Southern Paiute Peoples' SIAResponses to Energy Proposals

Item Type Chapter

Authors Stoffle, Richard W.; Jake, Merle Cody; Bunte, Pamela; Evans,Michael J

Publisher The University of Michigan

Download date 08/07/2018 07:17:50

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/305539

THE SOCIAL IMPACTRESOURCE DEVELOPedited by: Charles C. Geisler, Rayne,,

ASSESSMENT OF RAPIDNT ON NATIVE PEOPLESreen, Daniel Usner, Patrick C. West

tihe University of Michigan Natural Resource Sociology Research Lab

INDIAN SIA:

The Social Impact Assessmentof Rapid Resource Development

on Native Peoples

edited by

Charles C. Geisler Daniel Usner

Rayna Green Patrick West

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGANNATURAL RESOURCES SOCIOLOGY RESEARCH LABMONOGRAPH #3, 1982

Copyright c 1982 by Patrick C. WestAll rights reserved

The Natural Resources Sociology Monograph Series is dedicated to thethanes of applicable theory and social equity concerns in natural resource/environmental affairs. It seeks to foster a closer linkage between theory,research, professional practice, and social concern. The series is operatedon a non - profit basis supported through research grants, subsidies, donationsand loans. Monographs are distributed at cost of production in an effort tominimize purchase cost and maximize distribution and impact. For further in-formation about forthcoming volumes in the series, or further orders for thisor other monographs, write: Natural Resources Sociology Monograph Series,School of Natural Resources, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.

All orders must be pre -paid.

Titles in This Series:

Vestiges of A Cage: Social Barriers to Participation in OutdoorRecreation by the Mentally and Physically Handicapped. Volume 1:

Literature Review and Research Needs. 1981.

Edited by Patrick C. West Price: $3.50

Natural Resource Bureaucracy and Rural Poverty: A Study in thePolitical Sociology of Natural Resources. 1982.

Patrick C. West Price: $4.00

Indian SIA: The Social Impact Assessment of Rapid Resource Devel-opment on Native Peoples. 1982.

Edited by Charles C. Geisler, et al Price: $6.00

6 Southern Paiute Peoples' SIAResponses to Energy Proposals

Richard W. StoffleMerle Cody Jake

Pamela BunteMichael J. Evans

Introduction

American Indian lands and cultural resources have beenobserved, desired, and then taken by Euroamericans since the"Invasion of America." To know any case of suchencroachment is to understand something of the entirehistory and perhaps the future of Native American -

Euroamerican relations. But it is only by comparing casesthrough time and across space that we see most clearly thepatterns that best help us understand this process of

encroachment. From our reading of the literature on thissubject, especially the outstanding contributions made byFrancis Jennings in The Invasion of America (1975) and byAlfred Crosby in The Columbian Exchange (1972), it is clearthat certain strategies of competition and domination areregularly utilized by Euroamericans. Because suchstrategies are deeply rooted in fundamental premises ofEuroamerican culture (Hagen 1980:66), we can expect that thestrategies are and will continue to be important factorswhere Native Americans and Euroamericans are competing forresources. Moreover, we believe that much contemporarycompetition for resources can be viewed as the latest phasein the continuing "Invasion of America" (Mac -

Donald, 1980: 170).

107

This chapter discusses some of the factors that havecharacterized more than a hundred years of resourcecompetition between Southern Paiute peoples and invadingEuroamericans (Euler 1966, 1972; Stoffle and Evans 1976).Knowledge of these factors, we maintain, is helpful in

interpreting each ethnic group's response to existing andproposed energy developments. More specifically, thischapter discusses various responses by Southern Paiutepeoples of the Cedar City, Chemehuevi, Kaibab, Kanosh,Koosharem, Las Vegas, Shivwits, and Willow Springs bands tocoal production, coal transportation, and electricaltransmission proposals (Bean and Vane,1978; 1979; ERT,1980).(See Map one for review of area). A special feature ofrelated social impact assessment (SIA) studies is that theproposed projects potentially impacted Indian culturalresources lying beyond the boundaries of Southern Paiutereservations. Yet, these Paiute concerns were recognized asvalid for inclusion in the SIA reports. Cases of suchinclusion are quite rare in the United States. NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) legislation summoned forIndian SIA has been focused narrowly on reservation -basedresources (Stoffle et aí.,1981). Why Paiute concerns are anexception to this pattern is discussed later in thischapter.

Of special interest here is why Southern Paiute peoplehave been willing to participate in the SIA researchprocess, especially when such participation could eitherendanger existing resources or protect them. Despite ahistory of steady resource and population losses and forceddispersal from traditional homelands, Paiute people stillwish to protect remaining sacred cultural resources. Theyperceive the SIA process as one protection strategy, howeverimperfect it may be. Paiute responses in these SIA reportsinclude (1) official tribal resolutions, (2) triballysponsored surveys, (3) on -site walkovers by communityelders, and (4) in -depth oral history interviews. Thesesources of information have been combined with ethnographicand document materials to produce final SIA reports thathave been approved by Native American peoples, powercompanies, and federal agencies.

Two Views Of Paiute Culture

The exact characteristics of Southern Paiute culture,population, and territory before the arrival ofEuroamericans in the mid 1800s will probably never be knowncompletely. It is desirable, however, to record as much aspossible about traditional Paiute life, because where theylived, how they used their resources, and how they organizedtheir society are critical variables in (1) establishingtheir rights to sue for compensation in U.S. Indian LandClaims Commission, (2) documenting social impacts

108

MAP 1

SOUTHERN

PAIUPE

BANDS

PANAMINT

(SHOSHCIVE)

SHOSHOìdE

PARANIGAT

PAdACE

i__--

if--CEDAR

BEAVER

SOUTHEM

UTE

MAPA

NAVAJO

HAVASUPAI

VAVYULE

(SERRADLO)

Ethnic Boundary

Probable Ethnic Boundary

Band Boundary

Probable Band Boundary

State Boundary

encountered by the Tribe, and (3)remaining competitive for

traditional resources.

Two views of Paiute peoples, and their traditional wayof life have emerged from scientific research. Perhapsneither view is entirely correct. Each view, however,constitutes a portion of the "social reality" of thedominant United States society that Paiute people mustunderstand and confront if they wish to compete effectively.

Environment as Controller of Paiutes

From one scientific perspective (also widely held by

lay persons), The Paiutes have been described as a peoplewho traditionally were dominated by their harsh desertenvironment. This view corresponds with the typicalEuroamerican's perceptions of the extremely hot and aridlands of the Great Basin and the southern California MohaveDesert as wastelands, undesirable for human occupation.Continuing with this logic, no humans who lived theretraditionally would have voluntarily chosen this land ashome. People who did, the reasoning continues, must havebeen forced to do so by more intelligent, better organizedor stronger societies. The harsh environment, like their"superior" Indian neighbors, would have dominated thesedesert dwelling people.

A senior anthropologist, Alfred Kroeber, made this layperception a "scientific truth" in his Handbook of theIndians of California(1925:582 -583). He concluded thatGreat Basin Paiute culture is (1) rude, too flexible to be

elaborated, (2) having monotonous simplicity, (3)

unintegrated into broad cultural patterns, and (4)

interesting only because of its poverty. These Paiutepeople, he further concluded (1)have a scant population, (2)

move to the dictates of the environment with makeshiftsubsistence, (3) are intermittently idle, and (4) havelittle occasion to use their imagination.

Based on such authority, a student of Kroebers', JulianSteward, expanded the interpretation in his book Basin -

Plateau Aboriginal Socio- Political Groups (1938). This sameperception, became a cornerstone in his influential theoryof multilineal evolution put forth in The Theory Of CultureChange (1955). There he described these Paiute people as"living fossils," exemplifying what human society must havebeen tens of thousands of years in the past before theadvent of agriculture, cities, and any of the culturaltraits currently defined as civilized by Euroamericans.

This view of the Paiute people is key to understandingthe "want of conquest," that is, rationalizations used tousurp their lands and resources even though this often meantdeath and starvation for the Paiute people (Stoffle and

110

Evans,1976). Jennings (1975) has suggested that a majorEuroamerican strategy for encroaching on Native Americanlands and resources has been to argue that Native Americansare not "effectively utilizing" their resources andtherefore either do not or should not own them, especiallywhen Euroamericans wish to put them to "better use." Hagan(1980:66) traces this land utilization argument fordispossessing Indian societies to Sir Thomas More's Utopia,where it is held that "when any people holdeth a piece ofground void and vacant to no good or profitable use, theseizure of it by another people who would fully use it, evenat the price of war, was right and proper." The sameperspective also fits with the socioevolutionists whomaintain that the replacement of one peoples by another is anatural process by which "better adapted" forms of socialorganization come into being, that is, by which progressoccurs.

Paiutes as Controllers of Their Environment

The perception of Paiute people just presented isneither held by the authors of this chapter nor by manyothers who would revise public understanding of Indians'ability to effectively utilize their environments(Dobyns,1966, 1976a, 1976b, 1981; Kehoe,1981; Lewis,1973,1977; Jacobs,1972,1977; ,Posey,1976; Shipek,1970, 1977;Stewart,1956, 1980; Vecesy and Venables,1980). The researchof Kroeber, Steward, and others who studied arid landpeoples was flawed by a basic assumption: that post- contactIndian life and oral history with post- contact Indian peopleaccurately reflected traditional culture, territory, andpopulation.

For example, Isabel Kelly (1971 :iii) interviewedelderly Kaibab Paiutes in 1932 with what she termed the"how- was- it -in- your -grandfather's -day" approach to ethnog-raphy. This method yielded the statement (Kelly,1971 :36 -41)that agriculture spread to the Kaibab Paiutes from aneighboring group in the mid -1800s but she concluded thatthe introduction of agriculture "...could not have alteredvery materially the subsistence of the group as a whole."Her findings reflect Kroeber's position that Paiutes werehunters and gatherers who occasionally learned to farm fromEuroamericans. Archaeological evidence and Spanish andEnglish contact period accounts, however, document thepresence and critical importance of agriculture throughoutSouthern Paiute territory for at least hundreds of yearsbefore the arrival of Euroamericans (Bolton,1951;Euler,1966:111 -112; Powell and Ingalls,1874:53; Roth,1976:84; Stoffle and Evans,1976:175 -177).

The key weakness of studying post- contact Indianpeoples and their ways of living as a means ofreconstructing traditional life styles is that it does not

111

take into account the catastrophic impact of the contactperiod. Euroamerican diseases followed by environmentaldisruption and cultural shock combined to create contact -period holocausts for Indian peoples. Kelly(1971:24)recorded a Kaibab Paiute who said, "After the Mormons came,all the Indians died," but she failed to recognize theimplications of enormous population loss on these Indianpeople and their society. Since Dobyns' (1966) classicreconsideration of Native American populations, scientistshave presented overwhelming evidence of contact -periodholocausts (Cook 1976; Cook and Borah,1972; Crosby,1976;Dobyns,1976; Denevan,1976; Jacobs,1974; Meister,1976).During the "Sioux Treaty Hearing" which took place afterWounded Knee, Jacobs (1977:61) concluded ..that millionsand millions of Native people died as a result of Europeancontact... and this was probably the worst demographicdisaster in world history." Scholars estimate that usually9 of every 10 Indian people died during these holocausts.

While Paiute people, their socio- cultural systems, andtheir lands survived these events, they did so in modifiedform (Stoffle and Evans,1976). Indian populations recoveredslowly, although some groups died out completely as diseasessuch as smallpox, measles, respiratory ailments, and evenmalaria were rapidly spread through their lands byEuroamerican travelers, or became endemic. Populationexpansion was further slowed by continual encroachments onPaiute economic resources. Euroamerican animals destroyedimportant food producing plants in some environmental zones.As a consequence, Paiute social organization adjusted toreflect fewer people and the need for new adaptivestrategies. Material culture, religion, and lifestyles weremodified by wage labor and even urban life (Dobyns, Stoffle,and Jones,1975). How, under such circumstances, could suchsocieties mirror precontact societies, much less, howhumankind lived tens of thousands of years ago?

Our scientific research and personal knowledge ofPaiute people have led us to quite a different conclusionabout Paiute culture, territory, and population. Wemaintain that Paiute people (as represented by SouthernPaiutes) developed a way of life that maximized the desert'sability to permanently sustain human populations. Thisprobably occurred during the 1,000 or more years thatPaiutes occupied the desert lands. Instead of beingdominated by the desert environment, they learned to"husband it," consciously adjusting plants and animals tothe many desert micro -environments. By prudently andeconomically managing these "natural resources," theyassured their own continued survival.

An intimate knowledge of plant genetics has beensuggested as a major "cultural focus" of desert -dwellingIndians (Anderson,1956;Shipek,1970). In order to maximize

112

available resources, Paiutes developed an "adaptivestrategy" (Bennett,1976:273) involving both seasonalmovement in pursuit of the total spectrum of flora and faunaand cultivation of crops using flood plain, oasis, andriverine irrigation and dry farming techniques. This wide -ranging semisedentary, "transhumant adaptive strategy"(Stoffle and Evans,1976), when combined with plant andanimal husbandry, produced an environmental "carryingcapacity" that actually exceeded that produced byEuroamerican strategies of full time farming and /ofranching.24 This strategy effectively utilized extensivedesert tracts and supported dense populations. Thus,instead of there being hundreds of Southern Paiutes, assuggested by Steward's post- contact figure of 1 person per25 square miles, there were at least tens of thousands ofSouthern Paiutes who occupied their territory at a minimumdensity of 1.12 persons per square mile that Aschmann (1959)calculated for the precontact Baja Desert peoples(Evans, 1977). 25

Selection of Cultural Models and SIA

The implication for persons engaged in the process ofconducting Paiute SIA's accepting one or the other view ofPaiute culture, population, and territory should now beclear. If the Paiutes were a backward people, pushed tomarginal environment by brighter, better adapted Indian

24A similar conclusion was reached for rural NewEngland where Thomas (1976 :14) found that when Englishcolonial and Indian subsistence strategies are compared, itis apparent that a colonial town of 250 -300 individualsutilized nearly identical amounts of farm land as did anIndian village of 400 individuals. In addition, Englishsubsistence strategies such as dams, grazing cattle, andlogging, impeded spawning of anadromous fish and reducedhunting.

"In a significant regional planning study, King andCasebier (1976) accepted the revisionist position thatSouthern Paiutes were organized into complex socio- politicalunits at a tribal or even a national level. However, Kingand Casebier (1976:10 -11) failed to fully emphasize the roleof horticulture, especially near desert oases. This failureled them to conclude that the prehistoric human populationsof the East Mojave Desert were maintained at low densities(1976:19). The latter population figures were calculated byusing Euroamerican contact period population estimates andtotally ignored Spanish period disease impacts and theimpact of "virgin soil" epidemics (Crosby 1976).Unfortunately, this otherwise fine report leaves SIAplanners in this area with a woefully outdated perspectiveon Southern Paiutes.

113

groups; then, what could they have left on these lands thatis of sufficient importance to stand in the way ofdevelopment projects such as the MX System that help meetthe energy or military needs of the United States?

On the other hand, if Paiutes are viewed as a peoplewho traditionally held the desert lands because of superioradaptive strategies that maximized the desert's carryingcapacity and supported relatively dense populations, thentheir knowledge of dryland plants and animals, and theirhighly sophisticated transhumant adaptive strategy areworthy of respect, scientific study, and perhapspreservation within the dominant society. Such humanachievements are subject to special protection under theNational Environmental Policy Act and could figuresignificantly into development decisions that might harmthese Indian resources. Again, these scenarios reflect thelogical premises and legal system of the dominant UnitedStates society. Writings by Native American people(Powe11,1977, 62; Lyons,1980; MacDonald,1980) on themanagement of natural resources suggest that Indians might,if given the opportunity, develop quite a different systeminasmuch as many of these resources are considered sacred.

Paiute Resources and Energy Projects

Southern Paiute resources are potentially impacted byenergy development projects because of extensive coaldeposits located in mesas near Alton, Utah, just south of

Bryce Canyon and in the 50 -mile long Kaiparowits Plateaujust west of the Colorado River. The proper relationshipbetween the energy potential and other natural and culturalresources of this region (termed here the "Kaiparowitsregion ") has been debated by environmentalists, energycorporations, numerous federal agencies and local citizensincluding Indians for more than two decades. TheKaiparowits region contains some of the most unusual anddiversified environmental resources in the entire world.From Lee's Ferry on the Colorado River to the north rim of

the Kaibab Plateau a visitor can experience in an hour'sdrive most of the major ecological zones in North America.Human resources of the region are similarly diverse. Thereare thousands of archaeological sites attesting to over twothousand years of occupation, seven Southern Paiute Indianbands and dozens of small Mormon settlements established in

the mid 1800s. This combination of resources have beendeveloped into eight national parks and three nationalrecreation areas, which are visited annually by more thaneight million tourists.

The disposition of these resources, especially theirrelationship to a proposal to build a huge power plant onthe estimated 15 billion tons of coal deposits in theKaiparowits Plateau, generated one of the most heated

114

national debates of the 1970's. The debate had many facetsbut largely split along two value- aesthetic interpretationsof the landscape. Environmentalist sentiments were clearlycaptured in the Audubon Magazine: "To the PaiuteIndians...Kaiparowits was a gentle, sacred word --theirexpression for a long, towering plateau of cliffs, canyons,pinon- and -juniper stands, grasses and desert shrubs, thatwas their homeland: 'The Mountain of thePeople.'" (Ratcliffe,1976:12). The Wall Street Journal tooka different perspective: "The Paiute Indians called thisdesolate area of scrub and rock 'the mountain of the people'(Hi11,1976)." To the "energy hawks" the Kaiparowits coalreserves represent a national resource to be used tostimulate lagging national and local economies and todiminish reliance on foreign oil. To the "hawk protectors"the Plateau is a valuable remnant of wilderness that must beprotected at all costs from the irreparable impacts ofdevelopment. Neither adversaries acknowledged that PaiuteIndian sovereignty over local resources was an importantdecision factor. During the first decade of the battle forthese resources no Paiute concerns were considered in SIAreports.

On April 4, 1976, the consortium of four California andArizona electrical companies withdrew their KaiparowitsEnergy proposals submitted 13 years before, attributing thedecision to pressure from environmentalists and federalgovernment "red tape" (Hi11,1976). Because of rising energycosts, however, within seven months, alternative plans forKaiparowits region coal deposits were being proposed bymajor energy companies (Rattner,1976). Within two years afull set of new proposals were submitted (Anderson,1979;Ivins,1979).

The new energy proposals involve a complex array ofprojects. Each project began with a consideration of thecoal deposits. At Alton, strip mining would be used torecover the coal. The Kaiparowits Plateau coal would berecovered by deep pit mines. Once the coal became availableit could be transported by coal trucks, railroad, and /orslurry pipeline to existing coal burning plants in Arizona,Utah, or southern California and /or to new power plants.Two coal burning electrical generation stations wereproposed within Southern Paiute territory: The Harry Allenplant next to the Moapa Paiute Indian Reservation in Nevadaand the Warner Valley plant near St. George, Utah. Energyproduced by these plants would be transmitted over new highvoltage electrical power lines to consumer communitiesprimarily located in southern California, 300 miles away.Combinations of these mining, transportation, and productionproposals would potentially impact Southern Paiute resourcesand culture.

115

Almost a dozen EIS and regional planning studies havebeen prepared in response to the new Kaiparowits regionenergy proposals. In stark contrast with earlier EIS's,most of these studies include Native American concerns.Even the $4 million Warner Valley Power plant EIS, completedin 1975, was considered incomplete without additionalsections speaking to Native American concerns.

This inclusion of Indian concerns in the new EIS's hasoccurred primarily because the final regulations of theNational Environmental Policy Act that appeared in theFederal Register on November 29, 1978 (Vol. 43,No. 230:44978- 56007) clarified the appropriate role of

Indian tribes as participants in the NEPA process.According to Section 55989 Indian tribes should have earlyknowledge of projects, are invited to participate in theformulation of issues and the research itself, and areinvited to comment on draft reports before they become thefinal report. They have these rights whenever a project canaffect Indian people living on a reservation. Alsoimportant was the passage of the American Indian ReligiousFreedom Act of 1978 (92 Stat. 469) that guarantees AmericanIndian access to sacred sites required in their religion,including cemeteries, and the freedom to use sacred naturalspecies and resources in the practice of their religion eventhough these resources may no longer be controlled by theIndian people.

Beyond these new national laws are special stateregulations. In California, Indian rights to controlcultural resources are more extensive than anywhere else inthe country. The governor's office (State of

California,1978) has created a special review board, theNative American Heritage Commission (NAHC) of California.The NAHC has the right to review all major state developmentproposals to help determine the extent to which theypotentially impact Native Americans. The NAHC has helpedtranslate national laws into local practice so that nowmajor public corporations include Native American concernsalong with other concerns specified by NEPA. SouthernCalifornia Edison, Inc., for example, has set the trend byfunding the most complete Indian SIA sections ever to appearin an EIS study. One of these studies, Persistence andPower (Bean and Vane,1978), was precedent setting in

considering the concerns of Native Americans for resourceslocated beyond their reservations. This study is of specialsignificance to Southern Paiutes who either have noreservation at all or who live on small remnants of

traditional lands (see Stoffle et aí.,1981 for a fullerdiscussion).

116

SIA Expressions of Paiute Concerns

The authors have worked to help elicit Southern Paiuteconcerns regarding two Kaiparowits region energy proposals.The first SIA (Bean and Vane,1978) studied the potentialimpact of nine electrical transmission line corridors onIndian resources in the Mohave Desert. The Chemehuevi, LasVegas, and Pahrump Paiute bands were among the seven NativeAmerican groups with resources potentially impacted by theproject proposals. The second SIA (ERT,1980) assessed thepotential impact of coal production and of transporting thecoal out of the region by truck, railroad, and slurrypipeline in the Alton and Kaiparowits areas. Within thestudy area were the traditional resources of seven Paiutebands: Cedar City, Kaibab, Kanosh, Koosharem, San Juan -Willow Spring, San Juan -Navajo Mountain, and Shivwits. Inaddition, a portion of this study area involved Navajo landsas well.

Due to the breadth of these studies, they were definedas regional planning or Class 1 instead of a site -specificor a Class 3 Environmental Impact Statement. This is animportant distinction because a Class 1 report defines thetypes of resources potentially impacted as well asassessing, whenever possible, the degree of impact. Inaddition, it can be used to eliminate a segment of theproposed development. On the other hand, a Class 3 EIS isneeded to permit a project to be constructed. Thespecifications for a Class 3 EIS should be based on thefindings of a Class 1 report. This process of step -by -stepEIS analysis and decision making is called "tiering."

In order to better understand how Southern Paiutes haveresponded to Kaiparowits energy proposals, the followingsection focuses exclusively on the Kaiparowits CoalDevelopment and Transportation Study (ERT,1980). Thispermits a greater detailing of concerns than would bepossible if both SIA's were discussed. The detail helps toillustrate the "triangulation" of oral history, documents,and ethnography in an Indian SIA --a method used tosubstantiate key SIA facts.

The Triangulation Methodology in Indian -SIA

Below are some findings derived from direct interviewswith Native American people and supported (triangulated) byethnohistorical sources during the Kaparowits study. Interms of general concern, the most commonly expressedresponse by Paiute people to the project was that itseffects will be harmful to sacred natural and culturalresources. They did not wish the development to take placein any form. Reasons for taking this position varied, butperhaps the statement that best represents the greatest

117

number of Paiutes was made by Chairman Benioh (1979), whowrote:

I, as like many of the Southern Paiute Indians,oppose any project that will bring destruction andunequal balance to sacred territorial lands ofNative Americans. God created this earth with allliving matter, and he told us to respect all living,including the plants, trees and wildlife. Eachanimal has a legend behind it, each plant has a

spirit within it; we bring upon ourselves injusticeif we are not in harmony with respect to each livingmatter that God has created. I assume that thiscoal project will bring many distasteful feelingsamongst my people for disturbing the peaceful earth.It is not right, in the Indian's eye, for man todisturb that habitat based on Indian belief andreligion. There are sacred elements there that havemeaning to the Paiute people.

Such a statement, should perhaps not have to be confirmed.Nonetheless, it is consistent with observations made by aMormon settler among the Las Vegas Paiutes in 1855(Jensen,1925:188), records kept by Powell between 1870 and1880 among the Southern Paiutes (Fowler andFowler,1971:35-96), oral history collected in 1932 among theSouthern Paiutes (Kelly,1971:133 -142), and 20 years ofparticipant observation of a Southern Paiute religion amongthe Chemehuevi Paiutes (Laird,1976).

The following are summaries of the specific concernsexpressed by Paiute peoples from the study area. They arelisted alphabetically so as not to imply a ranking among theconcerns. Such a ranking is possible but requires a surveyapproach and scaled response categories such as thosesuccessfully attempted in the Allen- Warner Valley EnergySystem study (Bean and Vane,1979:6 -18 to 6 -31; Stoffle etal.,1981).

1. Artifacts: Heavy artifacts were normally left attraditional camping sites in anticipation of thegroup's seasonal visit. Other artifacts were storedin caves or rock shelters. Although return to thesecamp sites has been blocked in many cases byEuroamericans, living Indian people still know thelocation of the sites and claim ownership of theartifacts.

2. Animals: Strong concern was expressed for animalsof the area, especially those that figurepredominantly in either the religion or diet of thePaiute people.

118

3. Burials: Until recent times, depending on theNative American group, burial of the dead wasconducted in a traditional fashion in a sacredlocation. Therefore, the great majority of thePaiute burials are not located in recognizedcemeteries. It is assumed that all portions of thestudy area contain burials of recent origin. Theseare of deep concern until specifically "cleared" byofficial Native American representatives andfamilies familiar with the locale. This assumptionis based on research recording such burials in everysegment of the study area where Native Americanscould be interviewed. Disturbing Paiute burialswithout proper supervision by family members and /or

a respected ceremonial leader has led and can beexpected to lead to long term grief and emotionalstress among family members.

4. Petroglyphs and Pictographs: Symbols, both life-like and abstract, have been pecked (petroglyphs)and painted (pictographs) in caves and alongsheltered ledges. While some of these areattributed to the early Puebloan peoples, many aremore recent and therefore recognized as beingcreated by and belonging to living people.

5. Places: A number of places were mentioned as beingof religious and /or historic importance and shouldnot be destroyed or aesthetically altered.

6. Plants: Native Americans in the study area continueto use many plants there for food, medicine,ceremonies, and income. Native plants are a majorpart of the Willow Springs Paiutes' diet. They arealso critical components of their ceremonies.Native plants contribute to Kaibab Paiutes' diet andherbal medicines, and are a major element in theirceremonies. Basketmaking is a major source of cashfor Willow Spring Paiutes. They make the famous"Navajo" Wedding Basket, miniature baskets, pitchpine water jugs and conical burden baskets. Eachbasket is made from plants growing in limitednumbers. Any reduction in availability of essentialplants such as willow and Devil's Claw which areessential for making the Navajo Wedding Basket couldadversely affect the band's economy. Such a

reduction would diminish the supply of a ceremonialbasket to the Navajo people (Stewart,1938a, 1938b).

7. Trails: Native Americans built and maintained anextensive network of trails that served religious,communication, economic, and political functions andwere the locus of many culturally important events.While such trails have been used in places as the

119

basis for Euroamerican roads, many Indian trails arestill largely intact and defined as a significantcultural resource.

Locating Sacred Resources

Detailed information was gathered during the progressof this study on each of the above mentioned Native Americansacred resources and will be presented in this section. Atthe request of the Native American consultants, however,certain information will be withheld in order to protect theresources. This is especially true of the exact locationsof artifacts, petroglyphs, pictographs, and burials. Othersacred resources have been listed as occurring in a

particular study map section, but the exact location therehas been withheld. According to the consultants, some ofthese sacred resources still exist only because theirlocations have been kept secret. It is understood, however,that were a specific development project to be considered ina portion of the study area, Indian people would like theoption to come forward during a Class 3 EIS and make morespecific statements regarding the protection of sacredresources in that location.

Animals: Traditionally Southern Paiute people consumedmost types of animals found within their environment (Euler,1966:112 -113; Fowler and Fowler, 1971 :47 -49,162; Kelly,1971:47 -55). The list includes dozens of species and ismost completely discussed by C. Fowler in her environmentalintroduction to Euler's Southern Paiute Ethnohistory(1966:24 -31).

Native American consultants singled out for immediateand perhaps greatest concern those animals that which figuresignificantly in the diet of certain local people and thosewhich figure significantly in Paiute legends (Palmer,1946)and religion. Animals mentioned are: badger, bear, beaver,blue jay, cotton tail, coyote, deer, doves, eagle, hawk,hummingbird, jack rabbit, mountain sheep, rattle snake,owls, packrat, porcupine, quail, sagehen, skunk, squirrel,and swallow. Given the uneven distribution of animals inSouthern Paiute territory it can be assumed that otherspecies would be mentioned as more local groups of Indianpeople are interviewed.

Plants: The most extensive corpus of concerns focusedon Native American plants. Unfortunately, no study hascompared Paiute and scientific botanical taxonomies. Also,there are extensive species and variety differences amongthe plants of this study area. This great diversity makesit difficult to match a specific sacred plant with itsscientific classification. To reduce this confusion theexpressed concerns for plants have been separated into twosections: (1) a site -specific listing of plants classified

120

by their Paiute and common names and (2) an ethnohistoricalanalysis and scientific presentation of Southern Paiuteplants.

In the first section the following presentation formathas been utilized for each plant: Paiute name -translationif available; common name or description; study arealocation -- actual site if available; source of informationand other published references to the plant's use by Paiutepeople; and other spellings or associated plant names. Forexample:

1. paxangkwa

wheat -like seed used to make bread; C -18 Page area,Atatsiv area; Bunte 4/14/80:9,14; abundant years agobut rare now

2. saxwaxoapu

Indian tobacco; (location information withheld);Stoffle,3 /11/80:5; Kelly,1971:46, used her spelling

3. tuusuuvi

Devil's Claw; C -18 to south, C -6 to south;Bunte,4/14/80:15; Stoffle, 3/11/80:4; rare, neededfor baskets

4. wa'ai

seed ground for mush, C -16, C -14, C -11 to south,House Rock Valley, Bunte, 4/18/80:5,6; Stoffle,3/14/80:1; 3/12/80:2; Kelly,1971:42; Kelly suggeststhis is Oryzopsis Hymenoids Ricker, see alsowa'aipi'

5. wichuna

wild potatoes; C -1 to east, C -11 to south, nearCedar Mountain and Kaibab Plateau; Bunte,4/18/80:4,5; Fowler and Fowler, 1971:47 suggest thebulbs of the wild potato are probably Oreogenialinearifolia and that Powell recorded Paiute namewicuna'a

It should be noted that our full list of 64 NativeAmerican plants merely reflects a few days of fieldinterviewing and is therefore representative of the greatvariety of plant concerns rather than a complete list ofplant concerns. Also, without additional field research, itis impossible to establish the exact scientific taxonomiccategory for each plant of concern to Paiutes. It is

121

therefore impossible to establish at this time the fullspatial range of these plants.

The second section of Native American plant concernsinvolves establishing a more complete listing of the "plantsever used" by Southern Paiutes in the study area. Thislist, a portion of which is illustrated in Table 1, is

derived from (1) Euroamerican observer accounts, (2) oralhistory accounts, and (3) ethnographic observations (Hilland Stoffle,1978). Although various observers haveattempted to categorize the plants they observed being usedby Indians, the botanical classificatory system changes overtime. This analysis, therefore, takes as the botanicalauthority Kearney and Peebles (1960). As a bonus, Kearneyand Peebles published numerous discoveries of their ownabout Native American plant use. These are indicated in ourfull list (Hill and Stoffle,1978).

Comparison of the botanical inventory, such as thoseexamples in Table 1, with the expressed concerns for plants,demonstrates why the two analyses should be separated. Insome cases, such as the expressed concern for wichuna, orwild potatoes, we find a one -to -one correlation between thatplant and the species Oreogenia linearifolia. In this casePowell's 1872 botanical observation further supports thecase. On the other hand, an expressed concern for yaantu,which is probably agave, may refer to Agave deserti or Agaveutahensis. While the specific differences occasionally maynot be culturally important to Indian people, there isevidence that different species make different contributionsto ceremonies. The effort to separate the botanicalclassification from the expressed concerns is designed topreserve Native American plant distinctions until furtherfield investigations can specify the connection.

Places: Native American people, like other ethnicgroups, express concern that specific places of sacrèdcultural value to them be preserved. What "preserved" meansis very much subject to cultural definition. When suchareas are within the control of the Native American groupthe region is sometimes formally defined as a cultural parkand sometimes informally defined as an area to be respected.The Navajo Nation, for example, has defined large portionsof the study area as a series of cultural parks(Cortner,1976).

Sacred places can become important to a cultural groupthrough a variety of ways. Among the Chemehuevi Paiutesdescriptive place names were functionally useful to guidetravelers long distances through desert country as well asbeing incorporated into the religion (Laird,1976:119).Among this Southern Paiute group, territory was defined byhereditary songs which delineated a "hereditary huntingground of a closely related group and thus making it part of

122

that sacred tetralogy of man, song, mountain, and gameanimal" (Laird,1976:119).

The scholarly literature, then, contains a reasonablycomplete record of the major sacred places for theChemehuevi Paiutes. For the remaining Southern Paiutes,however, there is no published record of their sacredlocations. For Southern Paiutes in the study area a numberof places of concern were recorded during the study. Theexpressed concern for Paiute places is presented, in amanner similar to that of the plant concerns, as follows:Paiute name -translation if available; common name ordescription of place; study area location -- actual site if

available; and source of information and other publishedreferences to the place as used by Paiute people. Among the35 places mentioned are, for example:

1. ausi sa'k

incomplete basket; south east of C -11 and east ofC -18, House Rock Valley; Bunte, 4/14/80:2,3; placesfor religious gatherings in fall.

2. avuapunungwun

seed valley people; C -15, C -17, C -13, portions ofthe Kaiparowits region; Kelly, 1971:31/142 -143; seeconcept Kaiparowits.

3. kaiparoits

Kaiparowits Plateau and associated valleys;C- 17,C -15, C -13; Bunte, 4/14/80:3,5,8; Kelly,1964:31who used the name Avuapunungwun to mean KaiparowitsPeople or Seed Valley People; it was an annual seedgathering and socializing, marrying, and cornplanting locale for other groups of Paiutes as well;see also the term kaib -arow' -its or mountain family(Palmer, 1933:101).

4. kaivaxarur

mountain sitting; C -18 to north east, Paiutemountain or Navajo Mountain; Bunte, 4/14/80:7;Fowler and Fowler,1971:141; where Powell used thePaiute spelling kaiv- a- kar -et, it should be notedthat both Paiutes and Navajo peoples claim this as asacred location.

Trails: Although conceivably trails could be consideredwithin a discussion of sacred places, they have beendifferentiated in this report, at the request of NativeAmerican consultants, as a special cultural resource.

123

Trails tied Indian people together affording a regularexchange of goods, services, innovations, news, marriagepartners, and occasionally warring parties. It is nowonder, then, that trails and often the people who used thembecame culturally significant. In the pre -Euroamericanperiod High Chiefs among the Chemehuevi Paiutes kept highlytrained, swift runners for exchanging messages(Laird,1976:47). As late as the 1930's, Laird met the lastof these runners. Her observations suggest thattraditionally they were so important they belonged to anancient guild. Even in this century some of these Paiuterunners were assumed to have supernatural powers(Laird, 1976:47).

The importance of Native American trails in the studyarea is documented by every early Euroamerican traveler, forthey normally utilized Indian guides and passed along Indiantrails (Colton, 1964; Corbett, 1952:151,153,171,175).Escalante, who in 1776 had been traveling along Indiantrails throughout his journey, noted that while descendingfrom the Rainbow Plateau the steep Indian trail had beenrepaired with loose stones and logs, and in one steepsection there is a "...stairway of the same materials morethan three varas long and two wide" (Bolton,1951 :229).Later on he describes the trails as "open roads" as theypass to the south across the flatter portions of the KaibitoPlateau (Bolton, 1951:229).

For this study, information about specific portions ofNative American trails has been withheld at the request ofthe Native American consultants. This request stems in partfrom the cultural value of the remaining trail sections andin part from the fact that once these trail remnants arefound they lead to traditional Indian living sites. Itshould be emphasized, however, that (1) trail sections stillexist in most sections of the study area, (2) some trailswere more significant than others, (3) trail preservation ismuch better in dry areas, and (4) given a specificdevelopment project and its Class 3 EIS, Indian people willcome forward to speak about their concerns for trails in

that location.

Potential Impact of Coal Proposals on Sacred Resources

Based on the study's data, it can be concluded that oneor more of the potentially impacted Native American groupshas sacred cultural resources in each transportationcorridor, in each coal production area, and in the landslying just outside these specified areas (but still withinthe overall study area boundary). The richness of detailand variety of sacred resources discussed reflect thepresence of some Native Americans still living on theirtraditional homelands and the presence of other groups stillliving near ancestoral lands left only within this century.

124

It was unexpected to find direct relatives of the KaiparoitsPaiutes, a cultural group many assumed no longer to haveliving representatives, intermarried with the San JuanPaiutes. Even these Kaiparoits people, who were forced bycircumstances from their ancestral lands around 1919,exhibited intense interest in their sacred resources stillremaining across the Colorado River.

Because Native American sacred resources exist in alltransportation corridors and coal production areas, it is

probable that any development alternative requiringexcavation will adversely impact these resources. Whileexact specification of sacred resources' location must awaita decision to conduct Class 3 EIS, it appears that the widthof the valley through which a proposed transportationalternative must pass will affect the probability ofimpacting specific resources. The narrower the valley, themore concentrated the sacred resources.

Conclusion

In the United States today, Native Americans probablywield more authority and influence over decisions affectingtheir resources than at any other time since the initiationof the reservation system. For most, however, this is anappropriate beginning on a road to sovereignty. The desirefor additional autonomy is primarily based on two keyrealities. First, Euroamericans have usurped most NativeAmerican resources (Jennings,1975) and caused widespreadstarvation and population declines (Dobyns,1976) whilejustifying such dispossession by denigrating Indian peopleand their cultures (Hagen,1980). Second, in most areas ofIndian life there is a "catch 22" meaning that the federalgovernment has final authority over tribal governmentactions even when the two are in competition for the sameresources (Owens,1979:329). Our SIA experiences suggestthat the response of any Native American people to aspecific development proposal will be influenced by thegroup's level of sovereignty, the degree to whichknowledgeable and representative members of the group areinvolved in the study, and the combination of scientific andlay evaluations of the group's cultural resources.

Moreover, these experiences confirm the perceptivestatements by earlier investigators (Spicer,1957) thatNative Americans perceive territories in this region from aperspective that differs fundamentally from Euroamericanconceptions. Some Euroamericans view it as beautiful andtherefore to be preserved for its grandeur. Others see onlya wasteland to be ignored or treated as a "sacrifice area."Still others identify economically valuable naturalresources to be exploited. Regardless of variation,Euroamericans regard it in secular terms because their HolyLand lies across the Atlantic Ocean at the eastern end of

125

the Mediterranean Sea. Native Americans, in fundamentalcontrast and despite nominal conversion to Christianity,perceive the land they inhabit as sacred.

Most Native Americans living in the region still residewithin their traditional Holy Lands, where supernaturalforces placed their ancestors. According to Edward Spicer(1957 :214), "The difference between the Holy-Land -basedIndians and ourselves as long- accustomed exiles from HolyLand is of great importance... The Indian viewpoint may bebetter understood in the light of the fanaticism of theCrusaders or the present situation in the Middle Eastbetween Israel and the Arabs." Even when Native Americanrefugees such as the Kaiparowits have been displaced fromtheir Southern Paiute Holy Land, they know its holiness hasnot diminished. Neither has the intrusion of Euroamericansabrogated the supernaturally chartered ties between Paiutesand their Holy Land. The sacredness of the Paiute Holy Landcannot diminish as long as birth -right members of thereligious congregation survive and pass from generation togeneration knowledge of the intimate and unbreakablerelationship between themselves, their land, and thesupernatural.

126

References

Anderson, Edgar

1956 "Man as a Maker of New Plants and New PlantCommunities." Pp. 763 -777 in William Thomas,Jr. (ed.) Man's Role in Changing the Face of theEarth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Anderson, Gordon

1979 "High Noon at Last Chance Creek." Not Man Apart 9:2(January -February).

Aschmann, Homer

1959 The Central Desert of Baja California: Demographyand Ecology. Ibero- Americana:42. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Bennett, John W.

1976 The Ecological Transition, Cultural Anthropology andHuman Adaptation. New York: Pergamon Press.

Bean, Lowell J. and Vane, Sylvia (eds.)

1978 Persistence and Power: A Study of Native AmericanPeoples in the Sonoran Desert and the Devers -PaloVerde High Voltage Transmission Line. Reportsubmitted by Cultural Systems Research to SouthernCalifornia Edison Company.

1979 Allen- Warner Valley Energy System: WesternTransmission System Ethnographic and HistoricalResources. Report submitted by Cultural SystemsResearch, Inc. to Southern California EdisonCompany.

Bolton, Herbert E.

1951 Pageant in the Wilderness: The Story of theEscalante Expedition to the Interior Basin, 1776.Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah State HistoricalSociety.

Colton, Harold S.

1964 "Principal Hopi Trails." Plateau 36(3)91 -94.

Cook, Sherburne F.

1976 The Conflict Between the California Indian and WhiteCivilization. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Cook, Sherburne F. and Borah, Woodrow

1972 Essays in Population History: Mexico and Caribbean.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Corbett, Pearson H.

1952 Jacob Hamblin: The Peacemaker. Salt Lake City,Utah: Deseret Book Company.

Cortner, Hanna J.

1976 "The Navajo Environmental Protection Commission:Developing the Capabilities for Environmental ImpactAssessment and Regulation." The Indian Historian9(4)32-37.

Crosby, Alfred

1972 The Columbian Exchange: Biological and CulturalConsequences of 1492. Westport, Connecticut:Greenwood Press.

1976 "Virgin Soil Epidemics as a Factor in AboriginalDepopulation in America." The William and MaryQuarterly 33(2)289 -299.

Denevan, William (ed.)

1976 The Native Population of the Americas in 1492.

Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Dobyns, Henry F.

1966 "Estimating Aboriginal American Population: An

Appraisal of Techniques with a New HemisphericEstimate." Current Anthropology 7:(4)395 -416.

1976a Native American Historical Demography: A CriticalBibliography. Bloomington: Indiana UniversityPress for the Newberry Library Center for theHistory of the American Indian.

1976b "Brief Perspective on a Scholarly Transformation:Widowing the 'Virgin' Land." Ethnohistory23:95 -104.

1981 From Fire to Flood: Historic Human Destruction of

Sonoran Desert Riverine Oases. Socorro, New Mexico:Ballena Press.

128

Dobyns, Henry F., Stoffle, Richard W., Jones, Kristine

1975 "Native American Urbanization and Socio- EconomicIntegration in Southwestern United States."Ethnohistory 22(2)155 -179.

ERT

1980 Kaiparowits Coal Development and TransportationStudy. Report submitted to Bureau of LandManagement. Fort Collins, Colorado: EnvironmentalResearch and Technology, Inc.

Euler, Robert C.

1966 Southern Paiute Ethnohistory. Salt Lake City:University of Utah Press.

1972 The Paiute People. Phoenix: Indian Tribal Series.

Evans, Michael J.

1977 "A reexamination of Southern -most PaiutePopulations." A paper read at the American Societyfor Ethonohistory 25th annual meeting, Chicago,Illinois.

Fowler, Don D. and Fowler, Catherine S.

1971 Anthropology and the Numa: John Wesley Powell'sManuscripts on the Numic Peoples of Western NorthAmerica, 1868 -1880. Smithsonian Contributions toAnthropology No. 14. Washington: SmithsonianInstitution Press.

Hagan, William T.

1980 "Justifying Dispossession of the Indian: The LandUtilization Argument." Pp.65-80 in C. Vecsey andR. Venables (eds), American Indian Environments.Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press.

Hill, G. Christian

1976 "The Law's Delay: Huge Plant's Demise SignalsTrouble Ahead for Energy Expansion." Wall StreetJournal 188:1.

Hill, Jack and Stoffle, Richard

1978 Ethnobotany of the Southern Paiutes. Researchmanuscript, University of Wisconsin -Parkside,Department of Anthropology. pp. 72.

129

Ivins, Molly

1979 "New Environmental Fight Looms Over Developing Coal -Rich Utah Area." New York Times 14:1 (March 12).

Jacobs, Wilbur R.

1972 Dispossessing the American Indian. New York:Charles Scribner and Sons.

1974 "The Tip of the Iceberg: Pre -Columbian IndianDemography and Some Implications for Revisionism."William and Mary Quarterly 31 :123 -132.

1977 "Demography." Pp. 60 -61 in R. Ortiz (ed.), TheGreat Sioux Nation. New York American IndianTreaty Council Information Center.

1980 "Indians as Ecologists and Other EnvironmentalThemes in American Frontier History." Pp. 46 -80 inC. Vecsey and R. Venables (eds.), American IndianEnvironments. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse UniversityPress.

Jennings, Francis

1975 The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, andthe Cant of Conquest. Chapel Hill: University ofNorth Carolina Press.

Jensen, Andrew

1925 "History of the Las Vegas Mission." Nevada StateHistorical Society Papers 5:117 -284.

Kehoe, Alice B.

1981 "Revisionist Anthropology: Aboriginal NorthAmerica." Current Anthropology 22(5)503 -517.

Kelly, Isabel T.

1934 "Southern Paiute Bands." American Anthropologist36(4)548 -560.

1971 Southern Paiute Ethnography. New York: JohnsonReprint Corporation.

Kearney, Thomas H. and Peebles, Robert H.

1960 Arizona Flora. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

King, Chester and Casebier, Dennis G.

130

1976 Background to Historic and Prehistoric Resources of

the East Mojave Desert Region. Riverside,California: Bureau of Land Management, CaliforniaDesert Planning Program.

Kroeber, Alfred L.

1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Washington:Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78.

Laird, Carobeth

1976 The Chemehuevis. Banning, California: Malki MuseumPress.

Lewis, Henry T.

1973 Patterns of Indian Burning in California: Ecologyand Ethnohistory. Ramona, CA.: Ballena Press.

1977 "Ecology of Fires in Northern Alberta." WesternCanadian Journal of Anthropology 7(1)15 -52.

Lyons, Oren

1980 "An Iroquois Perspective." Pp. 171 -174 in C. Vecseyand R. Venables (eds.), American IndianEnvironments. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse UniversityPress.

MacDonald, Peter

1980 "Navajo Natural Resources." Pp. 162 -170 in

C. Vecsey and R. Venables (eds.), American IndianEnvironments. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse UniversityPress.

Meister, Cary W.

1976 "Demographic Consequences of Euro- American Contacton Selected American Indian Populations and TheirRelationship to the Demographic Transition."Ethnohistory 23(2)161 -172.

Owens, Nancy J.

1979 "The Effects of Reservation Bordertowns and EnergyExploitation on American Indian EconomicDevelopment." Research in Economic Anthropology2:303 -337.

Palmer, Edward

131

1870 "Food Products of the North American Indians."United States Commissioner of Agriculture, AnnualReport 1871 :404 -428.

1878 "Plants used by the Indians of the United States."American Naturalist XII:646 -655.

Palmer, William R.

1933 "Paiute Indian Homelands." Utah Historical Quarterly6(3)88 -102.

1946 Why the North Star Stands Still and Other IndianLegends. Springdale, Utah: Zion Natural HistoryAssociation.

Posey, Darrell A.

1976 "Entomological Considerations in SoutheasternAboriginal Demography." Ethnohistory 23(2)147 -160.

Powell, John W. and Ingalls, G. W.

1874 "Report of J. W. Powell and G. W. Ingalls, SpecialCommissioners to Enumerate Indians in Nevada andAdjacent Places." Annual Report of the Commissionerof Indian Affairs for the year 1873. Washington:Government Printing Office, pp. 41 -58.

Powell, Father Peter

1977 "The Sacred Way." Pp. 62 -66 in R. Ortiz (ed.) TheGreat Sioux Nation: Sitting in Judgement onAmerica. New York: American Indian Treaty CouncilInformation Center.

Rattner, Steven

1976 "Utilities continue Fight for Utah Coal Project."New York Times (November 26) Section IV, Pt 1 :2.

Ratcliffe, Bill

1976 "Utah's Parklands: The Ultimate Sacrifice."Audubon 78(2)12.

Roth, George E.

1976 "Incorporation and Changes in Ethnic Structure: TheChemehuevi Indians. Ph.D. Dissertation,Northwestern University, 2 vols.

Shipek, Florence

132

1970 The Autobiography of Delfina Cuero. Morongo IndianReservation, California: Malki Museum Press.

1977 "A Strategy for Change: The Luiseno of SouthernCalifornia." Ph.D. Dissertation, University ofHawaii.

Spicer, Edward H.

1957 "Worlds Apart: Cultural Differences in the ModernSouthwest," Arizona Quarterly 13(3)197 -230.

State of California

1978 "Clear Statement of Native American HeritageCommission Jurisdiction." Sacramento, California:Governor's Office, State of California.

Steward, Julian H.

1938 Basin -Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups.Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 120.Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

1955 Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology ofMultilinear Evolution. Urbana: University ofIllinois Press.

Stewart, Omer C.

1938a " "Navajo Basketry as made by Ute and Paiute."American Anthropologist 40:4.]

1938b "The Navajo Wedding Basket." Museum Notes10(9)25 -28.

1956 "Fire as the First Great Force Employed by Man."Pp. 115 -133 in William Thomas, Jr. (ed.) Man's Rolein Changing the Face of the Earth. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

1980 "Temoke Band of Shoshone and the Oasis Concept."Nevada Historical Society Quarterly 23(4)246 -261.

Stoffle, Richard W., Jake, Merle C., Evans, Michael J., andBunte, Pamela A.

1981 "Establishing Native American Concerns in an SIA."Social Impact Assessment 65/66:3 -10.

Stoffle, Richard W. and Evans, Michael

133

1976 "Resource Competition and Population Change: A

Kaibab Paiute Ethnohistorical Case." Ethnohistory23(2)173 -197.

Thomas, Peter A.

1976 "Contrastive Subsistence Strategies and Land Use as

Factors for Understanding Indian -White Relations inNew England," Ethnohistory 23(1)1 -18.

Vecsey, Christopher and Venables, Robert W. (eds.)

1980 American Indian Environments: Ecological Issues in

Native American History. Syracuse, N.Y.: SyracuseUniversity Press.

Woodbury, Angus M.

1965 Notes on the Human Ecology of Glen Canyon.Anthropological Paper No. 74. Salt Lake City:University of Utah, Department of Anthropology.

134