I think most native populations were nomadic or semi-nomadic. If the***This wouldn't be true of California tribes. At least not in how you are thinking of nomadic, or even semi-nomadic. Most tribes had a permanent home. *Some* tribes were semi-nomadic but even those had actual permanent homes. Mine would be such a group. The houses had four wood plank walls, the equivalent of shake roofs. One on high ground for winter/spring and one down on the rivers/coast for summer/fall. Usually only a mile or so apart.
natural water sources aren't there, I would think it unlikely that
natives would take up permanent residence.
***Southern California had as many "oasis" as any other part of the state. That's the first place the white man wanted and that's the first place he moved the native population out of. Well, actually, that would have been the Spanish, French and Portugese and those who became known as Mexicans. Enthusiastically helped by the good Fathers and their Missions. Most of the native population died from disease, slavery or flat out murder because they wouldn't become good little Catholics. Those who survived were forced out into the undesireable portion of Southern California.
I was only talking about Southern California, basically LA and points south.
I understand. But, were the mission Indians truly native to the area as***Yes they were, both natives of the area and permanent residents AND rounded up by the missionaries and then shoved aside by the land grant folks. Those that survived the mission system, that is.
permanent residents, or were they rounded up by the missionaries and
then shoved aside? Europeans move to a place and stay, and I can
imagine that they wouldn't like natives moving in, even seasonally to
hunt or fish. Likewise, I doubt the natives liked having their culture
eroded.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.