ArticlePDF Available

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

April 2017
Oregon Historical Quarterly 118(1):108

DOI:10.5403/oregonhistq.118.1.0108

Authors:

California Academy of Sciences

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

…

Figures - uploaded by Shannon Tushingham

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Shannon Tushingham

Content may be subject to copyright.

OHQ vol. 118, no. 1 Tushingham and Brooks, Inland Sanctuary

 

by Shannon Tushingham and Richard Brooks

RESEARCH FILES

Inland Sanctuary

A Synergistic Study of Indigenous Persistence and

Colonial Entanglements at Hiouchi (Xaa-yuu-chit)

THE IDEOLOGICAL State of Jef-

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

Oregon.

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

descent.

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.

PRE-CONTACT TOLOWA

SOCIOPOLITICAL LANDSCAPE

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

agoons.

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.

EURO-AMERICAN CONTACT

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.

“THE TIME THE WORLD WAS

TURNED UPSIDE DOWN”:

GOLD-RUSH GENOCIDE AND ITS

AFTERMATH

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

incidents.

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 

individuas.

POST-CONTACT PERSISTENCE

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.

DISTANCE AND DOMESTIC

SANCTUARY: MULTI-ETHNIC

HOUSEHOLDS AT

XAA-YUU-CHIT

(HIOUCHI)

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

river.”

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

Vancouver.

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 DEE-NI’

(RED

ELDERBERRY PLACE PEOPLE)

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 COOKES

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 RE ().

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 .



MINNIE BOB COOKE AND JOHN COOKE

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 CATCHINGS AT

XAA-YUU-CHIT

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

PETE SONTASH AND KATE BILLY SONTASH,

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

HIOUCHI REMEMBRANCES: INTERVIEWS

WITH NELLIE CHISMAN (COOKE FAMILY)

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.)

A COMMUNITY ON THE FRINGE:

PERSISTENCE AND INTRA-

HOUSEHOLD INTERACTIONS AT

HIOUCHI

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. ).

THE ROLE OF WOMEN AND

DOMESTIC SANCTUARY

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

THE CATCHINGS AT HIOUCHI

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.

PROPORTION OF MEN AND WOMEN LIVING IN KLAMATH

COUNTY (PRESENT-DAY DEL NORTE AND HUMBOLDT

COUNTIES) IN 1852

MEN WOMEN

WHITES  

NEGROES  

MULLATOS  

DOMESTICATED INDIANS  

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 EVENTS OF 1902 AND

THEIR AFTERMATH

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.

CONCLUSION

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

EPHRAIM CANNON CATCHING is

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

NOTES

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

members.

. 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

communication.

. 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,

1846–1873 (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, , http://www.to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,

1846–1873 (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

Down’,”–.

. 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

communication

. 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

Caifornia.”

. 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

sodiers.”

. 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’), , http://www.toowa-

nsn.gov/who-we-are/ (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.

toowa-nsn.gov/who-we-are/.

. 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,” .

In the Footsteps of Amelia Brown: Collaborative Historical Ecology at Shin-yvslh-sri~, a Tolowa Village on the North Coast of California

Preprint

Full-text available

Nov 2018

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.

Every rusty nail is sacred, every rusty nail is good: Conflict archaeology, remote sensing, and community engagement at a northwest coast settler fort

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2019

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.

The Bandon Sandspit Site: The Archaeology of a Proto-Historic Coquille Indian Village

Conference Paper

Full-text available

Jan 1999

Mark Axel Tveskov

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.

A Quantitative Assessment of Ethnographically-Identified Activity Areas at the Point Saint George Site (CA-DNO-11) and the Validity of Ethnographic Analogy

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2014

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—

Archaeology, History, and Community: An Enduring Legacy at Beatty, Klamath County

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2011

Thomas J Connolly

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.

Social Identity and Culture Change on the Southern Northwest Coast

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2008
AM ANTHROPOL

Mark Axel Tveskov

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.

The Four Ages of Tsurai: A Documentary History of the Indian Village on Trinidad Bay

Book

Nov 2023

An American Genocide: The United States and the California Indian Catastrophe, 1846-1873

Book

Jan 2016

Benjamin Madley

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.

Social Organization and the Demographic Survival of the Tolowa

Article

Oct 1985

Russell Thornton

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.

Indian and White Versions of "The Burnt Ranch Massacre": A Study in Comparative Ethnohistory

Article

Jun 1966

Richard A. Gould

History, Structure, and Survival: A Comparison of the Yuki (Ukomno'm) and Tolowa (Hush) Indians of Northern California

Article

Apr 1986
Ethnology

Russell Thornton

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

Recent Estimates of the Prehistoric California Indian Population

Article

Oct 1980

Russell Thornton

Discusses the relative merits of various recent estimates. -R. House Dept.Sociol.,Univ. Minnesota-Twin Cities, MINN 55455, USA.

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

Abstract and Figures

Recommended publications

Help! A simple method for getting back-up help to the reference desk

Double trouble: Implications of historicizing identity discourses

Theoretical Perspectives on Labor and Colonialism: Reconsidering the California Missions

New Mexico and the pimería alta: The colonial period in the American southwest