coast, Coos and Curry
Counties, Oregon” (Ph.D. diss., Washington
State University, Puman, ); Jon M
Erandson, Mark A. Tveskov, and Madonna L.
Moss, “Return to Chetessenten: The Antiquity
and Architecture of an Athapaskan Viage
on the Southern Oregon Coast,” Journal of
California and Great Basin Anthropology
: (): ; Mark A. Tveskov, “The
Bandon Sandspit Site: The Archaeoogy of
a Protohistoric Coquie Indian Viage,” in
Changing Landscapes, ed. Robert J. Losey
(North Bend, Ore.: Coquie Indian Tribe,
), .
. See, for exampe, Benjamin Madey,
“When ‘The Word Was Turned Upside
Down’: Caifornia and Oregon’s Toowa Indian
Genocide, ,” in New Directions in
Genocide Research, ed. Adam Jones (New
York: Routedge, ), ; and Benjamin
Madey, An American Genocide: The United
States and the California Indian Catastrophe,
18461873 (New Haven: Yae University Press,
. Key sources incude Me’-ash-ne
Loren Bommeyn, Toowa (Taa-aa-wa Dee-
ni’): Who we are, ,owa-nsn.
gov/who-we-are/ (accessed June , );
Sherburne F. Cook, The Conflict between
the California Indian and White Civilization
(Berkeey: University of Caifornia Press,
); Edward Castio, “The Impact of Euro-
American Exporation and Settement,” in
Handbook of North American Indians, vo.
,California, ed. Robert F. Heizer (Washington,
D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, ); Robert
F. Heizer and Aan F. Amquist, The Other
Californians: Prejudice and Discrimination
under Spain, Mexico, and the United States
to 1920 (Berkeey: University of Caifornia
Press, ); Abert L. Hurtado, Indian Survival
on the California Frontier (New Haven: Yae
University Press, ); Theodora Kroeber,
Ishi in Two Worlds: A Biography of the Last
Wild Indian in North America (Berkeey:
University of Caifornia Press, ); Benjamin
Madey, An American Genocide: The United
States and the California Indian Catastrophe,
18461873 (New Haven: Yae University Press,
); Madey, “The Word Was Turned Upside
Down”; Jack Norton, When Our Worlds Cried:
Genocide in Northwestern California (San
Francisco: Indian Historian, ); and Wiiam
B. Secrest, When the Great Spirit Died: The
Destruction of the California Indians 1850
1860 (Sanger, Ca.: Word Dancer, ).
. Reed Annette, “Neeyu Nn’ee min’
Nngheeyih Naach’aaghithni: Lha’t’i Deeni
Tr’vmdan’ Nathsri: Rooted in the Land of Our
Ancestors, we are strong: A Toowa History”
(Ph.D. diss., University of Caifornia, Berkeey,
. Edward Curtis, The North American
Indian, volume 13 (New York: Johnson Reprint
Company, ), .
. Richard A. Goud, “Indian and White
Versions of ‘The Burnt Ranch Massacre’:
A Study in Comparative Ethnohistory,
Journal of Folklore Institute (): ;
Annette, “Neeyu Nn’ee min’ Nngheeyih
Naach’aaghithni: Lha’t’i Deeni Tr’vmdan
Nathsri: Rooted in the Land of Our Ancestors,
we are strong.”
. Goud, “Indian and White Versions of
‘The Burnt Ranch Massacre’,” .
. Curtis, The North American Indian,
; Goud, “Indian and White Versions of
‘The Burnt Ranch Massacre’, ; Madey,
“When ‘The Word Was Turned Upside
. Madey, “When ‘The Word Was Turned
Upside Down’.
. Ibid., . We agree with Madey
that abeing the Toowa case genocide and
understanding it as such “has important
ramifications for the Toowa, for genocide
schoars, and for a Americans. For Toowa
community members . . . documenting their
ancestors’ ordea and abeing it genocide
heps corroborate and compement existing
Toowa ora histories.”
. Martin A. Baumhoff, “Ecoogica
Determinants of Aborigina Caifornia
Popuations,” in University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and
Ethnology : (): ; Sherburne F.
Cook, “The Aborigina Popuation of the North
Coast of Caifornia,” University of California
Anthropological Records : (): ;
Russe Thornton, “Recent Estimates of the
Prehistoric Caifornia Indian Popuation,”
Current Anthropology  (): .
. Kroeber, Handbook of the Indians of
California, .
. Loren Bommeyn, persona
. Tushingham, “The Deveopment of
Intensive Foraging Systems in Northwestern
Caifornia”; Tushingham, Archaeology,
Ethnography, and Tolowa Heritage at Red
Elderberry Place, Chvn-su’lh-dvn, Jedediah
Smith Redwoods State Park.
. Whie our focus is on ong-term
residents of the Hiouchi area, census records
oer a fascinating gimpse of muti-ethnic
residents who passed through the area.
Amost a the short-term, non-Indian residents
were miners of Irish and Chinese descent,
who seem to have moved on after a decade
or two. For Chinese miners, this was not by
choice. Many Chinese men are recorded in the
Federa censuses of  and , but none
are present in  census, or after passage
of the Chinese Excusion Act ().
. Raph Hughes, “Hiouchi,Del Norte
County Historical Society Bulletin (January-
February, ).
. Ibid.
. Doris Chase, They Pushed Back the
Forest, reprint (Crescent City, Ca.: De Norte
County Historica Society, Crescent City,
Caifornia, ); Don Chase and Margie N.
Hems, Pack Saddles and Rolling Wheels: The
Story of Transportation in Southern Oregon
and Northwestern California from 1852 ().
Note proximity of Red Ederberry Viage to
Catching Homestead, and Catching Ferry,
which connected Saiors Diggings (Wado) to
Crescent City. Wado is where Ephraim and
Mary Catching were married.
.  GLO Pat Map.
. Phiip Drucker, “The Toowa and their
Southwest Oregon Kin,” University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and
Ethnology, : (): .
. Tushingham, “The Deveopment of
Intensive Foraging Systems in Northwestern
. A separate paper documents this
sweathouse and its contents in detai.
Tushingham, “Toowa House: The Contact
period in Northwestern Caifornia.”
. Other Indian-white househods show
up in the Mountain Township area at this time,
incuding the Gastons, a famiy iving upriver
around present-day Gasquet, consisting of
John Gaston a forty-five-year-od miner from
Iinois and a twenty-year-od Indian woman,
Mooney Gaston (occupation “keeping house”
iiterate). A Mr. Y.J. Hammond (farmer from
Iinois, age forty-four) ived downstream of
Peacocks with two Indian girs, who from
ater censuses appear to be his daughters:
Juia (age tweve) and Fanny (age ten) “at
home” ( Federa census record, De Norte,
Mountain Township, p. , ). For this section on
the Cookes we reied primariy on Brooks’s
first-hand knowedge, which was confirmed
by community members and corroborated
by census and aotment records. We aso
interviewed Loren Bommeyn and Neie
Chisman, both Toowa Dee-ni’ triba members.
We were gad to secure these interviews as
Loren is extremey knowedgeabe about the
Gee Dee-ni’ and the Toowa in genera, and
Neie was a member of the Cooke famiy.
Sady, Neie passed away in , but we
interviewed when she was in her seventies
in  (see pages ).
.  Federa census, De Norte
County, Caifornia, Mountain Township, p. .
.  US Federa Census, De Norte
County, Caifornia, Mountain Township, p. .
. Ephraim Musick, “First Man At Coos
Bay: Ephraim Catching, Pioneer of Oregon,
,” Sunday Oregonian, May , , p.
. Musick’s owery reteing of the episode
in this account portrays Catching as a
138 139
OHQ vol. 118, no. 1 Tushingham and Brooks, Inland Sanctuary
protagonist and unwiing participant in the
Rogue River War: One in his party “shot and
instanty kied an inoending od Indian. The
Indians had been entirey harmess and the
victim of that most heish perfidy had visited
the camp of the white men with seeming
friendship and good wi.” As Musick ater
wrote, “Mr. Catching was in favor of giving the
miscreant over to the Indians to be deat with
accordingy . . . but other counses prevaiing,
the wretch was permitted to go unpunished,
and with the immunity so aorded, to vaunt,
in after years, his dastardy act as a mark of
heroism. Thenceforth the enmity of the Indians
toward the white setter or wayfarer, was of
marked intensity, ti at ength it cuminated in
the memorabe Rogue River War.” Catching
participated in the war, “though recognizing
the primary injustice done to the Indians, in
defense of his own race and his own fireside
he Joined the ranks of the iustrious pioneer
. Musick, “First Man At Coos Bay.
. A rather fancifu description of their
reationship is contained in M.G. Poh, “An
Eary Day Romance,Myrtle Point Enterprise,
October , , p. .
. Federa census, , Coquie
Precinct, Coos County, Oregon.
. This was probaby the same W.H.
Moore who drew the eariest-known depiction
of a Toowa viage scene, an  drawing
of a viage at Cushing Creek south of
Crescent City. See Tushingham, Archaeology,
Ethnography, and Tolowa Heritage, . If so,
we think it possibe that Mary’s mother may
have been a coasta Toowa but with the great
socia dispacement occurring at this time, it is
impossibe to know for certain.
.  Federa census, Josephine
County, Oregon.
. Information on the Catchings can aso
be found in Tushingham, “The Deveopment of
Intensive Foraging Systems in Northwestern
Caifornia”; Tushingham, Archaeology,
Ethnography, and Tolowa Heritage at Red
Elderberry Place, Chvn-su’lh-dvn, Jedediah
Smith Redwoods State Park; Shannon
Tushingham, Wiiam Hidebrandt, Juie
Garibadi, and Aika Ruby, “Archaeoogica
Investigations at Jedediah Smith Campground
and Hiouchi Fat, De Norte County,
Caifornia,” report prepared by Far Western
Anthropoogica Group for the Nationa
Park Service, Pacific West Region, Oakand,
; and Mary Maniery and Marsha Miett,
“Living on the Smith: Architectura History
and Historica Archaeoogy of Jedediah Smith
Campground and Hiouchi Fat, Redwood
Nationa and State Park,” report prepared for
Far Western Anthropoogica Group by Par
Environmenta Services, Sacramento, .
. Recorded in Loren Bommeyn, Xus
We-Yo’: Tolowa Language d ed. (Crescent
City, Ca: Toowa Language Committee, );
Annette Reed, “Neeyu Nn’ee min’ Nngheeyih
Naach’aaghithni: Lha’t’i Deeni Tr’vmdan
Nathsri: Rooted in the Land of Our Ancestors,
we are strong”; andToowa Language Cass,
“The Toowa Language,” (Arcata: Center for
Community Deveopment, Humbodt State
University, ).
. Brooks had aways heard growing up
that there was once a Toowa viage ocated in
the area behind the firehouse on Hiouchi Fat,
and, according to Raph Hughes, the Catchings
had their “famiy home and severa cabins” in
this exact ocation. Houghs, “Hiouchi.”
. See Tushingham, Archaeology,
Ethnography, and Tolowa Heritage at Red
Elderberry Place, Chvn-su’lh-dvn, Jedediah
Smith Redwoods State Park, .
. The persistence of Toowa cuture
and identity has been addressed by a
number of authors. See, for exampe, Loren
Bommeyn, “Who we are” The Toowa (Taa-
aa-wa Dee-ni’), ,owa- (accessed January
, ); James Coins, Understanding
Tolowa Histories: Western Hegemonies and
Native American Responses (New York:
Routedge, ); Reed, “Neeyu Nn’ee min
Nngheeyih Naach’aaghithni: Lha’t’i Deeni
Tr’vmdan’ Nathsri”; Russe Thornton, “Socia
Organization and Demographic Surviva of
the Toowa,” Ethnohistory  (): ,
; Russe Thornton, “History, Structure,
and Surviva: A Comparison of the Yuki
(Ukomno’m) and Toowa (Hush) Indians of
Northern Caifornia,” Ethnology : (:
, ; Tushingham, “The Deveopment
of Intensive Foraging Systems in Northwestern
Caifornia,”; and Tushingham, Archaeology,
Ethnography, and Tolowa Heritage at Red
Elderberry Place.
. Thornton, “Socia Organization
and Demographic Surviva of the Toowa”;
Thornton, “History, Structure, and Surviva:
A Comparison of the Yuki (Ukomno’m) and
Toowa (Hush) Indians of Northern Caifornia.”
. See, for exampe, Coins,
Understanding Tolowa Histories, .
. The importance of women to Native
American persistence in southwestern Oregon
is addressed by Mark A. Tveskov, “Socia
Identity and Cuture Change on the Southern
Northwest Coast,” American Anthropologist
: (): .
. Hurtado, Indian Survival on the
California Frontier, .
. A but one of the nine women present
in Kamath County in  were wives or
daughters of white men; the exception was
a German “washer” (Sophia Inghkerk, age
thirty-two). The others incude the wife and
three daughters of a Mr. Parker, the wife and
daughter of a thirty-five-year-od Irish merchant
(Jane, aged seventeen, and Maroon, age two,
born in Ohio and Louisiana, respectivey), and
the Irish wife and daughter of Michae Ludy,
a miner, (Een, no age given, and Een, age
two).  Caifornia State census for Kamath
County, Caifornia, pp. , , .
. Me’-ash-ne Loren Bommeyn, Toowa
(Taa-aa-wa Dee-ni’): Who we are., http://www.
. According to the  census records,
the Catchings housed or perhaps boarded
various individuas, incuding a famiy of Indian
descent. Thus, in addition to Ephraim (age
forty-six at the time), Mary (age twenty-four),
and their three chidren (Wiiam, age five,
Mary Ida, age two, and Ruben, age one), the
census incudes five Indians in the househod
with the men isting traditiona occupations of
fishing and hunting: Mr. Scano (occupation,
“fishing”), Juia Scano (age twenty-five,
occupation, “keeping house”), Frank Scano
(age thirty, occupation, hunting), Mary Scano
(age twenty), and Rose Scano (daughter, age
fifteen). By being attached to the Catching
househod, the Indians woud have avoided
the reservation roundups. Others in the
househod incuded a thirty-eight-year-od
white miner from Ireand, a forty-three-year-
od white rancher from Louisiana, and a thirty-
five-year-od Chinese aborer.
. Eric Ritter, Archaeoogica site record
for site CA-DNO-, on fie at the North Coast
Information Center, Kamath, Caifornia, .
. Eric Ritter, Archaeoogica site record
for site CA-DNO-, on fie at the North Coast
Information Center, Kamath, Caifornia, .
. Toowa use of the area, however,
has been maintained. Despite the end of
permanent habitation at Red Ederberry,
traditiona fishing by the Toowa continued in
the immediate area. Unti the s, peope
converged at Mi Creek and aong the Smith
River to fish for Chinook samon. The fish
camps were set up for as ong as two months,
and peope busied themseves drying fish
and coecting acorns and huckeberries. The
fish camps ceased after Indigenous fishing
became iega with the passing of Pubic Law
 in  (amended ), which transferred
federa jurisdiction of crimina activities by
or against Native Americans to certain state
governments (incuding Caifornia). Today,
Toowa use the Hiouchi area for famiy
gatherings, ceremonies, traditiona food and
materia procurement, and other purposes.
.  US Federa Census, King County,
Washington, Seatte Ward , District .
. Annette, “Neeyu Nn’ee min’
Nngheeyih Naach’aaghithni: Lha’t’i Deeni
Tr’vmdan’ Nathsri: Rooted in the Land of Our
Ancestors, we are strong,” .
. Tushingham, Archaeology,
Ethnography, and Tolowa Heritage at Red
Elderberry Place, Chvn-su’lh-dvn, Jedediah
Smith Redwoods State Park, .
. See aso Ferguson, “Archaeoogica
Anthropoogy conducted by American Indian
Tribes: Traditiona Cutura Properties and
Cutura Aiation,” .
... Thus, the area was a refuge from the post -739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 contact violence that was prevalent during these years for Mrs. Brown's family. Flight away from white population centers to avoid conflict was a common survival strategy by the Tolowa and many other California and southwest Oregon Indians during this time (Bommelyn 2011;Madley 2011;Thornton 1984;Tushingham and Brooks 2017;Tveskov 2000Tveskov , 2007. Mrs. Brown recounted that two houses and a sweathouse were once located at Shin-yvslh-sri$ (likely Redwood plank houses similar to those depicted in Figure 5B). ...
... Within southwest Oregon and northwestern California there are growing number of studies that are informed through ethnoarchaeological and TEK research with modern Tribal communities (e.g., Connolly et al. 2008;Moss et al. 1998;Q17 Tushingham 2009Q17 Tushingham , 2013Tushingham and Brooks 2017;Tveskov 2000). This study is no exception, and we have extended this framework to involve Tribal communities as present and active contributors to the development of resource management and policy. ...
Full-text available
In this paper we describe innovative research at Shin-yvslh-sri~ (CA-DNO-14), a pre-contact Tolowa village and shell midden site on the north coast of California. The research involves a collaborative historical ecology approach-an explicitly multidisciplinary cooperative effort between Tribal communities, a Federal agency, cultural resource management practitioners, and academic researchers. Multiple lines of evidence-including ethno-historic, oral history, and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) data, documentation of past archaeological research, analysis of varied scales of (micro and macro) archaeological data from both recent fieldwork and legacy collections-give a more complete picture of the historical ecology of the northern California coast. Results indicate that plank house village life emerged at Shin-yvslh-sri~ approximately 1,000 years ago, and that people pursued a wide array of marine and terrestrial taxa throughout its occupation. Archaeological data provide new evidence, as well as support for oral histories indicating the critical importance of mass captured smelt, as well as salmon, shellfish, and marine mammals. In addition to providing important data on coastal human-environmental systems, the project provides a case study model for future studies in collaborative historical ecology, particularly those that involve indigenous community concerns at endangered coastal archaeological and cultural sites.
Full-text available
Archaeological investigations at Miners’ Fort, a mid-nineteenth-century settler fort located in the US Northwest, is part of a larger inquiry into conflict archaeology and historical memory of settler colonialism and warfare in the region. Built by gold miners, Miners’ Fort overlooked the Pacific Ocean and was used significantly when the Tututni, Joshua, and Mikonotunne besieged it for a month during the Rogue River War of 1855–1856. Archaeological excavation targeting anomalies discovered through remote sensing revealed several features in context, including an indigenously designed hearth built by one or more Native American women who were wives of some settlers. Public archaeology created an opportunity for community building that included descendants of both settlers and indigenous people of the area. Although excavation is destructive to archaeological deposits, by implementing remote sensing and involving the public in the excavation process, a more accurate historical narrative can emerge, as well as a sense of ownership and inclusion among diverse stakeholders.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
In 1952, a team led by Luther Cressman excavated the Bandon Sandspit site (35-CS-5), a protohistoric village at the mouth of the Coquille River. A large assemblage of bone and lithic artifacts, faunal material, trade goods, and architectural remains were recovered but remained largely unreported. I present the results of analyses of these materials. Native American oral traditions, geomorphological research, architectural remains, and radiocarbon dating of curated material provide insights into the activities that occurred at the site and suggest that it was abandoned as a permanent settlement sometime during the protohistoric period.
Full-text available
California archaeologists routinely use ethnography as a source of analogy for interpreting the archaeological record. In the past, many have cautioned against the uncritical use of the ethnographic record. In this paper we test the validity of ethnographic descriptions of village layout collected by Gould. Specifically, we test the notion that prehistoric Tolowa villages contained distinct habitation and workshop areas as described ethnographically—a finding qualitatively demonstrated by Gould—through the quantitative analysis of archaeological assemblages from these areas at the Point St. George site (CA‑DNO‑11). We find a statistically significant difference between the artifact assemblages but little difference between faunal remains recovered in the workshop versus the habitation area. We argue that while the ethnographic record should not be adopted uncritically, certain aspects of the ethnographic record, such as site structure, provide accurate analogies forbehavior observable in the archaeological record. D uring the summer of 1964, Richard Gould conducted excavations at the Point St. George site (CA-DNo-11), a tolowa village site located in extreme northwestern California that is well-known for its cultural and scientific importance. He simultaneously conducted ethnographic interviews with tolowa elders whose ancestors once lived at the site or at nearby coastal villages. As he dug in the rich shell midden covering a large area at the edge of the Point, Gould was perplexed at not finding any evidence of the redwood plank houses that were described ethnographically. When asked about the lack of house features, his tolowa consultants "showed amusement and made the following remarks: "'…them old-timers never put their houses in the garbage-dump! (Amelia)' or, '…they didn't live in their garbage any more than you would! (Sam)'" (Gould 1966:43). they directed him to the residential area, an area that Gould doubted contained houses as it was steeply sloping (by approximately ten degrees), with no occupational debris or housepit depressions visible on the surface (Fig. 1). However, within the first 20 minutes of excavation in this area, a redwood plank was encountered that was later found to be associated with a house with a blue clay floor. Interestingly, both oral tradition and archaeology at the site provide evidence of an abandonment of the village after a pandemic around A.D. 1700. this account is often used in introductory courses in archaeology as a classic example that demonstrates the danger of making assumptions about the record— Gould had assumed, as most did (and still do), that the areas with the most surface remains must represent habitation areas. Perhaps more importantly, however, Gould's excavation provided corroboration that tolowa villages contained discrete activity areas within them—
Full-text available
When the Oregon Department of Transportation began work to fix a dangerous highway curve, they undertook archaeological exploration that produced important information. Located within the boundaries of the former Klamath Reservation when created in 1864, the Beatty Curve archaeological site had been home to ancestors of the modern Klamath Tribes for millennia. Investigations at the site revealed evidence of the pre-reservation fur trade era and the establishment of a post-treaty Native homestead — possibly of a significant chief. The site continues to be recognized by the modern Klamath community as a tangible link to their ancient home and heritage.
Full-text available
Driven by the participation of Native American people in the contemporary political, cultural, and academic landscape of North America, public and academic discussions have considered the nature of contemporary American Indian identity and the persistence, survival, and (to some) reinvention of Native American cultures and traditions. I use a case study—the historical anthropology of the Native American people of the Oregon coast—to examine the persistence of many American Indian people through the colonial period and the subsequent revitalization of “traditional” cultural practices. Drawing on archaeological data, ethnohistorical accounts, and oral traditions, I offer a reading of how, set against and through an ancestral landscape, traditional social identities and relationships of gender and authority were constructed and contested. I then consider how American Indian people negotiated the new sets of social relationships dictated by the dominant society.
Between 1846 and 1873, California’s Indian population plunged from perhaps 150,000 to 30,000. Benjamin Madley is the first historian to uncover the full extent of the slaughter, the involvement of state and federal officials, the taxpayer dollars that supported the violence, indigenous resistance, who did the killing, and why the killings ended. This deeply researched book is a comprehensive and chilling history of an American genocide. Madley describes pre-contact California and precursors to the genocide before explaining how the Gold Rush stirred vigilante violence against California Indians. He narrates the rise of a state-sanctioned killing machine and the broad societal, judicial, and political support for genocide. Many participated: vigilantes, volunteer state militiamen, U.S. Army soldiers, U.S. congressmen, California governors, and others. The state and federal governments spent at least $1,700,000 on campaigns against California Indians. Besides evaluating government officials’ culpability, Madley considers why the slaughter constituted genocide and how other possible genocides within and beyond the Americas might be investigated using the methods presented in this groundbreaking book.
Between European contact and 1890, several million American Indians in what is now the United States were reduced to fewer than 250,000. Since then, the American Indian population has partially recovered and was enumerated at 1,418,195 in the 1980 census. During this period some American Indian tribes became extinct while others obviously survived. Survival or extinction does not seem to have been a mere result of depopulation experiences, however; similar events culminated differently for different tribes. Understanding what led to tribal differences in survival is important in American Indian population history. As a step towards this, a demographic history of the Tolowa Indians is presented from scholarly reports and oral traditions. It illustrates that features of tribal organization were important in their recovery from severe population reduction and ultimate survival to today.
This brief examination of the different histories of the Yuki and Tolowa Indians of northern California suggests three factors possibly accounting for their differential demographic and tribal survival: 1) the different relative magnitude of their initial depopulation experiences, 2) their different reservation experiences, or lack of them for an extended period of time, and 3) their different preexisting patterns of social organization. -from Author
Discusses the relative merits of various recent estimates. -R. House Dept.Sociol.,Univ. Minnesota-Twin Cities, MINN 55455, USA.