512
BERNARD L FONTANA
The literature concerning Piman Indians is extensive, but as noted
above, very little of it bears directly upon the relationships between these
particular groups of Homo sapiens and the rest of their environment. Unpublished claims case reports by Hackenberg (1964a) and Fontana
(1964), written solely in connection with the Papago Indians of southern
Arizona, provide the most notable exceptions.
To arrive at an understanding of the aboriginal, or pre-European circumstance of Piman Indian culture, it has been necessary to draw upon
accounts of these Indians written by non-Indians who saw them in the
late 1600's and throughout the 1700's, years during which their native
culture was presumably less affected by European contact than it came
to be in the following century and a half. It has further been necessary
to rely on ethnographic data collected almost entirely during the present
century and by analogy and extrapolation to turn the culture clock backward, as it were, to surmise what the Piman "native" state of existence
may have been. Such a procedure assumes that in the last half of the
1800's and almost until now there have been certain features., at least,
of Piman culture which have survived—in memory and in oral tradition
if not in living reality—since aboriginal times. This is clearly a bold assumption to make, but within bounds and in combination with other kinds
of data, I believe it can be a correct one. And finally, there is a limited
amount of information from archaeological sources upon which to draw.
Although the primary historical sources describing Piman Indians at the
time of European contact and for 100 years afterward number in the many
dozens, only a few of them are absolutely basic and continue to be those
relied upon by scholars interested in the ethnohistory of these peoples.
These are the works by Bolton (1930, 1948, 1960), Coues (1900),
Garces (1965), Manje (1954), Nentvig (1951), Pfefferkorn (1949),
Treutlein (1945), and Wyllys (1931). All these sources are either by or
about Jesuit and Franciscan missionaries with the exception of the accounts of Manje (1954) and Juan Bautista de Anza (cited in Bolton,
1930), both of whom were soldiers.
Similarly, there are dozens of ethnographic reports—as well as modern
economic, demographic, linguistic, medical, and physiological studies—
concerning Pimans, but only a handful are basic to an attempted reconstruction of aboriginal Piman life. These are the works by Castetter and
Bell (1942), Castetter and Underhill (1935), Childs (1954), Ezell
(1961), Hackenberg (1964b), Hoover (1935b), Jones (1962), Joseph
et al (1949), Lumholtz (1912), Nolasco A. (1965), Underhill (1936,
1938, 1939, 1946), and Russell (1908).
The only major archaeological work in Piman sites—and one of these
may well not be Piman at all—has been done by Di Peso (1953, 1956).
BERNARD L FONTANA
The literature concerning Piman Indians is extensive, but as noted
above, very little of it bears directly upon the relationships between these
particular groups of Homo sapiens and the rest of their environment. Unpublished claims case reports by Hackenberg (1964a) and Fontana
(1964), written solely in connection with the Papago Indians of southern
Arizona, provide the most notable exceptions.
To arrive at an understanding of the aboriginal, or pre-European circumstance of Piman Indian culture, it has been necessary to draw upon
accounts of these Indians written by non-Indians who saw them in the
late 1600's and throughout the 1700's, years during which their native
culture was presumably less affected by European contact than it came
to be in the following century and a half. It has further been necessary
to rely on ethnographic data collected almost entirely during the present
century and by analogy and extrapolation to turn the culture clock backward, as it were, to surmise what the Piman "native" state of existence
may have been. Such a procedure assumes that in the last half of the
1800's and almost until now there have been certain features., at least,
of Piman culture which have survived—in memory and in oral tradition
if not in living reality—since aboriginal times. This is clearly a bold assumption to make, but within bounds and in combination with other kinds
of data, I believe it can be a correct one. And finally, there is a limited
amount of information from archaeological sources upon which to draw.
Although the primary historical sources describing Piman Indians at the
time of European contact and for 100 years afterward number in the many
dozens, only a few of them are absolutely basic and continue to be those
relied upon by scholars interested in the ethnohistory of these peoples.
These are the works by Bolton (1930, 1948, 1960), Coues (1900),
Garces (1965), Manje (1954), Nentvig (1951), Pfefferkorn (1949),
Treutlein (1945), and Wyllys (1931). All these sources are either by or
about Jesuit and Franciscan missionaries with the exception of the accounts of Manje (1954) and Juan Bautista de Anza (cited in Bolton,
1930), both of whom were soldiers.
Similarly, there are dozens of ethnographic reports—as well as modern
economic, demographic, linguistic, medical, and physiological studies—
concerning Pimans, but only a handful are basic to an attempted reconstruction of aboriginal Piman life. These are the works by Castetter and
Bell (1942), Castetter and Underhill (1935), Childs (1954), Ezell
(1961), Hackenberg (1964b), Hoover (1935b), Jones (1962), Joseph
et al (1949), Lumholtz (1912), Nolasco A. (1965), Underhill (1936,
1938, 1939, 1946), and Russell (1908).
The only major archaeological work in Piman sites—and one of these
may well not be Piman at all—has been done by Di Peso (1953, 1956).