Archive for the ‘Articles’ Category

Cool quotations

Monday, October 21st, 2019

Cool stuff

“Cool” is remarkably enduring as a word.  It comes from the West African concept, according to Robert Faris Thompson (Jessica Ogilvie, “You Know It,” LAT, Nov. 10, 2012, p.E7).  Chevere is South American Spanish for “cool.”


Traveling light….

The train done gone and the Greyhound bus don’t run

But walkin’ ain’t crowded and I won’t be here long.

                        Traditional blues verse

Got the key to the highway, I’m booked out and bound to go,

Gone to leave here runnin’ cause walkin’ is mo’ slow

                        Traditional blues verse

(more…)

The Wolf You Feed

Monday, October 21st, 2019

The Wolf You Feed

E. N. Anderson

gene@ucr.edu

www.krazykioti.com

**

Abstract

            Studies of genocide find that once killing is started, almost everyone joins in.  People suddenly change from peace and order to violent murder, and often back to peace when the dictator falls.  This can be explained only by the existence of both potentialities within people.   Human evil is here defined as gratuitous harm to people and other lives.  It very often comes from simply following orders or doing a job, or from “greed” (gain by predatory taking from others), but most often it comes from hatred and defensiveness.  At worst—and very commonly—it causes people to hurt themselves simply to hurt disliked others.  At root, it can be traced to irrational, overemotional responses to fear and threat.  These are common among people abused as children and subsequently, and among people raised in disempowering, oppressive, intolerant environments.  They become resentful, frustrated, and personally weak—lacking in self-efficacy.  They often bully or scapegoat others, usually even weaker persons.  Social hate is especially damaging, seen in genocide, bigotry, warfare, allowing people to starve or die of disease when they could have been saved, and other mass destruction.  Empowerment, rational coping with stress, and comprehensive morality based on “we’re all in this together” are the major cures.  These general cures can be applied to specific social issues.

**

“Son, it’s time to teach you the most important lesson about life and people.  It is that everyone has within him, or her, two wolves:  a good wolf that wants to help everyone and do what’s best for all, and a bad wolf that wants to do evil and hurt people and the world.”

“Father, that’s scary.  It really worries me.  Which wolf wins out in the end?”

“Son: the wolf you feed.”

                        Native American folktale

**

Preface

            This story—perhaps more Manichaean than Native American—captures much of what I have learned in my life.  I was raised to think people are good, and that evil is merely ignorance.  The people around me gave the lie to that.  They were often quite deliberately bad.  Many ordinary people, perhaps most at one time or another, hurt themselves just to hurt others.  They ruin marriages and friendships because of imagined or trivial slights. They vote their own destruction by electing people who promise to crush “the others.”  They sacrifice their lives for violent and extremist causes.  Humanity has a sorry record.  Despite claims of moral progress, the genocidal dictator and the suicide bomber are the emblems of the late 20th and early 21st century.

            Yet, obviously, many people are good, some are saintly, and almost everyone is good some of the time.  Even mass murderers and psychopaths usually have a history of decent behavior when not having a psychotic break. 

            Jesus said:  “Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted?  It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men” (Matthew 5:13).  The salt of the earth—as opposed to sea salt—came from salt springs, and was contaminated with ordinary dirt or carbonate.  Over time, aerial moisture would leach the salt out, leaving only the residue.  Natural human goodness and sociability is subject to similar leaching.  This was, of course, Jesus’ real message.  (One wonders what Biblical literalists make of verses like this one.) 

            Most people are in a rather neutral, everyday state most of the time, not thinking of acting saintly or demoniacal, but they are still torn between virtuous ideals of helping, sheltering, and caring, and vicious ideals of excluding, ignoring, and hurting. They are either working for and with people, or working against people.  We are constantly forced to decide.  As Pascal Boyer (2018:33) says, “Observers from outside our species would certainly be struck by two facts about humans.  They are extraordinarily good at forming groups, and they are just as good at fighting other groups.” 

            The nature and promotion of good have been addressed by every religious writer in history, as well as countless psychologists and other scientists.  Covering this literature is neither necessary nor possible in the present brief essay.  Evil is less well studied.  Outside of religious imprecations against sin, there are rather few studies, mostly by psychologists.  Of these, particularly valuable are Roy Baumeister’s Evil (1997), Aaron Beck’s Prisoners of Hate (1999),  Alan Fiske and Taj Rai’ Virtuous Violence (2014), Ervin Staub’s books (1989, 2003, 2011), the Sternbergs’ The Nature of Hate (2008), and James Waller’s Becoming Evil (2002) and Confronting Evil (2016).  Simon Baron-Cohen’s Zero Degrees of Empathy (2011), Steven Bartlett’s The Pathology of Man (2005), Gavin de Becker’s The Gift of Fear (1997), Fiske and Rai’s Virtuous Violence (2014), Robert Sapolsky’s Behave (2017), and Kathleen Taylor’s Cruelty (2009) cover some important psychological terrain.  Zeki and Romaya (2008) review the physiology of hate.  Albert Bandura’s book Moral Disengagement (2016) exhaustively treats that aspect of evil. 

            Most of these books, as well as the literature on genocide, spice up their texts with horrific stories.  Baumeister is especially graphic.  I have absolutely no interest in transmitting such stories here.  If you need to know how bad people get, seek out those sources.

             By evil, I mean a very specific thing: deliberate harm to people simply because one wants to harm them, because of what they are or might be.  It is the state described by words like “murderous,” “malevolent,” and “cruel.”  Ordinary everyday selfishness is bad enough, but it is part of the human condition; most of us give ourselves the benefit of the doubt, cutting corners, being stingy, cutting ourselves some slack.  This is no doubt deplorable most of the time, but it is not what I am considering in this book; I have devoted two previous books (Anderson 2010, 2014) to the problem of overly narrow and short-term planning and acting, and need not go into it here.  Selfishness becomes more evil as it moves into violent robbery, gangsterism, and raiding.  There is obviously a transition zone.  Similarly, violence in defense of self and loved ones is not evil, and is often praiseworthy.  A transition zone exists between clearly necessary violence—resisting Hitler in 1941, for instance—and clearly excessive use of force, as when police gun down an unarmed boy and claim “defense.”  Transition zones make moral decisions difficult—“hard cases make bad law”—so I will confine this book to issues like genocide and intimate partner violence that are clearly unacceptable in functioning societies.

**

Part I.  Human Evil in Context

  1. Starting with Genocide

            Visiting Cambodia together, we saw the relics of genocide and the devastation it had wrought.  We resolved to study genocide seriously.

            At that time, little was known about genocide in general.  Thousands of historical sources covered Hitler’s Holocaust, and a much smaller but still important literature covered the mass murders by the Young Turks, the USSR leadership, and Mao Zedong.  Much more recent genocides, such as those in ex-Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Cambodia itself, were only beginning to be visible in scholarly sources. 

            Very few generalizations had come out of this work.  Rudolph Rummel had just written a book, Statistics of Democide (1998; see also Rummel 1994), arguing that genocide was the natural result of totalitarian regimes.  His oft-repeated conclusion was direct: “Power kills, and absolute power kills absolutely” (Rummel 1998, passim; a rephrasing of Lord Acton’s famous quote about corruption.) 

            We quickly realized that this was not far wrong, but that it was not quite true or adequate.  Hitler was democratically elected, though he committed genocide only after taking total power.  Several other notorious genociders have been democratically elected.  They usually seized absolute power in the process of killing, but often not until the killing was under way.  We thus set off on a long voyage of discovery, comparing all documented genocides since 1900 to find common themes. 

            When science reaches this stage—several teams working on a problem—one expects simultaneous discoveries, and they occurred in this case.  Barbara Harff (2012) and ourselves (Anderson and Anderson 2012, 2017), and shortly after us Hollie Nyseth-Brehm, developed broadly the same model of genocide, and James Waller, in his great work Confronting Evil (2016), has developed it further.  Gregory Stanton’s well-known list of traits (2013) is another independent invention of a similar, but more developed, model. 

It is quite a simple one.  A would-be leader wins by developing a whole ideology based on ethnic or ideological hate, but going beyond mere hate to promise a utopian world—usually, harking back to a lost golden age and promising to recall it and improve it–if we can only eliminate “certain people.”  He often flourishes only when difficult and uncertain economic times give people economic incentives to look for radical solutions, but many such leaders take power in good times; mobilizing antagonism is always available as an easy and straightforward way to win in politics.  All that is required is that the existing administration is either fighting a war and not doing well (as in Russia when Lenin took power), or widely perceived as corrupt and incompetent.  People then work for change.  Most commonly, the country in question had a long record of ethnic and political killing, but this was not always the case.

Many dictators simply rode popular movements to victory, but many were installed by large economic interests, almost always rentiers—landlords, natural resource owners, and others who make their money from controlling primary production rather than from enterprise.  Oil has been the greatest single backer of modern autocratic states, from fascist (several in Africa and elsewhere) to feudal (Saudi Arabia) to socialist (Venezuela).  We will examine this link in due course.  In the early 20th century, most dictators were puppets installed by fascist or communist regimes when they conquered countries, and in the mid-20th the United States installed or backed several genocidal fascist regimes, most notably in Guatemala and Chile (on the history of 20th century genocides, see Anderson and Anderson 2012; Kiernan 2007; Rummel 1994, 1998; Shaw 2013).  Since then, however, genocidal and autocratic regimes have come to power through coups, local wars, or, very often, elections.  Corrupt and weak regimes create conditions where many will vote for strongmen.

John Kincaid says of American far-right politics, “right-wing movements are successful when they deploy rhetorical frames that synthesize both material and symbolic politics” (Kincaid 2016:529), and this finding summarizes a fact that seems well documented worldwide.  Oliver Hahl and collaborators (2018) have shown that “lying demagogues” succeed with disaffected voters who feel disrespected by elites and cultural brokers; lying, violating norms, openly expressing widely-held prejudices, and economic populism are a particularly successful (and deadly) combination.  Trump in the United States was only one of many leaders who triumphed in the early 21st century by using this technique.

            When he (such leaders are male, so far) takes over, he quickly moves to consolidate power. He can usually bring about a brief return of prosperity, by cracking down on crime and by “making the trains run on time” (as the proverb claims for Mussolini), but the prosperity may be illusory or short-lived.  Alternatively, the leader may take over during a war, in which case he may lead the people to victory—or may simply make things even worse, as in Cambodia.  He suspends whatever democratic or institutional checks exist, and becomes a dictator or functional equivalent.  Many small genocides have taken place in democracies, but, in almost all such cases, the victims were not citizens and were under de facto authoritarian rule.  Native Americans in the 19th century constitute a prime example.

            A dictator begins by consolidating his power.  As Rudolph Rummel often reiterated, “power kills, and absolute power kills absolutely.”  Almost inevitably, a dictator begins to consolidate his rule by killing “certain people”—whether they are Jews, bourgeoisie, political enemies, educated people, “heretics,” or any other salient group that seems opposed in some way to the new order.  I term these “structural opponent groups.”  The savagery and scope of the killing sometimes depends on the number of targeted groups, which in turn depends on the extremism of the dictator.  Hitler’s indiscriminate hatred extended from Jews to handicapped people to gays to modern artists, totaling over six million dead.  The Khmer Rouge killings in Cambodia included people defined by ethnicity, education, foreign influence, and other broad variables.  The Rwandan genocide began with Tutsi, but quickly moved on to eliminate many Hutu (Nyseth Brehm 2017b).  At the other extreme are mass political killings that eliminate the opposition and anyone related to it, but at least stop there, such as Agustin Pinochet’s in Chile, which killed about 10,000 people.  These political genocides blend into the sort of mass political elimination characteristic of medieval empires.

            Usually, there is then a lull in the killing.  The leader has his power.  However, eventually, unrest challenges his position.  In some cases, he is forced out by popular movements.  Dictators often fall.  Frequently, they come to believe their own personality cult, think they are infallible and can do anything, and decline into something hard to tell from madness (Dikötter 2019).  Often, however, a leader meets the new challenge by another wave of mass murder.  The challenge is often external war, as in Hitler’s Germany and the Khmer Rouge’s Cambodia.  Sometimes it is power jockeying within the ruling party, as in the USSR and Mao’s China.  Sometimes it is civil war or revolt, as in the Indian subcontinent when successive episodes of violence accompanied the breakaway of Pakistan from India, the later breakaway of Bangladesh from Pakistan, and the failed revolution of the Tamils in Sri Lanka.

            The most important thing to note is that the people go along.  Humans are prone to anger and hate, and even the most incompetent politician can whip up hatred and direct it against enemies. 

            This simple model—exclusionary ideology, dictatorship, consolidation, and challenge—turns out to be 100% predictive.  We concentrated on genocide under the strictest construction of Raphael Lemkin’s definition of the term—actual mass murder of innocent citizens or subjects by their own government—as opposed to general killing of civilians in war.  Some of the best work on genocide has used that wider definition (e.g. Kiernan 2007, Shaw 2013). Our model does not work for this extended use of the term.  One would have to have a predictive model of all war—something that has so far defied scholarship, despite literally thousands of attempts.  Wars are notoriously multicausal; it usually takes several reasons to make leaders decide to go to war.  Economic gain (or plain loot), political power of the state or its leaders, land, ethnic and religious conflicts, maintaining warrior culture, and other factors all operate. 

            By contrast, genocide is usually rather simple: when autocratic leaders feel they are in a shaky situation, they kill.  Very often—famously with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao—they come to depend more and more on the level of hatred of their backers, and thus must whip up more and more hate to stay in power; this makes them take still more power and kill still more minorities, to provide red meat to their “base.” 

There are four ways to hate: hate upward (hating the elites), down (hating the less fortunate, from the poor to the less abled to the minorities), laterally (real enemies or social rivals), or not at all.  Bad leaders, and often even relatively good ones, move more and more toward getting their followers to hate downward—to hate the weak, the powerless, the minorities.  Even those who took power by marshaling upward hate, such as the Communists, soon find it pays better to get their followers to hate downward.

            A marginal sort of genocide is “cold genocide”:  Slow and not very sure elimination of an ethnic group by selective killing over a long time, coupled with every effort to destroy the group as a distinguishable entity possessing its own culture or ideology.  The term “cold genocide” was coined by Kjell Anderson to describe the Indonesian pressure on West Irian (West Papua).  It has been applied to the far larger and bloodier repression of the Falun Gong movement in China since the late 1990s.  This movement, a spiritual discipline that by all accounts except the Chinese government’s was utterly inoffensive, seemed dangerous to the Communist leadership, because of its size and rapid growth.  Suppression included propaganda wars, but also mass torture, imprisonment (“reeducation” in “camps”), and killing by extracting body parts for transplantation or the international black market (Cheung et al. 2018, citing a huge literature).  The Falun Gong has become the major source of hearts, livers, and other vital organs in China, a practice that may seem even more ghoulish than most genocidal atrocities. 

            The Chinese government has now expanded its reach to include the Muslim Uighurs of Xinjiang.  Approximately a million have been placed in concentration camps (“vocational training centers”) and subjected to intense pressure to acculturate to Han majority norms (Byler 2018).  Children have been removed from homes and parents, and educated according to Han patterns.  Islam is attacked in particular.  The Uighurs’ sin appears to have been agitating for minority rights guaranteed by the Chinese constitution.  The Chinese government has accused them of ISIS-style terrorism because of a very few extreme individuals.  Recently, government agencies in Uighur territory have been ordering thousands of clubs, stock probes, tear gas canisters, spiked clubs, handcuffs, prison uniforms, and other instruments of suppression and torture (SBS News 2018).  This constitutes “culturocide,” the form of genocide that involves destruction of an entire culture by restriction of personal freedoms and forced removal and re-education of children—one of the forms of genocide specifically addressed by Lemkin.

            Most genocides have been propagated by elites: ruling governments or powerful groups that whip up hatred to consolidate their power.  However, these groups may have started as small popular movements, like the original fascists.  Moreover, settler genocides are largely bottom-up phenomena, and so are many small-scale religious massacres and revolutionary bloodlettings like the French Terror.

            Mobs, genocides, and wars do not just happen, and they are not the result of blind forces.  They are invoked by individuals.  People do not spontaneously go into orgies of murder, unless some leader or leaders are profiting in important ways.  Whipping up hatred in others is not confined to leaders—anyone can do it—but ordinary people doing it at grassroots levels can do only so much damage, though if they form a large organization like Hitler’s Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan they can have devastating effects.

            Further work since 2012 has extended the models backwards, to look at the factors behind the final extreme abuse of autocratic power.  From Waller’s Confronting Evil, Frank Dikötter’s How to Be a Dictator (2019), among other books (cited below), we learn that the vast widely-targeted genocides of modern times accompany the decline of traditional societies and communities and the rise of mass communication and mass top-down society.  Links evolve from networks of local people, only somewhat influenced by governments, to top-to-bottom chains of authority by huge governments that take more and more power, even in peaceful and democratic societies.   When a dictator seizes control in such a mass society, he can quickly draw on his power, on loyalty, and on the lack of countervailing horizontal forces.  He can rapidly turn a peaceful, orderly society into a killing machine. 

            He will do it only if he has not only public but also financial support, and many genocides are enabled by specific firms or economic interests.  These turn out to be primary-production interests—extractive, often rentier, often export-oriented—in most cases (see below, part 3).  Large agrarian interests—landlords—are often involved, and more recently the oil industry has been notorious (Auzanneau 2018).  Sometimes industries come on board, as in Nazi Germany.  Some communist genocides have taken place with support from peasants and workers rather than giant firms, but some others had the support of giant state-owned economic interests.

            The dictators who invoke genocides are also a special selection (Dikötter 2019).  Many genocidal leaders fall into two types.  Most are elites, often military, but a surprisingly large number of them are marginal—subalterns or regional-derived, educated in metropoles or big cities, and educated in contexts that are also somewhat marginal, ranging from military academies (very often) to extremist mentoring by other radicals or lovers of violence (for details, see, again, Anderson and Anderson 2012; Waller 2016; this has been noted before, e.g. Isaiah Berlin noted a correlation with origin in border regions; Rosenbaum 2019:7).  The range is from Napoleon (Corsican), Stalin (Georgian), and Hitler (Austrian) to Mao (educated in Japan) and the Cambodian genocide leaders (educated in Paris with mentoring by the Egyptian Samir Amin).  Very many of the genociders have been military men: Napoleon the corporal, the Argentine colonels, General Rios Montt in Guatemala, Idi Amin in Uganda, and many more.  Leading in mass killing is, of course, the job of military officers.

            Usually, the ideologues of these exclusionary ideologies are not themselves killers.  Karl Marx dreamed revolution, but actually spent his time studying and writing in the magnificent reading room of the British Museum.  Friedrich Nietzsche for Germany and Gabriele d’Annunzio for Italy were the major thinkers behind fascism, but they led scholarly lives.  It was left to lieutenants, and lieutenants of lieutenants, to become the hard-nosed opportunistic toughs that led the movements and were also the initial followers and fighters.  They were often animated more by hatred and ambition than by attention to doctrine.

            These leaders all shared a quite specific ideology of the purity and superiority of one group over the abysmal badness of another, with the further concept that all members of each group have those respective essences.  This can be broken up into 20 specific ideas, carefully extracted from an enormously extensive analysis of the rhetoric of genocide leaders in 20 of the major historic cases by Gerard Saucier and Laura Akers:  “tactics/excuses for violence, dispositionalism/essentialism, purity/cleansing language, dehumanization, dualistic/dichotomous thinking, internal enemies, crush-smash-exterminate-eliminate

[language]

, group or national unity, racialism in some form, xenophobia/foreign influence, uncivilized or uncivilizable, attachment/entitlement to land, body or disease metaphor, revenge or retaliation language, traitor talk (treason, treachery, etc.), conspiracy, subversion, something held sacred, nationalism/ethnonationalism, threat of annihilation of our people” (Saucier and Akers 2018:88). 

            They add some other frequent themes, including “placing national security above other goals,” wanting to move fast and thoroughly, and thinking “individuals must suffer for the good of the collective” (Saucier and Akers 2018:90). They find all of these in many cases, from Hitler’s and Stalin’s rhetoric to the less widely known writings of the Serbian and WWII-Japanese leadership and the propaganda of mass murderers of Indigenous people in Australia and the United States.  Dehumanizing terms like “rats,” “cockroaches,” and “insects” appear to be universal.  One can, for instance, note the Communist Chinese leadership’s invocations against Falun Gong and dissidents as “rats” and “subversives” (Cheung et al. 2018).

            The worst genocides are usually associated with extreme ideologies: Leninist communism, fascism, extremist religion, or nationalist and ethnic fanaticism.  Extremist ideologues must be a strange combination to succeed: ideologically zealous, yet utterly amoral and opportunist in the ways they take power (Dikötter 2019 provides valuable case studies).  More pragmatic military dictators like Egypt’s, and economic hardliners like Pinochet in Chile, usually kill their opponents and anyone suspected of opposition, but do not engage in the vast orgies of extermination that almost always follow from ideologues taking power.  They too are opportunist and amoral, but they usually make little secret of it.  

            On the other hand, the people must be susceptible.  As Mao Zedong used to say, “a spark can ignite a prairie fire,” but that depends on the availability of dry grass.  Humans are easily enough turned to evil to give any credible leader a chance.  Understanding such events involves working back from the event to the direct perpetrators and their mindsets, and then on to the back stories.  The casual tendency of modern historians and other scholars to attribute causes of historical events to abstractions (“the economy,” “politics,” “culture,” “climate”) is wrong.  Marx is often blamed for it, because of vulgarization of his theory of history, but he was careful to specify that real people must lead the revolution, even if it is “inevitable” sooner or later because of economic forces.  Marx was also aware that those economic forces were themselves caused by the choices of real people.  Other thinkers from Ibn Khaldun to Max Weber and Anthony Giddens (1984) have made the same general point: structures emerge from individual actions and interactions.

There is no definite link between genocide and any particular economic system, organization, interest, or condition.  Capitalist, socialist, and communist countries have all done it.  Claims that genocide is most likely during economic downturns or is associated with deprivation do not hold up (Anderson and Anderson 2012; Nyseth Brehm 2017a, 2017b).  International war generally dominated mass bloodshed before 1945, but since then genocide has far overshadowed it, causing more deaths than all wars, murders, and crimes combined.  One suspects this has something to do with the dispensability of labor.  Kings of old could not afford to decimate their own work force.  Now, with rapid population growth and machines displacing workers, governments can deal with problems by thinning out their own people, saving the price of war.

Genocides fall into three types: settler, consolidation, and crisis genocides (our classification, but see Waller 2016 for much fuller but similar typology).  Settler genocides occur when a large, powerful society takes over land from small or scattered groups, especially when the powerful society is technologically advanced and the smaller victim groups are less so (“Whatever happens, we have got / the Gatling gun and they have not”—Hilaire Belloc; also quoted as “Maxim gun”).  The most famous cases are the United States (Dee Brown 1971; Madley 2016), Brazil (Hemming 1978), and Australia (Pascoe 2014), but the same story can be told of societies from Russia to China to Japan (Kiernan 2007).  It goes far back in time.  Ancient Babylon and Assyria exterminated captives.  The Romans and medieval Europeans exterminated rebellious subject peoples and took their possessions.  The Bantu took southern Africa from the Khoi-San with attendant exterminations.   Settler genocides depended on convincing a large part of the citizenry to kill the Indigenous peoples, and to threaten protectors and dissidents into silence.  A particularly good study of this is Benjamin Madley’s study of California in the 19th century (Madley 2016). 

This counts as genocide only if the victims had been conquered and subjected.  Extermination of enemies who are fighting back with everything they have is normal war, not genocide.  The dividing line is obviously blurred, but extremes are easy to see; the wars with the Apaches and Comanche (Hämäläinen 2008) in the United States and Mexico in the 1870s were initially fair fights with little quarter given by either side, and thus not genocide, but the extermination of the Yuki in California in the mid-19th century was genocidal massacre of helpless conquered people (Madley 2016; Miller 1979). 

Modern genocides fall into four categories: communist, fascist, military dictatorship, and random cases of rulers who lack ideology.  The last are usually military, since military men have an advantage in seizing power, but almost as often they are democratically elected politicians.  Sometimes an initially able ruler becomes more and more extreme (or even demented) with age.  The one common thread is that they come to power by marshaling hate.

Some genocides have direct corporate backing.  American corporations acting through the CIA established genocidal regimes in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Chile.  European colonial powers sometimes established murderous successor regimes in liberated colonies, or, conversely, set up a hopeless government that soon fell to genocidal rebels.  Former colony status is a fair predictor of genocide. 

Many genocidal regimes have survived and flourished despite mass murder because states support business interests that are benefited by the regimes in question.  Cases range from early fascist Italy under Mussolini to more modern states such as Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea.  The oil industry is notorious for this, but armaments merchants are interested, for obvious reasons.  One also recalls “blood diamonds,” blood coltan (columbium-tantalum ore, source of conflict in DR Congo), and other commodities deeply stained. 

Plantation slavery or serfdom is one back story.  Developed in ancient Mesopotamia, it was the first institution based on cruel treatment of disenfranchised multitudes by ruling elites.  It grew steadily, especially in the west, peaking in the Atlantic slave trade and the indentured-labor plantations of Asia in the 18th and 19th centuries. It led to a vast amount of murder. 

Consolidation genocides are the commonest and often among the worst.  They occur when a rather shaky totalitarian regime based on exclusionary ideology takes over full control of a country.  They usuallyoccur in that situation, but the kill totals range widely, from rather small-scale politicides (like Marcos’ in the Philippines and Pinochet’s in Chile) to vast mass murders like Mao’s in China.  The scale depends on the extremism of the new government, especially its exclusionary ideology.  Ideology was not a huge factor in the pragmatic (though murderous) Marcos government; at the other extreme, the indiscriminate hatreds of the Nazis led to the vast massacres of the Holocaust.

Crisis genocides occur when genocide is brought about or exacerbated by war, either international or civil.  Very minor local rebellions can serve as excuses for already-planned genocides, as in Guatemala in the 1980s (where violence continues; Nelson 2019), or international war can vastly escalate already-ongoing genocides, as in Hitler’s Germany in the 1940s.  Sometimes consolidation and crisis occur together, as in Cambodia in the late 1970s, producing the most extreme of all genocides. 

Almost all genocides fall into one of these three types.  The only exceptions are cases in which an extreme (if not downright psychopathic) dictator continues to kill whole populations without let or stay.  Stalin and Mao are the major cases in history, but other apparently demented monarchs from Caligula to Tamerlane might be mentioned.

            Genocides range greatly in the numbers and percentages of people killed.  The Cambodian genocide, which killed perhaps ¼ of the total population, is unique.  Rwanda’s genocide killed 10% of the population—a million people—in only 100 days, a rate of killing calculated at 333.3 murders per hour, 5.5 per minute (Nyseth Brehm 2017b:5).  Most genocides are fortunately smaller; many are “politicides,” confined to classes of political enemies of the dictator.  Mere political killings do not count as genocides, but mass political murders by people like Agustin Pinochet of Chile and Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines threw far wider nets.  Not only actual opponents, but families of opponents, ordinary protestors, children who seemed somehow opposed to the regime, and random suspects were killed.  The scope of genocide depends on the size and range of targeted groups, which in turn depends on the extremism of the exclusionary ideology of the leaders.  Hitler targeted a huge and, at the end, almost random-looking assortment of peoples.  Pinochet narrowly targeted suspected liberals and leftists.

            Recent attacks on “social media” for being platforms that amplify hatred (e.g. Zaki 2019:146-150) made me aware of an important and previously neglected fact: the greatest genocides, the ones in which whole nations seem to have gone mad and collapsed in orgies of blood, were propagated by print media and radio.  The first, the Turkish massacre of the Armenians and other Christian minorities, was even prior to radio.  The others—notably Germany and central Europe under Hitler, the USSR under Stalin, China under Mao, Nigeria in the Biafra War, and the Indonesian, Cambodian, and Rwanda-Burundi genocides—were driven by newspapers, radio, and public appearances.  Social media allow discussion, argument, persuasion, and grassroots movements.  Radio in totalitarian societies is the ultimate in faceless, top-down communication to people who have no way of answering or commenting on any scale. Public appearances by leaders, and propaganda pictures and films, are not much better: they show the leader in crisp uniform, from a distance, generally high above the masses.  It is surely significant that there have been no huge, out-of-control genocides in societies with good social media.  The worst recent genocide in terms of mass participation by ordinary people is that in Myanmar, where access to modern media is limited.  Even TV has the value of showing the leader up close, making him look less than respectable.  But the real value of Facebook, Twitter, and the like is that allow us to answer back.  They are often compared to face-to-face encounters, to the disadvantage of the social media, but the real comparison is with the passivizing and alienating radio and its cousins.

            Genocides have become much commoner and bloodier since 1900.  Earlier genocides were largely religious persecutions (such as the Inquisition) or settler genocides.  Since 1900, genocides have targeted wider groups, often huge segments of society.  This tracks the decline of community and the rise of mass hierarchic society, as we have noted.

            Through history, genocidal regimes just kept killing till conquered by outsiders or popular movements.  Then they often returned to bad ways unless they underwent decisive political changes—sometimes forced on them by conquest, as with Germany and Japan after WWII.                       Slavery, though not genocide by our definition, is very close to it, and requires a similar mentality: the basic idea that one whole group of humans does not deserve human consideration.  By establishing that mind-set, it helped the progress to modern genocide.  The slave trade was notoriously bloody.

            Genocide and war always include far more than mere killing.  Victims are routinely tortured.  Women and girls are almost always raped.  People are burned or buried alive.  The deliberate sadism goes beyond anything an ordinary creative torturer could devise; there have been instruction books on torturing for centuries, and there are now websites on the “dark web.”  Ordinary people are as prone to do all this as the leaders themselves.  Similar findings are common in studies of warfare, criminal gangs, and perhaps above all the whole history of heresy persecution in religions.  Even domestic violence often involves unspeakable torture and humiliation of spouse, children, or other family members.

Ordinary people caught up in even the most mundane street gangs soon learn to commit unspeakable acts without second thoughts.  Psychological explanations of this range from direct explanations in terms of conformity, anger, learned hate, and social antipathy (Baron-Cohen 2011; Baumeister 1997) to the elaborate Freudian-Lacanian framework of Edward Weisband (2017, 2019).  Animal models (of which there are many in Clutton-Brock 2016, esp. chapters 8 and 13) suggest that competition for control of resources and of mates and mating bring out the worst in all mammal species, turning otherwise meek and inoffensive animals into demons.  Human domestic violence usually (if not always) turns on control and relative power issues (B. Anderson et al. 2004).  Rage over shakiness of control certainly lies behind much genocide and genocidal behavior.  Exploring the full scale of this phenomenon, and of other causes for rage, remains an urgent task for the future.

The universality of the phenomenon, especially perhaps in street gangs, suggests that it is all too normal a part of human potential, but many of Weisband’s cases (such as the Nazi death camp leaders) seem to be genuinely psychotic or brain-damaged.  Whatever the explanations, the performative sadism of human violence is a particularly horrific thing to find so universally.

            Genocide (aside from settler genocide) is a particularly interesting case because ethnic genocide is a relatively new form of evil.  Outside of religious persecutions—the real font of genocide–huge-scale elimination of vast numbers of peaceable fellow citizens, simply because they fall in some arbitrary category, is new enough that people have not adjusted to it as a matter of ordinary life since time immemorial (as slavery was considered to be).  Conforming to genociders is, or was in the early 20th century, a new way to be bad.

            The Enlightenment gave rise to ideas of peace and freedom.  War was reduced, and slavery slowly but surely was outlawed everywhere.  However, the Enlightenment was founded not only on rapid expansion of trade, commerce, communication, and science, but also on the slavery and exploitation that it eventually fought. 

            As the world filled up in the 20th century, problems of overpopulation, pressure on resources, and competition for goods became more salient.  Leaders by this time tended to be old and not battle-hardened, so they did not always deal with such problems by international war, as almost everyone had done before 1800.  Often, either during war or instead of war, the modern leaders turned on sectors of their own people, waging genocide campaigns.  Wars and slaving were partially replaced by internal mass murder.  Genocide developed from religious persecution and settler colonialist practices. 

            Genocide, like other violence, must ultimately reduce to hatred.  The government must be able to whip up mass hatred, to get support and help in its project of mass murder.  To the extent that people are hateful and angry, they are susceptible to this persuasion.  On the other hand, they may simply be “following orders” and “doing their job,” becoming callous to the whole enterprise (Paxton 2005, Snyder 2015). The genocidal leader or leaders mobilize an insecure or downward-mobile majority, or fraction of the majority, against the most salient or disliked minorities.

            Genocide seems to sum up the other forms of violence.  Like war, it is often about loot and land (Kiernan 2005).  Like intimate partner violence, it always involves some issues of control and insecurity about control and power.  Like civil war, it often begins with rebellion, driven by class or religious or ethnic conflict.  Finally, leaders of genocidal regimes are often classic bullies, a point elaborated below.

  •  Mass Killing in General

            The forms of mass killing are international war, civil war (which differs from interpolity war in causes and usual course; see Collier and Sambanis 2005), revolution and rebellion, genocide, structural violence on large scales, mass poisoning by pollution, denial of medical care, and mass starvation through refusing to take action on agriculture, welfare, or food security (on famine as mass murder, see Howard-Hassman 2016).  Large-scale human sacrifice, once a major part of religion and kingship, has fortunately been eliminated, but sacrificing millions to the cults of guns, automobiles, and oil continues.  These form something of a continuum. Genocide sometimes grows from bureaucratic neglect.

            These all have different risk factors.  International war is hard to predict and almost always multicausal.  The War of Jenkins’ Ear (1739-1748) was not just about Jenkins’ ear.  Usually, desire to capture a neighbor’s territory and resources, a desire to support one’s own military machine and sometimes one’s armaments industry, pressure by hot-headed males hungry for glory and loot, claims of wounded national pride, and ideological differences with the enemy are all involved.  Traditional or manufactured hatreds are always conspicuous.  Small incidents are typically taken as excuses.  (In the case of Jenkins’ ear, the war was a complex fight between Britain and Spain over New World territories and other issues).  Nations such as the medieval Turks and Mongols may have war as their major economic activity and even their whole lifeway.  Rivalries within families forced rivals to compete to see who could amass the most loot and glory (Fletcher 1980:238). 

War seems to have been around forever, if one counts the local raids and small wars typical of small-scale societies.  War seems to have been especially common in chiefdoms and early states.  Population growth, rivalry for land and loot, and hierarchic institutions had run ahead of peace-keeping mechanisms.  Typically, neighbors come into conflict over land and resources, but such conflicts can almost always be settled by negotiation.  When they get out of control, however, traditional rivalries may develop, as between France and England through much of history.  Then, honor, nationalism, and eventually real hatred come into play, increasing the danger.  Specific histories are almost invariably complex and highly contingent on hard-to-predict events.

            With the state, maintenance of order slowly developed.  Even so, the incidence of violence and war varied widely within tribal and early state societies.  Just as there are violently aggressive people and saintly ones, there are bloodthirsty and pacific groups.  Particularly interesting are profound changes over time.  Scandinavians changed from Vikings to democratic socialists (Pinker 2011).  English changed from Shakespeare’s blood-drenched warriors to today’s peaceable folk.  Germany changed from the most demonic country in history to leader of a peaceful Europe in only one generation.  Most dramatic was Rwanda, where gradual increase in hate and violence built up to the genocide of 1994 that killed 1/10 of the population—but then ended suddenly and was followed by amazingly peaceful, tranquil, well-regulated recovery (as shown by brief research there by ourselves, and much more detailed ongoing research on the ground by Hollie Nyseth-Brehm). 

            Lies are universal in war; “truth is the first casualty,” and George Orwell’s analyses remain unsurpassed.  People believe lies against all evidence when their political beliefs are served thereby, as several modern studies have shown (Healy 2018).  Patiently pointing facts can work, but only when the truth is inescapable and unequivocal (Healy 2018).  The endless circulation of repeatedly discredited fictions about Jews and blacks is well known.

The ability of people to change dramatically from war mode to peace mode, from bad wolf to good wolf, is truly astounding.  Recent studies have shown that this is heavily contingent on social pressure.  Michal Bauer and coworkers (2018) found that in an experimental setting, Slavic high school students in Slovakia were twice as likely to play hostile toward Roma in a game than toward other Slavic students—but only if someone started it.  They would all play peacefully unless someone made a hostile move, but if that happened all the Slavic students generally joined in.  It was easy to flip the group from tolerant to ethnically discriminatory.

            Today, a range of violent engagements are common.  International war is still with us, though current ones all grew from local civil wars.  Civil wars abound, and merge with local rebellions.  Civil wars stem from rebellion, revolution, or coup, or—very often—from breakaway movements by local regions, as in the United States’ Civil War (Collier and Sambanis 2005). 

Criminal gangs dominate whole countries; the governments of Honduras and El Salvador are particularly close to their gangs.  Gangs kill for loot, rivalry, “honor,” turf, women, and other usual causes.  Individual murder for gain, revenge, or hate blends into gang killings and then up into militias, armies, and nations; there is no clear separation.  A murder in a gang-dominated country like El Salvador may have individual, gang, and national overtones.

Finally, ordinary, everyday murders are usually over issues of control.  The commonest murders are within the family; next, within the neighborhood.  The mass murders of unknown (though usually local) victims that dominate the media are relatively rare, though much commoner in the United States than in most countries.

Genocide continues, in Myanmar, Sudan, South Sudan, and several other countries.  China is committing genocide against its Uyghur population; it has imprisoned a million and killed countless more (Byler 2018; Stavrou 2019).  China is also repressing Tibetans, Mongols, Kazakhs, and Hui, apparently for no reason other than a desire to crush religious and cultural minorities, since China’s world-leading security and surveillance system has surely established these minorities are not a security risk.  Turkish repression of Kurds and Brazilian massacres of Indigenous people have now reached genocidal proportions.  Violent, genocidal or potentially genocidal regimes now control about 1/6 of the world’s countries.  It is highly contingent.  In many cases, the dice could easily have rolled the other way.  Evil ranges in extent; Hitler had real power, his American imitators very little before 2017.  The degree of evilness is not well correlated with its success.

Today, with warfare constant and technologically sophisticated, militarism is on the increase, dictatorships are becoming common again (as in the mid-20th century), and whole societies are becoming militarized.  An important special issue of Current Anthropology, the leading anthropological journal, is devoted to this; an important introduction by the issue editors, Hugh Gusterson and Catherine Besteson (2019), details the rapid rise and current pervasiveness of the new hi-tech militaristic world and worldview.  Military bases around the world have led to virtual slavery of local hired workers, as well as dispossession of local farmers and others (see also Lutz 2019; Vine 2019).  Besteman’s article (2019) details the progressive conversion of the world into an armed camp, with the rich routinely attacking the poor nations—no new thing that, but more and more a worldwide unified effort, rather than a country-by-country issue.  Gusterson (2019) recounts the use of drones to create terror; there is no one to fight—only a strange, buzzing object that brings random death and chaos.  As Gusterson shows, drones are claimed to hit actual individual terrorists and military targets with pinpoint accuracy, but of course they do no such thing; they are used to terrorize whole populations with large-scale random strikes on soft targets.  Militarized cultures develop in zones of war and conflict, as they have throughout time (e.g. Fattal 2019; Hammami 2019).

            Another set of cases of people turning violent and destructive is provided by the well-known cycles of empire.  Every preindustrial state had cycles of rise and fall, usually at vaguely predictable intervals, with a 75-100 year period and a 200-300 year period being common.  The great Medieval Arab thinker Ibn Khaldun (1958) first isolated, described, and explained these.  Recently, Peter Turchin (2003, 2006, 2016; Turchin and Zefedov 2009) and I (Anderson 2019) have elaborated on Ibn Khaldun’s theory.  There is thus no reason to go into it here; suffice it to say that internal processes make dynastic crises inevitable, over the long run, in such societies.  At such times, rebellion, local wars, banditry, and sometimes international wars break out, and societies often dissolve into chaos.  Basically, it is a process in which a society based on positive-sum games (cooperation, law-abiding) dissolves into negative-sum games, in which groups and power brokers try to take each other out. 

On rare occasions, a whole empire may completely collapse, as Rome did in the 5th century.  This represents yet another society-wide set of cases of fairly rapid change from peace and order to violence and mass death.

  • Slavery

            At the slave museum in Zanzibar, built on the old slave quarters there, one can see the hellholes were slaves were confined, read their stories, and see many excellent exhibits with contemporary accounts, drawings, and even photographs.  The most disquieting, and the most pervasive, message is that the slave trade was an ordinary business, like selling bananas.  Hundreds of people routinely raped, murdered, tortured, brutalized, and oppressed their fellow humans, for eight hours a day (or more), simply as a regular job.  These slavers no doubt felt like any other workers—bored, annoyed by trivial problems, angry at the boss every so often, but indifferent to the subjects of their effort.  They were not singled out for being violent, or psychopathic, or intolerant; they were simply locals who happened to be available.  Anyone could do it.

            Mistreatment of enslaved people involves minimalizing them—not denying their humanity, but denying that it matters.  They can be treated brutally because they do not count.It is perhaps harder to imagine the mind-sets of people who worked in the slave trade, day after day, for a whole working lifetime, than to imagine the mind-sets of genociders.  Today, most people in developed countries are repelled even by bad treatment of farm animals.  I remember when people treated animals worse than they do today, but even in my rural youth, animals were never treated as badly as slaves were treated in Zanzibar, Byzantium, the American South, and other places where slavery occurred.  The animals needed to stay healthy to turn a profit.  By contrast, the whole goal of slaving is to reduce humans to helpless, terrified victims, through intimidation and brutalization.  Their health was a secondary concern at best.  It was easier to get new slaves than to deal with well-treated ones.

            Slavery has cast a long shadow over America, influencing American politics profoundly to this day (Acharya et al. 2018).  Many, possibly half, of Americans believe slavery was happy blacks playing banjos and occasionally picking a bit of cotton under the benevolent eyes of the plantation owners.  The rest usually think of slavery as the work of a few utterly evil men, like Simon Legree of Uncle Tom’s Cabin.  The fact is that slavery involved thousands of men and women brutalizing other men and women, simply as a regular job, carried out with varying degrees of racist hate but with little thought about the whole issue.  In America the brutalizers were white and the victims black, but in most of history—and today in countries like Thailand and Ukraine—the slaves were the same race and very often the same culture and society as their oppressors.  Roy Baumeister, in his book Evil, comments on how repugnant most people find evil acts, but how quickly they get used to them and see them as routine.  There is no evidence that slavers found even the initial phases of their work particularly unpleasant.  They put in their eight hours (or more) of rape, torture, and murder with a “just doing a job” mentality.

            John Stedman wrote a classic 18th-century account of the horrors of slavery in Surinam (Stedman 1988 [1790]).  Stedman was a mercenary in the service of the plantation owners, so at first he was biased in favor of slavery and against slaves; his horror at what he saw convinced him that slavery was an evil practice.  He reports a great deal of real hatred by slaveowners of their slaves, and a great deal of torture simply for torture’s sake, often because of extreme (and not wholly unjustified) fear of slave rebellions, and the fear-driven belief that only brutality could prevent those.  His writings became foundational to the antislavery effort, first in England, then worldwide.  Most interesting, though, is his extremely extensive documentation (confirmed by every other early report) of the matter-of-fact, everyday, routine brutality.  It simply never occurred to most people of the time that this was monstrous.

            One also recalls John Newton’s conversion, at about the same time, from slaving captain to extremely repentant Christian; after years of depression, he felt divine forgiveness, and wrote the hymn “Amazing Grace,” which, somewhat ironically, became a favorite of African-American churches.  As with resisters of pressure to commit genocide, repenters of slaving are rare in the archives.

            Slavery in traditional societies (from the Northwest Coast of North America to pre-slave-trade Africa), was sometimes less murderous and torture-filled.  But it was never other than cruel and oppressive.  All records from all societies speak of rape, terrorizing, and brutalizing.  Yet, no one in history—not Buddha, not Confucius, not Jesus—opposed slavery as an institution, until the Quakers in the 18th century concluded it was against God’s law.  The tide then turned with striking speed.  Enslavement of Europeans was basically over, outside the Turkish Empire, well before 1800.  Enslavement of Native Americans was theoretically banned in the Catholic countries, and was actually reduced to a rare and local phenomenon by 1800.  Enslavement of Africans continued well into the 19th century, being legally abolished between 1820 and the 1880s.

            Illegal slavery continues today.  The Council on Foreign Relations (2019) estimates that there are 40.3 million slaves in the world.  Few are chattel slaves like those in Zanzibar; most are forced prison laborers (e.g. in North Korea), persons enslaved for debt, or sex slaves (including forced marriage sufferers).  Sex slavery, with all the attendant horrors, is carried out in the familiar spirit of “all in a day’s work,” by thugs and pimps from Thailand to Hollywood.  Reading reports of child sex slavery shows how low humans can sink, all the time thinking they are doing what culture and economics require.  As always, there is no evidence that most of these people are especially evil to begin with.  Some child-sex slavers are clearly psychopathic, but others simply drift into the life and do what they believe is necessary.  Many were sex slaves themselves. 

  • Structural Violence and Callousness

            Millions of deaths today come simply from the bureaucratic attitude that people are merely things to move around, like rocks.  One of the most chilling books I have read is The Future of Large Dams by Thayer Scudder (2005).  Scudder spent his life studying refugees from huge dam projects.  In almost every case, people displaced by big dams were simply ordered to move.  Their homes were bulldozed, their livelihoods flooded.  There were usually token “relief” efforts, but these were so trivial as to be more insulting than helpful.  Millions of refugees were left to shift for themselves, and in poorer nations that meant many of them died.  Scudder bends over backwards to be fair, which makes the stories sound even worse; one cannot write him off as biased..  The bureaucrat perpetrators are cut from the same cloth as the cold “doing my job” slavers and Nazi executioners.  There is a huge subsequent literature on dams and displacement; suffice it to cite Sunil Amrith’s Unruly Waters (2018), which puts India’s and China’s megadams in historical context while describing their social and ecological devastation.  Almost always, the displaced are poor, and often from minority groups, while the benefits go to the relatively rich: landlords, urban power-users, and the like. 

Similarly, pollution is generated by giant firms producing for the affluent, but the pollution is almost always dumped on the poor and vulnerable (Anderson 2010 covers this issue in detail).  The populations sacrificed for the greater good of the giant firms are the stigmatized ones; Erving Goffman’s classic work Stigma (1963) is highly relevant.

            Related are the horrific famines invoked by governments against their own people, as described in State Food Crimes by Rhoda Howard-Hassmann (2016) and for specific, particularly horrible cases by Anne Appelbaum (2017) for Ukraine in the 1930s and Hazel Cameron (2018) for Zimbabwe in 1984.  Not only totalitarian governments, but the British in 1840s Ireland and 1940s Bengal, and most settler societies in their campaigns to get rid of colonized peoples.  In the Irish potato famine, aid was denied although Ireland was exporting food and England was rich (Salaman 1985; Woodham-Smith 1962)  Many countries have deliberately invoked famine as a form of state policy.  The Holodomor in the Ukraine and Russia in the 1920s was an extreme case (Howard-Hassman 2016).  America’s 19th-century extermination of the buffalo was explicitly done to starve the Native Americans, and thus was genocidal. 

            Johan Galtung (1969) coined the term “structural violence” to describe destruction by the cold workings of the social system, ranging from the results of institutionalized bigotry to bureaucratic displacement and refusal to provide famine relief.  Structural violence is usually a matter of passing public costs onto those held to deserve no better, usually poor and vulnerable people.  Again, ethnic and religious hate is very often involved.  The targeted victims—selected to pay the costs of industrial development, public works, crop failures, and the like—are almost always poor, and very often from minority groups.  Robert Nixon has used the term “slow violence” for this. 

            There is, however, a range from clearly and deliberately murderous and unnecessary structural violence, such as the Holodomor and the Ethiopian famine under the Derg, down to the tragic results of incompetent and irresponsible planning.  Famines before 1900 were usually due to genuine crop failures in societies that did not have adequate safety nets, and often could not have had.  The gradation from such tragedies to deliberate mass murder by starvation is not an easy one to unpack.  There will always be controversial cases.  Lillian Li’s classic Fighting Famine in North China (2007) goes into detail on a society that was desperately short of food but did have a well-developed safety net; the famines reflected a complex interaction of crop failures, local violence, and government success or failure at deploying their extensive but shaky relief infrastructure.  Such cases remain outside the scope of this book, which deals only with cases such as the Holodomor and the buffalo slaughter, in which famine was deliberately created for genocidal reasons.  On the other hand, massive displacement of people without preparation for resettlement or rehabilitation is herein considered intrinsically genocidal, even if done—or supposedly done—for good economic reasons.

            I hereby introduce the word “bureaupathy” to describe the associated attitude and mindset.  It is a mental state as sick and destructive as psychopathy and sociopathy.  It is quite different from greed; the bureaucrats are usually following orders or truckling to rich clients, rather than enriching themselves.  It does, however, merge into corporate murder-for-gain, which is done with similar cold-blooded indifference.  Tobacco companies continue to produce a product that causes up to ¼ of deaths worldwide, and no one in those companies seems to feel either genocidal hate or moral compunction.  Similarly, big oil and big coal preside not only over thousands of pollution-caused deaths per year, but over the creation of a global-warmed future that will lead to exponentially increasing deaths.  Unlike the innocent, uneducated rural American voters, oil executives know perfectly well that climate change is real, and what it will cost.  They read the journals and are trained in science.  Many documents, leaked or quite open, show they are aware.  They continue to produce oil and lie about its effects on health and the ecosystem.

  • Hate vs. Greed

            This alerts us to two very different kinds of harm.  Hatred causes genuinely gratuitious harm: no one benefits.  In fact, the hater usually harms himself or herself just to hurt others; suicide bombing is the purest case.  It is a negative-sum game: both sides lose.  Selfish greed, however, does benefit the doer; by the definition used here, it harms the other people in the transaction more than it benefits the doer or doers.  Big dams benefit the rich and urban, but usually hurt the displaced people and the total economy more.  The cost-benefit ratios of big dams are notoriously bad.  More pure cases of selfish greed, such as drug gang violence and medieval Viking raids, are even clearer: the thugs get some loot, but the entire polity suffers, especially but not only the looted victims.  Professional gambling is another case in point: the house always wins in the end, since it is there to make a profit.  Casino owners get rich.  They do it at the expense of victims, often nonaffluent and often compulsive, who are ruined and often commit suicide.  The total cost-benefit ratio is negative.  But the victims choose to gamble, so it is hard to stop the industry.  In this case, as in “the right to bear arms” and many others, individual liberty is traded off against social costs.

            Simple rationality—ordinary common sense—would stop hate as a motive for harm.  Stopping greed is more difficult, especially when the greedy have the power to force their will on the rest of society, as oil interests do today.  From a regulator’s point of view, there is also the problem of defining exactly where reasonable cost-benefit ratios turn to unreasonable ones.  Big dams do sometimes benefit the whole of society, or at least they have in the past.  Simple morality directs that displaced persons should be compensated, but other cases of “takings” are less clear.  If some suffer because they were selling poisons and the poisons are finally banned, should those sellers be compensated?  Or penalized for selling the poisons in the first place?  Much of politics is about such issues, which seriously problematize the whole issue of evil.

            In war, genocide, and murder that most harm is usually clear-cut.  So much, however, is due to greed—the entire tobacco economy, most of the oil economy, most of the dam-building, and so on—that looking far more seriously at cost-benefit accounting is a major need for the future.  On the other hand, the role of hate, or at least of infrahumanization, in even these cases cannot be underestimated.  The case of dams is, again, the best example: those displaced are almost always poor and rural, and thus “do not count.”  They can be ruined and even reduced to starving to death, without any of the rulers or engineers or construction bosses caring—sometimes without even noticing.  The oil industry, also, typically dumps its pollution on poor rural areas, such as rural Louisiana and the Indigenous communities of Canada.  When oil pollutes a well-to-do urban area, there are protests and political and legal action.  Moreover, oil, tobacco, and other harming industries have made it a practice to whip up hatred to get the public to oppose valid science, as will be discussed below.  Thus, hate, or at least discounting whole communities, is central to the wider and more general applications of greed. 

  • How Much Violence?

Several recent studies attempt to quantify deaths by violence in human societies.  Stephen Pinker (2011) famously concluded people kill much less than they used to.  This is apparently wrong (Fry 2013; Mann 2018), but small-scale societies kill at a relatively high rate.  Many small-scale farming societies, especially chiefdoms, are particularly bloody.  The human average seems to be about 1% dying by violence per year, but it varies from insane meltdowns like the 100 Years War, the fall of Ming, and the Khmer Rouge genocide to total lasting peace. 

            In a recent comparative study of war, Kissel and Kim (2018) define it as organized conflict between separate, independent groups.  They note that the terms “aggression” and “war” cover a vast range of very different behaviors.  “Coalitionary” killing of enemies is confined to ants and people and chimpanzees and maybe a few other mammals; only humans do it on any scale.  The genetics of aggression are as ambiguous as ever.  They note some archaeological massacres, including one in Kenya 10,000 years ago, and cannibalism evidence in many areas of the world—possibly during famines.  They see a big change after agriculture and settlement growth, but more in the size and organization of war than in the commonness of aggressive killing.  They see war as cultural.

            A recent study by Dean Falk and Charles Hildebolt (2017) finds a wide range, from small-scale societies that have essentially no violent killings to those where a large percentage of deaths are violent.  Variation is much higher than among state-level societies.  In general, it appears that small-scale societies do have a somewhat higher percentage of violent deaths than large state societies, but the margin is not great (if it exists at all).  The genocides, slaving deaths, and mass murders of modern states go well beyond Pinker’s estimates (Mann 2018).  In few societies is murder and war the norm; such a society would quickly self-destruct.  In fact, there are records of societies that did so.  Something very close happened to the Waorani, but they were persuaded by missionaries to become more peaceful (Robarchek and Robarchek 1998). There is a range in states from Afghanistan and ancient Assyria to relatively peaceful Tokugawa Japan and Yi Korea, or, today, Scandinavia and Switzerland.  Most states through history have been undemocratic and repressive, with many political murders. 

Among the Enga, one of the most violent societies in Falk and Hildebolt’s sample, powerful self-made leaders—“big men”—often whip up war for their own advantage, but may also make peace for the same reason; the oscillation from peace to extreme violence that has characterized Enga society is heavily determined by these self-aggrandizing maneuvers (Wiessner 2019).  Popular will often forces peace on disruptive young men or would-be leaders, however. 

An “average” is hard to calculate and probably meaningless, since most societies swing back and forth between war and peace, conflict and stability.  The average may be close to urban America’s less privileged neighborhoods.

            Since death is forever, the consequences of murder are irreparable, while good is easily undone.  (The same goes, in general, for environmental damage; it is rarely, if ever, fully reversible.)  A society requires countless small good acts to make up for a terminally bad one.  Human nature must average positive to keep societies functional. 

            Human tendencies to defend social position, defend the group, and defend or seize land and resources continue to keep violence at a high level in most societies.  From the books cited above, a clear pattern emerges of why people kill.  As individuals, if not killing in simple defense of self and loved ones, they kill either for gain (as a paid job or for loot) or for social control.  Most often, they kill to maintain social position: control over a spouse, “honor” in local societies, revenge on a neighbor, dominance over minority members, or control of a personal position of some kind.  Even psychopaths who kill compulsively usually wait for such opportunities.  Probably most killing is done for “defense.”  Even aggression in war becomes “preemptive strikes.”  Genocide is occasioned by extreme fear of minorities. 

            Targets change over time.  In agrarian societies, the groups were very often rival branches of ruling families, clans, or lineages.  There was also, usually, an opposition of “us” versus “barbarians,” i.e. semiperipheral marcher states or semiperipheral invasive groups.  In the west, intolerant monotheist religions powered up hatred of other religions and of “heretics,” and this tended to spill over into hate of all “others.”  Opposition of men vs women, old vs young, and rich/powerful/elite vs poor always create tension points.  Toxic conformity takes over.

            Gavin de Becker (1997) provided many accounts of psychopaths and mass murderers.  All turn on the obsessive need of the killer to control someone—the woman he is stalking, the parents who have tortured him growing up, the owner of a valued good who has tried to protect it. 

            Killers in such situations either commit suicide or are fairly easily caught, but gangsters who kill randomly may not be.  In particular, many gangs in the United States and elsewhere require a new recruit to commit a murder, as a rite of passage.  Such initiates seek out homeless mentally ill individuals who will not be missed (or even identified, in many cases) and whose death will not be investigated seriously.  This murder-for-position leads to further crime.  In the United States, a killer usually is jailed eventually, but in much of Latin America he (or sometimes she) will often be accepted by society and escape the law. 

            As groups, humans kill largely to maintain the power of the group over perceived and hated rivals.  These structural opponent groups may be traditional enemies, new rivals, or ideological or ethnic opposites.  The hatreds lead to international war, religious strife, civil war (most often between regions), ideological murders and genocides, and other types of group violence.  War for land is also extremely frequent.  This led Ben Kiernan to title his great study of warfare and genocide with the old Nazi phrase Blood and Soil (2007); he saw identity and land as the two great reasons for mass killing. Nationhood and religion, both sources of a fictive or socially constructed identity, are deadly, much more so than actual blood relationship.  I am far from the first to remark on the human tendency to kill real people in the service of vapid dreams.

            War for loot (portable wealth) seems largely limited to Viking raids, Turkic wars, Caucasus Mountain feuds, and banditry in general.  It is the moral norm, and often the livelihood, of classic “barbarians,” for whom it is a way of life rather than considered an evil or an exception. On the other hand, wars to acquire land and mineral resources, to help one’s national armaments industry, and to support its military, are universal throughout history.  Still, group hatred remains one great reason for war, just as individual social control is apparently the commonest reason for murder.  Greed, even for land, is controllable; the deadly mix of social fear, social hate, and need for social control is the real “heart of darkness” within humans.

  • People Almost All Join In

            One thing is common to all genocides and wars:  Some individual or individuals whip up hatred, and the public goes along.  Usually, the leaders are desperate for power and are not particularly restrained by morals.  The masses, however, can be almost anyone, anywhere, any time, though most sources agree that genuinely threatening and unsettled conditions make it easier for tyrants to whip up enmity.  There are on occasion mobs that spontaneously riot and destroy minority neighborhoods, but even these normally have a single instigator or small group of instigators. 

            Normally, this involves a flip from peaceful, economically rational behavior to behavior that is violent, destructive, and economically, personally, and morally irrational according to normal standards of the group and of humanity.  The bad wolf suddenly takes over.  Genocide leaders are men—they are almost all men—who are geniuses at making people do this psychological flip.  They can manipulate social fear, using a mix of charisma and exaggerated group rivalry.  They can whip up the hatred that is latent in people, and mobilize it.  They are masters of redefining groups to make them smaller, tighter, more defensive, more closed.  They can get people to circle the wagons.  They can make people see it is an “exception” when moral rules are broken to harm a rival group, something people all too often figure out without help (Sapolsky 2017, summarized p. 674).  The human ear and brain reduce their processing of ordinary peaceful messages, and become more sensitive to ominous messages and less sensitive to people or to rational considerations; people can be reduced to blind rage (Monbiot 2019).

            It is particularly clear that a certain type of narcissistic, cocksure, extremist leader can often manage to take advantage of human loyalty, religion, or ideology to reduce a whole nation to near-hypnotism, adulating him (he is always male—so far) with worshipful adoration.  Frank Dikötter (2019) has investigated this in the case of several 20th century dictators, including Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin, and found many common threads.  All consolidated power ruthlessly and came more and more to depend on a cult of personality.  They became strongmen, above the law, above tradition, above any restraint—even the restraints of their own claimed ideologies.  The more they did, the more the loyal citizens adored them, until they miscalculated and caused actual ruin through war or economic collapse.  The sad fact is that the tendency of humans to conform with society and follow its leaders—usually useful traits, preventing chaos—can be and often is misused in the most horrific ways.

            In all genocides, the mass of the population is susceptible to messages of hate.  It is astonishingly easy to make ordinary “decent” citizens into mass murderers.  People go along with the evil leaders.  The public follows the leaders as loyally as they do in international wars or in actual defense of the nation.  The leaders are power-hungry and hateful individuals, but their followers are not; yet their followers do appalling things on command.  Detailed interviewing over time in Germany, China, the USSR, Rwanda, and other states showed that people were swept away by the rhetoric, and then strengthened in murderous resolve by the fact that everyone else was involved in the killing.  Most people simply did what they were told, or what their neighbors were doing.  They often took a sort of pleasure or satisfaction in doing it, but often found it simply a job that had to be done.  It is often pointed out that Hitler killed only one person: himself.  It was the people “just following orders” that did the real work.

            This mass conformity is very extensively documented.  (Particularly good recent reviews of it are found in Paxton 2005, Snyder 2015, Staub 2011, Tatz and Higgins 2016, and Waller 2016.)  It seems particularly common where hatreds are traditional, as with the Jews in “Christian” Europe, but it is reported everywhere.  The same is true of criminal gangs, slave procurement, police work in less lawful parts of the world, and indeed every situation where ordinary people get caught up in violence.  They almost always conform (see esp. Baumeister 1997; Waller 2016).

            Finally, the testimony of many anthropologists (e.g. Atran 2010, 2015), psychologists (Baumeister 1997), criminologists (De Becker 1997), and other experts all confirm that perfectly normal people can and do become terrorists and murderers in any social situation that puts a high value on such behavior as serving the group.  Scott Atran’s accounts of Islamic terrorists are particularly revealing: the terrorists and suicide bombers are usually young persons who have experienced traumatic events in their own small worlds.  They are not particularly violent, certainly not psychotic.  They are very often recruited through intensive influence by leaders of local extremist organizations—leaders who rarely endanger themselves. 

            Otherwise, worldwide, accounts of recruits to violent gangs often speak of neighborhoods where the only alternative to membership in a violent gang is being killed by one.  Criminals who are not part of gangs are far more apt to be genuinely demented—usually psychopathic.  Even among such loners, however, writers like Roy Baumeister and Gavin De Becker stress the number who seem superficially normal.  For the record, the pirates, smugglers, and sometime killers I knew on Asian waterfronts in my youth were largely a perfectly normal lot; they got caught up in an ugly world and had few or no alternatives.  By contrast, the one American mass killer I have known was a deeply troubled individual, bullied and treated cruelly for his obvious mental issues until he finally snapped. 

            There are, in short, some people whose inner demons drive them out of control—though they can be identified and stopped (De Becker 1997).  Far more common are ordinary individuals: we normals who have within us the two wolves, waiting for food.  The relevant works are surprisingly silent on what makes one or the other wolf take over.  The old Victorian clichés—coming from bad seed or a broken home, falling in with bad company, taking to drink—are echoed to this day in one form or another.  They have much truth, and we now know more, but there is still much to learn.

            Older literature often described such behavior as regression to “animal” or “savage” behavior, but no other animal does anything remotely close.  Nonhuman animals fight and kill when threatened or when vying for mates or territory (Clutton-Brock 2016), but they rarely kill without those immediate motives, they rarely torture (though cats and many others will toy with prey, cruelly by our standards), and they certainly do not make social decisions to starve millions of their fellows to death.

 “Savages” in the old sense of the term do not exist and never have.  The small-scale societies of the world do about the same things that modern states do, but on a very much smaller scale, and they lack the technological ability to carry out the mass tortures and murders so common now.  They could not force mass starvation on their societies even if they wanted to.  Claims of greater violence among early, small-scale societies and early states, e.g. in Pinker (2011), are based on outrageous sampling bias (Fry 2013; Mann 2018).  Pinker compares the most warlike of documented small societies with the most peaceful modern ones, which does show we are capable of being better than we often are, but says nothing about what social levels are most murderous.

            In fact, virtually anyone can be converted, rather easily, into a monster who will torture, rape, and murder his or her neighbors and even family members for reasons that no rational person could possibly accept after serious consideration.  Religious wars over heresies provide extreme cases.  In such conflicts as the Albigensian Crusade, the 13th-century genocide that gave rise to the infamous line “kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out,” probably not one in a thousand participants could explain the differences between Catholic and Albigensian Christianity (see Anderson and Anderson 2012).  Yet the murders of neighbors and friends went on for decades.  The same endures today, as in the persecution of Shi’a by ISIS (Hawley 2018).

            Such phenomena raise the question of how and why normal, peaceable human beings can so easily flip into genocidal states, and then back into peaceful states after the genocide is stopped.  Many of the most horrible genocides were committed in countries long known for the tranquility, peacefulness, cooperativeness, and even tolerance of their citizenry.  Cambodia and Rwanda were particularly clear examples.  On the other hand, some genocidal countries had a long and bloody history of independence and conflict.  No pattern emerged from this line of enquiry.

            In most genocides, those who resisted and worked to save victims were astonishingly few.  Tatz and Higgins (2016) have recently collected the data from the Holocaust and other genocides.  They find that even when there was no penalty for refusing, ordinary people went along with mass murder.  This was as true in the United States and Australia in the 19th century as in Hitler’s Gemany and Pol Pot’s Cambodia.  It is sobering for modern Americans to read how otherwise normal, reasonably decent, “Christian” Americans could perform the most unspeakable and unthinkable acts on Native Americans—often neighbors and (former) friends—without a second thought (see e.g. Madley 2016).  Colin Tatz’ harrowing summary of settler genocides in Australia reveals the same (Tatz 2018).  Nor did more moral citizens do much to restrain the killers.  The “Indian lovers” like Helen Hunt Jackson and James Mooney who agitated to protect Native Americans in late 19th century America were few.

            Hollie Nyseth Brehm (2017b), in a particularly thorough analysis of the Rwandan genocide, found that killing was clearly top-down-directed, with a concentration around the capital and major cities and among well-educated (and thus elite) people, but also was commoner in areas with low marriage, high mobility, concentration of Tutsi, and political opposition—especially by Hutu themselves—at the grassroots.  The areas in and around the capital, Kigali, were far more deadly than areas at the northern margins of the country.  This is the opposite of the pattern seen in settler genocides, where murder was far commoner on borders where settler populations were expanding at the expense of Indigenous people. 

            Accounts from China’s Cultural Revolution indicate that people were swept up in mass hysteria, but were also afraid of appearing to be neutral, since lack of enthusiasm in persecuting victims led to substantial trouble, up to being made a victim oneself.  A few of the many memoirs indicate that the writers were unreconstructed Maoists, but the vast majority worked under orders, from fear or social pressure or conformity.  Many repented, and write agonizing stories of their internal sufferings as well as the sufferings they inflicted and endured.

  • Anyone, Anytime, Can Turn Evil

          The alternation between peace and rage is typical of animals, especially carnivores; we see it often in dogs and cats.  Chimpanzees show it too.  Humans are different in two ways.  First, many humans are always “on the fight” or “in your face,” seemingly looking for imagined slights, threats to their honor, and excuses for a fight.  This is both individual and cultural.

          Arguably the biggest cause of slights, anger and hate is ranking out: arrogance, putting others down, open insulting superiority. This is particularly touchy if A really does outrank B and has to show it, as in the military, in hierarchic business firms, and in traditional societies with hereditary nobility.  A display of modesty can go too far, but a display of arrogance is disastrous.  Soldiers and bureaucrats have to game this.  It is a minefield, even more than romance, let alone ordinary civility.  Every day brings new outrages by minorities insulted—sometimes unintentionally—by people in power.  The sheer advantage of the priviledged, in everyday discourse, makes even “niceness” seem a putdown.  As with other forms of slight and offense, the Scottish ballads and Shakespeare’s plays are full of this: people are outraged at failures to recognize superior status, but even more outraged at having their noses rubbed in someone else’s social superiority.   

Some cultures and subcultures teach violent response to offenses as normal behavior (Baumeister 1997).  Such “honor cultures” always track societies with a bloody, unsettled, poorly controlled past.  Killing, however, goes far beyond such societies.  Humans fall into rage states not only when fighting immediate rivals for food or territory or mates, as dogs and cats do, but also over issues that do not directly concern them: war with remote enemies, malfeasance in distant countries, terrorist attacks in far-off cities, political injustices to other groups of people.  Humans specialize in offense, outrage, antagonism, and hate, and will take any excuse. 

            Antagonism is the opposite pole to Agreeableness on the Agreeableness scale of the widely used Big Five personality test.  Worldwide, people range between the two extremes, and there is a substantial inherited component, though much (I believe most) of one’s level of agreeableness/antagonism is learned.  Highly antagonistic people are, of course, heavily overrepresented among doers of evil, and are very susceptible to inflammatory rhetoric (Kaufman 2018).

            People, even quite antagonistic ones, are usually peaceful in ordinary everyday life, and even helpful, generous, and tolerant.  Many are curmudgeons, even snappish or bigoted, but at least not violently cruel.  It takes some effort to make them do deliberate harm to those who have not harmed them.

            However, it does not take much effort.  Following discovery of this fact among Nazi survivors, psychologists experimented with students, seeing how easy it was to make them be cruel to other students.  Stanley Milgram’s famous experiments with faked electric shocks, Philip Zimbardo’s with students acting as jailers and prisoners, and many subsequent experiments showed—to the horror of psychologists and the reading public—that it was very easy indeed. 

            Zimbardo’s experiment with a mock prison, at Stanford, had to be stopped within a week, because the students took their roles too seriously (Blum 2018 criticized this experiment, but has been effectively answered by Zimbardo, 2018).  This led to major reforms of experimental ethics, as well as to much soul-searching (Zimbardo 2008).  Contrary to published accounts, Zimbardo did not initially allow the “prisoners” to leave the experimental situation, and in any case privileged white and Asian young men (as these students were) hardly provide a realistic prison situation, given America’s racist and brutal prison system (Blum 2018).  However, Zimbardo’s main finding stands: people, even the “best” young men, can turn into evildoers with astonishing ease if they are following orders.

            People flip easily from a normal state—mild and peaceable—to an aroused state of anger, hatred, aggression, brutality, or rage.  There is a continuum, but phenomenologically it often feels as if we are dominated by either the good wolf or the bad one—not by an intermediate, neutral wolf.  Our enemies are not always external.  Suicide is the commonest homicide. Next most common is killing family members.

            We have a choice.  We must choose to be angered, and can always choose to “turn the other cheek.”  A punch in the face is hard to ignore (though some can manage it), but by far the most anger we feel is over trivial slights that can easily be ignored, or over social issues that may not concern us directly.  I am much more frequently angered by reading about injustice, murder, or war in places I have never been and involving people about whom I know nothing than I am by threats to myself.  Reading the political literature, one realizes that some people are outraged by the very existence of African-Americans somewhere, or by the fact that not everyone worships the same way.  An excellent column by Ron Rolheiser (2018) talks with some ironic detachment about the human proclivity to moral outrage.  Humans love to work themselves up into anger, or even hysteria, about perfectly trivial issues irrelevant to their own lives.  Most of us in the scholarly world know teachers who turn red in the face at such things as bad grammar in student papers. 

            Indeed, almost all the evil discussed herein is deliberately chosen because of outrage over something that does not directly or seriously concern the chooser.  The Jews were not really destroying Germany, nor were the Tutsi causing much trouble in Rwanda, nor were the victims of Mao’s purges doing anything remotely worthy of national outrage and mass murder.  All of us have encountered a great deal of everyday prejudice, bigotry, and open hatred of people for being what they are, as opposed to what they may have done.  This too has been studied; Gordon Allport (1954) reviewed early sources.  Since then a huge literature has accumulated (see below).

            Robert Louis Stevenson’s story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is uncomfortably compelling.  We sense, somehow, that we could all go there.  Hannah Arendt’s famous phrase “the banality of evil” (Arendt 1963) is also compelling.  Indeed, evil is banal, for the very good reason that it is usually done by the kid next door, or his equivalent.

            Peace came to Colombia after more than 50 years of conflict between the government—often via paramilitary gangs—and FARC, which began as a rebel organization but became largely a cocaine ring.  The paramilitary groups were little if any better.  Both sides accommodated to and dealt with the organized drug cartels.  Thousands of people were involved, and they committed the usual torture, rape, and murder associated with such activities.  With peace came rehabilitation.  Sara Reardon (2018) investigated the process.  She quotes one of the rehabilitation psychologists, Natalia Trujillo: “I realized not all of them are sociopaths. I realized most of them are also victims.”   In fact, it is obvious from Reardon’s account that the vast majority were closer to victimhood than to pathology.  They were local people, some originally idealistic, swept up in a nightmare.  Many were forced to fight to save themselves and their families.  Most of the combatants have returned to ordinary life with varying degrees of success; some have been killed by revengeful farmers and others who were devastated or had loved ones murdered. Unfortunately, but predictably, the peace did not hold.

The way that ordinary people can be caught up in senseless civil war is clearly shown.  Similar stories from Liberia, Sierra Leone, and other civil wars, back to the United States’ own, show this to be typical. 

            In short, the vast majority of killing and harming in the world is done by people “just following orders.”  They range from people mindlessly conforming, or even hating what they do, to enthusiastic perpetrators who needed only the excuse.  Especially successful are orders to kill or oppress minorities or to ignore their suffering when displaced.  Orders or requests to care for people and help them meet far more resistance.  The United States has faced continual protests and objections over its exiguous and miserable government safety nets, but no trouble finding soldiers for wars in the Middle East, and Trump had no trouble whipping many of his followers into frenzies of violence and hate.  For better or worse—usually for worse—people are easily mobilized by antagonism, but difficult to mobilize by religious teachings of love and care for fellow humans.  People are too apt to be spontaneously antagonistic and destructive, simply due to overreaction to the negative.  They hate trivial enemies, callously neglect valuable but less-noticed people, and take too little account of the good.

The average human is pleasant, smiling, friendly, and civil most of the time, but when threatened or stressed he or she becomes defensive.  This usually begins with verbal defense or with passive-aggressive sulking.  It escalates if the threat escalates—usually matching the threat level, but often going beyond it, in preemptive strike mode.  This is a necessary and valuable mechanism when genuine defense is needed. 

The differences between people and cultures then matter.  The average human seems easily persuaded to wad up all frustrations, irritations, threats, and hurts into a ball, and throw that ball at minorities and nonconformists.  This displacement and scapegoating comes up over and over again in all studies of human evil, especially genocide. 

            The world is far from perfect.  Wars, crimes, and genocides happen.  We must deal with them.  We are rarely equipped with perfect ways of doing this.  Cool, rational action in the face of hostility requires both courage and the knowledge of what to do. 

            Failing that, action is difficult.  The most available and simple option is to follow the orders of those who do know, or to conform with cultural norms that provide strategies for dealing with problems.  The next most available option is to maintain a front of hostility: to be touchy, aggressive, or fearful.  Ideally, one can seek out the knowledge to cope better, but this requires effort and time.  One can also flee, hide, become a hermit, act as virtuous as possible in the hopes that virtue will prevail, or simply die. 

            Recognizing this choice matrix makes the victory of the bad wolf more understandable.  Facing a hostile world, people are prone to let the bad wolf roam, or to follow the orders of those who do.

The model that emerges, then, is one of ordinary people dealing with ordinary everyday frustrations, slights, trivial hurts, and difficulties, who can easily be persuaded by extremist leaders to direct their frustration at scapegoats.  Scapegoating minorities to maintain control by venting diffuse anger is the food of the bad wolf.  Violence comes from directing diffuse hate to a specific target.  This is the common theme of the books on evil listed at the beginning of the present work. 

Such violence sums up into war and genocide when human agents with their own damaged agendas are swayed evil leaders who are willing to go beyond normal social rules.  This is the human response that evil leaders from Caligula to Hitler to Trump have whipped up.  The immediate cure is minimizing offense-taking, but the ultimate cure is finding enough good in the world to balance out the offenses.

Often, though not always, these leaders, in turn, are the creatures of landlord or rentier elites wishing to maintain control over income streams and resources.  The deadly combination of propertied interests, evil leaders, and frustrated masses is the common background of modern mass killings.

Part II.  Roots of Human Evil

1. Human Nature?

            Speculations on human nature have taken place throughout the ages.  The classic Christian and Buddhist views are that people everywhere are basically good; evil is a corruption of their nature by bad desires.  The problem, according to Buddhist theology, is giving way to greed, anger, and lust.  The Christian tradition is similar; “love of money is the root of all evil,” according to Paul (I Timothy 10).  Most Confucians follow the great Confucian teacher Mencius in seeing people as basically prosocial, corrupted by bad or inadequate education.  Many small-scale and traditional societies hold that people are basically sociable and well-meaning, but must develop themselves through spiritual discipline and cultivation.  Quakers speak of the “Inner Light.”  Modern biologists and anthropologists have found it in the social and proto-moral inclinations now known to be innate in humans.

            Conversely, the commonest western-world view is probably that of Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes and Sigmund Freud: people are basically evil, selfish, competitive, and out for themselves at the expense of others.  This view goes back to the ancient Greeks; Marshall Sahlins (2008) provides a full history of it.  Social behavior must be forced on them by harsh training.  Hobbes saw “man in his natural state” as being in a permanent condition of “warre of each against all” for resources (Hobbes 1950 [1657]:104).  Freud had a darker view:  Innate human nature was the Id, a realm of terrifying lust, murderous hate, and insatiable greed.  Both men thought “savages” showed “man in his natural state”; they believed travelers’ tales rather than real descriptions, and thought “savages” were bloodthirsty, cruel, and driven by the lusts of the moment, with no thought of the future.  In fact, even without modern anthropology, they should have known from actual accounts that small-scale societies are about as peaceful and orderly as our own. 

These dark views come from traditional folk wisdom, which incorporates a good deal of cynicism based on the common observation of people hurting themselves to hurt others more.  A worldwide folktale tells of a man who is granted one wish (by an angel, godmother, or other being) but on the condition that his neighbor will get twice what he gets; if the man wishes for a thousand dollars, his neighbor gets two thousand.  The man thinks for a while, then says “Make me blind in one eye!” 

            Machiavelli, Hobbes, Freud, and their countless followers assumed that society will force people to act decently through powerful discipline.  This is impossible.  One cannot make mountain lions form social contracts, or teach crocodiles to cooperate.  An animal that is naturally individualist, each animal competing with others, cannot create a society capable of enforcing rules.  Joseph Henrich (2016), among many others, has pointed out that only an animal with cumulative culture, natural sociability, and an innate tendency to cooperate could have social norms and expect conformity to them.  Hobbes, Freud, and others expected far too much of human rationality.  Rationality is notoriously unable to restrain emotion.  Ask any teenager, or parent of one. 

            A serious cost of the Hobbesian view is that by assuming people are worse than they are, Hobbesians excuse their own tendencies to act worse than they otherwise would.  Hobbesian views have always been popular with hatemongers.

            The other classical and mistaken view of humanity is the rational self-interest view.  The briefest look at humanity instantly dispels that.  People do not act in their self-interest, and rarely act rationally in that restricted sense (see e.g. Kahneman 2011).   The “irrational” heuristics that people use can be highly useful as shortcuts, creating mental efficiency (Gigerenzer 2007; Gigerenzer et al. 1999), but they constantly cause trouble when cool reason is needed.  Human limits to rationality are now so well documented that they need no further notice here. 

            The rationalist view is a far more positive view of humanity than Hobbes’ or Freud’s.  It does not give much space to evil; evil would occur only when it really pays in material terms, which is not often.  Unfortunately, irrational evil appears much commoner in the real world.  Tyrants may often die in bed, but they often do not.  Suicide bombers and other front-line fighters for the wrong are obviously not advancing their rational self-interest.  Straightforward shortsighted but “rational” calculation does explain some bad acting, but does not explain people going far out of their way to be hateful and cruel, or the common human tendency to resist improving themselves and their surroundings.  Over the 5000 years of recorded history, countless people around the world have chosen, over and over, to suffer and work and make themselves miserable simply to hurt others.  Technology has often developed for war.  Rational choice could be believed as a general motive only because hate, vengefulness, overreaction to slights, and irrational hate of nature are so universal that they are not even noticed, or are considered “rational.” 

             The contrasting view also goes back to the ancient Greeks, who wrote of human abilities to love, cooperate, and found democracies.  Christianity later built on a view that people could love each other; the line “love thy neighbor as thyself” goes back to Moses.  However, few could see humanity as innately good, or believe in virtuous utopias.  There were always a few, but on the whole belief in a “noble savage” view is largely a straw man.  Rousseau did not believe any such thing (the phrase actually comes from John Dryden), nor do most of the others accused of having it.  In so far as it is taken seriously, it does not survive the many accounts of war in small-scale societies.  Even relatively “noble”-believing sources (e.g. Fry 2013) cannot gloss over the frequency of killing in almost all societies.

            A more realistic, but still dubious, take on humans comes from the Zoroastrian-Manichaean tradition.  This tradition sees correctly that people are a mix of well-meaning, helpful, prosocial good and cruel, brutal evil.  It further holds, less believably, that the good comes from the immaterial “spirit” realm, evil from the flesh.  This view, which entered Christianity with St. Paul (see his Letter to the Romans), lies behind the extreme Puritanism of much of western society—the view that sees sex, good food, good wine, and dancing as Sins with a capital S.  Everything of the flesh tends toward corruption.  Good sex is the door to hell.  “The fiddle is the devil’s riding horse,” according to an old American saying.  I was raised in a time and place when this view was widespread.  The social revolution of the 1960s cut it back sharply, but it keeps resurfacing.   Yet, a great deal of human good comes via those “sins.”  Condemning these is regularly used to distract people from the real sins: cruelty, oppression, gratuitous harm, selfish greed, hatred.

            A deeper problem with the Manichaean view is that people are usually neither saintly nor demonic.  They are just trying to make a living and then get some rest and relaxation.  Their forays into proactive goodness or proactive evil are extensions from ordinary low-profile getting along.             This leaves us with the Native American folktale: the two wolves, like the “good and bad angels” that folk Christianity took over from Manichaean belief, are symbols of the prosocial and hostile sides of humanity, of working with people versus working against them.

In this sense, people are not bad or good; they are good to kin and culturally constructed fictive kin, bad to rivals, and neutral to everyone else.  There is a very slight positive bias, enough to have saved the human race so far.  But people will kill vast numbers of distant strangers without thinking much about it, as King Leopold of Belgium did—indirectly—in the Congo.

In general, people are far better than the savages of Hobbes and Freud, but not as good as idealists or rationalists assume.  The hopeful dreams of “positive psychology” and “humanistic psychology” have turned to dust.   Ordinary everyday human life is full of minor slights and disrespects, and of misfortunes interpreted as personal attacks when they were not meant as such.  It is also full of minor kindnesses and helpful moves.  From this constant low-level evil and good, it is easy to move suddenly and unexpectedly to much greater evil or good. We are always poised near the edge of flipping into violence or heroism.  Everyday hurt and disrespect can be exploited by evil leaders who whip up hate and deploy it against their victims—usually the weak.  Everyday good and care can be stimulated by situations or by moral suasion, and people can be heroic. Often the contrast is between “realism”—the cynical realism of evildoers—and hope, often the unrealistic idealism of the best. People must often choose the ideals or be lost to the cynics.

            At worst, intergroup competition leads to cruelty, viciousness, nastiness, greed (here defined, recall, as hurting others by taking their goods for oneself, without fairly compensating them), and other vices.  We are still not sure how much these are inborn tendencies—like minimal morality—and how much they are learned.  Most authorities think they are learned.  Others concentrate on the learned aspects.  However, broad capacities to fight, hate, and destroy are clearly innate in all higher animals.  Humans seem to have more of these innate cruel tendencies than do other animals, at least as far as “proactive” violence goes.  But real wolves—as opposed to the ones inside us—have their own fights; normally peaceful and calm, they erupt into violence when a new wolf threatens an established pack, or when a bear or human or other enemy attacks (Clutton-Brock 2016).  Dogs, domesticated descendants of wolves, still engage in “resource guarding”; an otherwise peaceful dog, especially if leashed, will attack anyone that seems to menace its owner.  We are a predatory mammal; we can be expected to act accordingly.

            We are gifted by our mammalian heritage with the ability to love, care, fear, hate, and fight.  These we share with all higher mammals.  We are also gifted with the uniquely human ability to form complex, diverse social and cultural systems that construct care, fear, aggression, and other natural drives in ways that can amplify both good and evil out of all bounds.

            People are abjectly dependent on their societies.  We live in stark terror of rejection and ostracism.  They therefore overreact, negatively, to any challenge to their social standing.  Therein lies the problem of the human condition.

2. Evolution?

            Any animal must divide its attention between avoiding threat and getting necessities of life.  Thus, all animals have a fight-flight-freeze response repertoire for dealing with the former, and ways of dealing with the latter to obtain food, shelter, territory, reproduction, and other needs with minimum danger.  They may be jealously protective of mates and homes.  Animals compete for these, and social animals compete for place in the group.  Humans, with far more complex social lives than other animals, add socially constructed identifications with groups, their basic principles, and their identifying flags (from skin color to religious beliefs). 

Overreaction to threat is selected for; thinking a poisonous snake is a rope is far less adaptive than thinking a rope is a snake (to use the classic Indian example).  Failure to find food in a day means a better hunt tomorrow, but failure to identify a deadly threat means no tomorrow ever again, for oneself and often for one’s genetic investment in young.  Even plants react with fear; a chainsaw can end in a few minutes a few centuries of investment in growth.  

This is the ultimate biological substrate of human reactions, including the human tendency to overreact to perceived (and even imagined) threat.   Humans seem about half dedicated to crushing opposition, from criticism to competition, and half dedicated to peacefully obtaining what they need and wish.  Feedback in perceived threat—deadly spirals—is made probable by the need to react to even mild threat as potentially serious.  Contingent variation in personal, situational, and cultural factors prevents better prediction than a rough 50-50.

It is now well established that humans are innately “moral,” in the sense that they have natural predispositions to fairness, generosity, tolerance, welcoming, acceptance, sociability, friendliness, and other social goods.  (There is now a huge literature on this; see e.g. De Waal 1996; Bowles and Gintis 2011; Henrich 2016; Tomasello 2016, 2019.)  It is basically a rediscovery of what Mencius knew in the 4th century BCE.  People are naturally interested in the world and the other people in it.  More neutral are anger at real harms, and desire to satisfy basic wants, including a desire for pleasure and beauty.  Bad traits that appear universal, but possibly not inborn, include hatred of nonconformists and structural opponents, a tendency to grab desired stuff from others, a tendency to resent real or imagined slights, and above all weak fear. 

Excessive need for control is notably a part of the picture, especially in intersex violence.  In many species of mammals, will kill other males and even their own female companions to maintain it (Clutton-Brock 2016: Heid 2019 for applications to humans).  Intraspecific aggression and violence are universal in higher animals, highly structured, and shaped by evolution (Clutton-Brock 2016). Even meerkats, regarded by many humans as particularly cute, are murderous to rival groups; females will hunt out and kill pups of neighboring packs (Clutton-Brock 2016:303). The rapid transition from harmony, empathy, playfulness, and cooperation to cold-blooded murder of weaker “others” is not confined to humans, or even to large predators like wolves.

A few recent writers have made important contributions to the study of human nature as producing good (prosociality and cooperation) and evil.  Two stand out in particular for very recent work: Michael Tomasello and Richard Wrangham.

Michael Tomasello, in A Natural History of Human Morality, postulates that morals evolved in three steps.  First came natural sympathy, developed from the loving emotions that all higher mammals feel for their mothers and siblings; these are extended to other kin and ultimately to any close associate, in human society.  Infants display this from birth.  Second, as humans evolved cooperative hunting and foraging, they learned to respect, help, share with, and support their partners.  Apes do not do this; they may co-hunt but they do not share or cooperate more than minimally.  Wolves and meerkats do, however.  Third, and uniquely human, all social groups have cultural moral repertoires.  They have long lists of “oughts,” almost always said to be divinely sanctioned. 

Tomasello follows almost everyone in arguing that the human tendency to cooperate evolved in foraging.  Cooperative animals could hunt big game, find isolated honey trees and share the news, and work together to catch fish.  A bit of evidence he misses is the parallel with wolves.  Canids scaled up from fox-like animals to hunt big game.  However, their need to run fast denied them the chance to develop the formidable claws that allow cats to be solitary hunters of big animals.  Wolves thus learned to cooperate to chase and bring down large animals.  This skill is seen today in the incredible skills of herding dogs at coordinating their efforts.  They not only have to know exactly what each other dog is thinking and planning; they have to put themselves in the positions of the humans and the sheep.  I once watched two shepherds and some muttish sheepdogs negotiate a herd of sheep through a difficult traffic intersection in the Pyrennees.  The shepherds did almost nothing; the dogs had to work together, trusting each other to keep order in a deadly environment, while understanding what the shepherds wanted and what the sheep would do.  They managed this three-species balancing act perfectly. 

A good Kantian, Tomasello looks to abstract rules founded on basic principles of cooperation and mutualism.  Tomasello is fond of citing Christine Korsgaard for this approach, and she does indeed argue powerfully for the Kantian view (Korsgaard 1996).  Kantian “deontological” ethics deduce rules from basic principles.  In contrast, utilitarian “assertoric” ethics hold that ethics are practical solutions to everyday problems (see e.g. Brandt 1979).  It is fairly clear, ethnologically, that both these methods of creating moral rules happen in the real world, and every culture has a mix of high abstractions and pragmatic rules-of-thumb.  Moral philosophers tend to emphasize one or the other.

No other animals have anything remotely like cultural rules that regulate whole large groups that are not only not face-to-face but many involve millions of people who never meet at all.  As Tomasello points out, children raised in human families learn these rules very early, but family pets do not (Tomasello 2016:154, 2019; pets do learn to act differently in different cultures, but only through simple training).  Tomasello admits that he emphasizes conformity and cooperation and that people are frequently immoral (Tomasello 2016:161), but does not take into account the actual alternatives within moral systems that allow people to murder each other for purely moral reasons, from Aztec human sacrifice to capital punishment.  In a later publication (Tomasello 2018) he admits that conflict must have had something to do with shaping human moralities.  Tomasello’s Rousseauian view keeps him from addressing hatred, but one can assume, from his work, that nonhuman animals can’t really hate; it takes too much long-view and abstraction.

Tomasello sharply contrasts apes and human infants.  Even before they can talk, human infants show a vibrant sociability more complex than chimpanzees.  By the time they are three, children have reached not only a level of social sensitivity that outdoes the ape; they also can thnk morally, reason according to what they see others doing and thinking, and react on the basis of knowing that others will expect moral or conventional or socially appropriate responses.  Apes barely do anything like this; they show awareness of others’ thoughts and fear of punishment and domination, but they do not understand abstract social rules.  By the age of six, human children are rational, reasonable beings who know how to apply the moral and pragmatic rules of their cultures (Tomasello 2019).  

In fact, going Tomasello one better, those of us who have raised children in other cultural settings are aware that children know by three that there are other sets of social rules, and by six they are masters of language-shifting, rule-shifting, and norm-shifting depending on what group they are with.  It was almost spooky to watch my young children quickly learn that a mass of undifferentiated words must be separated into “Chinese” (tonal, rhythmic, spoken with those outside the family) and “English” (a very different-sounding language used with the family and a few friends). 

Tomasello continues to see humans as basically cooperative, helpful, generous, and moral (according to their societies’ codes, but never normalizing hurt or cruelty).  They show astonishing levels of fairness by three years of age, in contrast to apes, who simply grab anything they want from weaker apes.   He has plenty of evidence, and has shown that such virtues are universal among children.  However, much of his sample derives from child-care centers in college towns, and this gives it a rather irenic balance.  We who grew up in what my wife calls “the real world” are aware of less harmonious child environments.  They force children to choose right from the start between the two wolves.

            Recently, Richard Wrangham has brought this issue to the foreground in his book The Goodness Paradox (2019).  He contrasts reactive aggression—ordinary anger and rage leading to violence—with proactive aggression, which evidently started out as hunting, but was retooled far back in our evolution to become planned, deliberate, often cool-headed violence.  Compared to other primates, humans have much less reactive violence.  We are far less violent than chimpanzees, in particular.  Even the peaceable bonobos rival us.  On the other hand, we display far more proactive violence—our raids, wars, genocides, organized crimes, and the like are at least planned and premeditated, at worst truly cold-blooded rather than passionate. 

He then questions how we could have evolved to do this.  His answer lies in our ability to cooperate to take down excessively violent individuals.  Even chimpanzees do this to some extent.  Humans do it quite generally.  Anyone reading old ethnographies and accounts is aware of the extreme frequency of stories of a psychopathic or hyperaggressive man (it is almost always a man) being quietly eliminated.  Often, four men will go out hunting, three will return, and no questions are asked.  Wrangham follows Christopher Boehm (1999) in seeing this sort of take-down of a dominant or domineering individual as basic to traditional societies.

Wrangham hypothesizes that this happened enough to influence human evolution.  It selected against reactive aggression, but selected for proactive aggression.  Other factors, such as the needs of foraging and food preparation, selected for cooperation.  Once cooperation was established and used in proactive aggression, it was available to allow a group to devastate the neighboring group that shows less solidarity in war. 

This theory is neat, consistent, and plausible, but there is no real evidence for it.  No one has counted the number of males eliminated by cooperative execution.  Moreover, Wrangham weakens his argument by showing that cooperative execution is very often—perhaps usually—invoked against nonconformists, often meek and innocent ones, rather than against bullies and psychopaths.  In fact, it appears from the accounts that bullies and psychopaths very often invoke the violence themselves, and execute the weak—especially weak potential competitors.  This would select for violence, not against it.  It seems that we will have to get better data, and to explore other possibilities.

In any case, Wrangham seems to have at least some of the story.  Truly inborn is a strong tendency to form coalitions that act against each other and, in the end, against everyone’s best interests.  Samuel Bowles and others have explained this as developing in feedback with solidarity in war.  Those who stand together prevail, wipe out the less cooperative enemy groups, and leave more descendants (Bowles 2006, 2008, 2009; Boyer 2018; Choi and Bowles 2007).  This is known as “parochial altruism.”  Individuals may not be locked in “warre of each against all,” but groups very often are.  Richared Wrangham (2019:133-134) dismisses this, finding too little evidence of self-sacrifice for the group or large-scale pitched battles in hunter-gatherer warfare.  This is not exactly relevant.  The only requirement is for groups to be solidary and mutually supportive; individuals do not have to go out of their way to sacrifice themselves.  Moreover, Wrangham has not adequately covered the literature.  There is much evidence for large-scale raiding, small but bloody battles, and defensive aggression among hunter-gatherers (see e.g. Keeley 1996; Turney-High 1949).  Serious and dangerous war is found in all the well-studied sizable nonagricultural groups, such as the Northwest Coast, Plains, and California Native peoples.  Wrangham was apparently misled by his focus on tiny hunter-gatherer bands that do not have the manpower to support large wars.

A different view is provided by Samantha Lang and Blaine Flowers (2019).  They begin from the other extreme: the phenomenon of individuals caring for others who have terminal dementia and thus can never pay back any debts (material or psychological) to their caregivers.  The vast majority of such caregiving is within the family—60.5% from children, 18% from spouses, most of the rest from other relatives—but even this is “irrational” in economic terms, and even in biological terms, since it costs the caregivers and prevents them from investing more in their children.  Moreover, the residual 5% of care is often given by devoted volunteers, who simply want to help others.  They note that all this can simply be seen as an “exaptation” from inclusive fitness—if we are selected to care for kin, we have to care for all kin—but also note that no nonhuman animal is known to do this (though there are some anecdotal records of group-living predators supporting disabled members).

Yet another view comes from work of Oliver Curry, Daniel Mullins, and Harvey Whitehouse (2019).  They hold that people evolved through cooperation, and that cooperation was then constructed as morality.  In their “morality-as-cooperation” theory, there are seven basic values:  “Allocation of resources to kin (family values)…, coordination to mutual advantage (group loyalty)…, social exchange (reciprocity)…, contests between hawks (bravery) and doves (respect) [that is two things]…, division (fairness)…, possession (property rights).”   These they break down into a list of specific values that are very widely held; for instance, family values start with “being a loving mother, being a protective father, helping a brother, caring for a frail relative,” (Curry et al. 2019:54).  They look at 60 societies around the world, finding all that are well reported have some form of all these, except for fairness, which is spottily attested.

To a biologist, the only reasonable explanation is that selection originally operated as it does in all higher animals, through inclusive fitness:  mutual care is deployed among families to maximize genetic success over time.  This then can be extended along ever-wider kinship lines, and to increase in scope to include in-marrying spouses (typically women, in traditional human societies, though in many agricultural societies it is the men that move).  Then further increase of scope takes in whole communities, perhaps via in-laws and distant cousins.  The defining moment (or long period) in the history of humanity was when we extended kinship to include culturally constructed relatives.  This in turn derives, at least in critical part, from the need to marry out—not only to prevent inbreeding but to build solidarity with neighbor groups. 

By this time—the time in the past when kinship extended so widely—the link with genetics is essentially lost.  The huge groups characteristic of modern human societies can form.  We can freely adopt strangers’ children, marry people from other countries, and devote our lives to helping humanity.  However, perhaps the most universally known social fact is that we continue to privilege close family members, and to build solidarity by self-consciously using family terms: Bands of brothers, church fathers and mothers, sisterhoods, fellow children of Adam and Eve.  A very widely known proverb (I have heard and seen it in countless forms) summarizes the normal human strategic condition: “I against my brother; my brother and I against our cousin; my cousin, brother, and I against our village; and our village against the world!”  The closer we are to others, the more solidary we feel with them.  Aggregating along kinship lines allowed Genghis Khan and his followers to build world-conquering armies by widely extending kin claims and tolerance of difference.  On the other hand, the closer we are to others, the more they can hurt and anger us.  They are around us more, and we are psychologically involved with them.  Their opinions matter, and their help is necessary.

            Solidarity in the face of attack by an enemy group is a human norm.  It is probably an evolved behavior, selected for by that situation occurring frequently over the millions of years.  Samuel Bowles (2006, 2008) held that it came from the tendency of larger groups to kill out smaller ones.  Since these groups had cores of relatives, kin selection operated, and gradually wider and wider circles of kin would be solidary, as people evolved or learned the ability to demand loyalty, detect disloyal members, and punish them.  By that model, violence against outgroups would have evolved along with detection and punishment of nonreciprocity within groups.  So long as it is actual defense against an attacking enemy, group loyalty in violent confrontation is a matter of necessity. 

            Most groups are peaceful internally but often at war with neighbors.  These are impossible to explain from old, simplistic models of human behavior.  How could Hobbesian savages or Freudian ids differentiate so cleanly?  How could virtuous “noble savages” be so bloody to their neighbors?  The only view of humanity that allows it is one in which humans are usually living ordinary low-key lives, but can easily be motivated to support their group in conflict, and somewhat less easily motivated to be peaceful and proactively helpful. 

            This makes evolutionary sense.  Groups need to exchange mates, to avoid inbreeding.  This means that selection cannot totally favor one’s own genetic investment all the time.  In fact, there is a paradox: one can maximize one’s own genetic advantage only by having children with a genetically quite different mate.  The classic arguments for genetic determination of selfishness all founder on this rock.  On the other hand, groups also compete for scarce resources, such as hunting grounds.  If there is enough food, larger groups will outcompete smaller ones, and will also have enough genetic diversity within themselves to allow endogamy.  The ideal group size seems to be around 50-100, which, in fact, is the size of the usual human face-to-face group (Dunbar 2010).  Such groups tend to be parts of larger associations, typically around 500, a figure consistent from the number of speakers of a given language in hunting-gathering societies to the number of Facebook friends that a moderately sociable person has; very often, the groups of 50 are exogamous, but the groups of 500 are largely endogamous (Dunbar 2010). 

            In modern societies, groups cross-cut each other, and an individual may have one reference group that is “neighbors,” another for “workmates,” another for “religious congregation,” another for “hobby,” and so on.  This makes it possible to shift groups and loyalties, a point highly relevant to genocide, where an individual can suddenly change from highlighting “neighbors” to highlighting “ethnicity” and killing such neighbors as are suddenly shifted from one to the other.  Such individuals often shift back after the genocide.  This is notably attested for Rwanda (see e.g. Nyseth Brehm 2017a, 2017b).

            Recently, Mauricio González-Forero and Andy Gardner (2018) set out to test what model fit best with what we know of the evolution of the human brain, which more than tripled in size in a mere 2 million years—incredible speed for the evolution of a basic organ.  These authors needed to take into account the origin and dispersal of humans from east Africa between 150,000 and 70,000 years ago.  Their enterprise was highly speculative, involving assumptions that may be wrong, but at least they had considerable data on the genetics, dispersal rates, and behavior of the humans in question.  They conclude that conflictual models of human evolution are not supported.  Conflict is too costly.  Animals that fight all the time would not develop large brains—in fact, they probably would not survive at all.  Human conflicts are indeed costly, reducing cooperation even against the others (Aalerding et al. 2018; see also De Dreu et al. 2016). 

            Simple sociability as a cause of complex behavior is even less well supported.  They found that highly social animals generally have smaller brains than closely related, less social species.  Care substitutes for thinking.  They conclude that only ecology can account for it.  A positive feedback loop exists between finding more and better food and having a bigger, better brain.  More brain enables us to find, select, and prepare highly nutritious food.  Humans have adapted increasingly over time to seek out rich patches of good food. 

            Graeber and Wengrow (2018) hold that humans probably evolved in larger and more complex groups than usually thought, and that problems of equality and conflict are endemic to such groups, which then develop ways to cope.  Such coping may be successful or may not be.   As I have pointed out (Anderson 2014), an animal that can find rich patches of food can support a large group.  Best of all, we can talk, and thus tell the group that there is a dead mammoth behind the red hill, or a lion in wait beyond the stream.

            González-Forero and Gardner have not explained how humans became so violent.  The obvious answer, avoiding the high costs of conflict, is that humans evolved to move rapidly into new habitats, displacing smaller groups they found in the way.  The resulting gains would outweigh the costs of conflict.  This has happened countless times in history; it surely happened countless times in prehistory.  Human hatred of opponent groups and disregard for nature must come in part from predatory expansion.

            People also have rather poor innate controls on killing off their food supply.  Most human groups have learned how to manage sustainably, but they often overshoot, and in any case the learning was originally done the hard way, if local myths and stories are any guide.  Traditional peoples usually have tales of overhunting and then starving.  Children are told such stories with the morals clearly spelled out.

            The nearest to a common thread in the evolution of human badness is “my group and I at the expense of others.”  One’s group usually comes first.  Cross-cutting and nested allegiances make groupiness problematic, however, affording hope for more solidarity.

The imperative human need for society—without which we cannot normally survive—makes ostracism and rejection the most frightening of possibilities.   People become defensive at the slightest hint of it.  Antagonism, aggression, and stark fear result.  Anger and insecurity lead to defensiveness and sour moods.

3. Human Variation

All humans must satisfy basic physiological needs, including genuine physical needs for security, control of our lives, and sociability.  Beyond that, people are highly variable.  They vary along the now-classic five dimensions of personality—extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and neurosis—from total introverts to total extraverts, from rigid closure to expansive risk-taking, and so on.   Some of this is known to be highly heritable.  Much is caused by culture and environment.  Early trauma actually changes gene activity (epigenetics).  Even gut microbiota are credited for affecting behavior.

From what has been said above, one would expect the most relevant variation to be in weakness, insecurity, and tendency to anger, and that is what we find.  The combination makes people defensive.  They become the people who “have a chip on their shoulder” and “have an attitude.”  Being weak and insecure makes one highly reactive to threat or harm, and apt to be passive-aggressive about it.  Being insecure and angry leads to the barroom brawler and similar folk characters.  Being weak, insecure, and angry, whether dispositionally or situationally, leads to overreaction: escalation of defensive behavior, often to violence. Note that “situationally”; individuals can be very different at different levels of threat and harm.  Yet disposition always matters.  Some people have enough strength of character to stay unbroken in tyrants’ prisons.  At the other extreme, the tyrants themselves are often living proof that a weak, insecure, hostile person who has assumed total power will still be weak, insecure, and hostile.

Beyond that, whether they are violent are not depends on what they have learned—culturally, socially, and personally.  Individuals violently abused in childhood very often become violent adults.  Mass murderers and major bullies are virtually 100% certain to have been abused physically (see Batson 2011; Baumeister 1997; Zaki 2019; and other sources on the good).  Similarly, cultures constructed by people who have long been weak, insecure and subject to abuse (and thus anger) naturally put a high value on defensiveness and “honor.”  Such is the history of the border-warrior cultures at the fringes of old and oppressive civilizations, of oppressed subcultures within dominant cultures, and of subcultures of anomie and alienation. 

Conversely, the more people are self-confident, secure, and self-controlled, whether dispositionally or situationally, they can damp down responses to challenge, and react rationally and coolly.  The human average seems to be toward the more weak, insecure, and angry end, if only because we all start that way as infants.  Self-efficacy (Bandura 1982) must be learned and developed. 

Competitive distinction is challenged easily, and social disrespect and slighting become pretexts for revenge up to and including deadly force.  Anti-intellectualism follows when people insecure about their own lack of self-improvement and education are rendered really uncomfortable about it, either by direct insults or by seeing better-qualified but “inferior” people rise.  Much of America’s all too well-known anti-intellectualism and anti-“elitism” comes from people in dominant groups who see people from less prestigious groups moving up the educational and cultural ladders.

Deviation from the mythical-average person described above occurs because of cultural and social teachings, specific insecurities, general perceived level of threat, and personality traits such as openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness.  More specific learned themes, such as how to show anger, how to be violent, and whom to hate, then come in as the final stage of shaping the bad and good wolves.  

            A few resist the pressures to kill during mass genocides.  They have strong internal controls on aggression.  Others are less constantly moral, but most humans have a great deal of innate empathy—abilities to feel others’ emotions and sensations, understand them, and act accordingly (Denworth 2017).

            Some few, on the other hand, seem genuinely evil.  They seem almost incapable of acting without harming someone.  These are generally called sociopaths or psychopaths:  people who appear to have been born without a moral compass and without a way of acquiring one.  Others seem moral enough most of the time but apt to lapse into uncontrollable violence.  These are not insensitive individuals.  Unlike autistic people, who are usually well-meaning despite lack of social abilities, psychopaths and hyperaggressive persons often seem to have preternatural social skills.  “A person with autism spectrum disorder has little ability to assume the perspective of someone else.  Psychopaths, on the other hand, understand what others are feeling but have a profound lack of empathetic concern” (Denworth 2017:61; cf. Baskin-Sommers et al. 2016).  They may have anomalies in neural connections in the brain.  Serious killers may be far more troubled than ordinary psychopaths.  The one mass murderer I have known was both mentally deficient and severely disturbed.  By contrast, people I have known who killed in war were perfectly normal.  They were also traumatized by the experience. 

            Sociopaths seem residents of a different world.  They lie without a second thought, and, even when it clearly is against their better judgment, they seem to prefer dealing treacherously and unfairly with others.  Ordinary rational self-interest simply does not work for them.  I have known several who regularly wrecked their lives by wholly gratuitous betrayal.  They simply could not understand why betraying others brought outrage. On the other hand, one of the sociopaths I knew was a prominent politician, and—though rather notorious—has never been singled out as being worse than many colleagues. 

            Psychopaths and sociopaths are, in fact, notoriously successful in business and politics.  Published descriptions of genociders make many of them seem psychopathic, but tests are obviously lacking. 

            There are also extremely aggressive individuals, sadists, and others who verge on psychopathy; most have a background of brutal abuse in childhood, by parents and peers, or of major trauma.  Some may simply be “born that way,” others appear made by environment; a harsh, hostile, critical environment worsens all.  

            Mass shooters are so common in the United States that profiles of them have been assembled by researchers.  The shooters are very often white supremacists targeting ethnic minorities (Cai et al. 2019).  Jillian Peterson and James Denaley (2019) report a more specific set of findings: “First, the vast majority of mass shooters in our study experienced trauma and exposure to violence at a young age.  The…exposure included parental suicide, physical or sexual abuse, neglect, domestic violence and/or severe bullying….Second, practically every mass shooter…had reached an identifiable crisis point in the weeks or months leading up to the shooting.”  This included things like job loss and relationship failure (often, I take it, related to progressive alienation of the shooter).  Third, most of the shooters had studied the actions of other shooters”—they were diligent students.  “Fourth, the shooters all had the means to carry out their plans.”  They could get guns, including illegal guns, though most simply bought guns at the store or used ones already in the home.  “Most mass public shooters are suicidal, and their crises are often well known ot others before the shooting occurs.  The vast majoirty of shooters leak their plans” but are not taken seriously, nor are they reported to authorities. 

            Most people, however, are peaceable, empathetic, and reasonable most of the time.  We can arbitrarily guess that at most 10% of humanity are deeply evil—not always acting badly, but doing evil on a regular enough basis to produce serious net harm to their communities.  This 10% figure is supported by crime rates, vote totals for extremist candidates, and common experience.  Others show social dominance orientation (see e.g. Altemeyer 2010; Guimond et al. 2013), looking favorably on high levels of social and economic inequality in society and to patriarchal social organization.  Dominance is not a human need, but certainly is a widespread want, and the simple desire for it is a major source of evil.  Most mammals have dominance hierarchies.  Humans are notably lacking in innate tendencies in that direction (Boehm 1999), but very often develop them anyway, especially via top-down hierarchic systems.

            These dubious actors can be balanced by the best 10% or so:  the individuals who never say an unkind word, are unfailingly sensitive and considerate, give gifts and donations freely and save little for themselves, and devote their lives to careers in healing, teaching, charity, and aid.  The sad evidence of the genocide literature suggests that even such people can be corrupted, though only with difficulty.  The reasons for such variation in mentality are partly unknown, partly developmental.  The latter shall be discussed below.

            The other 80% (approximately) of us are the people within whom the two wolves constantly compete.  Common experience suggests that there is a straight and unbroken continuum from the most evil through the bloody-minded to ordinary middling souls, and then to the 10% who are near sainthood.   There are continua from acceptance to rejection of groups, from positive to negative-sum gaming, from laudable ambition to power-madness, from necessary defense against enemies to defensiveness based on cowardly fear.  It is hard to cut these continua. 

Defensiveness attenuates as it moves up toward actual strength and reasonableness, the cures.  It also attenuates if people collapse into total fear.  It moves outward to callousness and then thoughtlessness.  The core mood is more or less that of a child’s temper tantrum:  a mix of violently negative emotions from which fear, anger, and rage slowly differentiate as the child grows or as the adult gets better control.

            The common ground is simple: wanting social and economic security, especially in social acceptance and position.  What matters is how rationally and cooperatively one seeks to satisfy those wants.

            One might think of a continuum from a clearly demented psychopath (like Mexico’s drug-gang leaders) to an ordinary criminal gangster, then to a schoolyard bully grown up to be a spouse abuser, then to an ordinary person who grumbles and scolds and occasionally fights but rarely harms anyone, and then onward to a basically good and honorable soul who loses her temper on frequent occasions but does no worse than that, and finally to a truly virtuous individual—say, the leader of a charitable medical group.  I have observed this continuum everywhere I have been, and through literature and psychological studies we can be sure it is essentially universal.  People everywhere range from very bad to very good, as they range from passive to active and from weak to strong (the classic three dimensions of agentive evaluation; Osgood et al. 1957). 

            Common experience also teaches that those of us in the 80% tend to weasel good and bad.  We drive too fast.  We eat at cafes that underpay their staff.  We take advantage of cheap deals when we know there is some dirty game on.  We skimp on public commitments.  We spend too much time giving nibbles to the bad wolf while trying to serve the good one.  We shirk, laze, dodge responsibilities, and commit the “deadly sin” of sloth.  We are, in short, frail and fallible humans—and require strong social standards backed up by law to keep us on the straight and narrow path (as discussed at length in Henrich 2016).  Religious and moral ideals must be enforced by social conventions.  Most of us have experienced life in communities where traffic laws were laxly enforced, and have seen ordinary “good” people slip into more and more dangerous driving until accidents make the police take better note. 

Allow that people are, on average, 50% good and 50% bad.  (Again, these are guesses.  We have no real measures.)   The worst 10% can win by mobilizing the 40% who are worse than average but not totally evil, and then getting enough of the relatively good to make a majority.  In fact, Hitler was elected with a bare plurality, not a majority, and the same is true of many elected evil leaders.  Trump was elected by 25.7% of the voting public, with almost half of registered voters not bothering to vote at all.

Half good, half bad predicts the institutions we see in societies: they are meant to preserve the good, and to redirect the bad to fighting “the enemy” rather than the rest of us.  And they never work perfectly.

            People vary from best to worst along several dimensions.  The most important of these from the point of view of explaining evil are agreeableness vs. hostility, tolerance vs. hatred, peacefulness vs. violent aggression, help vs. gratuitous harm, reasonable vs. unreasonable, open-minded vs. closed, and charity vs. greed.  Behind these are deeper continua: Individual to group; weak to strong; attacking weak to attacking strong; courageous to cowardly; greed to defensiveness; rational to irrational.  People can hate those richer and more powerful, or—more usually—the weaker.  They can be cold and callous or savagely furious.

All these are related.  All are consistent with the “Big Five” and “Hexaco” personality theories.  The Big Five personality dimensions—extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and neuroticness—are predictive: individuals low on agreeableness and high in neuroticness are more apt to do evil than those who are the reverse.  People very low in openness become conservatives, and thus often involved in fascism; those very high in openness may become left-wing rebels.  There are, however, good or evil persons who are at the best or at the worst ends on many or all measures.  Social pressures as well as personality are determinative.  The Big Five (or Six) do not directly predict levels of violence, aggression, competitiveness, or hatred.  Genocide and other extreme mass-level evils come from hatred, so it must be considered the worst of the lot, and though it is probably commoner among the less agreeable and more neurotic it is well distributed over the human species.  Degree of scapegoating, and targets of scapegoating, are also hard to predict from basic personality factors; they are social matters, largely learned, though the tendency to scapegoat others seems part of human nature.

            Greed is often regarded in the US as the worst of sins, a belief going back to Paul on love of money.  However, selfish greed succeeds in mass politics only when it marshals support through whipping up hate.  The few rich must have the support of millions of less affluent; these can be persuaded to act and vote against their self-interest only by making them sacrifice their own self-interest out of intemperate hate.  We have seen this in every genocidal campaign in history, as well as in almost all wars, and many political and religious movements.

            Moreover, greed is often a social hatred issue; it is not really about material wealth, but about rivalry for power—for control of people and resources.  The normal expectation if one wants a material item (for itself) is to cooperate with others to work for it, or at least to work for others in a peaceful setting.  Smash-and-grab is not the normal or widely approved way to get goods.  Neither is crime, ordinary or white-collar.  The rich who desire endless wealth are not after wealth; they are after social position and social adulation. 

            Really extreme, high-emotion evil thus usually comes from social hatreds—whether due to psychosis, greed for position, “honor,” extreme defensiveness, extreme need to control others, extreme sensitivity to slights, or—most common and deadly of all—displacing hatreds and aggressions onto weaker people or onto defenseless nature. When not feeding from those troughs, the bad wolf tends to go to sleep, leaving the field to the good wolf.

            In other words, people will kill in competition for goods, but more usually negotiate; they kill for land in wars, but tend to negotiate there too.  They kill in competition for power, which is more dangerous since positions of power are necessarily limited.  Above all, they kill for reasons of social standing and honor.

            Genocidal killing goes further: it is usually focused on religion or political ideology—givers of fundamental morals and of security.  Where ethnicity is more the source of basic values, ethnicity is the ostensible cause.  A pathological leader, or indeed almost any dictator, will be sure to stress the links, identifications, group memberships, and reference groups that provide the best opportunity for stirring up hatred and violence.  This is the secret to extremist leadership: make the most deadly links the most salient.  Recruiters for jihad, for instance, stress the Islamic, and specifically Wahhabist, identification of people who might otherwise see themselves as French, or Moroccan, or factory workers, or soccer players, or any of the other cross-cutting loyalties we all have.  A genocidal leader will also do best to appeal to a majority that feels itself threatened or downwardly mobile.

            The reasons for violence and evil are, in order, security, power, greed, prestige/standing, and psychopathy (or basic aggressiveness), plus the critical ingredient: violence and/or cruelty as preferred coping strategy.  Anger and hate are the mediators, and hatred is generally defensive.  Even callous bureaupathy has to start with someone who makes a deliberate choice to destroy poor people to give more money to rich people.

Personal factors involved are concerns of power, control, social place, and greed and other wants.  The social and cultural contexts are all-important, telling individuals whom and how much to hate.  The worst individuals seek out each other.  They also seek out the worst cultural and social values and attitudes.  This produces a strong multiplier effect, highly visible in right-wing social movements.  Cowardly defensiveness, gain (not just greed but even routine jobs), power and control needs, and innate aggression levels all play into such attitudes.

            The same individual who is an angel of help and mercy within his or her group can be a formidable soldier, a suicide bomber, or a crazed killer when group defense is involved.  In fact, the same individual can be alternately angel and devil to his or her own significant other, as many stories of domestic violence tell us. 

            Revenge is often the most terrible of motives.  People tend to be at their very worst when thinking they are revenging selves for slights, disrespect, or actual harms.  This is when they cheerfully torture and murder.  Thus all genociders wind up focusing on a story of their group being victimized by the opponent group or groups.  This is absolutely key to understanding genocide and extreme violence.

            Revenge is often for betrayal.  Betrayal is another common response of the human animal to threat and fear.  Suspected betrayal can bring about real violence.  A vicious cycle can be established, as in Shakespeare’s Othello.

            Finally, different forms of violence seem to accompany different personality profiles.  Mass shooters are typically alienated young males, usually right-wing.  Domestic violence is associated with high control need, as noted.  Bullying, as we have seen, is associated with glorification of physical strength and devaluing of intellectual qualities as well as weakness.  Sheer aggressiveness can be a separate personality trait, as can the closely related “oppositional personality disorder.”  Spread over these types are the general qualities of alienation, excessive control need, excessive antagonism, resort to violence as first resort, and brooding or ruminating about real and imagined wrongs.  These are the real foods of the bad wolf—the human qualities that we must address to give the good wolf a chance. 

4. Cultural Variation

            Cultures also vary.  “Culture” is a general term for learned, shared knowledge and behavior within social groups, above the family level.  Cultural knowledge is constructed over time by interaction between group members.  It can change rather fast, as when a particularly violent period such as WWII forces people to confront issues they often try to avoid. 

Since humans will inevitably compete for scarce resources, conflict is inevitable.  All societies know theft, violence, and treachery.  All condemn these and have mechanisms for coping with them.  Especially touchy are issues with affection, social support, and control.  These may or may not really be limited, but people often perceive them so.  Power is particularly problematical, since there is less and less “room at the top” as one ascends a hierarchy.  Conflicts, especially over power and control, tend to escalate, creating fear and stress.  These in turn make people defensive, leading to still more conflict.  We need not be Hobbesian to see that conflict is likely in the human condition. 

This being the case, all cultures include a great deal of shared and often widely-accepted knowledge about anger, violence, conflict, conflict resolution, and other relevant matters (Beals and Siegal 1966).  All cultures include canonical rules for dealing with conflict and violence.  All cultures have storylines and plans about these matters.  All cultures include stories people tell to provide models of how to deal with violent conflict.  Children are raised on stories explaining how to defuse a fight.  Adults go on to Homer’s Iliad, Shakespeare’s history plays, China’s Three Kingdoms Story, Japan’s Tale of the Heike, and on down, from these epic works to the latest Hollywood action movie.  People constantly refer back to these model cases.  Genocide stories, especially the story of Hitler’s Holocaust, have become part of the world’s knowledge pool. 

            Knowledge from one realm is freely adapted to others.  We draw on knowledge of ancient history to understand modern war.  We draw on knowledge of animal conflict to understand the deepest roots of our own.  Drawing with the best judgment on the widest set of data is an ideal to strive for, but biases—often culturally constructed—interfere.  Clearly, changing cultural plans for dealing with violence, dissent, and conflict is basic to understanding such processes (Beals and Siegal 1966).

A pattern broadly visible in eastern Asia is one in which both individuals and societies can flip from extremely peaceful to extremely violent and back to peace.  Chinese dynasties exhibit this pattern: during times of strong government, they were very peaceful and orderly, but in dynastic breakdown periods, violence became universal and appalling.  Japan had similar flips, for example from the rather calm Ashikaga shogunate to the civil wars of the 16th century and then the peaceful and orderly Tokugawa shogunate.  A modern case is Cambodia.  The Cambodians were famously peaceful.  They dropped rapidly back to peaceful behavior after the meltdown in the 1970s that killed some 25% of the population.  Rwandans moved from genocide to peace and order with surprising ease.  Like Cambodians, they are usually gentle and tolerant people, far from the western media stereotypes of “savage tribal Africans.”

            Still other societies have chronic low levels of violence, fluctuating but never very high.  Still others, especially in the Middle East and northern Africa, have fluctuated over time from constant low-level violence to major outbreaks.  Some few, such as the Waorani of South America, are or were almost continually violent.  Clayton and Carole Robarchek studied the Semai of Malaysia, among whom violence is condemned and virtually nonexistent, and then for comparison studied the Waorani, who were rapidly killing themselves out until missionaries persuaded them to be more peaceful (Robarchek 1989; Robarchek and Robarchek 1998).  The societies turned out to be strikingly similar in economy, child-rearing practices, and other behaviors; they differed in that the Semai dealt with conflict by flight and avoidance, the Waorani by almost immediately escalating to violence. 

            Mountainous borderlands tend to be famous for violence.  Think of the Caucasus and the Appalachians.  Fertile plains are more easily pacified, both because farmers have more to lose and because control is easier to exert.  People in any setting may change.  The Scottish borders that were once infamous for violence—immortalized in some of the world’s greatest ballads—are now among the most peaceable places on earth.  We have already noted the example of the Vikings, to say nothing of the now-peaceful Waorani.  When threats from stronger neighbors were constant, and internal problems could not be solved because of constant trouble, these societies were violent.  When security within and without was possible, they pacified.

A different way of looking at society and culture concerns the form of economy.  Overall, rentier societies, especially those with servile labor, produce right-wing politics; ones dominated by secondary and tertiary industries and hopeful workers often produce left-wing activity.  The United States has generally been hopeful, so votes progressive in bad times, but often right-wing in good times, to keep taxes low and industries growing.  The rise of southern-style politics in the United States, and its spread to the northern midwest, tracks the rise of primary production and declining but still powerful heavy industry, and the rise of giant firms vs decline of small ones. 

In short, cultures and societies, like individuals, respond to insecurity by becoming more defensive, and to physical threat by becoming more violent.  With confidence and security—from strength and from secure leadership—they can and will change rapidly in more peaceful directions.  Of course, such facts deal a death blow to the myth of “human nature.”  If Hobbesian devils can convert to Rousseauian angels in a few years, and if whole societies can suddenly become violent and as suddenly stop, where are the primal drives?

Societies must also find ways to deal with the formation of sub-societies with different rules: feuding, mafias, corruption, etc.  Then there are two variables: how well the society can enforce the rules, and how well its members want to.  The rich and powerful are above the law to some extent in most societies, and they may be perfectly happy to let mafias terrorize the general populace.  On the other hand, a society as totally at the mercy of gangs as El Salvador and Honduras are today, or as riven by religious and tribal conflicts as Afghanistan, cannot long survive with a crisis.

            Social differences are often in the cultural construction of bullying, power-jockeying, and hatred.  These can become idealized and culturally taught, via religion and other ideologies.  Nazism is the most obvious and extreme case of a culture constructed from such bases, but it is only the most extreme of many movements.  World religions eventually construct power via hierarchies, initiations, and other institutions.  All cultures construct aggression through ideas about war and defense.  Religion usually includes peace, harmony, and nonviolence among its ideals, but it is also the source of foundational beliefs and foundational morals for many or most societies, and the most important source of security for many believers.  Devout believers who depend on religion for both certainty and security often feel deeply and directly threatened by challenges to their faith.  The same goes for true believers in any comprehensive ideology, from communism to fascism.  Gods are usually either benign or a human-like mix of creative good with all-too-human foibles (like Zeus and Coyote), but all religions also postulate a vast host of evil spirits who mean nothing but harm: demons, devils, bad winds, ghosts, demiurges, and countless more.  These projections of human fear and hate into the supernatural realm fit Durkheim’s view of religion as the collective representation of the community (Durkheim 1995 [1912]); they are the community’s worst—and most often hidden—feelings, displaced outward.

            Many of the cultural groups that committed the worst genocides were famous for their obedience to authority: Cambodians, Rwandans, Chinese, Germans, Indonesians…the list is long.  Many warlike and independent groups also became genocidal, but the link with obedience is clear enough to be thought-provoking  The great genocides—ones in which the populace in general seems to have gone mad with blood—were generally in such societies, though the Turks and several other exceptions can be mentioned.

            Since overreaction to negatives is the general problem, it follows that culture can establish the idea that one should overreact.  This regularly occurs in cultures of “honor” (Baumeister 1997; Henrich 2016).  Defensiveness can seem moral in highly unstable societies.

            Cultures provide scripts and storylines and schemas for action.  These cultural models (to use the technical term) provide canonical ways to deal with or adapt to life.  Most of them are adaptive and valuable, but every bad type of action has its model too.  Hitler’s anti-Semitism drew on centuries of pogroms and massacres, well scripted and following a set of plotlines.  Contemporary Islam provides accessible models for suicide bombing.  In the United States, there is now an all too well-known cultural model for mass shooting, followed in one form or another by hundreds of alienated, angry, often sulking individuals—most of them young men and many of them white supremacists or similar right-wingers (Cai et al. 2019).  There is another cultural model for spouse abuse; similar models of mistreatment exist in most other cultures.  Other cultural models exist for criminal gang behavior, robbery, suicide, and other violent acts.  A desperate person needs only to activate the model.  He or she will learn what weapons to use, how to obtain them, how to deploy them, and what to do next.  Planning is simple and kept to a minimum.

            We have also seen above how social and cultural pressures act on everyone—even the least alienated, and indeed especially the most conformist and well-socialized—to get the vast mass of individuals to go along with genocide.  Here, direct social pressure, including threats of ostracism or worse, is added to the cultural models.

            In ordinary everyday violence, the bad wolf wins when a particularly susceptible individual—aggressive, alienated, or simply angered beyond bearing—is subjected to social pressure to act violently, and has an available cultural model of how to do it.  In war and genocide, everyone is expected to join in and do their bit, and almost everyone does.  In bullying, terrorism, and domestic violence, only some do; they are alienated or desperate for control, and they nurse their sorrows until an available cultural model becomes salient.  Terrorists are usually persuaded by intense pressure from their social group.  In all cases, violence depends on a prior development of anger, hate, and need to assert control.  Individuals get into a tighter and tighter spin of negative emotions.

5. Inevitable Conflicts

An agent-based approach (in the tradition of Ibn Khaldun and Max Weber) allows us to see that humans do not just reflect their culture.  They balance family, cultural group, subcultural group, father’s people, mother’s people, spouse’s people, immigrant neighbors, and last but not least their own interests as individuals.  People are constantly faced with moral choices of whom to go with and how much to cheat selfishly. 

The hardest problem is how to deal with social criticism and disrespect.  The descendant of territorial defensiveness in animals is human defensiveness about social place and social position—“honor,” “face,” etc.  (Humans are not territorial in the sense most mammals are.  We socially construct space in all manner of free-form ways; see Lefebvre 1992.) 

The great Greek tragedies, the best of the medieval epics, the Scottish tragic ballads, and equivalent literature around the world (including many Native American tales), reveal people in crisis situations, where they are forced to reveal their deepest selves.  In the crises when ordinary life is disrupted, individuals are forced into extreme good and evil behavior.  Many of these dramas turn on inescapable conflicts between two loyalties.  Often, as in Scottish ballads and many Native American stories, the drama turns on loyalty to true love versus loyalty to family.    The heroes and heroines are powerful, but have the costs of their virtues, the fatal flaws that comes with their power. 

These stories may be the best ways to understand humanity and its conflicts. Great literature strips off ordinary everyday conformity and reveals the bare human in full glory or vileness.  Greek tragedies do this.  So do Medieval epics, Chinese classical stories, and other great works.  Folk literature always contains such stories. 

They are critically important for understanding humanity.  First, they show that people are agents, not mindless slaves of genes or culture or society; everyone has to deal with and, hopefully, resolve such conflicts.  Second, they show that cultures are not homogeneous, and mindless conformity cannot work indefinitely.  There are cultural models of different loyalties: loyalties to different groups that often come into conflict.  There are tradeoffs between long-term and wide-flung interests and short-term narrow ones.  There are conflicts over allocating resources.

            An inevitable conflict often recorded in song and story is between security and advancement.  Advancing in society requires taking some risks.  People usually and naturally act to minimize risk for maximum advancement, but there are plenty of exceptions, and they are often the leading entrepreneurs and inventors.  Managing to try to make advancement opportunities more secure is a major part of economic behavior for many of us.  Cutthroat competition is thus stressful.

            The conflict most relevant to the present book is the one between loyalty and morality.  When dictators whip up their populations to commit genocide, this conflict becomes agonizing.  Most people choose loyalty, as we have seen.  Many are perfectly happy with it—they wanted to eliminate the minorities anyway—but many are not at all happy, and have to be steamrolled into it.  Already noted is the inevitable conflict over rank and the resulting problems with arrogance, humility, ranking out, and insult.

            These songs and stories turn on courage and on failure, on individuals against the world, and on opportunity and challenge.  They are the corrective to dismissing and devaluing people.  The hero powerful against the storm, especially if the hearer or reader can identify with that hero, is humanity in compelling form and inescapable predicament.

            In modern society, traditional folk and elite societies, communities, and cultures are thinned down or extirpated.  People are left to the tender mercies of vast, impersonal governments and firms.  This not only disempowers them; it also robs them of those canonical stories that once modeled behavior in conflicted times.

 This out-of-control inequality, and above all the sheer bigness, makes people feel weak, out of control of their lives, and lacking in self-efficacy.  They become timid, and succumb all the more easily to toxic conformity and obedience.  Lost are such empowering and strengthening cultural forms as great art and literature, and even ordinary civility and decency.  Weakness and fear makes people desperate for security, including material security; the result can look like greed, but is actually cowardice.

6. Explaining It:  Fight, Flight, Freeze

            People are usually sociable, but react to threat as all large, strong animals do, by fighting back.  They are stressed not only by direct threat, but by threat to their social position, and their sense of control of their lives (Bandura 1982, 1986; Langer 1983). 

            The fight-flight-freeze response is wired into the nervous systems (Sapolsky 2017, 2018).  Faced with superior strength and an escape route, an animal will flee; with no escape, it will freeze; if it is cornered and attacked, it will fight, even against superior strength.  This response is mediated through the ancient limbic system in the lower back part of the brain.  A threat is first processed by the amygdala, which recognizes and catalogues it (the amgydala being also a center of memory, as well as the center of much emotionality).  A message goes to the hypothalamus, where the center of the fight-flight-freeze response occupies a small group of nuclei that release aggressive behavior, including speeding up the heart, raising blood pressure, and directing blood toward appropriate muscle and nerve systems (thus away from functions like digestion).  This area sends messages down to the pituitary gland, attached to the bottom of the hypothalamus.  Hormones are released from the anterior pituitary, and circulate through the body, stimulating—among other things—release of adrenaline and cortisol from the adrenal glands (Fields 2019).  Adrenalin and the bone-derived hormone osteocalcin drive the actual physiological responses that are the core of the fight-flight-freeze response (ScienceBeta 2019).

All this is under varying degrees of control from the frontal and prefrontal cortex—very little in a lizard, a great deal in a well-socialized human.  In a human, “the frontal cortex makes you do the harder thing when it’s the right thing to do” (Sapolsky 2017:45, emphasis his).  That can mean doing what is reasonable (foregoing a reward now for a bigger one later) or what is social (foregoing a theft because it is morally wrong).  Conversely, stress disorients.  Sustained stress and fear lead to chronic biologic responses that impair judgment and lead to heightened responses (Sapolsky 2017:130-1360).

Under such conditions, animals and people can flip almost instantly from peaceful, calm behavior to extreme violence.  This is the biological substrate of the change from good wolf to bad wolf. 

Humans have considerably complicated the response. We are faced, more than other animals, with a tradeoff between reacting emotionally and rationally.  The medial frontal cortex, home of social emotionality, dominates empathetic and sensitive choices, and—with other regions—cognitive empathy (Kluger et al. 2019; Lombardi 2019).  The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is more involved with “cool, utilitarian choices” (Kluger et al. 2019:12).  The ventromedial prefrontal cortex integrates many of these, and processes morality and its social applications, as well as cognitive interaction choices.  It is conspicuously absent in reaction of psychopaths to others’ pain (Lombardi 2019:20).  More interesting, in psychopaths, is their lack of connection between the reward processing center of the brain—the ventral striatum—and the center for examining outcomes and consequences, including emotional ones, in the ventral medial prefrontal cortex (Lombardi 2019:29). A quite different situation is found in people on the autism spectrum, who may be socially challenged but are generally well-meaning, trying hard but often failing to be social; damage to the anterior cingulate cortex is suspected.  It seems that differences in brain regions and connections lie behind a great deal of human good and evil.  This does not explain why the same individual can transition so rapidly from one to the other.

In people, because of the necessity to prioritize dealing with threat, hate is all too often stronger than love, viciousness stronger than caring, defensive resistance to change stronger than greed or desire for self-improvement.  Chronic threat and stress crystallize the fight response into hatred, the flight response into escapism, and the freeze response into conformity or apathy.  One result is that polls often mispredict how people will act: people generally answer that they want more wages, or better health care, or other positive things, but then vote or act their hate.  This led to massive misprediction of the 2016 election results. 

Flight can thus be into video games and daydreams, freezing can be labeled “depression” or “laziness” by psychologists or judgmental peers, and fighting is usually verbal rather than violent.  Still, all the limbic responses are there, underlying the prefrontal plans and cultural instructions that introduce the complexity.  (Much of what follows is derived from, or at least agrees with, Beck 1999 and Staub 2011; Gian Caprara [2002] has critiqued Beck’s model for being too narrow and not covering a wide enough range of situations and contexts, so the model is somewhat expanded here, following Caprara.)

            The most basic root of aggression is fear (on which see LeDoux 2015).  Any animal capable of fighting will fight when threatened or attacked, if there is no alternative.  Animals also fight for resources:  for mates above all, but also food, space, and other necessities.  This may involve fear of loss of necessary resources, but often—especially with mates—it is simply fighting to win desired goods.  Sheer discomfort—sickness, hunger, loss—can also make most animals more aggressive or fight-prone.  The order is:  Stressors; feeling of inadequacy or frustration; defensiveness; then, if the bad wolf wins, hatred and aggression.

            Grief can also be a source of stress and thus of violence.  The role of grieving in motivating suicide bombing has been addressed by Atran (2010).  In many cultures, from Appalachia to New Guinea, grief over previous killings leads to revenge, and is expected to do so.   

            The human difference is that humans are compulsively and complexly social (Henrich 2016).  They live by, through, and for their social systems: families, communities, neighborhoods, networks, and—in the modern world—states.  Humans feel fear when these communities are threatened.  Even humans not at all involved in a community will often feel fear or anger over seeing it attacked.  People willingly die for their communities.  We routinely observe the heroism of soldiers sacrificing themselves in war, parents dying to save children, suicide bombers blowing up supposed enemies (Atran 2010; Bélanger et al. 2014), and even gutter punks dying for their drug gangs. 

            Such fighting, fleeing, and freezing are structured along social lines.   The usual human condition, socially constructed on the innate bases described above, seems to be kind, friendly, and warm to one’s in-group, hospitable to strangers, hostile to opponent groups in one’s own society, and deeply hostile to individuals in one’s own society who seem to be a threat to one’s control or to society’s most fundamental beliefs. The real problem is threat to social place and position, which can lead to anything partner abuse to international war, depending on the scale.  Threats to social beliefs lead to savage persecution of “heretics.”  Heretics and minority religions are the victims of many of the very worst massacres.  They usually live mixed in among the orthodox.  Perhaps the intimacy is related to the extreme violence of such persecutions.  Cognitive dissonance can make people act worse than they might.

            It is also universally known that people are most easily united by being confronted with a common threat, especially a human threat—an invading army, looting gangs, or simply those “heretics.”  Leaders and would-be leaders thus tend to seek or invent enemies.

            Existential threat—simple fear of death—also exacerbates hatred.  In a fascinating study, Park and Pyszczynski (2019) found that making fear of death salient to experimental subjects made them become more defensive about their group identification and core values, and more intolerant and antagonistic toward others.  They found, moreover, that mindful meditation could reduce this, and eliminate it in practiced meditators, providing a rather unexpected and potentially important weapon against hate.

            Thus, natural human tendencies to deal with fear by fighting or escaping can be mobilized by leaders.  All they need to do is mobilize fear—whether it be fear of war, or economic problems, or change, or minority groups getting ahead, or any other stress—and convince an increasing sector of the population that this problem can be handled by removing some group.  Typically, people will redirect anger they feel against targets unsafe to criticize, or even just anger from stubbing their toes or having problems with the house, into hatred.  Hate of the strong is unsafe to act out, so it is displaced onto the weak.  Scapegoating—hating people or groups through displacement—is the most cowardly of the defense mechanisms.  Intolerance is a close second.  Denial, rigidity, and low-level escapism are among others.  

            Doğan and collaborators (2018) have found, studying modern Ethiopian societies, that war is much less likely in egalitarian groups, because everyone is at risk and no one gets a huge chunk of the spoils.  In hierarchic societies, the leaders are less at risk (young men do the dying) and yet get disproportionate shares of the loot, as well as increased power.  So they are happy to invoke war.  The current world situation, where national leaders are not only safe from fighting but often have never served in the military, is an extreme case of this.

            There is a whole decision tree in the fight-flight response.  Responding to stress, people must decide—at some level, usually preattentive—to fear it or not.  They then decide which of the three possibilities to choose, and at what level of response—from verbal confrontation to murderous attack.  They must then decide where to direct their efforts.  If they fight, they can direct action against actual enemies, as in war and revolution, or displace action against weaker parties instead of against the actual threat.  This is a strikingly common response among some animals, notably baboons.  It is clearly related to human bullying, and thus to the hypertrophied bullying that is genocide. 

            The basic principles of a cognitive-emotional explanation of evil can be summarized as follows.  First (and in this case going back to Freud’s defense mechanisms), people tend to blame other people—not fate, not the structures of the economy, not the weather, and most certainly not themselves—for whatever goes wrong in their lives.  The root of much evil is the belief that we can fix our problems by controlling or eliminating other people, rather than by rational means.  This is particularly true of people who have weak confidence in their control of their lives and situations.  (See especially Bandura 1982 on self-efficacy, and the rational-emotional psychology of Albert Ellis, e.g. 1962; the cognitive-behavioral work on evil of Aaron Beck 1999; also Baumeister 1997; Maslow 1970.) 

            Antagonism is the general cover term for the usual sources of evil.  It is usually mindless, coming from culture, conformity, or orders.  Its natural basis is the normal “fight” response to threat, but it is increasingly distorted by weak fear, especially when weakness is part of cultural norms.  The daily kibble of the bad wolf is frustration, resentment of trivial or imagined slights, everyday irritation, rejection, disempowerment, harassment.  This is especially true if one assumes the slights and minor rejections are due to malignant intent (Ames and Fiske 2015).  The raw red meat that gives it strength and power to take over is social hate.

Political anger—which appears to be the main anger in modern societies—is most certainly decided on: one learns who to hate and persecute and how angry to get, and one must decide to follow the leaders in this.  The steps one’s mind goes through in dealing with stress involve decisions at every point.  First, one must identify something as a threat.  Then one must decide whether to react with flight or fight.  One must decide how much flight or fight to apply. 

This requires attention to what is actually causing the threat.  If one is being chased by a bear, no questions need be asked, but dealing with widespread social problems is something quite different.  Reasonable alternatives include distancing oneself, resenting silently, turning the other cheek, being as pleasant or fearless as possible, and just bearing hardship.  From there, the next step is to actual caring: helping, enjoying, working.  

A more important realization is that we are dealing with two phenomenologically different kinds of emotionality.  The fight-flight-freeze response, and the fear and anger that are part of it, are normal.  Quite different is the weakness and consequent out-of-control fear that comes from personal lack of confidence, lack of support, and lack of courage.  Cowardly emotions differ from these normal equivalents.  Honest fear in the face of a real threat is not the same as irrational panic in the face of a trivial one.  Real anger—wrath at actual injury—is different from the fearful anger of a person who has no confidence in his or her ability to control a situation, and therefore hysterically overreacts.  Carelessness from sheer inattention to detail is not the same as defiant sloppiness or toxic irresponsibility.  Love is not the same as dependence and controlling clinginess, especially since the latter competes psychologically with real caring interest in the other person.

In violence in general, but especially in genocidal movements, these play out in different ways.  The initial leaders and revolutionaries are hard-nosed fighters, animated by hatred and opportunism but not scared of anything.  Very often they have been devalued through no fault of their own: they are poor, or from marginal regions (Napoleon’s Corsica, Hitler’s Austria, Stalin’s Georgia), or they are short or disfigured, or something of the sort (cf. Dikötter 2019 for several cases).  Far-right-wing acquaintances of mine (I have known hundreds, over a long life) follow a pattern: they arr males, from the dominant reference group (white in the US, land Cantonese in Hong Kong, and so on), but neither affluent nor well-educated nor very successful.  Accounts suggest that this is typical.  Such people, from Napoleon to my acquaintances, become resentful toward society, and make up in anger and oppositional stance what they lack in social prestige.  They are anything but weak and fearful.  (This compensation theory of problematic behavior has a long history and literature.  It has been abundantly qualified and nuanced; the simple form is not a total explanation.  See our usual sources, notably Baumeister 1997, Beck 1999.)

The vast majority of genociders and other killers, however, are weak and defensive—low in self-efficacy, in Albert Bandura’s terms.  (See the thorough and insightful discussion of such matters in Bandura 1982, 1986.)  They are the conformists who require only social pressure from the leaders to turn murderous.  Individual sense of weakness is much less of a problem if the self-doubting person feels he or she has family or community support.  This should be obvious, but requires some reflection.  The kind of support, the areas in which one is supported or not, and the people doing it (family or friends or the wide world), all matter greatly.  We all are weak at times, and defensive at times.  Most, perhaps all, of us feel weak and defensive in the face of overwhelming threat or stress.  It always sets a limit on our coping.

An important and thoughtful recent study by Robert Bornstein (2019) puts this in real-world situational perspective.  Studying domestic abuse (my prime model for genocide), Bornstein found sky-high rates in two mutual dependence situations.  First, when a man is dependent on a woman for personal validation and she is dependent on him for emotional and financial support, he feels a powerful need to control her and she finds it very hard to escape.  Second, when adult children are dependent for financial support on an elder who is dependent on them for physical care, elder abuse is highly likely.  In these cases, the problems of lack of control and desperate need to assert it become obvious.  

My sense is that the real back story of genocide and similar mass killing is precisely this weak defensiveness.  Ordinary fear and harm lead to the ordinary fight-flight-freeze responses.  Weak defensiveness leads to a quite different cluster of behaviors:  above all scapegoating and bullying, of which more below, but also to passive-aggression, taking extreme offense at trivial or imagined slights, extreme jealousy and envy, petulance, silent resentment, and similar mechanisms.  Brooding about these is the real food of the bad wolf.  If I am right, the back story of mass violence is the ability of strongman leaders who brag of being above the law to mobilize latent weak defensiveness, resentment, and frustration, and turn it against scapegoats.  They are the constituency that votes for such men, the passive citizens that allow coups by such men, and then the obedient subjects of such men. 

The worst of it is that the more overwhelming the situation, the more weak and defensive we all get.  Hard times and strongmen bring out the weakest and most defensive side of people.  This is the key reason why they are so easily mobilized to break from passivity to hatred of scapegoats. The break point where the good wolf gives way to the bad wolf, in every studied case of large-scale genocide and mass murder, comes when the leaders get enough power and social visibility to exploit weak defensiveness and other hatreds to flip the masses into genocidal mode.  As so often, Rwanda provides a particularly well-studied case (see Nyseth Brehm 2017a, 2017b, and references therein).

This explains the rarity of people like Oscar Schindler standing firm against genocide.  It requires a level of self-confidence, self-control, and community-supported morality that very few of us have.

This is one half of the explanation for political extremism.  The other will be discussed below: the conflict between groups that feel they are downwardly mobile and those that are moving up.  This classic Marxian conflict drives much of world politics today.

7. Power and Control

            It is notoriously easier to unite people against a perceived enemy than for a good cause (Bowles 2006; Henrich 2016).  Thus, evil tends to win, in the “real world.”   The larger the organization the more dangerous this tendency becomes.  An empire or a giant firm will attract the power-hungry, and they will often rise rapidly, since they are unencumbered by the scruples that restrain most of us.  Since people follow their leaders, history shows that people are considerably worse in aggregate than they are as individuals.

People often unite more easily against good others than against evil ones, because it is easier to go after weaker and milder than against the powerful and brutal.  Moreover, being good tends to be a small-scale, personal activity, while hatred gets extended to whole classes of people.  The weaker, more salient, and more physically and socially close perceived enemies are, the easier to go after them.  So evil often starts with domestic violence.  Even more often, it starts with attacks on weaker neighbors or on oppressed minorities.  Actual enemies are often the last to be attacked, since they will fight back.  It is easy to unite people through conformity to exclusionary norms (Henrich 2016).  Tolerance and openness, however, are a bit of a psychological luxury; they sharply decline when people feel their mental energy is exhausted (Tadmor et al. 2018).  Still more of a luxury is actual enjoyment; one must be out of threat zone to relax enough to cultivate the arts of life.

            The worst problems occur when power-mad people figure out how to use morality to sell their drive for power.  Religious hatred is the commonest way, but nationalism, militarism, and communist and other revolutionary ideologies have done as well.   In the United States we have seen hatred justified by opposition to illegal immigrants, by appeals to law and security, and even by opposition to “hate speech,” which seems always defined as strong speech by one’s opponents. 

            The rich often want power and status, not money per se.  (What follows is a skeletal outline of material on power reviewed in Anderson and Anderson 2012, 2017; see also Traverso 2019.)  They thus will play zero-sum and negative-sum games with the rest of us, because they want relative positions.  They want to be powerful more than they want money (not that they mind having more of it also).  Critical is that Success, or Power and Control, or Wealth and Status, is their whole life involvement, not just one thing they want. 

            Thus we may say that evil is usually done for four reasons:  callousness toward people who “don’t count”; anger toward people who do count—very often loved ones and family that one wishes to control but cannot control; hatred toward specific groups, almost always scapegoated minorities; and hatred of actual enemies.  Greed as a factor may lie behind these, but it generally acts through them; the selfishly greedy dehumanize or disregard their victims.  This produces some ambiguity.  In a war, one must maximize killing of the opposition, including civilians and ordinary unfortunates drafted by evil but personally safe overlords.             

            Another major background factor in evil is negative-sum gaming.  This often involves seeing the world as steadily declining, such that one can do better only by taking from others.  It views resources as limited.  This view tends to come from a focus on social power and status, where positions really are limited and one is controlling or controlled; economic welfare is more easily spread or increased for all, but it too often involves competition over limited goods.  Often, people who feel the world is getting worse see themselves as hopelessly downward-bound; they see no way to slow this except by taking more and more from weaker people and groups.  This was visible in much of the voting for Donald Trump.  His backing was concentrated among people who saw their groups as downwardly mobile.  They saw their best hope in getting what they could, while they could, at the expense of other groups.  Fear is abundantly obvious in such cases.  The resulting policies are hardly helpful; taking oneself down to take others down even more—the suicide bombers’ logic—is ruinous in the long run.

            Hate is successful at unifying society, blinding people to ripoffs and corruption, getting otherwise unmotivated people to fight for their exploiters, and otherwise allowing evil people to get the mass of ordinary people on their side.  The main generalization is that the more deeply important a social identification is, the more hatred it can mobilize.  Religion so often leads to especially irrational and extreme violence because it is about basic issues.  Yet, far less important matters can cause fighting; even sports team rivalries may lead to war (Anderson and Anderson 2012).

            The range of behaviors goes on to touchiness about “honor,” overattention to negativity, holding people to ridiculous standards, rage, overcontrolling, dominating, domineering, general antagonism, inimical attitude, and finally violence and murder.  Common or universal is an attitude that everyone’s bad traits are what count; their good does not.  People become rigid and judgmental.  Minor slights become cause for murder.  These can be at individual or group levels.  Mass shooters fit the profile: alienated, usually young, males, dealing with threats to personhood or social place by indiscriminate murder-suicide.  Ability to think rationally or morally suffers in proportion.  Ability to enjoy and love suffer too (Bandura 1982, 1986). 

            The common ground here is insecurity leading to irrational levels of harm to the “threatening group” or “the competition.”  The worst and commonest reason is direct threat to one’s personhood.  Following that come desire for wealth, power, control, prestige, status, lifestyle. 

Always, in group hate, there is either a massive devaluing of certain groups or a general defensiveness, and usually both.  The front story is actual evil or good; the mid story is the emotions and feelings that motivate; the real back story is destructive competition versus cooperation.  The ultimate back story is individual defensiveness, weakness, neurosis-psychosis, and other psychic factors.

Sidebar

The basic axioms of authoritarianism are:

Since I’m in power, I’m better than you.

My first need is to keep you under control.

Your differences from me—especially in such basic matters as religion and ethnicity—are bad: threatening, inferior, inappropriate, offensive.

You must be kept weak.

Since raw fear is the easiest and most straightforward way to do this, torture and cruelty are central elements of power and discipline.
But, since those attract resistance, in time they must be softened by an ideology of “good” and “ideals” plus development of a socio-political-economic structure that keeps the weak down. 

The rulers, or would-be rulers, are the Chosen People.  “Progressives” are often as bad in this regard as other bigots.

I’m more powerful than you, so I make the rules.  This holds all the way from “I’m the mom, that’s why” up to the dictator level.

            If people learn rational or common-sense ways of coping with fear and threat, they are less likely to fall into hatred and toxic conformity.  If they do, however, they may become authoritarians.  The “authoritarian personality” created by Freudian mechanisms (Fromm 1941) has not stood the test of time, but “authoritarian predispositions” leading to an “authoritarian dynamic” are now well attested and studied (Duckitt 1994, 2001; Stenner 2005).  They are called up or exacerbated especially by normative fear: fear of the breakdown of the social norms that give what the authoritarian mind considers necessary structure to society.  These norms typically involve norms that keep minorities and women “in their place,” and otherwise create a rigid top-down order.  Learned helplessness (Peterson et al. 1993) often leads to toxic conformity.

            Authoritarian predispositions and behaviors may include devotion to strongmen, hatred and fear of homosexuals and other norm-benders, love of stringent punishment for lawbreakers (especially those low on the social scale), militarism, and similar conditions.  There is, however, a great range of ideology here, from the near-anarchist violent right wing to the genteelly hierarchic older businessmen of a midwestern suburb.  It seems likely that we are dealing with several different responses to weakness in the face of threat, the common denominators being a need for a strong-man leader and a need for underlings to blame and oppress.  Authoritarianism is surprisingly common within societies and surprisingly widespread over the world (Stenner 2005).

            This rests on several observations about human responses to threat and stress.  Three other important ones deserve attention:  People hate in others what they dislike in themselves (especially if they feel guilty about it); they like in others what they want for themselves; they use their strengths to make up for their deficiencies.  These are all involved in bullying and authoritarianism.  Bullying can have permanent negative effects on bullied children’s brains (Copeland et al. 2014).

            The problems usually follow from cowardice and hostility, which reinforce each other.  In an isolated person, they come out as giving up, or as setting oneself against the world.  In the far commoner case of a social person, they come out in displacing aggression against the weak.  Fear forbids aggressing against actual offenders (if there are any); antagonism is displaced downward, to scapegoats.  This usually leads to bullying them.  Of course, as Robert Sapolsky points out, “You want to see a kid who’s really likely to be a mess as an adult? Find someone who both bullies and is bullied” (Sapolsky 2017:199).  That probably describes virtually all serious bullies.

Bullying involves belittling them: regarding them as low or worthless.  Underlings use malicious gossip to get back at powerful bosses. “I’m better than you” and “I’m worse than you” are bad enough, but the worst is “I’m worse than you, so I have to pretend I’m better, and if in power I have to bully you.”  The classic bully is resentful toward the world at large.  He attacks both the weak (“contemptible”) and those in authority; he revels in breaking laws and conventions (Sapolsky 2017:199).  Bullies resent civility; it interferes with their activities, and they brand it as “weakness.”  They resort to lying and “gaslighting” as routine methods of manipulating others, and to insults.  They tend to be violent and unpredictable.

            A standard bullying routine is to insult the victim, then take any response as an “offense” and “slight” that justifies attack.  Imagined slights are quite adequate.  The genociders’ version of this is the attribution of all manner of horrific but imaginary sins to the targeted group; Hitler’s claims about the Jews are the most famous in this regard, but all genociders—at least all those with a recorded history—do it.  Genocide is bullying writ large.

            Another very common aspect of bullying is that bullies are adulated as “strong” and “independent” by those who would love to be bullies but are too personally weak.  They become groupies, followers, toadies.  Women who are afraid to be violent themselves, but would love to be bullies, find male bullies irresistible, leading to a remark attributed to Henry Kissinger, “power is the best aphrodisiac.” 

            Evil people, from ancient Greek demagogues to Hitler and Trump, can most effectively get the least competent of the tier-just-above-bottom to hate the bottom tiers.  Failing that, they can always whip up nativistic hate of foreigners, especially immigrants. 

            Most movements that end in authoritarianism and genocide start by recruiting bullies and haters, then gather momentum.  Not until they win, and succeed in turning the polity into a dictatorship or turning a local community into one defined by hate, can they recruit the vast mass of ordinary people.  However, there are cases in which many followers are genuine idealists, not bullies, and then the picture is complicated by the restraint introduced by the idealists.  Stalin in the USSR was infamous for purging his movement of these idealists, leaving only those who were either bullies or saw repression as simply a necessary job to do.

            Following, again, Baumeister (1996), Baron-Cohen (2011). Beck (1999) and others, we can identify several subtypes of persons who despise or hate downward.  The widest and most general category is those who simply believe in the necessity of hierarchies and of maintaining those hierarchies through keeping those below firmly in their place (as described by Haidt 2012, and argued, in effect, by Aladair MacIntyre 1984, 1988).  An extreme form is the strongman philosophy that argues for rulers being above the law, or being the law, and often acting outrageously simply to show they have the power; this was the classic attitude of European royalism, and is similar to the politics of modern strongmen.  At the other end of power distribution are the weak and timid souls who desperately try to maintain their position by keeping firmly down anyone that seems to be below them.

            Opposed to these views are two types of philosophy.  First comes abjuring all anger and negative judgment, as advocated by many religions.  The second is directing one’s anger against the powerful, especially the powerful and lawless or harming, as advocated by revolutionaries.  This latter allows anger to be directed upward rather than scapegoated downward in a social hierarchy.  This is not necessarily a good thing, as we know from the sad ending of many revolutions. 

            We have now come to the core of what feeds the wolves.  The bad wolf is fed by fear socially channeled into scapegoating and bullying; by culture and society based on top-down power that is poorly restrained; and by personal grievance and offense coming out in hate and irrational harm.  This may be deployed in the service of greed, sadism, defense, or “honor,” but the basic animal is the same.  The good wolf is fed by the opposite: dealing with problems as rationally and peacefully as possible, in a society where equality and tolerance are values.  This too may be deployed for gain or defense or any other purpose.  The rest of this book will be dedicated to unpacking that simple formula.

            Fear and fight lead to three overarching social vectors: ingroup versus rival group; general level of hostility; and minimizing.  These are called “othering” today, and often considered to be a part of human nature.  This is not correct.  The actual direct causes of evil appear to be cowardice, hostility, and minimizing or infrahumanization.  The first two are overreaction (overemotional reaction) to fear, threat, and hurt, with structural opponentship (not just difference) seen as a threat.  The common ground is seeing people, or some people, as bad or unworthy.  All or some people are to be bulldozed, dominated, or preyed oneven family and friends, let alone real opponents. (On discrimination, see Kteily, Bruneau, et al. 2015; Kteily, Hodson, and Bruneau 2016; Parks and Stone 2010; Rovenpor et al. 2019.) 

            The third is failure to consider people as fully human, or even failure to consider people at all.  People become Kantian objects (Kant 2002): mere numbers on a spreadsheet, dirt to be bulldozed out of the way of construction projects, or underlings to be disregarded.   

            Such minimizing can be aggressive.  It can be cold and calculating. It can be simply mindless—just not thinking of the problems of the servants or workstaff.  It involves devaluing people: maintaining that they are unworthy of attention, concern, or care.  Sometimes it involves not noticing people at all.  It tends to go with callous indifference, as opposed to hostility and anger.  Anger shows at least some respect for the opponent; the opponent is worthy of being noticed and hated.  Not infrequently, the opponent is even considered superior, as when revolutionaries attack the state, or a David goes up against a Goliath.

            Othering without much hostility is typical of traditional people; they know the “others” are different, but have little to do with them.  Usually, strangers and travelers are welcomed, often very warmly.  My wife and I have traveled the world and almost never run into hostile reactions, nor have our students of all backgrounds and economic situations.  Exceptions are neighboring groups, often traditional rivals for land and resources.  Hostility without much othering—without displacing it to an outgroup—produces gangsters and aggressive loners. 

            The human norm seems to be occasional anger and aggression against even one’s nearest and dearest, great aggressiveness against structural-opponent groups, and indifference to the rest—the unknown multitudes out of one’s immediate ken.         One consoling lie that such people tell themselves is that we live in a just world (Lerner 1980), in which people get what they deserve.  The poor are lazy, the rich worked for their wealth.  People displaced by dams somehow deserve to be displaced.  Genociders come to believe fantastically overstated lies: the people they hate are truly evil, subhuman, the sources of all ills.  Thus, to the totally other, evil is done from callousness: coldly planned aggressive war, bureaupathy.  There is then a continuum through “different” members of one’s own society—internal others—to family members.  The closer people are socially, the more hatred is necessary, or at least usual, before harm is done.

            The most clearly established fact is that infants are born with some degree of innate fear of strangers, and the more different those strangers look and act from the parents, the more the fear. Thus, some degree of “othering” on the basis of appearance and voice sound is normal.  On the other hand, infants show acute interest in other people, especially faces, toward which they orient (Tomasello 2019).  They seem innately primed to recognize the more universal emotional expressions: smiles, angry looks, and so on.  Moreover, people differ at birth in how shy they are and how aggressive they are.  These vary independently, apparently. 

Infants react quickly to smiles, reassurance, gentle touch, and other marks of friendship, and react in the opposite way to frightening stimuli like shouts and rapid, dramatic movement.  Infants also look to their parents for signs of how to treat the stranger.  They are extremely reactive to parental moves and voices; the parents may be completely unaware of how strongly they are signaling the infant.

            From birth, people can react along a whole spectrum of ways, from initial fear but quick reassurance and friendliness to initial fear made worse by scary stimuli.  This is rapidly exacerbated by the reactions of parents, siblings, and soon other family members and friends.  Culture enters in right from the start, by conditioning the reactions of all these important people in the infants’ lives.  By three or four, children already know that certain recognizable groups are liked while others are disliked.  They learn gender roles, clothing associations, and other quite complex cultural messages to a striking degree (Tomasello 2016, 2019).  Much of this was learned quite unconsciously, with no one intending to teach, and without the children realizing they were learning.

            This means that any group of people will show a variety of reactions, not notably predictable.  The most predictable thing is that every group will have its structural opponent groups: groups that they feel are competing with them for power, land, jobs, resources, social recognition, political sway, poetry, art motifs, foods, and anything else that people compete about.  The word “rival” literally means “sharer of a river bank” (Latin rivus, riverbank), in recognition of the universality of arguments over water, especially for irrigation; in the western United States, “whiskey’s for drinking, water’s for fighting,” as Mark Twain said.  In the United States, the classic divide has been white vs black, and in much of the US today “race” and “diversity” means, basically, that antagonism.   In Canada, the same “worst structural opponent” attitudes are white vs Native American (First Nations to Canadians). Blacks in the US and Native Americans in Canada are notably overrepresented in “hard case” stories in the media.  (This struck me when I compared Seattle and Vancouver, BC, newspapers in the 1980s.)  Stories of substance abuse, crime, and welfare dependence often feature photographs of them, even where they are a very small percentage of such “hard cases.”

            Going back in history, one recalls the love-hate—mostly hate—relationship of England and France, of France and Germany, of Germany and Poland, of Poland and Russia, and so on forever.  And throughout Europe the Roma are victims of vicious prejudice; they are often the ones in the hard-case stories in the newspapers, even when they are a microscopic percentage of the national population.

            To my knowledge, every culture has prejudices like this.  Moreover, as we all know, different stereotypes go with different groups.  To white racists, blacks are “inferior” and “dumb,” “Mexicans” (by which they generally mean anyone with a Latin American heritage) are “rapists” and “criminals,” and so on.  To many American blacks, all whites are suspect and all or almost all are racist and dangerous.  These views are variously nuanced.  We have probably all encountered racists who hate “blacks” but sincerely like their close friends and neighbors who happen to be black: “He isn’t really a black guy, he’s old Joe.”

            One reason for such self-contradictions is the degree to which “old Joe” conforms to local norms and morals.  A complex field experiment in 28 German cities showed considerable bias against helping hijab-wearing women, but the same woman without the hijab but still obviously a Middle Easterner got about as little hate as a clearly native German woman. Moreover, and more importantly, if the hijab-wearer helped protest littering (by a confederate of the experimenters, of course!), she was helped in turn at the same levels as the non-hijab-wearers (Choi et al. 2019).  The general conclusion is that foreigners who mark their “difference” from the host society are accepted if they mark their “similarity” to the host society by proactive behavior. 

            Typically, individuals who regard a group as low or despicable put up with its members as long as they “keep their place,” but not when they try to assert equality or rights.  Racists who tolerate “old Joe” do not tolerate Al Sharpton.  Misogynists may love their docile wives (in a patronizing way), but hate feminists.  When I worked with fishermen in Hong Kong, I found the same phenomenon: fishermen were regarded as lowly by most of the rest of society, but were tolerated unless they tried to assert full equality.  The psychology seems essentially universal in stratified societies.

            Relations of power notoriously exacerbate hatreds.  This is so extreme, so obvious, and so universal that no one misses it.  Less obvious is the effect of specific kinds of power.  Blacks are notoriously in a particularly bad place in American society because they were enslaved.  “Mexicans,” however, are the structural opponents who are most devalued by South Texas white

racists, because of Texas’ history of breakaway from Mexico and later oppression of Mexican workers.

            Hard times sometimes make hatreds worse, but sometimes draw the country together and thus make hatreds recede somewhat; the Depression gave us Hitler in Germany and the New Deal in the US.  Good times can make hatreds worse, especially if a large percentage of the majority is left behind watching a tiny group get richer and richer, as in the US in the 1920s and since 2016.

            This being the case, it is inevitable that politicians invoke hatreds and usually do everything possible to whip them up and make them worse, the better to “lead” the “people” against the “foe.” 

To foreigners from realms too distant to be actively stereotyped, most people worldwide are welcoming and friendly.  There is a range from incredibly hospitable to quite suspicious and unfriendly.  The former is usually found in stable, secure communities.  The latter response is common in highly ingrown communities like the stereotypic European peasant villages, but also in highly unstable and insecure communities

            A common claim is that religious hatreds are often the worst.  This seems true especially in the monotheistic “Abrahamic” religions, though it is more widespread than monotheism.  In so far as it is true (it seems to be untested), the reason probably is that religion is about the most basic values, hopes, dreams, and beliefs that people have.  (It is not about how the world started!  The world-origin stories are there just to provide some validation.)  In China and historic Central Asia, much less intolerance was observed, because religions were not given such narrow and dogmatic interpretation, and value sets existed independently of faiths.  On the other hand, many of those who are extreme in religious hate are not deeply knowledgeable about their religion (see e.g. Atran 2010 and Traverso 2019 on Islam), and may fight only for meaningless tags instead of content, as Edward Gibbon accused Christians of doing in the war between homoousia and homoiousia.

            A final generalization is that othering relationships and stereotypes change fast.  We have observed immigrant groups to the United States get stereotyped by the media within a few years.  We have observed the rapid demonization of Muslims in the US. 

The common theme of all these matters, and of all evil, is rejection of people simply for being what they are.  In Paul Farmer’s oft-quoted remark, “the idea that some lives matter less is the root cause of all that is wrong with the world.”  (This line is very widely quoted, but I have not found a source citation.) They are condemned simply because they are poor, or Jewish, or female, or black-skinned, or rich, or any of the other things that give hateful people an excuse to dismiss whole categories of humanity.  However, extreme rage and hate are very often deployed against wives, husbands, children, parents, close friends, and other loved ones.  Family violence seems, in fact, to be a strikingly accurate small-scale model of genocide.  Assassination is even farther from Farmer’s general case; it involves targeting people because they are important.  Thus, while usually the targets of evil are downvalued, sometimes they are targets specifically because they are highly valued.

            Othering takes many forms.  One recalls the British stereotypes of “foreigners” and “savages” in the days of the British Empire: French ate frogs and snails and were effeminate, Germans drank beer and were big and dull, Italians were dirty and noisy and smelled of garlic, and so on for every group the British contacted.  American stereotypes of the 20th century were usually similar, though less well defined.  Children’s books reveal these stereotypes most clearly, and were one of the main ways they were learned.  Political cartoons often trade on them to this day.

            The same general rules apply to hate and disregard for other lives—for animals and plants.  Cruelty to animals and destruction of nature are common.  The mindset seems to be the same: either uncontrolled rage at the familiar, or displacement of hate and fear to weak victims, or sheer indifference backed up by social attitudes.  The Cartesian idea that animals are mere “machines” that have no real feelings has justified the most appalling abuses. 

            Summing up, evil occurs in four rough attitudinal clusters:  negative stereotypy; callousness (cold indifference, selfish greed, cold callousness, etc.); anger, rage, and hate, variously directed; and psychopathy-sadism. 

10 Groups and Group Tensions

            A final part of the back story is that humans everywhere dislike foldbreakers—people who conspicuously resist conforming to basic social rules.  Even people who are unusually good may be disliked because being so good is “different” (Parks and Stone 2010).  Usually, enforcing conformity serves to make cantankerous or poorly-educated people fall in line.  Very often, however, it simply makes people hate anyone conspicuously unlike the herd.  Individuals (including geniuses and artists) or groups (Jews in Christian countries, black people in white countries, and so on) are targeted.   A further cost is that members of devalued groups lose their sense of autonomy in proportion to the level of devaluing and repression of the group (Kachanoff et al. 2019).  They become less able to help themselves, precisely when they most need to do so. 

Groups cope with foldbreakers by trying to covert them, by ostracizing them, or by learning to live with them (Greenaway and Cruwys 2019), but all too often by killing them (Wrangham 2018).  The group may even break up, if foldbreakers form a large faction (Aalerding et al. 2018; Greenaway and Cruwys 2019).  All groups experience conflict, all have conflict resolution mechanisms (Beals and Siegal 1966), but when mechanisms are ineffective genocide often results.  Intergroup competition makes for solidarity—in fact it is famously the best way to develop that—but intragroup competition is deadly to solidarity, and must be resolved for a group to function, so available methods are sure to be used—even if fatal to minorities.  Intragroup deviants can be hard to spot, which makes them particularly frightening to the more sensitive group members (Greenaway and Cruwys 2019).  Particularly in danger are highly salient groups that seem relatively wealthy or successful to majorities, especially if the majorities feel themselves stressed or downwardly mobile.  Jews in Depression Europe, Tutsi in Rwanda in the difficult 1980s and early 1990s, and any and all educated people in Cambodia in the 1970s serve as clear examples.

The level of sensitivity to intragroup variation varies enormously from person to person, society to society, and culture to culture, something little studied.  Anthropologists have documented intolerance to deviance and consequent occasional breakup of communities among the Pueblo tribes of the southwestern United States, among small southeast European villages, and among Middle Eastern village societies, among others, while high levels of tolerance are documented for some—not all—urban trading and commercial communities.  More confusing still is a pattern, notable among some religious communities, for extreme tolerance of many kinds of behavior but extremely rigid observance of defining traditions of the group.  Intragroup deviance is a matter that needs more theoretical attention. All religions attack the major evils, but people do evil and then claim their religions made them do it.  There are always excuses.  Morality is never enough.  But, with laws, people can create peaceful communities.  Evil is not necessary.  It can be reduced to low levels. 

            Critically important is awareness that there is a continuum from good to evil, and specifically from actual enmity to utterly unprovoked genocide: from treating people with antagonism, as enemies, because they actually are so, to treating them as enemies because they might really be a threat, to treating people as enemies because they seem different and numerous enough to seem a threat to fearful leaders, to treating any different group as a threat simply because its difference is obtrusive or because it is in the way of settlement or “development.”  This tends to correspond very closely with the continuum from courageous fighting against attacking force to increasingly cowardly displacement of aggression to ever weaker targets. 

            People may believe that a currently weak group is secretly powerful, or might become so, and could be a threat.  Preemptive strikes then occur.  The Jews were a small, innocent, relatively defenseless minority.  Hitler directed against them all the anger stirred up in Germany by the loss of WWI and the Depression, and then revived and greatly extended the old image of the Jews as all-powerful and all-destroying. 

            A more local example is intimate partner violence.  This almost always involves a man, usually the physically stronger of the pair, beating a woman because he feels that he is somehow losing control of her (B. Anderson et al. 2004).  Very often, he feels generic anger against the world, or against stronger people in his life, and takes it out on the most vulnerable available person: wife, child, older parent.  Domestic violence is extremely close to genocide—it might even be called the individual-level equivalent (Anderson and Anderson 2012, 2017). 

11 Self-esteem and “Moral” Evil

            Roy Baumeister, in his book Evil (1997), documents at length the unexceptional nature of people who do evil things.  He also documents the degree to which they self-justify: they think they are doing the right thing, or the reasonable thing, or the expedient thing.  They rationalize to avoid guilt, and they use carefully disinfected language.  Most commonly of all, they think or say that they are only doing what everyone does.  In genocides and slave camps, they are right; everyone in their situation is indeed doing it. 

            Baumeister demolishes the old idea that evil people are those with low self-esteem; it appears that the worst problem in that area is with people who have “high but unstable self-esteem” (Baumeister 1997:149; his emphasis).  They are often bullies, because they think highly of themselves but are insecure enough to be wounded by challenges.  People need some degree of self-esteem and self-regard, so they concentrate on their strong points and minimize others’ lives and endowments.

            He also debunks the idea that evil people dehumanize their victims.  They most often see their victims as fully human—just not deserving of normal consideration.  In recognition of this, Castano (2012) suggests the term “infrahumanization.”  Baumeister runs through the standard explanations for violence (“greed, lust, ambition…” on p. 99—the classic land, loot, women, and power—as well as sadism and psychopathy), only to show how inadequate they are; crime rarely pays much, lust turned evil does not feel particularly good, and ambition served by evil rarely ends well.  Greed to the point of ripping others off, or crushing them, is not usually profitable in the long run.  It is normally done when society forces people into evil ways of making a living, such as raiding in Viking days or slaving in the 18th century.  He sees “egotism and revenge” as more important (Baumeister 1997:128-168).  People committing evil are often showing off their ability to maintain their power.  “Threatened egotism” (Baumeister 1997:377; Baumeister et al. 1996) is the deadliest of the factors he lists. 

            This, however, results from two things: basic predisposing factors of personality (threatened egotism, sadism, psychopathy) and immediate triggering factors (greed, idealism).  Moreover, “greed” is not desire for material goods; it is willingness to get material goods at the expense of other people, harming them in the process.  The same goes for social position, social acceptance, and even desire for power and control.  They are not bad in themselves, because they can be, and often are, used for good.  They become evil and cause harm when they are won at the expense of others.  

            Those triggers do not cause evil in people who are not in a state of hatred, bullying, or overcontrolling others.  In people who have fed the good wolf, desire for material goods is satisfied by working with others for the common good, or at least by healthy competition of the Adam Smith variety; desire for social acceptance and approbation is satisfied by being nice enough to be genuinely liked; desire for power and control is satisfied by being a good leader and administrator.  We all know people who are not particularly nice or pleasant people, but who make good administrators anyway, simply because it is the reasonable thing to do.  People are notoriously sociable, and do not need Immanuel Kant to explain that good social strokes are, in the end, more rewarding for most people than inordinate wealth or power.  We are left no closer to an explanation of why ordinary people without the basic personality factors of a psychopath become genocidal or become slavers.

            Baumeister also points out that much evil is done in the name of good—of idealism.  He is, like Ames and Fiske (2015), far too quick to believe that murderous “good-doers” (from the Inquisition to the Khmer Rouge) believe what they say.  My rather wide experience of those who talk good but do evil is that they are usually, and consciously, hypocrites.  At best, their willingness to do real harm in the name of imaginary good is hardly a recommendation for their morals.  Idealism that involves little beyond torturing people to death hardly deserves the name of idealism.  It is not an explanation for evil; it simply raises the question of why people sometimes think that torturing is idealistic, or that idealism can reduce to murder. 

            On the other hand, idealism that necessarily costs lives but really is for the greater good, like the fight against fascism in WWII, can be genuine.  Similarly, defensive war against invaders is often a good thing.   Of course, idealism can get corrupted fast, as in the French and Russian revolutions.  The boundary between good and evil is the point at which a reasonable person, independently judging the situation, would judge that there is clearly gratuitous harm occurring.  Rationality is hard to achieve in this world, but necessary in this case.  (Influence by Immanuel Kant, esp. 2002, and John Rawls, 1971 and 2001, is obvious here; I am following them on “rationality” in this context, thus avoiding the need to explain it.)

            Acting reasonably good seems the default option for most people most of the time.  It is even difficult to make people into killers.  Not only the Nazis, but also armed forces everywhere, have always had trouble accomplishing this (Baumeister 1997:205-212). 

            However, even the most trivial differences in feeding eventually allow the bad wolf to take over from the good one.  The strongest desire of humans is social belonging; therefore, people feel strong needs to conform to social norms and to whatever social currents are flowing (see e.g. the studies of Kipling Williams [2007, 2011] on ostracism).  The currents are not always good ones.          

            Albert Bandura’s book Moral Disengagement (2016) points out that evil is often done for alleged moral reasons (as in religious persecutions), or for openly immoral ones (as when a sadist psychopath kills), but most evil involves some degree of moral disengagement: minimizing, excusing, or justifying what is done.  Bandura covers the individual agency involved in this, and also the way society magnifies that by marshaling euphemisms, blaming others, playing the “you do it too” card, minimizing damage, dehumanizing or partially dehumanizing victims, personally disengaging and becoming callous or escapist, causal displacement, attribution of blame to the victims or to the wider society, and above all justifying one’s behavior by claiming a higher morality.  Bandura covers recent newsworthy events: gun violence and gun culture, terrorism, banking crimes, pollution and environmental damage, capital punishment, and others.  He thus spares us (most of the time) the citing of Hitler that tends to let moderns off the hook. 

            Moral disengagement, victim-blaming, and self-justification are indeed typical of almost all human activities that do harm and of almost all humans that harm others.  The problem with Bandura’s book is that he lumps evil morality (fascist ideology, Communist extremism) with disengagement, which is surely wrong.  Still, Bandura has done an extremely important task in covering with great thoroughness the ancillary mental gymnastics that allow people to harm and kill without much guilt.  Moral disengagement leads to bureaupathy.

            Alan Fiske and Taj Rai (2014) have argued that almost all violence is moral: it is justified by the moral teachings of the society in question.  They point out that violent behavior such as blood revenge, horrific initiation rites, war, raiding, human sacrifice, brutal discipline, and physical punishment have all been considered not only moral but sacred duty in literally thousands of societies around the world.  Steven Pinker (2011) reminds us that revenge killings, duels, killing of one’s own disobedient children, rape and killing of slaves, and many other forms of mayhem were not only accepted but approved in western society—including the United States—well into the 19th century.  Disapproving of such behavior is very recent.  Antiwar sentiments are also recent.  Taking over land by exterminating its occupants was universal, and broadly accepted, until the mid-19th century. 

            Fiske and Rai see societies as displaying relational models.  These come in four kinds, which can all be combined in one society:” communal sharing: unity… authority ranking: hierarchy…equality matching: equality [Rawlsian fairness]… and market pricing: proportionality” (Fiske and Rai 2014:18-21).   There are six “constitutive phases” of moral violence: “creation [of relationships]… conduct, enhancement, modulation, and transformation [again of relationships]….protection; redress and rectification…termination…mourning” (sacrifices, self-mutilation, and the like as mourning rituals) (Fiske and Rai 2014:23-24).  Violence follows the models: a result of group solidarity (usually against other groups) in unity-driven societies; keeping people in their place in hierarchic ones; maintaining equity in egalitarian societies; and “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” in market-driven ones.  Complex societies can be expected to have all four types of relational models operating inside people’s heads and in the cultural spaces, and thus to have violence for all those reasons and more. 

            Genocide, as we have seen, is moralized as necessary to eliminate the loathesome and hated groups within society.  Aggressive war is moralized by a felt need for land and loot—Hitler’s lebensraum, American settlers’ manifest destiny.  Murder is moralized as honor killing, or revenge, or any of many dozen other motives.  Brutal punishment is moralized as necessary to keep people in line and maintain proper behavior. 

            Fiske and Rai deal largely with cultural groups and cultural norms.  Unusual events like genocide are not quite in the picture, though, for example, Europe’s massacres of Jews go back many centuries.  Exceptional murder and violence for gain or from psychopathy or sadism are explicitly exempted from their theory, being immoral even to the perpetrators. 

            The problems with this work are numerous.  First, and most obvious, there is no explanation of where such morals come from, beyond the idea (almost universally agreed) that violence is necessary to maintain any social order at all.  We are left wondering why honor killings, cruel initiation rites, rape, incest, and the like are found in some places and not others.  (As for the rites:  John and Beatrice Whiting showed decades ago that they are found in societies where all children, including boys, are raised almost exclusively by women, and must transition to men’s roles at puberty.  They occur in almost all such societies and in few, if any, others.  See Whiting and Child 1953.) 

            Second, all societies, and especially all those more complex than a hunting-gathering band, have multiple moral alternatives.  One does not have to be a violent barroom brawler in the modern United States, even in the working-class white south (cf. Nisbett and Cohen 1996 on honor and violence in that milieu).  Very few Middle Eastern Muslims become terrorists or suicide bombers, despite western stereotypy.  Intimate partner violence is normal in some societies—19% of world societies, according to Fiske and Rai (2014:160), a strangely precise figure—but is uncommon and a “marked case” in most. 

            Third, Fiske and Rai do not distinguish between genuine cultural rules, individual moral poses, and outrageously lame excuses.  It is certainly a cultural rule almost everywhere to kill attackers who are trying to kill you and your family.  It is a cultural rule in all civilizations that if you are a soldier you must kill enemies when ordered.  It is a rule in all medically competent societies that surgeons can and should commit “violence” to save their patients (as noted by Plato and Aristotle).  It is an individual choice, not a rule, to beat your wife and children, murder your rival, or commit suicide.  Doing such things is sometimes done for deeply held moral reasons (murdering your wife’s lover in many societies) but is usually done for reasons that do not play well in courts of law.

            Political violence often is clearly due to hatred, however cloaked in rhetoric.  Much becomes clear when one listens to playground bullies (the following lines come from my own childhood):  “He was littler than me, so I beat him up.”  “I’m torturing this squirrel to death because it’s a varmint, it ain’t good for nothin’.”  “I hit my little sister to make her shut up.”  Fiske and Rai quote a number of young peoples’ justifications for killing that are no more persuasive, but sounded moral in some sense.  The grown-up forms of such excuses, “all the easy speeches that comfort cruel men” as G. K. Chesterton put it (in the poem “O God of Earth and Altar”), are no less lame for being suave and phrased in proper political language.

            My personal experience with violence—and I have known murderers, pirates, criminals, and other assorted perpetrators—is that almost all violence except obvious self-defense or defense of one’s country and loved ones is justified by excuses, and most of them are as lame as the schoolyard bullies’ offerings.  Reading the genocide literature is particularly revealing.  The actual sins of the Jews, Tutsi, Hutu, urban Cambodians, and so on were trivial or nonexistent.  The hatred was whipped up deliberately for the basest reasons.  The high moral justifications were blatant lies.  How many followers believed them remains unclear.  People usually say after a genocide is over that they conformed out of fear.  They are usually unwilling to admit any further belief in the propaganda, though a surprising number—including men of the calibre of Martin Heidegger and Ezra Pound—stayed faithful to fascism all their lives, and there are similar loyal Maoists in China today.  (On the case of Heidegger, see Pierre Bourdieu’s important work, 1991.)

            We are left with the near-universality of moral justifications for violence, but with a range from genuine, deeply held moral belief through serious but not-very-moral personal grievance down to the skimpiest of fig leaves covering crude hatred, rage, and greed.  Fiske and Rai have done a major service in focusing on these justifications and on the social poses that evoke them.  The claim that such moral arguments actually motivate violence must be evaluated case by case.               

12  Feeding Wolves Over the Life Track

            The roots of evil have a genetic component.  Psychopathy, sociopathy, and aggressiveness seem to run in families.  The fight-flight-freeze response is universal among higher life forms.  In humans, however, most evil is learned, as the enormous person-to-person, time-to-time, and group-to-group variation shows.  (Most of what follows is derived from or paralleled in Beck 1999 and Ellis e.g. 1962, with specifics about evil from Baron-Cohen 2011, Bartlett 2005, Baumeister 1997, Tomasello 2019, and other previously noted sources, tempered by my experience as a parent.  See also Sapolsky 2017:222 for coverage of this material.)  Most bad behavior is done in conformity with one’s immediate social group.  Most humans start out neutral: tending to wind up about half good and half bad, but actually winding up according to how they were trained. This, of course, is the real message of our two-wolves story.

            There is a clear genetic drive in infants to explore, engage, learn, socialize, communicate, and even create.  Babies are surprisingly interactive, and mostly in a positive way, trusting and smiling.  They cry a lot when they are uncomfortable, and can fear strangers, but they are basically a rather positive set of humans.  Allowing them to explore and interact in a secure, supportive environment is the key to feeding the good wolf pup.

            “Learning” may be too narrow a word for environmental influences.  Trauma even generations ago can affect the brain, via epigenetics.  Trauma in the womb and during birth can more directly injure brain tissue.  One common result of such trauma is reduction in control over violent emotions and actions.  It does not occur in all cases, but it is not rare.  The exact location of the trauma matters, but trauma is usually widespread enough to affect at least some relevant brain centers.  Fear is focused in the amygdala, aggression more widely in the limbic system, but interpretation of stimuli as frightening and reaction to fear by rational or irrational means are distributed over the brain, typically following neural pathways from the amygdala and other basal structures to the frontal lobes and the motor centers.  Eventually, all the brain is involved.  Any trauma can impact the fear-aggression pathways somewhere.  (See, again, Beck 1999; Bandura 1982.) 

            However, humans are tough.  They can adapt to terrible conditions, at least if they have support.  Werner and Smith (1982, 2001) studied children growing up resilient or otherwise.  They found that about ¾ of children raised in poverty and rough surroundings in rural Kaua’i in the mid-20th century did perfectly well.  These were the ones who had strong, reliable families.  Half the rest were redeemed by institutions—good schools, the military, and the like.  The final fourth were products of broken homes, and usually of abuse and neglect.  Abuse teaches children to abuse, and neglect teaches them to neglect.  Those children lived rough lives. 

            Resilience comes at a cost. Further studies have confirmed Werner and Smith’s findings about effective prevention, but have found that such resilience is accompanied by emotional fragility, physical stresses of all sorts including cardiovascular problems and metabolic syndromes, and sometimes a failure of resilience in key areas.  All are proportional to the difficulty of coping with the stresses in question.  Interventions are now able to help, but no one gets away unscathed from a harsh background (Hostinar and Miller 2019; see also Reynolds et al. 2019).

Infants have several states, including sleep and rest; fretting and whining; temper tantrums; and dependent loving and caring, combined with an exploratory interest in the world.  Adults break the fretting state into whining and complaining.  The temper-tantrum state develops into fear, anger, and hate.  Empowerment is always needed in education.

Infants start by feeling generalized discomfort when scared, wet, cold, hungry, or otherwise needy.  They cry for what they want.  Failing in that, they can bear it or become frustrated.  Over the first two years of life, frustration turns to anger.  Good parents teach children to bear when needs cannot immediately be met; bad parents punish the child for whining.  Young children quite normally throw temper tantrums if they are tired, frustrated, uncomfortable, scared, or in need of affection or a sense of control.  Ignored, these taper off; punished, they turn to lifetime anger.  This turns to hate if the child learns to hate from parents and peers.  Meanwhile, better-raised children learn to help, share, and be sociable. 

Adults usually acts from fear of losing social place, but the babyish causes—fatigue, discomfort, and the rest—still operate.  On the other hand, children learn to reason, to think things through, to obey, to be considerate, and to conform (for good or ill) at the same time they learn to throw temper tantrums (Tomasello 2019).   Security, especially security within a supportive circle of family, is the child’s greatest social need.  Children denied acceptance or other social validation lose security and become fearful, often acting out fear through anger.

            A human child with poor parenting may overcompensate, using learned but ineffective coping mechanisms to deal with weakness and fear, because of failure to learn other (and more appropriate) coping mechanisms.  Since humans are supremely social animals, the child learns to fear isolation, abandonment, hate, scorn.  Physical fears become less important; in fact, they are easily handled by a child or adult who feels that her social group “has her back.”

            Abusive childrearing produces adults who make up for felt deficiencies by using what they do have to bully others.  The unintelligent but physically strong schoolyard bullies beat up “smart kids” as a way of using what they have—strength to deal with ego threats caused by what they lacked.  The converse is the intellectual arrogance of many a physically less-than-perfect academic.  Weak fear due to failure to learn good coping mechanisms leads to abject conformity, especially conformity to ego-reinforcing notions like the superiority of “my” group to “yours.”  White supremacists are often those who fear or know that they have nothing else to feel supreme about.  Children, especially if female, may be exposed to sexual harassment, which is a form of bullying.  (It is not a form of romance or normal sexuality.  Men do it to dominate, control, and demonstrate power, not to be affectionate.) 

            In short, people begin as scared babies, who then, to varying degrees and in varying areas of their lives, grow up.  Most of us partially succeed and partially fail, and that is a dangerous combination.  We are fearful and defensive because of the remaining weakness and failure.  We use our strengths to defend—often to overdefend, and often to deflect our hostility downward, to those weaker than we are.  Caring for others is innate, but must be developed, and ways to be caring and considerate must be taught (see esp. Tomasello 2019)All cultures have rules about this, and all cultures have alternatives, including “nice” ones for everyday and less nice ones for dealing with actual threats and enemies.  The capacity to harm is also innate, and can be developed; harsh, unpredictable, gratuitously cruel environments bring it out.  Children as adults pay it forward: they often treat others the way they were treated as children.  This tends to be a default option.

            Learning when to use the appropriate coping mechanism is thus crucial.  Anything that empowers the growing child to take care of her own problems, by teaching proper and effective responses, feeds the good wolf.  This means that the child must be taught what to do—preferably as the situation unfolds; backed up for doing it; and backed up further in case the response is inadequate. 

            If the parent, peer, teacher, or elder then criticizes the child and takes over, “fixing” the situation that the child has “ruined,” the bad wolf gets a huge meal.  Few things feed the bad wolf better than deliberately weakening a child by telling her she can’t cope.  The resulting frustration and weakening turn into aggression eventually.  Widespread rejection follows, leading to still more anger. 

            Being raised by one highly critical parent and another parent who retreats and becomes passive is one common formula for producing a scared and defensive child.  Weakness and hypercritical judgment very often go together, either in the same parent or in a couple; perhaps hypercritical people attract weak spouses.  These couples can raise children who are hypersensitive and defensive, feeling that even the tiniest slight is a total attack on their personhood.  By contrast, if both parents are punitive but reasonably strong as persons, the child usually turns out well enough, but can become a bully; if both mild and gentle, the child becomes well-adjusted but often frail in the face of the world’s harshness.  Firm, but accommodating and open about communicating, seems to be the ideal parenting stance, but research is ongoing.

             A critically important point made by the psychologists is that a typical young child comes to depend especially on one specific immature defense mechanism, which then becomes the most stubborn and intractable problem in adulthood—the one thing most resistant to psychotherapy and life experience, and the one hardest to bring to full consciousness and self-awareness.  The bigot’s hatred and overreaction to threat are often the products of such deeply entrenched immature mechanisms.  Psychologists also find that it is challenges to precisely the most relied-on defense mechanism that bring out the greatest fear, anger, and reactive defensiveness in people.  If your favorite coping mechanism is racism, for instance, you will be more defensive about your racism than about other defenses.  Risk factors include a Manichaean worldview, and the idea that hierarchy is automatically appropriate and top-down control necessary.  In short, in ordinary life, much of the problem is that the default is always to stay with early-learned responses instead of self-improving, and with initial support groups instead of expanding one’s field to all humanity (on the above matters, the classic works of Ellis 1962 and Maslow 1970 remain useful).

            Conversely, nothing feeds the good wolf better than praising the child for doing what she could, while instructing her how to do even better next time.  Wolves feed on empowerment: empowering and supporting the child feeds the good wolf, empowering other people at the expense of the child feeds the bad wolf.  Empowerment means, among other things, teaching coping strategies that work (Cattaneo and Chapman 2012).  To work, they must be reasonable, which random violence and other evil behaviors are not.  (Adults can be coldly and rationally evil, but that usually comes later.)  Self-confidence and self-control, in particular, are the basic necessities to manage the weakness, insecurity, and anger that we have seen to be basic in hyperdefensive and scapegoating reactions.

            Somewhere in between is providing support without teaching proactive coping strategies.  A child who knows her parents have her back is in good shape.  But for coping methods she must rely on whatever methods are available.  She must copy or improvise.  These are rather random and unsatisfying methods, especially since copying without real instruction is not often successful.  The essential pieces of the strategy can easily be missed, or underemphasized.

Growing up with adult authority makes people tend to defer, adulate, and obey upwards in the age and status hierarchy.  This tends to cause them to displace hate downward, scapegoating the younger and weaker.  Abusive, erratic, cruel raising leads to adulating strongmen; usual parent-dominant tradional upbringing leads to conservatives.  Good parenting leads to children who develop into adults who can treat others as equals, and who are self-respecting and self-reliant. 

            Supportive and considerate parenting vs unsupportive and harsh parenting can be set up as a 2 x 2 table.  Supportive and considerate is ideal.  Supportive and harsh was the traditional European and frontier American way; it worked, in its way, for the time.  Unsupportive and undirecting yet gentle is more or less the classic “spoiling.”  Unsupportive and harsh is the abusive parenting that produces brutes. 

The normal order of learning a new skill is a very good one: from most simple and direct to most abstract.  Children learn to walk, talk, play musical instruments, and do homework by gradual steps, from simple and direct to abstract and complicated.  This is the way to learn civil behavior: from politeness formulas to basic considerateness and sharing, then to basic principles.  The simplest virtues are carefulness, civility, mutual aid, sociability, considerateness, and generosity.  Then they can move on to more abstract virtues. Teenage angst and misbehavior can be cured or alleviated by giving rights in proportion to responsibilities.  In teaching, exposure to real (and realistically taught) contexts (laboratories, field, great art) works; books and schoolrooms are slightly above neutral.  The result is that raising a child to be caring and sociable, but also to bear stoically the discomforts of life, feeds into a sense of justice, fairness, compassion, and social decency.  The family creates the basic psychodynamics.  The peer group provides the ways to express those—whether through bullying, random violence, and cruelty or through mutual help, support, and kindness (J. R. Harris 1998). 

            Finally, in a situation where control is lost, or where evil people are in control, everyone seems to regress not only into “following orders,” but into the combination of cowardice and hostility that drives brutality in the first place.  Post-traumatic stress disorder is very common among former soldiers, and more so among victims of genocide, and probably perpetrators also.  Post-traumatic stress is a risk factor for violence, but most PTSD sufferers do not become violent. 

13 Learning and Hating

Working back from a given violent act, we see it is grounded in anger, hatred, or callous doing-the-job.  The wellsprings are, most often, desires for material gain, or power and control, or social acceptance and respect, or desire to protect these, or—perhaps above all-desire to protect one’s group and self.  Sheer desire to kill can be a factor, in psychopaths and similar damaged persons.  Social pressures are extremely important and often determinant.  Cultural biases and cultural models of coping are also often determinant.  Factors exacerbating the situation can include anything from economic hard times to unsettled and chaotic social periods to ordinary irritants like hot days, smog, and confinement; these are outside our scope here.  Lest this all sound dauntingly complex, note that most evil can be explained by desire for goods, control, and respect, combined with unnecessarily harmful and hateful coping mechanisms taught by society or incorporated in cultural models.  The ramifications and manifestations of these are complex, but the basic framework is not inordinately so.

            One social and cultural force is pressure on young men to prove themselves by acts of social daring or self-sacrifice.  In warlike or violent societies, and sometimes even in peaceful ones, young men are under extreme pressure to be soldiers, fighters, or just “bad dudes.”  Young men are high in aggression and testosterone with or without cultural pressure, but they are peaceful enough in peaceful societies; their activity is used in work, or sports, or community service, or studying.  But in warrior societies it becomes “toxic masculinity.”

            Status emulation guarantees that the upper classes, elders, and superiors have more effect on this than the rest of us do.  “The people strive to imitate all the actions and mannerisms of their prince.  It is thus very true that no one harms the state more than those who harm by example…. The bad habits of rulers are harmful not only to themselves but to everyone.” Petrarch (as quoted by Sarah Kyle, 2017:157.)

            People clearly have a strong innate tendency to become hateful, cruel, and violent.  It is not a mere ability that society trains into us.  The generalized cognitive abilities to make computers, drive cars, and trap fish in weirs are all innate, in that any trained human of reasonable intelligence can do them; but humans do not have any innate tendencies to carry those specific tasks.  They do not make computers unless taught, within a society with a long history of technological development.  Evil is different.  Every known cultural and social group in the history of the world has had its cruel, brutal, murderous individuals, and the horrible record of wars and genocides proves that almost every human will act with unspeakable cruelty under social pressure. 

As long as humans are social animals with strong fight-flight-freeze responses, the chain from defense to hostility to evil is sure to be reinvented, and to become popular wherever displaced aggression is socially tolerated.  As long as human childrearing is imperfect, leading to weak but resentful children and adults, evil leaders will take advantage of that weakness and resentment.  Evil is not inevitable, and can be prevented, but it takes over when given even a small chance, due to the human fight responses to threat and stress.  Almost any person will become evil if pressured enough, but almost any person can be kept from evil if pressured in that direction.  Culture usually provides both good and bad models and teachings.

Part III.  A Bit of History

  1. Social evolution over time

All societies have three processes always operating: negative feedback loops maintaining the situation without change; cycles; and positive feedback loops producing slow progress or decline over long periods of time.  Progress has generally dominated throughout history, despite long declines like that of the Roman Empire.  Human groups in ancient times were generally patriarchal lineages with in-marrying women.  These developed into the vast fictive-ancestor lineages of nomad and mobile people from the Mongols to the Scots.  Much later, sedentary agriculture led to more association based on place, eventually leading to the nation-state.  It also led to many societies becoming matrilineal, with much more power to women, and often with the men doing the marrying-in. 

Over the last 50,000 years, there has been progress in science, arts, lifespan, food production, and other areas.  Complex large societies arose; they needed markets and government as well as norms—markets and political structures supplement norms in organizing at huge scales (here and below, see e.g. Christian 2004; McNeill and McNeill 2003; Morris 2010; Turchin 2006, 2016). 

Unfortunately, there has also been advance in the technology and practice of war, cruelty, and repression.  War is somewhat less common than it was in early civilizations (Pinker 2011), but bloodier and more technologically sophisticated.  Many technological advances were developed for war, and only later applied to civilian use.  More effort and money have gone into war than into almost any other sector of social action.  Violent death rates were always high (Wrangham 2018:238), ranging from less than 1 per thousand in peaceful modern societies to as many as 200 or more in some highly stressed tribes.  Wars and murders seem to have become less frequent (Pinker 2011; Wrangham 2018), but wars are far vaster in scope, and genocide has appeared as a major cause of death.  Evil leaders can appeal to group hate in a way not easily managed (though not unknown) in ancient societies. 

Also increasing is the extent and inequality of hierarchic social relations.  For countless millennia, people lived in small bands with little differentiation except by age and gender (Boehm 1999).  With the rise of complex societies came the rise of more and more unequal social relations, climaxing in the kings and emperors of old and the heads of state and CEOs of today.  This causes rapidly increasing competition for scarce positions of power, and more and more defensiveness on the part of those who gain such positions.

In agrarian societies, resentment and antagonism is directed against bandits and barbarians, as well as coups and religious deviants.  Early trade and commerce led to mercantilism and then freedom and democracy as the alternative, so the hopeful revolutions.  Early but full industrialization produced socialism and communism.  Later industrialization produced fascism, because elites were entrenched and powerful and good at oppressing and at divide-and-rule.  Resource squeezes made everyone worse off and less hopeful, thus easily turned to hate.

It thus becomes clear that hatred is a natural human response, but is socially engaged, manipulated, and deployed by the powerful to advance their own interests.  The most obvious case is war for gain—predatory invasion of the weak by the strong.  From the Assyrians to the European settlers of the Americas, and from the “barbarians” sacking Rome to the wars over oil in Africa in the 1980s and 1990s, loot has been the driver of war.  However, it is not the only one.  Family politics, religious hatred, and even minor slights can push a tense situation into outright war.  In the modern world, where genocide and civil war are commoner than international war, it is most often the giant primary-production interests that mobilize hate and decide who shall be the victims.  They usually go after local weaker minorities, but anyone can be fair game.  On the other hand, class hate, dimly related to Marxism, may be the driver, as in Venezuela today.  The point is that hate does not exist in a vacuum.  It is deliberately manipulated and targeted by the powerful

Warfare in premodern times took place between rival claimants to the throne (often different branches of the royal lineage), between rival states and empires, between rival ethnic groups, and between religious factions.  In Europe, for instance, we see a progression from warring tribes to city-states to the Roman Empire with its frontier generals and barbarians.  After the fall of Rome, rival nobles assembled loyal knights and dragooned peasants into being arrow fodder.  Then the wars of religion dominated until the Treaty of Westphalia substituted nation-states for religious factions, and war became a battle of nations rather than of faiths.  Meanwhile, racism and ethnic hatred became dominant.  The wars of empires and nations at least call forth courage and self-sacrifice; ethnic, religious, and class hatred seem largely mean spite.

Playing over this goes the more general tendency of humans to be too tightly social, leading to group hate, or too individual, leading to selfish greed and corruption—Kant’s principles of aggregation and differentiation applying to public morality.  We can see that the racism and religious bigotry paralyzing America today are merely the latest in an endless sequence of powerful, evil people taking or maintaining power, control, and wealth by marshaling their troops through antagonism and hate.

            Religious hate grew out of identification of religion with rival powers, and then crushing the conquered people, and thus hating and repressing their religion.  Conquered Persian dualists, Jews, and then Christians were harassed in Roman Empire times.  After Constantine, Christians crushed non-Christians and “heretics.”  Racism as a visible, significant force (beyond simple ethnic prejudice) began by the late Roman Empire, but was not serious until the 16th Century, with the conquest of the Americas and much of Africa.  The expansion of the slave trade drove racism to a high point in and after the 18th century. 

            Haves vs have-nots is a permanent opposition in society, as Marx pointed out, but real classes arose only with fully developed ancient civilizations, and did not get serious till highly developed empires appeared.  In China, hate was mobilized along kinship (especially within imperial families), political sectors, and to a lesser extent region and ethnicity.  Improvement in rationalizing bureaucracy, terror, and surveillance help explain the increase in longevity of Chinese dynasties, notably the success of Ming and Qing against all odds.  It is increasingly difficult to expect revolution to succeed.  Eventually, the elites will turn on each other.  If they are evil leaders, since they are amoral and only hate and greed hold them together; they betray each other the minute they can.  This happened repeatedly in historic times (Ibn Khaldun 1958).

            Traditional societies rarely committed genocide in the modern sense.  Tyrants killed political rivals and their families.  Wars were total, with civilians not excepted.  But wiping out whole groups of non-offensive subjects of one’s own government was not common, except in cases of religious crusades against “heretics.”  Typically, a dynastic cycle ended when the rulers had grown so weak and corrupt that no one could put up with them any longer, at which point a general or invader or popular leader would mobilize popular discontent and bring down the regime.  This happened over and over in Europe, west Asia, China, and elsewhere, and is well understood (Anderson 2019; Ibn Khaldun 1958). 

            Actual genocides were rarer, and generally confined to religion.  They tended to occur when forces of modernity directly challenged the landlords and rentiers of the old order. Not only did a new economy threaten them; new ideologies and sciences challenged their whole self-justifying worldview.  Genocide, based on hate and fear, is thus quite different from (even though it may grade into) normal warfare and dynastic cycling.  Those latter phenomena are based on rivalry, especially for power, also for land and loot.  They always include hate of the enemy, but not usually hate of one’s own weaker groups.  Indeed, they may unite the whole polity against the common foe.

            Large-scale killers were often highly selective about their massacres.  The Mongols and other Central Asian conquerors were famously indifferent to religion, and even ethnicity (at least outside their own); they were equal-opportunity massacrists.  The Americans of the 19th century committed genocide against Native Americans and repressed African-Americans, but were fiercely independent otherwise; the Cossacks of old Russia were similar, hating minorities while triumphing in indepencence.  Today, independence is neither so desired nor so possible.  Voters motivated by hatred vote for strongmen, and put themselves under a yoke of tyranny, from the Philippines and India to the United States and Brazil.  This deadly mix has appeared before in times of rapid change.

The late Roman Empire saw violent repression, first of and then by Christians. Later, Europe, challenged by aggressive spread of trade, commerce, and new scientific knowledge from the Islamic world, resorted to the Crusades and persecution of heretics in the 12th and 13th centuries.  Spain’s Reconquista descended into genocide after the final conquest of the Muslims in 1492.  Then Europe’s own progress and religious ferment challenged old regimes in the 16th and 17th centuries, leading to vast religious wars that involved genocidal murder of opposing religious communities (including the Irish Catholics in Ireland).  In the 19th century, following the Industrial Revolution and its political revolutions, the forces of modernity rolled into eastern Europe, where the result was anti-Jewish pogroms and Tsar Nicholas II’s persecution of serfs and minorities, and into China, where rebellions ensued and the Qing Dynasty met these with reactionary measures.  In the early 20th century, new ideas, arts, and sciences challenged primary production, leading—among other things—to fascism.

These periods elevated tyrants such as Philip the Fair, Ferdinand and Isabela,Oliver Cromwell, and Empress Cixi.  They represented landlords and other rentier elites against the forces of change.  As in later centuries, such negative leaders were often marginal persons: individuals coming from remote regions, and often subjected to poverty and hardship when young.  Genghis Khan, Zhu Yuanzhang (the leader who drove the Mongols from China), and several Roman emperors fit this pattern.

Following Adam Smith (1910/1776) and other political economists, and oversimplifying them somewhat for convenience, we find that improvements on this warlike pattern developed in expanding economies, especially those dominated by the trade, commerce, and human resources sector of the economy.  That sector must invest in people to survive; it depends on skilled workers and innovation.  Economies dominated by rentier primary production—plantation agriculture, mining, fossil fuels, and the like—are regressive, and often repressive.  Agrarian societies from the Inca to Sumer to China wound up the same: city, king, court, bureaucracy, vast mass of farmers from rich to landless. 

Between enlightened traders and reactionary plantation owners are the majority of people—the ordinary workers and businesspersons who have to make a living today.  They are thus more concerned with whether the immediate economy is going up or down than with vast forces of Progress or Return to the Old Days.  Especially if they are in business, they default conservative, but can shift rapidly and easily rightward or leftward.

Class is also, famously, a relevant factor; it has diminished from great importance in the mid-20th century in American voting to near irrelevance now, with almost equal shares of rich, middling, and poor voting Democrat or Republican.  This has tracked the rise of social issues such as racism and medical care at the expense of concern for immediate economic returns.

In many traditional societies, “honor” and distinction came from killing and looting, not from honest work or trade.  Not only warlike but even quite peaceful agrarian societies shared this attitude.  Fighting was honorable, compromising and peacemaking dishonorable.  

One can predict with considerable accuracy the amount of evil in society by assessing the amount of rentier or primary-production-firm dominance of the political economy and the level of warlikeness of the culture.  Within equally agrarian societies, Afghanistan, rampant with landlordism and steeped in a heritage of violence already noted by Alexander the Great, compares with more peaceable Bhutan.  The other dimension—from agrarian to late-industrial—is seen in the conversion of formerly warlike societies to currently peaceful ones.  The Vikings, ruled by landholding and slaveholding earls, contrast with their peaceable descendants in modern Scandinavia’s world of trade, commerce, and education.

The ancient Greeks saw a cycle: democracy gave way to autocracy (monarchy or oligarchy), which gave way to tyranny, which collapsed and left the way open for democracy.  This proved less than predictive, but cycles from relatively open to relatively totalitarian societies and back do appear in many historical records (Ibn Khaldun 1958).

Really new good ideas spread from rich cores of trade and communication-based systems.  Military technology seems to spread fastest of all innovations.  Next come innovations in communication; people want to be in touch.  Then comes ordinary production.  Last comes the spread of morality.  Then in the twentieth century, primary production, especially fossil fuel production, took over, and now rules most of the world. 

            Critical to progress were several steps, mostly taken in Europe or China.  One was rapid discovery science, foreseen by the ancient Greeks, then developing between 1100 and 1600 in Europe.  Rationalized property rights and freer markets followed, for better or worse, in the 17th century.  The Enlightenment then emphasized law and recourse, with ideals of free speech, press, religion, assembly, and conscience.  (It is not mere coincidence that this took place at the same time as the explosion of slavery.)  Equality before the law for full citizens, and expansion of the citizen concept, came a bit later in the 18th century.  The logic led to a rapidly growing movement to end slavery, beginning in the mid-18th century and continuing till slavery was legally ended, though not ended de facto, in the late 19th.

The Enlightenment succeeded not just because of the rise of trade, commerce, and science.  Another key was the development of world trade too fast for any nation-state to control it.  Opportunity exploded, and traders managed it themselves, through international networks.  They had to deal, without government supervision, with people of very different cultures, faiths, and technologies.  This was one breeding ground of concepts of liberty, self-governance, tolerance, freedom of conscience, and personal responsibility.  One can compare the rapid rise of enlightenment in multinational Europe with its relative failure in East Asia during the centuries when the Qing Dynasty imposed its crushing weight on the East Asian world-system.

The Enlightenment did not invent the rule of law or welfare-oriented governments; Europe and China already had those.  What the Enlightenment brought were science and participatory democracy coupled with the ideal of freedom of conscience.

Another milestone was free public education, an idea from the early 19th century.  Through all of this, popular demand by people rising in society but left out by the elites was the usual cause.  It was always a fight: entrenched interests always opposed good changes, and religious elites were often the worst.  When self-interest combined with needs for fairness and equality, progress occurred.  The more normal human tendency to weather down and adapt to the system was always used by the elites to repress the masses.  So were hatreds of all kinds, as we have seen.

2 American Ideas

The Founding Fathers worked with a strong sense that we are all in this together and that my rights stop where yours start, sometimes phrased as “your right to swing your arm ends at my nose.”   Finally, they were aware that a society and its laws and economy exist within a moral shell, and that shell must be embodied in the laws and indeed in the whole system.  (They got this thoughtful perception from Adam Smith’s writings on morals.)  These basic principles lie behind the Constitution.

This led to emphasizing freedom of conscience, thus of speech, religion, ideology, assembly, and voting.  It meant free enterprise, within reason.  It also meant freedom from torture, warrantless search, and other abuses of government power.  It meant equality in justice, opportunity, and law, with protection in oppression.  It meant rule of law, not of men.  It meant presumption of innocence, protection of all, and mutual defense.

These were seen as necessary because evil so often wins unless actively stopped.  A polity must have balances of power, equality before the law, universal voting rights, full recourse (rights to sue, etc.) in the event of direct harm, and the other rights the Founding Fathers thought—wrongly—that they had guaranteed in the Constitution.  It is amazing how easily Republicans now get around those rights.

The United States failed at the beginning, in allowing slavery and in refusing citizenship to Native Americans while taking their land.  It failed again in the Reconstruction by not enforcing full civil rights, and by letting the carpet-baggers cream off wealth from the south.  These ills were eventually corrected, but not the lingering racism and power abuses that resulted.  These failures have led cynics to dismiss the entire American program, equality, freedom, and all.  This is not a helpful approach.  The Depression was much better managed.  Fairness and, eventually, civil rights followed from bringing some degree of justice to the economy.

While the world was wide-open, when exploration and colonization were running wild, and then as long as technology was increasing wealth faster than population, freedom and Enlightenment values flourished.  Today, with closing frontiers, people are rushing to make all they can.  Failing that, they support and follow the powerful, in hopes of at least holding onto something.  The poor have given up hope of getting rich; they can only hope to cut other, weaker groups down and take what little those groups have.  This is a negative-sum game.  Some cultures are much more prone to see the world as a zero-sum or negative-sum game than are others (Róźycka-Tran et al. 2015; Stavrova and Ehlebracht 2016).  The United States was formerly rather moderate in this regard, but negative-sum thinking has increased. Reform in US history has been strongly cyclic. 

The course is highly consistent.  A few idealists will see a problem and a solution.  If they are right, and if the problem gets worse, more and more people will be attracted to the cause, until a majority is on board and can prevail.  This happened with the Enlightenment values that drove the Revolution and the US Constitution.  The next major crisis was slavery: anti-slavery was early dismissed as crackpot, but with the progressive damage to the whole US economy by plantation agriculture with enslaved workers, anti-slavery prevailed (through war).  Next came the mounting criticism of deforestation and wildlife loss in the late 19th century, climaxing in Theodore Roosevelt’s environmental reforms.  The next crisis was the Depression, which led to massive economic reforms.  Then came environmental and food production crises in the 1960s, dealt with (inadequately) by laws in the late 1960s and early 1970s.  Visionaries are always proposing new reforms, but these are picked up by the majority only if they are immediately practical ways of addressing real and worsening problems.  On the other hand, the opportunity allows the visionaries to pass many measures that the majority would probably not support otherwise.  The Bill of Rights, for instance, was added to the Constitution by Enlightenment visionaries; the Bill probably went beyond what the majority wanted at the time. 

All the crises after independence were caused by the reactionary behavior of the plantation and big-resource-firm sector.  Slavery at its worst led to the Civil War; suicidal levels of environmental destruction led to massive reform campaigns in 1890-1910 and 1955-1975; cutthroat speculative and rentier capitalism led to the Depression and resulting New Deal.

3  Progressive Erosion of Old Society

            The steady rise of giant firms has been noted, and protested, since the 1870s, but it continues.  It has had a steadily more distorting effect on the economy and on politics (this and what follows is largely common knowledge, but otherwise follows Anderson 2010; Anderson and Anderson 2012, 2017; Putnam 2000; Turchin 2016; Snyder 2018).

            As folk society and traditional elite society collapsed with the decline of local communities and the rise of mass society (Putnam 2000), people became more and more dependent on giant corporations to integrate their worlds.  Politics became less and less public and more corporate.  A worldwide shift from lateral and community-wide association to top-down hierarchies, separate or competing, appeared.

            The broad contours of politics in the early 20th century made sense: the Republicans were the party of business, ranging from family farms to local businesses and up to large firms; the Democrats were the party of labor.  This led to reasonable dialogue (though also plenty of bullying and cruelty by bosses).  The change beginning in the 1920s, but not serious till the 1970s, was toward a Republican party uniting racism and giant reactionary firms, and eventually a Democratic party also becoming absorbed with identity politics more than with economic issues.  This has led to nothing but hatred, largely Republican racism and religious bigotry, but also some real reverse racism on the left.  Serious discussion of economic issues is increasingly contaminated or lost in a welter of mutual accusations.

            One of the first effects of the shift from a farm-and-small-business America to an urban one dominated by giant firms was the disappearance of folk society.  The old-time world of folk, elite, and town forced people to work hard, cooperate, and toughen up.  Now, life is easy but frustrating, especially for those who aren’t succeeding.  Bereft of the support of old-time communities and the opportunity to work with different types of people, humans become alienated, weak, and hence cowardly.  This leads to fascism.

            In traditional agrarian society, life was short and usually ended violently.  People tended to escape into religion.  They also had songs and folk literature to teach them that individuals mattered—that life and death need not be in vain.  Now, few are in that position, so political action is commoner.  In small-scale societies, religion was about spirit power, since controlling the uncontrollable was desirable and any control of anything helped.  Now, fear and overoptimism are the problems.  So, pragmatic proactive help become the main alternative to giving up.

            The decline of that world also led to the decline of folk and traditional culture after 1950, and then to the dominance of popular culture and passive consumption.  Arts deteriorated.  Great literature made people confront tragedy, intense emotion, and social and personal complexity; it became less and less appreciated.  The burgeoning interest in nonwestern cultures that taught people tolerance and mutual appreciation in the 1960s and 1970s waned, leading to increasingly dispiriting identity politics after 2000. 

            Perhaps most interesting has been the disappearance of the self-improvement agenda.  The humanistic psychology and personal development movements of the 1960s-1970s collapsed and left little trace, outside of improvement in counseling practices.  They succumbed to a backlash by people who relied on thinking they were tough, and often on outright bullying, to maintain their self-image.  Weak and defensive individuals were threatened by the whole notion of self-improvement.  They attacked it with a vengeance. 

            The arts succumbed to dominance by giant “entertainment” corporations.  They became dominated by faddism, conformity with the widest number, enjoyment as simply watching TV and playing video games.  The Depression and WWII led to a lullaby culture, the soothing and mindless pop culture of the early 1950s.  That gave way to a range of developments, from rich and complex to trivial, but ultimately mass culture settled on “action” movies, video games, and other superficiality.  Much of ordinary life settled on the least emotionally and cognitively involving forms: mindless music, wallpaper art, fast food.

            Political organization peaked in the 1930s and again in the 1960s with the civil rights and antiwar movements; solidarity, voter drives, demonstrations, teach-ins, and other forms of resistance thinned out.  Utopian experiments such as communes had a silly side, but they at least expressed hope; they are few and far between now. Only the Great Depression and WWII solidified people around progress toward the good.  The 60s got most people motivated, but not enough. 

            This preceded political decline.  Traditional culture had kept Enlightenment values, including the Founding Fathers’ values, alive.  As traditional cultures and educational forms disappeared, and Hollywood filled the gap, American politics shifted rapidly from democratic to fascist.

            What happened in politics was similar to what happened to food.  Decline of food traditions and rise of agribusiness corporations led to the rise of sugar, salt, and soybeans, with resulting heart trouble and diabetes.  The same rise of giant corporations led to the discovery, first in the plantation sector and then in the fossil fuel world, that political power came from a mix of lobbying and whipping up hatred to get right-wing votes.  This led to a rise of racism, religious bigotry, intolerance, and incivility—not just in the United States, but worldwide.  Face-to-face community has been largely replaced by virtual communities.  Among the casualties are newspapers, local helpfulness, and Robert Putnam’s bowling leagues—Putnam’s book Bowling Alone (2000) used their decline as a marker of the widespread decline of civic and civil culture in America.  With folk and community cultures dead and ideas of artistic quality gone, people collapse into a mass—Tocquevillian “subjects” as opposed to “citizens,” as Putnam puts it.

            The result is a pattern in which environmentalism, concern for fine arts, liberal politics, and community all decline.  Real wages and returns to labor decline.  Deaths of despair—suicide, drug overdoses, and the like—increase.  Conversely, even in recent years, science progresses; medical treatment improves, but not access to it; comforts of ordinary life continue to increase.

            Sexual mores and other Old Testament values relaxed as old-time farming and rural folk society disappeared.  This has certainly had its good sides, but also has led to a constant renegotiation of norms, not an easy task.

            In short, the traditional world of rural and small-town America, of Christian churches and local folksingers, of factories and workshops, is gone or fading.  Its economic underpinnings are dissolving, as hi-tech and smart machines replace workers and farming becomes concentrated in a few corporate hands.  It had its wonderful side, but also a very dark side.  The worst features of it—racism, religious bigotry, class oppression, and gender biases—are still very much with us.  Increasingly, older and less educated whites take refuge in those pathologies of the older world.  So do ordinary suburban older whites, who see their privileges challenged by upwardly mobile minorities. 

            All this would be manageable if the hatred were not used by the giant but downward-bound productive interests, especially the fossil fuel corporations.  They have funded much of the hatred and anti-science activity of the last few decades. 

            The Republican party has been captured completely by these corporations, and has become a vehicle for subsidizing big oil, big coal, big agribusiness, the military procurement and arms industry, and their allies.  It has thus become a party of white supremacy and military right-wing Christian religious agitation.  The Democrats have moved from the party of the working class into a position as the party of relatively upwardly-mobile groups: minorities, women, urban young people, the education and health establishments, and to some extent the hi-tech world.

            This new party alignment gives the Republicans a perfect platform to mobilize the weak defensiveness considered above.  Everyone, progressive or regressive, has some weak defensiveness within, if only because we all start as babies and never quite get over it.  We never take full control of our lives and eliminate all babyish crumbling in the face of out-of-control reality.  The Republicans, however, are placed to take advantage of it, via scapegoating and repression.  The Democrats only lose by it.  Weak defensiveness takes the form of lashing out at “whites” and “males,” censoring right-wing speech, and otherwise playing into Republican hands.  Democrats will have to be the party of self-control or they will lose all.

4  Decline from 2000, collapse from 2016

            The real key to what happened next was the rise of corporations that live by out-of-date production processes and by deliberately harming humans and the environiment:  big oil, big coal, toxic chemicals, munitions and “defense,” and the shady sectors of finance and gambling.  These are the home industries of the funders and leaders of the political right.  The core has been the linkage of big oil and the munitions-arms-military procurement industries.  They support each other.  They naturally attract those rich from gambling, shady finance, private prisons, the mafia, and similar interests.  They naturally defend themselves.  They have defined themselves into a state of war with the American people.  They flourish only by polluting, selling guns, resisting clean power, digging up mountains, and generally damaging the public interest.

Leaders in the United States include the great oil barons such as the Kochs, who funded global warming denial as well as the Tea Party, ALEC, and other Republican agendas (see e.g. Abrams 2015; Auzanneau 2018; Cahill 2017; Folley 2019; Hope 2019; Klein 2007, 2014; Mayer 2016; Nesbit 2016; many of these sources detail the enormous sums paid to congresspersons for special favors).  Even more extreme are the Mercers, who fund the major white supremacist and far-right hatred organizations and media (Gertz 2017; Silverstein 2017; Timmons 2018), and the Princes, including Trump’s Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos.  These and their allies are the people who have most to gain from a government that lives by war and repression.  They are also the most heavily dependent industries on federal subsidies, contracts, sweetheart deals, loopholes, giveaways, and failure to enforce laws.  They are also the most in danger from a government that cares about people. 

Big oil, in particular, would be uneconomic without government support, because the costs of cleaning up pollution and dealing with damages would be insupportable (see Oil Change International 2017).  The CEOs would be in danger of prison time for their shady lobbying and deliberate release of pollution.  These industries that invest heavily in lobbying and campaigns.  Their fears and defensiveness are thoroughly understandable.  Fossil fuels receive over $649 billion in federal subsidies every year (Ellsmoor 2019; figures from International Monetary Fund), and plow a good deal of that back into the system via political donations, effectively bribing legislators to provide even more subsidies.  A vicious spiral is created.  They create another vicious spiral by investing much of the money in anti-science propaganda, from racism to global warming denial, and in whipping up hatreds.  They have been able to divide the voters and eliminate the chance of unity against the common threat that fossil fuels present.  Big Oil, and especially the Koch brothers, have spread their tentacles throughout the world.  Najib Ahmed, writing in Le Monde diplomatique, shows how “US climate deniers are working with far-right racists to hijack Brexit for Big Oil,” which “exemplifies how this European nexus of climate science denialism and white supremacism is being weaponized by US fossil fuel giants with leverage over Trump’s government” (Ahmed 2019).

            With this went an explosive increase in rent-seeking, quick money games, and financial shenanigans, leading to monumental inefficiency in the economy (Mazzucato 2018).  Corruption in government has greatly added to this.  The situation in which everyone is out for what they can get, at the expense of the system, is characteristic of the end phases of political cycles.

            Another casualty has been traditional conservatism.  The old union of small-government advocates, hierarchic law-and-order defenders, patriots, and security advocates has disappeared.  Most of them at least had some sense of honor and honesty.  They were also pro-environment, an attitude totally reversed now (as extensively documented by Turner and Isenberg 2018). The current “conservatives” favor big government interfering continually in people’s private lives (in sex, drugs, religion, media, and more), are indifferent to hierarchies (though loving strong-men), and make covert deals with Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and other countries against America’s obvious interests.  Their main concerns are using racism and religious bigotry to whip up support for the giant primary-production firms.  As to honor and honesty, one may allow the record to speak.

            The decline of cultures and their ideals came before the political decline, and before any economic effects.  Economic growth continues.  It seems that the last thing to be affected by a change in economic organization is the economy itself. 

            All the worst things that progressives and liberals feared over the last 50 years came together in a perfect storm in the Trump administration: attacks on democracy, freedom, equality before the law, the environment, science, minorities, the press, the poor, the workers.  One main driver has been the rise of inequality—especially the rise in power and wealth of the rich.  The rich are literally above the law; it is almost impossible to convict them of anything, given their ability to pay lawyers and bribe politicians.  Nazism and fascism have been revived, with even more focus on Big Lies than in Hitler’s Germany, and with even more fawning surrender of America to the most reactionary of the giant corporations.  There is no question that Trump is directly copying Hitler; Burt Neuborne has listed eleven pages of close, highly specific similarities (Neuborne 2019:22-33).  Trump kept Hitler’s speeches by his bed for years (Neuborne 2019:20), and sometimes uses Hitler’s literal words. The Big Lie and other fascist methods of rule and control are manifestations of weak fear and take advantage of it.  Since 2016 they have become the government. Nor is the United States unique; this is a worldwide movement (Luce 2017; Snyder 2018).

            The worst of that process is that it allows truly evil people, who are often motivated by extreme greed and hate, to get ahead.  Contrary to tropes of “the 1%,” most rich people are reasonable enough.  The problem is that the few evil, sometimes downright psychopathic, rich—the Kochs, Mercers, Princes, Trumps, and their ilk—are highly motivated to seek power.  Since they are ruthless and not restrained by morals, they outcompete others easily, and then become more and more lawless and thus more competitively successful.  When they get power, they use it vindictively.  They do not merely increase their wealth; they attack the rest of us.  True Trump supporters channel all their fear, frustration, resentment, anger, and spite against the less fortunate.  The segment of the left that is racist and sexist (hating whites and males) differ only in that they are secure and privileged enough to hate up, not down. Democrats should realize that the right wing now represents only the reactionary fraction of the super-rich.  They do not want economic growth; it would lessen their control by making their industries more and more obsolete.  They want a decline from which they can benefit.

            Evil ideology in the United States perfectly tracks economic evils.  The slave-based plantation world began it.  Continued decline of the rural south has made it more toxic.  It has spread first into other declining rural areas, then into declining manufacturing ones.  The “Southern Strategy” of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove was perfectly timed to take advantage of this.  The situation appears to be comparable in other countries.  The ties to giant-corporate primary production are clear.  Extreme hierarchy of power and wealth, and economic and social stagnation, are endemic to such systems. 

Much of this is direct, face-to-face politics.  Investigative journalism (e.g. Mayer 2016; Rich 2018) reveals that Trump was tied directly to McCarthy’s right-hand man, Roy Cohn; that the Koch brothers started the Tea Party and other right-wing organizations; that all these are directly connected by personal ties, and are also tied to powerful Democrats.  The extent of actual friendship and mentorship on the far right is far too little studied and appreciated.  This is not “conspiracy”; it’s long-standing networks of friendship, political aid, mentorship, and power-sharing, going directly back to the pro-Hitler activists of the 1930s via such ties as the Koch and Coors family interests.

The political conversion of the border south, Idaho, Montana, and the Dakotas from “blue” to “red” between 1970 and 2016 came with the decline of labor unions and small farms and the rise of giant primary-production firms in those states.  It was directly precipitated by a steady stream of right-wing propaganda telling people that their problems were not due to economic unfairness or mismanagement but to minorities.  This led to a massive flip, especially in 2016, from voting self-interest to voting hate.  Many seem to have become convinced that the minorities rather than the system (or the rich) were the source of their problems; others thought there was no hope except to keep the minorities down; but surveys and comparisons reveal and many or most simply voted because hysterical hatred had been whipped up against particular groups and persons.  People who had been feeding the good wolf were feeding the bad one.

One must go back to Hitler and Stalin to find anything comparable in terms of the sheer number of groups attacked by the Republicans in the 2016 and 2018 campaigns.  It results in cruelty—deliberately going after not only the poor and weak, but everything that helps people: education, medical care, sustainable resource use, etc.  These new leaders support and are supported by the war and gun industry and the fossil fuels producers, the mega-polluters, and almost no one else. 

Trump voting has been analyzed by Bob Azarian in Psychology Today (2019).  He sees, among other things, immediate concerns over morality; sheer fear, conservatives being relatively fearful; overestimating of expertise by voters; authoritarian personality; Trump’s ability to engage people as celebrities do; and, of course, racism and bigotry.  One can add a real fear of immigrants and Muslims, due to exaggeration and lies by Republicans, and a real fear of change and process, especially among less educated white males, who see themselves threatened by the rise of other groups.  Immigrants, who tend to be highly motivated and enterprising, do present a threat to such persons.  So do upwardly-mobile women and minorities freed from open discrimination in hiring.  So does the steady decline in community and folk society in the rural United States.  The Trump voters have their reasons to want to stop and reverse progress.  Diana Mutz (2018) reports similar findings; perceived threat to economic and social position dominated Trump voting.

            Current problems in the United States include a full-scale frontal attack on democracy: on free press, voting rights, civil rights, civility, and equal protection under the law.  Brian Klaas, in his book The Despot’s Apprentice (2017), provides a thorough account of these attacks, with many important and thought-provoking comparisons to tyrannies and despotisms around the world.  This attack is supported by the Big Lie technique, by exploiting religious and racial bigotry, by attacks on the poor, and by anti-scientific lies and misrepresentations.  Huge subsidies and special favors for giant corporations are now the rule, in a climate of corruption.  Clearly, American democracy and freedom are doomed unless Americans unite to save their best traditions (see Klaas 2017).

            The United States saw regime change in 2016-17, with the collapse of the 240-year-old Enlightenment traditions and the commencement of a regime dedicated to eliminating those.  Corruption in the modern United States guarantees collapse.  Most of it is legal.  Firms donate as they wish to politicians who vote on the issues that are critical to those firms.  Legislators vote on subsidies for firms that fund their campaigns.  The interests that depend heavily on subsidies and that also harm the general good through pollution or dangerous speculation become the biggest donors. 

            In general, the more socially tightly bound and the more hierarchic a society is, the more people unite in hating and lowest-common-denominator social presentation.  Progress and individual tastes divide.  The far right has learned to unite followers not only by arousing bigotry, but also by providing lowest-common-denominator entertainment (video games, trash music, and the like) that debase individuals and make them conform at a bottom level.  George Orwell foresaw this in 1984 and commented extensively on it in his essays.

The war on science and public truth gets more serious as the Trump administration gains more and more control of departments and agencies, and censors speech, cuts funding for science, and denies scientific facts (Friedman 2017; Sun and Eilperin 2017; Tom 2018).  Many Republicans have come to hate and fear education, especially higher education; a poll show that most oppose and distrust it (Savransky 2017).
            The few giant firms that support right-wing politics to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year now control the United States, through the Republican Party.  The 2017 tax cuts, opposed by 75% of voters and appealing only to the rich, show this dominance clearly. 

            Suicide, opiate abuse, and Trump voting are all strongly correlated; they are at high levels in the same places, including rural counties in Appalachia and the northern Midwest (Snyder 2018).  They indicate a level of despair in these downwardly-mobile areas.  Since these areas are overwhelmingly white, much of the despair translates to anger against minorities who are supposedly taking the livelihood or at least the social status of the white workers. Diana Mutz (2018) found that voting for Trump tracked perceived threats to group status, not economic woes.  The suicidal tip of the iceberg reveals the degree to which rational self-interest, as normally understood, fails to explain right-wing attitudes, in the United States and elsewhere.  Mass shootings, suicide bombings, genocides, and voting for amoral strongmen are manifestations of a self-destructive level of hate and fear.

            In short, the United States faces a unique crisis, involving a shift far to the right of anything seen before except in the Confederacy before 1861.  Racist and religious prejudice financed by giant firms are taking over politics (Beauchamp 2018; Lopez 2017; MacLean 2017; Metzl 2019).  From the farthest right, there are calls for civil war and mass killings (Nova 2017).  Justice is corrupted at the highest levels (Eisinger 2017; Neuborne 2019).  Democracy is suffering from increasing distortion (Browning 2018).  The human costs are far worse than most people realize.  For example, American children are 76% more likely to die before reaching 21 than children in other developed countries; high infant mortality and enormous levels of gunshot deaths are the main causes (Kliff 2018).  Even Francis Fukuyama, famed for his overoptimistic views of the future, has recognized the darkness (Fukuyama 2016).

             Politics becomes more emotional, more passionate, and less civil, as shown by Lilliana Mason in her book Uncivil Agreement (2018).  An increasing number of young, uneducated white men have flocked to Trump’s standard.  They are frightened by the rise of minorities and immigrants, and of more educated workers, all of whom compete directly for economic position.  In a world where memories of the 2008 recession are still fresh and where wages are stagnant, these fears are expectable.

            An economic downturn or fear of losing the 2020 elections could precipitate dictatorship and its inevitable result (Neuborne 2019:227-228).  It is possible that the Republican administration will crack down around 2020, declare a state of emergency, suspend the Constitution, and begin full-scale genocide (on this possibility see Goitein 2019).  The Republicans, like Hitler (and apparently copying him), have engaged in widespread hatred.  Trump, in campaigning and in tweets, has attacked Muslims, Mexicans, Jews, African-Americans, Native Americans, liberals, poor people, feminists, and others beyond counting.  Followers have added their voices, sometimes advocating extermination of gays (as preacher Kevin Swanson and several other right-wing “Christians” have done).

The centrists, liberals, and moderate-conservatives of the United States have very little time to unite and stop this.  Without unity, it is unstoppable.  The stalwart unity of the reactionaries and disunion and mutual criticism on the left are expectable and typical of periods of declining empire.  The people who were dominant want it all back, and what should be the rising and progressive fraction are despondent and easily set against each other.

            The center and left in the United States have recently fallen back on being “the opposition”—opposing rather than proposing.  We need to borrow a leaf from parliamentary systems of government.  These usually have a government-in-opposition: a shadow cabinet made up of opposition figures who discuss policy and plan what to do if they cycle back into power.  The United States now needs a Democrat group who can develop policy and unite the party around it, via opposition figures serving as virtual cabinet ministers, heads of agencies, and the rest of the government machinery.  History teaches that people must go against something to unite successfully.  We can only do that in the name of a higher, nobler, more inclusive goal.  Even Hitler knew enough to do it.  We certainly should.

            We have seen how certain “progressives” of the 2010s failed disastrously by opposing their antagonism toward men and whites to right-wing antagonism toward women and minorities.  One does not fight fire with fire in a gasoline storage depot.

5.  A Dark Future

            We have a new mode of production, that unites China, North Korea, and Venezuela with the United States despite alleged differences between “communism” and “capitalism.”   The new mode is one in which giant primary-production corporations, especially oil, coal, and agribusiness, control the economy.  They are tied closely to government by subsidies and special favors and rules as well as by bribery and corruption.  In other countries, they are actually a part of government.  Big oil and big coal—the reactionary energy-suppliers that should now be displaced by solar and wind power—have an especially distorting effect, because they are in such desperate need of maintaining political reaction and fighting environmental protection.  Their role is like that of slavery and the slave trade in past times, not only the Atlantic trade of the 18th and 19th centuries but also the Byzantine and Genoese slave trade from the Black Sea region in the Middle Ages.  All these had enormous distorting effects on politics and culture, driving reactionary and anti-Enlightenment views and policies.  The thousand-year cultural stagnation of the Byzantine Empire seems due to this.  Relying on reactionary and harmful methods of getting basic energy is culturally fatal.

            Capitalism in the narrow sense—control of society by capitalists—is dead.  If “neoliberalism” ever existed, it does so no more.  (The term has been used so loosely that it has no established meaning; it once meant the extreme free-market view.)  Giant firms working through tyrannical governments are the future, or at least the foreseeable future.  Since the rapid growth of these extractive industries cannot go on much longer, a hard limit will be set within 100 years (and probably within 50), leading probably to mass starvation, hopefully to some search for solutions.

            Even the dinosaur firms are somewhat horrified at what is happening in the US, Turkey (Altınay 2019), Hungary, and elsewhere, but they cannot escape it now.  They depend on racists, religious fanatics, and other extremists.   The right wing worldwide has abandoned traditional conservatism in favor of an agenda that is anti-intellectual, anti-education, anti-science, anti-environment, anti-health-care, anti-poor, anti-young, anti-old, anti-minority, religiously bigoted in favor of extremist right-wing beliefs, anti-women, militarist, gun crazy, violent, pro-corporation and anti-taxpayer, corrupt, pro-unequal treatment and inequality, opposed to all human and civil rights, pro-dictatorship, anti-freedom of conscience, strongly hierarchic.  In their world, the powerful can do what they please and are above the law, the weak do what they are told.

            Primary production by itself is not the predictor of evil.  Evil does come from the primary-production end of the economy, but only from the fraction of it that is controlled by powerful landlord or corporate interests.  The evil done in the world for the last 200 years has been largely at the bidding of plantations, fossil fuel companies, agribusiness, and related interests.  The driver is the slave-worked plantation and its modern descendants:  an economy based on a tiny, rich, powerful elite ruling a vast servile labor force of which most are expendable and can thus be killed in unlimited numbers to maintain discipline or simply for convenience.  Very different were the old monarchies, even tyrannies, which could not kill at will—they usually could not spare so much labor.   

            In the future, worldwide, concentration of power and wealth will go on, while resources diminish and global warming runs on apace—unless the human race sees fit to stop fighting and hating and start working for the common good.  The economy remains one of throughput, as opposed to efficiency and recycling. 

            The Republicans, and equivalent parties in other countries from Russia to Turkey to Brazil, are now trapped.  They depend financially on a handful of giant corporations that are increasingly acting against the interests of the majority, and are increasingly dependent on bribing politicians for support—including exemption from laws, especially laws protecting people against physical damage.  China’s tobacco industry operates with the full support of the government, though tobacco kills 1.2 million Chinese a year, because the government depends on tobacco taxes and many individual politicians depend on bribes (Kohrman et al. 2018).  The oil interests occupy a similar position in the United States.

            The future after 2030-2050 is clear enough: the world will move toward emulation of existing top-down primary-production systems.  These are recapitulating the society of the old agrarian empires.  Some 20% of the population will be starving, 65% barely surviving, 10% secure but not well off, 4% well off, 1% ruling and super rich.  There will be a steady downward sift as population falls, first from starvation, then from disease as health care gets cut back. 

            The world has made a collective decision to have one final orgy of consumption, rather than converting to sustainability and assuring a future for our children and grandchildren.  This appears in the rise of fanatically anti-environmental regimes in the United States, Brazil under Jair Bolsonaro, and elsewhere.  The rise of strongmen—individuals who specifically and explicitly violate laws and morals to show they are above such things—has given us fascist leaders feeding on hate not only in those cases but also (currently) in Hungary, India, Israel, Kazakhstan, Philippines, Poland , Russia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, and elsewhere.  Such strongmen above the law are recorded in the most ancient texts; Nebuchanezzar was an early one, followed by a whole list of Roman emperors, then such conquerors as Tamerlane and Henry VIII.  The Greek and Roman historians already had the type thoroughly described.  They always have the support of publics who feel threatened by change and progress, especially the poorer members of majorities, but also the primary-production and rentier interests.  Today, big oil and urban mobs take the place of a team formerly made up of rentier landlords and rural laborers.

            Today’s strongmen share a whole range of characteristics.  First and foremost, they sanction their rule by appeals to extremist religion or its ideological equivalent (especially communism).  This religion is virtually identical whether called “Christian,” “Muslim,” “Jewish,” “Buddhist,” or “socialist.”  It sanctions total power in the hands of the ruler; repression of women, often to the point of rendering them passive vessels of men; violence in defense of the faith; denial of equal rights to those not in the specific cult in question; and extreme opposition to the messages of peace, love, harmony, forgiveness, and charity that are the hallmarks of the actual faiths claimed.  Second, they lead attacks on weaker minorities, whether political, ethnic, religious, or lifestyle. 

Juntas with similar amoral characteristics, but lacking the strongman image, control another few dozen countries.  Democracy is on the wane worldwide.  Strongmen sometimes limit themselves to military dictatorship (as currently in Egypt) but more often invoke full-scale fascist regimes, with ethnic hatred, fusion of government and giant corporations, militarism, glorification of force, and other fascist principles.  They are skilled at mobilizing otherwise peaceful, passive majorities against minorities.

            In all cases, the fundamental ideology is one of rigid hierarchy, with respect or adulation due to superiors and stronger individuals, contempt and oppression due to those below.  Callousness or contempt of the poor and of less powerful miorities shades over into outright sadistic treatment, of which the ultimate form is full genocide.  This ideology follows from the “conservative” reading of Nietzsche (which I accept as the correct one). Nietzsche did not inspire it—he properly credited it to the more authoritarian side of ancient Greek thought—but he expressed it, and his expression inspired the Nazis, the Randians, and others who went well beyond his glorification of power into outright glorification of mass deaths. 

This form of thought animates many a weak bully, who invariably calls out his opponents as “weak” or “snowflakes.”  It goes with dismissal of all well-meaning public projects as “fantasy,” but glorification of the military and of warlike adventuring.  It also, as pointed out repeatedly by George Orwell, goes with ferociously anti-intellectual, anti-nature, and anti-art attitudes.  Orwell’s portrayal of destruction of high culture and promotion of pop trash in 1984 and Animal Farm is expanded in most of his essays.  It turned out to be eerily predictive of the Republican preference for a reality-TV star and public buffoon over a whole slate of veteran politicians.

The difference from the old days is that with better means of surveillance and massacre, monitoring and genocidal elimination of dissidents will replace the wars and campaigns of old.  North Korea, China, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and several Middle Eastern countries already display this regime.  Turkey, Thailand, India, the United States, Israel, Venezuela, Russia, Hungary, Poland, Brazil, and several other countries are moving rapidly toward it.  Many of these are oil countries; most have powerful primary-production interests dominating their politics.  Interesting exceptions include Hungary and Israel, which have diversified and progressive economies but have gone fascist.  More interesting are the countries with powerful primary-production interests that are not going fascist.  Norway and Canada depend heavily on oil, but are developed countries, so are more diversified.  Bolivia, Zambia, and a few other countries are anomalously liberal for countries dominated by extraction.

            The “base” for the leaders of these countries seems largely the same, especially in the cases of the United States, Brazil, Turkey, Hungary, and Russia, and it is similar to Hitler’s base in Germany.  Older people of the dominant ethnic and religious group, especially if involved in traditional occupations like farming and small business, make up most of it, so that rural areas are solidly right-wing even if cities are solidly liberal.  The big businessmen in dinosaur firms and the rootless young men (and some women) of the dominant groups are heavily involved.  Puritanical religion, as opposed to liberal or social-oriented religion, is heavily involved.  Less educated or more traditionally trained individuals from the dominant ethnic and religious groups are overrepresented.  The young, the minorities, and the occupants of socially oriented or new-type occupational roles are less involved.

            The common thread seems to be that wealth is rapidly increasing but is being captured by the top 1%, while the masses stagnate economically.  The most frustrated and resentful are the less progressive fractions of the majority ethnic groups, and they are the drivers of the fascist trend, as they often were in the earlier fascist wave of the 1930s (a point made by Edsall 2018).  Really rough times have sometimes led to fascistic or psychopathic leaders taking over, but real hardship often tends to make people unite behind a capable leader rather than a merely evil one.  The breakdown of the United States in 1860 gave us Lincoln; growth appropriated by the rich while working-class whites lost out gave us Trump.

            Democracy, in the end, may prove unstable—a brief interlude between the monarchies of the past and the fascist tyrannies rising in the present.  Resource crunches may simply make it impossible for the good to prevail.  However, this is not necessary at present.  We can stop the downward slide.

            There is one striking conclusion that emerges from all:  Evil is almost always due to power challenged.  Rulers consolidating dictatorship, totalitarian rulers under threat, schoolyard bullies dominating weak but smart kids, insecure and inadequate husbands beating wives, politicians facing trial, oil company bosses facing better energy generation and consequent loss of power and position, druglords facing upstart thugs all have this in common, and above all majorities facing imagined challenge by immigrants and minorities. 

            The only hope lies in eliminating total power and restraining by law and superior force those who abuse power.  This will not be adequate, but it is the basic first step.

6.  A Final Note

            Many people of the younger generation now appear to be giving up, saying “The United States has always been like this.”  They can point to a bloody history of slavery, genocide of Native Americans, internment of Japanese and (some) Germans, Jim Crow laws, denial of the vote to women, the Texas Rangers and their institutionalized harassment of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, anti-gay violence, and much more. 

            However, those ills have always been challenged and all were eventually stopped, or at least made illegal.  Slavery and racism go on, but underground.  The campaigns to stop them were widely supported, and involved much heroism and sacrifice.  Slavery was stopped by a bloody war.  The women’s suffrage movement, the labor movement, the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, and other movements involved a great deal of bloodletting. They prevailed in the end.

Part IV.  What to Do About It?

1. Trying to Cope

            Most communities and states have systems of checks and balances.  It is when these break down, or are deliberately dismantled, that the psychopaths and hatemongers take over, and genocide can begin.  We have observed above that the two commonest reasons for murder, whether genocide or individual, are desire for power and desire for acceptance and approval.  Frustration of these leads to escalating conflict, especially when someone with an unusually high lack of perceived control or of perceived approval feels frustrated in those needs.  The more the perceived weakness and failure, and the more the frustration, the more the overreaction to a slight, and the more the resulting conflict spins out of control.

            Throughout history, people have had to cope with human evil.  Religion has been by far the main and most important way, over and above ordinary community solidarity.  Religion has produced countless saints, sages, holy men, holy women, teachers, and meditators, many of whom were genuinely virtuous people—though many were not, at least by most modern standards.  Religion has been the carrier vehicle for most of the moral messages in human history. 

            However, religion has, notoriously, been the excuse for many of the most horrific mass murders.  No religion has a notably better track record than any other.  Christianity became the excuse for the Crusades.  Islam moved all too quickly from a call for unity and peace to a call for jihad.  Monotheistic religions appear to have a worse record than others, but the others are far from perfect.  Classical Greek stoicism and related philosophies of ataraxia (suppressing desire) became excuses for expanding the Greek and Roman empires.  Even Buddhism, which explicitly bans violence and teaches compassion to all beings, became the religion of the samurai, and has been the excuse for countless killings over time, including two of the worst genocides in modern history: the long-continuing campaigns to exterminate the Tamils in Sri Lanka and the Rohingya Muslims in Burma.  There are many other cases in history.  The Rohingya massacres should end the stereotypes about peaceable Buddhism and violent Islam widely current in American society.

            The basic problem with religion is that it claims to have the one absolute truth.  This leads to intolerance for other claims, even obviously correct ones (see the fate of evolution by natural selection, as a theory, in religious societies).  Moreover, organized religions generally have organized hierarchies, often with a single apical leader, and such hierarchies inevitably reprise Rummel’s principle:  “Power kills, and absolute power kills absolutely” (Rummel 1998).  The same dismal fate occurs with religion-like ideological systems, notoriously including communism and fascism.  

Since all cultures and traditions include alternative morals and moral codes, religions that are founded on impeccable principles of love, care, justice, and empathy always develop countertraditions that teach hate, cruelty, and butchery, from human sacrifice to burning heretics at the stake.  These are then often held-especially by rulers consolidating power—to be the highest of moral goods, superior to the everyday care and help.  Ordinary selfish greed can be handled; sadism considered as highest morality is harder to control.

The alternative is not abandonment of religion or of truth, but of expanding the basic principle of intelligent enquiry: we are searching for truth but have not found it all, and the more people cooperate in searching for truths, the better we all do.

            There is a common theme of religion turned evil: it is obsessed with control, especially control over the more vulnerable and less dominant members of society.  The clearest and most obvious common theme of religions that harm is that they focus on harming and oppressing women.  This is the distinguishing feature between right-wing and liberal Christianity, extremist and ordinary Islam, ultra-Orthodox and reform Judaism, extremist and ordinary Buddhism, and so on throughout the world’s religions.  Repression of women usually carries over to repression and abuse of children (“Spare the rod and spoil the child,” a folk version of Proverbs 23:13-14).  Degree of intolerance for heresies, including the most minor and trivial divergences from practice, also tracks religion turned harmful; the opposite is ecumenism or tolerance.

            Religions all seem to fall into the trap of seeing ordinary innocent need-satisfaction and fun as “sin,” while social jockeying for position and control is taken for granted, and even put to evil use to promote the faith.  No religion seems to face the obvious fact that most evil in the world is done to maintain social position or control.  Religions have hierarchic orders, organized monasteries and priesthoods, and so on, thus leaving themselves open for the worst sins of all while fighting the trivial ones. 

            Killing desire, the goal of some religions and philosophies, frequently succeeds in killing desire for the morally good, while leaving hatred intact.  At best, it allows people to avoid confronting the world, including its evils.

            Some argue that religion is “the problem,” but the alternatives do not have a good track record.  Nationalism, fascism, capitalism, and communism are the leading ideologies developed as alternatives.  Stalin and Mao repressed religion (all religion) with even more sadistic enthusiasm than Christians in the 17th century demonstrated in repressing heretics. 

            The problem is clear: all these are social, all of them define groups, and it is social group hatred that is the main and usual problem.  Religions usually blame greed and lust, but cannot get rid of them.  The real problem is social hate, and the religions do not even try to get rid of it.  They often cause it.  Religion and its imitators provides communitas, but also unreal abstractions and unprovable visions.  People then commit to those, and carry out real murders in support of them.  In short, grand ideological frameworks are not going to save us.

2. First Steps to Policy: Evaluating What Helps

            From what went before, it appears that the current problems facing the world are best conceptualized under five heads, from more specific and immediate to general and deep-rooted:

            Saving the environment, especially from dinosauric interests such as Big Oil and Big Agribusiness.  This means protecting biodiversity, switching immediately and thoroughly to renewable energy, and being as sustainable as possible—by whatever measure is useful.

            Restoring the rule of law, at the expense of the fascistic despots that now run all the largest nations and many of the smaller ones.

            Fighting racist, religious and ideological bigotry and hatred, by teaching tolerance, valuing diversity, and social solidarity.

            Getting people to stop, think, learn, and make reasonable decisions, instead of going with exaggerated media-driven overreactions.

            Above all, the real back story: dealing with the chronic social fears and stresses that create most of the problem.  This requires fair, responsive, responsible governments and leaders.  Such are now exceedingly rare, and the worst sort of strongman leaders control dozens of countries.  Restoring fair, equitable governance is clearly basic to security and thus to reassuring people, reducing threat, making individuals feel capable of dealing with threat, and thus greatly reducing the drive to hate and harm.

            We also desperately need an educational system that will create and foster self-confidence, self-control, concern for quality of life, and dedication to self-improvement.  These are necessary to blocking hatred and defensiveness.  People need to see themselves as independent agents improving the world, or at least their own lives, rather than followers and mindless conformists.

Obviously, we also need to increase such basic amenities as medical care, education, and justice.

To do all this, we will have to work on technology, ideology, morality, and praxis.  What follows, for most of the rest of this book, is heavily moral.  It will sound sententious to many, but I believe there is a need to establish an agreed moral ground as well as dealing with practical issues and stopping violence.

            The rest of this section will be largely devoted to my ideas on these topics.  I claim no great originality, but will not be citing literature except where I am directly using someone else’s ideas.

            In general, social change comes from individuals working within existing structures, often modifying those structures in the process.  There is a front story of individual decisions, a mid story of human context, and a back story of demography, climate, existing rules and laws, and historical contingencies that create a “path dependent” situation.  Charismatic or brilliant leaders succeed, but only in hopeful times.  They cannot do much in reactionary times and regimes.  Democracy helps, but reactionary democracy does not.

            Good behavior does not come easily.  One must not only be moral, but—more importantly—able to deal rationally and as coolly as possible with actual harms and stresses. The innate impulses toward developing morality stem from human needs for warm sociability.  As we have seen, developing these requires at least some support, empathy, and empowerment of children growing up, and self-efficacy among adults.  Since people being much worse than many of us once thought, we need stricter laws and sanctions.  Recent events worldwide have proved that we most especially need laws against malicious lying for political reasons.  We also need much stricter sanctions against betrayal, bullying, and hate crimes.  We need far better civil rights protection.   The Founding Fathers lived at a time when politically active people could be assumed to be at least somewhat brave and responsible. Not now.

Violence normally requires weakness and irrationality to drive it, so strength and reasonableness help.  However, there are exceptions.  Violence is the default recourse and first recourse in warrior cultures, though mostly in intergroup relations.  Culture enters in to tell individuals when to be violent.  In any society, violence can be dealt with only by strict, fair laws, with no corruption.  A wider moral shell is necessary, but not sufficient.  There must be law and order with firm, impartial enforcement; norms of peace; conflict resolution mechanisms, formal and informal, general and specific.  Experience teaches that there must also be something adventurous but nonviolent for young men to do.  Ordinary sports appear to fail at this, but exploring, seafaring, and the like are available.  Peace is also helped by an expanding economy that raises all boats, or at least prevents groups from sinking.  This need not be ecologically ruinous; we can expand into sustainable energy and services instead of mass-produced bulk goods.

Recall that it is easier to unite people against a common enemy, and to get them to follow orders if those orders involve destroying a hated or despised group, than to unite people in the cause of love and care.  People are sociable, and usually loving and caring to their close kin and friends, but fear and hate dominate public interaction unless rigidly combatted.

The one thing that almost everyone agrees on, in politics, is that the first requirement for a government is that it protects its people.  Until now, that has been interpreted as military protection, with economic protection added to the list in the 20th century.  Today, the dangers to a given citizenry are, first, environmental (especially climate change); second, genocide and related corrupt and violent internal politics; third, preventable diseases and health risks.  The first and third were not manageable by government when the Founding Fathers wrote.  The second was, but was far less a problem than external invasion; such is no longer the case. 

The citizenry also has a right and a need to be protected from hatred and hate crimes, and from major loss in quality of life, as by loss in aesthetic opportunities, nature, historic monuments, and the like.  Protection of economic benefits by managing the economy well is clearly necessary, but now less important than preventing the catastrophic disasters that climate change and pollution are bringing about.

3.  A different kind of civilization

            An ideal to strive toward is a civilization depending on growth in environmental and cultural amenities rather than mass-production of manufactured goods.  We currently measure economic growth and development by the amount of value created by human activity, rather than by the amount of value overall.  Mining, manufacturing, and any form of resource-transforming count—even if all they are doing is producing pollution (Anderson 2010). Often, this means that pure destruction is highly valued on paper, though it brings nothing but harm to actual people.  Preserving nature, allowing environments to recover, and creating personal amenities not traded in the market do not count.  Art and craft production does not count unless it is counted in the manufacturing and sales statistics.  Singing songs for one’s children does not count, but polluting the air with hideous electronic music does. 

            An opposite model of how to run a civilization existed in old Southeast Asia.  Nobody assessed economic growth, though the governments did tax value created.  What mattered was saving forests and fruit trees, growing rich and complex crop assemblages, creating beautiful arts, living happily, and letting others live as they wished.  Societies were ruled by kings, but were astonishingly free and open.  The landscapes were beautiful, and got richer, lusher, and more diverse over time, because agriculture was devoted to producing human food rather than industrial goods.  There was some war and killing, but nothing remotely like what we have seen in the past 100 years in the world.  The one great problem was disease, which was rampant, but with modern medicine this has been stopped, and lifespans are comparable to the west.  The problems now are rapid population growth in a context of even more rapid shift to western industrialization and destruction.  Similar, if less materially successful, cultures existed in other areas worldwide.  The Maya of Mexico and Central America have been notably good at maintaining ecosystems, for instance.

            We are not going to return to Southeast Asia in 1900, but we can use their design principles: a world where people are helped by moving toward the more natural, more simple, more beautiful, and more sustainable.  Our current industrial civilization sets all its incentives, subsidies, and accounting in the opposite direction: valuing destruction of nature to make vast and complex amounts of ugly stuff by unsustainable practices.

We need to value trees, grasses, gardens, birds, fish, landscapes, clean water, health, good food, beautiful art and music, and other amenities, rather than sheer throughput of materials.  Bhutan, basically a Southeast Asian state in economy and ecology though culturally and linguistically Tibetan, has in fact done this, measuring its “gross domestic happiness” via such indices.  They show a genuine alternative, a way out of our rush to collapse.

4.  Education

To recapitulate:  the most direct and basic cause of evil is anger turning to hate and hate turning to violence.  This usually comes from strong reaction to social slights, threats, and harms.  Escalating anger leads to fighting.

In such cases, the food of the bad wolf is brooding on insults and personal offenses.  Weak and defensive individuals, especially those that have physical power (often in the form of guns) but lack of perceived self-efficacy in social life, are the most avid consumers of that food, and the most dangerous of people.

On the wider scale, genocides and mass killings occur when ruthless leaders take power through extremist ideologies, using those ideologies to whip up hatred that unites masses against victims.  In this case, there is an initial coterie of zealots and then a vast mass of weak, conformist followers who allow their everyday frustrations and resentments to be mobilized in the cause of destruction.  Once again: the food of the bad wolf is ruminating on minor slights and harms, in this case leading to weak and defensive persecution of scapegoats.  The weak and defensive conformists are the voters who vote for vicious dictators, the passive enablers of dictatorial coups, and then the easily-swayed subjects of brutal regimes.

Part of this food for the bad wolf is the insidious thought that some people don’t matter.  Education must also teach people to control hostility and aggression, the real problems in cases of hatred.  Teaching students that hatred and unprovoked aggression are unacceptable—morally wrong and socially destructive—is obviously necessary. To feed the good wolf, we need to feed the irenic and full-person sides of human nature.  The best food for good wolf is reflecting that every being is important, and every human deserves consideration.  Common decency and honesty would be enough to keep the good wolf fed and the bad one at bay.   Surely schools, media, and public life can teach that much. 

Education therefore needs to talk at length about domestic violence, bullying, genocide, and war.  All educators—including parents and, indeed, everyone—must teach young people not to hate, not to brood about trivial slights, and not to escalate conflict.  Anger and fighting have their place, but overreaction and hatred do not.  People need to be taught about bullies and the strongmen who are bullies writ large.  They also need to grow up in a world of enforced laws against such behaviors, to get a sense of the need for the rule of law.

Conflict resolution is thus important.  Children and adults need to learn how to deal with conflicts other than by angering and fighting.  This should be combined with teaching them not to displace their fear, stress, and aggression.  Specifics include better parenting and better advice and counseling.

Education must return to teaching civics and basic civil morality—not elaborate or puritanical rules, but simple common decency.  American history must go back to teaching the ideals that founded the nation and have continued to improve over time.  American education has suffered terribly from both jingoistic idolization of America, denying its past of racism, genocide, and slavery, and hypercritical focus on such ills at the expense of recording the ideals and the progress toward them.  One would hope for education in the great literature and arts of the past—the whole world’s past—but teaching the “classics” did not save Europe from fascism and communism, so perhaps something was missed in the old days of liberal education.

More serious is the need to require and demand that public and private education teach verified science and absolutely ban global warming denial, anti-evolution, anti-vaccination propaganda, and other outright lies propagated for the purpose of harm.  We are not policing education at all well.  When it teaches hateful lies, we are corrupting the nation.  Freedom of speech absolutely must not extend to freedom of schools to teach lies.  This is among the most immediate and critical of needs.

Schools need to change profoundly, to teach civility and ordinary decency and to deal with values.  Today, schools have come increasingly to drill students mindlessly in basic skills, to be assessed by endless standardized tests that kill thought and destroy creativity.  Some students report writing stories and poems surreptitiously because the schools discourage such behavior.  We need to go back to older ideals.  The most important thing to teach is civil behavior, not STEM skills.  Teaching students how to learn, how to do research or at least find out accurate information, is vital also.  Teaching truth is important, teaching how to tell truth from lies is even more so, but teaching students how to find out for themselves and improve their knowledge and accuracy of knowledge is most important of all. 

Traditional education, worldwide, usually taught skills through doing, in an apprentice role.  It taught values and abstract principles through stories and songs (see Kopnina and Shoreman-Ouimet 2011, especially my essay therein, Anderson 2011).  It taught ordinary declarative knowledge through taking young people out in the world and letting them experience what they were learning.  That last is no longer adequate—knowledge is not just local any more—but should be pursued as much as possible.  Certainly we need to return to these principles.  They worked; our modern system does not teach well, except when it uses them.  Nobody expects students to learn sports, or musical instrument playing, or doctoring, through lectures.  Nobody should expect morals to be learned without songs and stories.

The other point, building self-efficacy to prevent weak defensiveness and conformity to dictators, involves teaching students to do their own thinking and acting—to be independent and creative.  This involves making students (and everyone) do their own work, rather than rote memorizing and taking tests.  It also means moving people away from radio, television, and other passive-listener media, toward active interchange.  Even video games at least involve some effort.  Messaging, email, and the social media may yet save us.

People also need to know that someone, somewhere, is backing them up.  Education needs to deal with issues of alienation, isolation, prejudice, rejection, and marginalization.  This is a widely recognized point, but widely ignored in a world that will not spend money on schools or psychological help.

Clearly, education, therapeutic enough to cure people of weak defensiveness, hatred, and scapegoating, is the most important need in combatting evil.  Now that we know the basics of feeding good and bad wolves, we need to reform educational systems accordingly.

5.  Some Moral Principles

          The Seven Deadly Sins are all too well known, as identified by the early Christian church from late Greek thought, but no one seems to recall the matching set of Seven Virtues.  They are: Faith, hope, charity, justice, prudence, temperance, fortitude.  This seems as reasonable a place to start as any, but the following will highlight justice-as-fairness, following John Rawls, and tolerance, following none of the Seven.  Intolerance was not a bad thing in ancient times. 

If  people were really selfish, they would want what we know people really enjoy: happy, cooperative, mutually beneficial, warm societies and communities above all else—not self-aggrandizement at the expense of their friends and families and communities.  If people were not mean, they would hate disease and misery and unnecessary suffering—not each other or science or nature.  If they were interested in actual control rather than power to bully others, they would hate autocracy and unnecessary hierarchy. 

Caring is the nexus, the alternative for which we strive.  We seek especially the broad sense: wanting good for others and wanting a good and harmonious society (even infants want that).  The Bible calls this agapé or caritas.  Buddhists call it compassion.  Humans being so prone to domination by the bad wolf, we must err on the side of caution, caring, helping, reching out, and empowering. 

Viktor Frankl noticed that survivors of Hitler’s concentration camps were those that had something deeply important to live for and be responsible for.  Usually, this would be either families or work that was a real Calling rather than a mere job.  Sometimes it was religion.  He spent his life extending this observation, learning that almost all people need or want a deep meaning of this sort in their lives (Frankl 1959, 1978).  This is one basic counter to living for hate.  Unfortunately, and perhaps ironically, group conflict is one of the most powerful ways to give meaning to life (Rovenpor et al. 2019).  Nothing is more meaningful to people than fighting for a cause.   One must use caution in deploying the classic “work and love” in support of tolerance.

            The other counters are the opposites of excessive anger: reasonableness and peacefulness.  The opposites of hatred are tolerance and valuing diversity.  The opposites of callousness are responsibility, but above all empathy and compassion, which may in the end be the most important qualities for all good-doing.  The daily kibble of the good wolf is support, empowerment, caring, compassion, mutual aid, mutual responsibility, mutual respect, and mutual concern.  The red meat that gives it strength to win is conscious work to create and build social solidarity. 

            In dealing with evil, we need to attack it directly: to oppose rational truth to hatred, political lies, oppression, cruelty, abuse of power, and the summation of all these in fascism and similar political ideologies.  We need to call out such things directly, constantly, and explicitly. 

            Above all, we need to drive rational, reasonable thinking and behavior against the irrationality (sometimes downright insanity) of murderous harm.

            Nothing helps except dealing directly with it.  When your baby throws up all over you, all you can do is clean it up.  Prayer doesn’t help, good thoughts don’t help, meditation doesn’t help.  You keep loving the baby and do what is necessary.

            The only direct way to stop murder and mass violence is through appealing to reason and rational discourse while also enforcing strict laws within a rule of law.

            This, by itself, is not enough.  We need to oppose evil with cultural and social teachings of help and unity, sustained by the innate moral or premoral sense of mutual aid and generosity that seem to inhere in humans.  Directly relevant, also, are natural interest—especially active warm interest—and curiosity, and the urge to learn more in order to improve.  Natural toughness and innocent enjoyment are reasonable and useful.  

            The reason that advancing the good so often fails is not mere selfishness.  It is antagonism to cooperating and to working with others as equals, especially as seen in refusal to learn, change, and self-improve as part of the process.

            The cure is seeing all people as worthwhile and that we are all in this together.  The long first part of this book demonstrated at length that the root problem is rejecting people for reasons of “essence”: the false belief that “race,” ethnicity, religion, and the like are somehow basic essences that condemn whole groups of people.  The only cure is seeing all as not only tolerable but worthy of help and of civil behavior.  Ideally, they are all equal before the law, and equal in opportunity—a hope not approximated in modern societies.

            Seeing all as worthy requires checking excessive anger.  It also requires proactive compassion and empathy, to avoid callous bureaupathy and similar evils.  Studies on how to further such goals exist (Batson 2011; McLaren 2013; Zaki 2019).  Our authors, notably Beck (1999) and Maslow (1970), provide ideas and experiences.

            The task is to minimize both the level of anger and number of things that arouse it.  A fascist dictator will try to find as many reasons for anger as he can, finding ways to include almost everyone in the violent movement (see e.g. Traverso 2019 on recent successes and failures at whipping up hatreds in Europe).

I recognize the drawbacks of utilitarian calculation, but I cannot see any way to evaluate policies and politics except by net help to people and the environment versus net harm to same. Things like peace and freedom must be calculated within that shell.  There are times when peace is wrong, such as when one’s country is invaded.  There are necessary limits to freedom, such as denying people the right to bully others.  Proactive effective help is good, by definition, but can be worse than nothing when it is badly planned, or unneeded and intrusive.  The usual social-conformity measures are usually helpful, keeping society together, but they can be bad: being too conformist, going along to get along, and the like. 

            Helping requires self-efficacy, reasonableness, self-control, self-confidence, and courage (i.e. ability to go into unknown and risky, where self-confidence fails).  Obviously, parents and schools need to do everything possible to develop these.  Self-confidence, including confidence in one’s moral principles and above all confidence in one’s control of one’s life, is the key virtue for preventing collapse into blind conformity, including conformity to genocidal leaders.  It also prevents collapse into domestic violence and other individual violent acts. 

            The countervailing forces are indifference (resulting in callousness) and actual hate.  Hatred in particular must be fought wherever and whenever it arises.  If it becomes pervasive in society, violence becomes inevitable.  Genocide is the ultimate case of hatred spun out of control; it can only be stopped in advance by fighting hate and displacing evil leaders.

The usual moral touchstone, the Golden Rule, does not work perfectly.  My neighbors do not take well to being treated to Brussels sprouts, Scottish murder ballads, or displays of Chinese art.  Granted that such individual preferences are probably not what was intended by the Golden Rule, where do we draw the line?  I do not inflict my rather old-fashioned Christian morality on my kids, let alone the world at large.  Conversely, I would not accept the hierarchic social morality that works in and is highly popular in Singapore and China.  We simply cannot use ourselves as measures of all things and all people. 

            The only reasonable touchstone is helping people.  But what helps?  Is it help in their terms, or in mine?  One hopes for easy cases—things that are recognized by almost everyone as helping, such as feeding the hungry.  Not all cases are easy.  If I were in Singapore (where I lived and worked for a while many years ago), would I work to advance its quite popular but rigid moral code, which—then at least—banned chewing gum, rock music, and Playboy?  Or would I work to advance freedom and liberty of conscience, according to my own view of helping?  Such cases can only be decided by detailed consideration and consultation.

As David Hume said, “Reason is, and must ever be, the slave of the passions” (Hume 1969 [1739-1740]:462).  Reason is a good slave.  It is the only way to get things right so that we can survive.  It is the only possible route to change and improvement.  But it matters more to get the passions right, such that reason is a slave to the good ones.  It is at least as competent and hard-working a slave to evil as to good. 

One opposite to evil is the “universal positive regard” of the psychologists (Rogers 1961), but that is a process goal, not achievable in the real world.  Checking evil often involves direct fighting against real enemies, so life cannot be free from harming others.  This multiplies the need for rational thought, since any irrationality can lead to harming the wrong people.

The cure for misdirected aggression and rejection is action that is as helping as possible.  Most religions have come up with this idea, but only certain forms of the religion feature it.  It has been termed the “Social Gospel” in Christianity.  It also characterizes reform Judaism, Ahmadiyya, the Three Teachings tradition in China, various forms of Buddhism, and other traditions.  There needs to be a Goddess of Common Sense.   

The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed ten ways to fight hatred: Act, join forces, support the victims, speak up, educate yourself, create an alternative, pressure leaders, stay engaged, teach acceptance, dig deeper.  Desire for wealth, power, status, standing, and sociability can lead to positive-sum games and thus to goodness and progress, but all too often desire leads to zero-sum or negative-sum playing.  Then, when others push back, conflict escalates, eventually spinning out of control unless damped down.  To be evil, this must—by my definition, at least—reach irrational levels.   

Damping must start with desire (as religions have always taught).  It cannot end there.  We must teach and invoke policy to get people to play positive-sum games and to be reasonable.  We must put in place conflict-resolution mechanisms (Beals and Siegal 1966).   We must teach a morality of peaceful behavior instead of vengeance and predation.  Finally, we must outlaw actual harming, including indirect harms that are currently accepted, such as pollution damage.  Damping down conflict is the most immediate and direct need, however.  The greatest problem in conflict, always, is escalation.  Really successful ways to damp that down, all the way from playground fights and intimate partner violence to international conflicts and genocides, are not always deployed, and more research on them is seriously needed.  As we have noted above, the ordinary small-scale tensions, problems, and slights of daily life keep people in a state that allows sudden positive-feedback loops to emerge and lead to exploding conflict.

Since cowardice and self-doubt lie behind so many of the problems, there is a serious need to promote self-efficacy, self-reliance, and ability to act—notably including the knowledge of how to de-escalate conflict.

People are often too busy or defensive or simply lazy to work hard for the good; we cannot expect everybody to do it.  Dealing with indirect problems like environmental woes is especially difficult.  People discount the future, are too optimistic, and hate the endless small adjustments that fixing the environment entails.  It is easier to go for one big fix, such as a war. 

Since overreaction and misreaction are root problems, the start of the cure is facts.  We have to get science back to a place where people will accept scientific findings.  After that, the clearest intervention needed is demanding civil rights and civil behavior.

6. Background: A Wider Moral Shell

            This provides a guide for a moral shell involving solidarity with others above all, especially tolerance and valuing diversity, but also concern for self-improvement and quality of life, including a return to the civility, mutual respect, responsibility, and patience that we are losing. 

            Reasonableness is inadequate.  People cheat on their own morals; they fall short and provide excuses.  They fail to reason correctly, and err in predictably self-serving directions.

            Even without that, people must sacrifice to make community work.  They need to make up for cheaters, and they must be heroic in emergencies.  We cannot expect everyone to love and care much beyond the family and friendship circle. (What follows draws heavily on John Rawls’ doctrine of fairness as justice [Rawls 1971, 2001] but is informed by a range of ethical positions, from Kantian [Kant 2002] and neo-Kantian [Korsgaard 1996] to neo-utilitarian [Brandt 1979, 1992, 1996] to Aristotelian virtue ethics [Aristotle 1953]; see also Anderson 2010).

            Thus, every society on earth has had to develop a morality of self-sacrifice and service to others, enforced it by public opinion.  This was memorably argued by Adam Smith, who correctly saw it as a necessary shell around his economic utopia of free small-scale competition (Smith 1910, 2000).  They must conform up, to higher standards of behavior, rather than down into toxic conformity to evil norms.  This requires personal strength.

            From what has gone before in this book, we conclude that evil is due to extreme individuals—psychopaths, sociopaths, and the like—who often become leaders; to cowardice and failure to cope with hurt, stress, and threat; and to conformity with orders from people suffering from those two conditions.  Ordinary selfish greed is also a huge problem, but rarely gets out of control unless the other three conditions hold.  People are notably good at stopping each other from selfish greed.  Studies show that humans are good at “cheater” detection, and at stopping cheaters by shaming, ostracism, and outright punishment (Tomasello 2016; Wrangham 2019).  Ordinary people develop a conscience that restrains them from cheating even when they can get away with it, and a concern for people that makes them want to help others and do right by them.  It is hard to separate these good mental states from sheer fear of shame and punishment; all combine to keep most people only somewhat selfish.  We all cheat a bit, but most of us limit it to fairly innocuous matters.  The psychopaths are those who cheat in spite of being attacked, writing off the attacks as unfair and hypocritical. 

It is worth briefly noting that some “sins” are not what they seem: gluttony is a matter of eating disorders, themselves caused by problems usually apart from food; “sloth” is usually hatred for dull work, or physical illness, or psychological inanition due to fear and stress; and so forth.  Many early moralities foundered on the rock of condemning reasonable and normal desires, rather than the irrational reactions to fear and stress that made people seem sinful or immoderate in their desires.  It seems likely that puritanical condemning of normal desires did more damage by creating fear, stress, and guilt than it brought benefit to anyone. 

            We must maintain a consistent, oft-repeated ideology of unity, solidarity, mutual aid, mutual care, and tolerance.  From a general sense of “we’re all in this together,” the first personal virtues are openness, warmth, interest in the world, self-confidence, and ability to enjoy life.  These were highlighted by Aristotle (1953), but they have been amazingly neglected since his 4th-century-BCE days.  These imply a set of learned personal orientations: compassion, respect, responsibility.  These in turn entail civility, reasonableness, courage, patience, and hard work.  Social attitudes include empathy and egalitarianism—both equality before the law and the rough-and-ready sense that we are all here and thus have to take care of each other and take people as they are.

            Empathy and altruism are linked; psychological studies have unpacked both.  Humans are wired for empathy in ways unknown among other animals, and can build on that by learning to be much more empathetic than is “natural” from the genetic base.  We are experts at putting ourselves in others’ places, feeling what they feel, and understanding how they could react to situations.  Daniel Batson (2011), a leading expert on empathy, points out that these are different things.  Understanding others’ feelings, matching those feelings, and understanding how our own feelings can be different from others’, are all different agendas.  Lack of empathy is, of course, far too typical of bureaucrats and governments, and of many ordinary people who have either never learned real empathy or have suppressed what they know (Baron-Cohen 2011).  Batson went on to show that altruism goes beyond this: we need to value others.  We have seen that understanding the feelings of others can make cruelty worse; the sadist can use understanding and sensitivity to devise the most fiendish tortures.  This is well known from the annals of both crime and Hitler’s death camps (Baumeister 1997). 

            Batson further points out that empathy and altruism are not enough.  They can make people unfair.  One naturally has more empathy to one’s family and friends than to strangers, and thus tends to skew altruism.  The extreme is reached in those super-rich families that take care of their own very well indeed while giving nothing to charity.  Batson, a Kantian who follows Kant and Rawls into a realm of absolute ethics of fairness and principle, opposes such narrow empathy to his general principles of fairness.  However, in a particularly thoughtful passage (Batson 2011:220-224), he traces the limits of extreme fairness: not only can we not really do it—family ties are generally too strong—but we are also masters at rationalizing, excusing, justifying, and otherwise weaseling out of our principles, when emotions are strong.

            Jamil Zaki, in The War for Kindness (2019), takes up where Batson left off.  Summarizing Batson’s work, he goes on to detail a number of programs for dealing with real-world problems involving various kinds of empathy: reforming criminals, teaching police to be community servants rather than “warriors,” teaching autistic children, and simply helping ordinary people with problems.  We have the tools; we can go well beyond the remedies for hatred and lack of empathy suggested by Beck (1999) and our other basic sources.  The only problem is that all these remedies involve intensive one-on-one work, “saving the world one person at a time.”  Meanwhile, strongman leaders whip up millions with hateful rhetoric.  It is all too easy to turn nations of peaceable Germans or Cambodians into killers.  Fortunately, peace did reverse that process in those and other countries.

            Recall what was said earlier: the real food of the wolf is personal weakness or lack of self-efficacy, leading to taking offense easily, brooding on it, and escalating it in response.  The cure is to minimize offense-taking, but then to find morality, empathy, beauty, care, compassion, and goodness in the wide world and in humanity.  Both dealing with evil and separately appreciating and respecting the good seem needed.

            Religions have tried for millennia to make people love all humans, or have compassion for all living things.  This is difficult.  People love or at least feel solidary with their reference groups, which can be very large; many Chinese feel deep solidarity and passionate loyalty to their billion and a quarter compatriots.  But genuine love for all humans is rare indeed.  Unfortunately, it is demonstrably far easier to learn hate for targeted groups, even groups whose members the haters have never met.    

            The only philosophy that seems to have addressed this problem squarely is Confucianism.  Confucianism generally holds that people are innately compassionate, helpful, and prosocial.  However, first, they also have tendencies in other directions, particularly in the direction of selfish greed.  Second, they naturally and necessarily privilege family over strangers (Confucians long anticipated Darwin here).  Third, they do indeed rationalize away moral conflicts.  Thus, Confucianism sought to define what each category of people owes others, with family, friends, neighbors, the nation, and all humanity as the relevant categories.  Debate still rages among Confucians about the perfect balance, but the real message is that humans in the real world need to accommodate different levels of empathy and be as fair as possible under such circumstances.  (See Mencius 1970; I have benefited greatly from discussions with Neo-Confucian thinkers, especially Ben Butina, Dean Chin, Bin Song, and Tu Weiming.)

            All these result in ability to be socially responsible, and to carry out mutual aid, a highly desirable end-state (Smith 2000).  Basic to this are what I would consider the leading interpersonal moral needs:  caring, compassion, considerateness and civility, reasonableness, respect, and responsibility (4 C’s and 3 R’s).  It includes the values that create peace and unity in society: solidarity, tolerance, valuing diversity, mutual aid, and empowerment; thus, for society, peace, justice, fairness, equality, truth, and inquiry (as argued by Rawls 1971).  On these are built leadership, civic action, mutual aid, and social responsibility in general.  The short summary of all this is valuing people (Batson 2011; Zaki 2019), or at least taking them seriously, as fellow travelers on the planet. 

            The main stem of this runs from caring to actual help.  Ancillary to this stem are self-efficacy and learning.  Self-efficacy involves self-control, not trying to control others, courage, industry, and loyalty.  It includes self-improvement in appreciation, knowledge, and psychological functioning (Bandura 1982, 1986).

            Learning, knowledge, and wisdom are obviously necessary, and critical, for this enterprise.  That involves keeping an open mind about new findings, but no open mind about hatred or cruelty.  It also requires self-control (including giving up the attempt to overcontrol others), patience, and courage, but above all the ability to work hard, in focused and thorough way, for the common good.  Hypocrisy and toxic conformity are banished.  Education must follow accordingly.

            The good person will ignore slights and dislike, being fully civil in such cases.  Actual threats must be taken seriously, but rationally, by trying to talk things out, then seeking recourse, and only if that fails does one fight or flee.  The real opposite of hate is common decency, not love.  Seek positive solutions.  Act for the good.  Do your best at what you do best.  Remember also the airlines’ truth: “secure self first, then attend to others.”  Above all, look to long-term, wide-flung benefits, not to short-term and narrow ones.

            It pays to look at this with a medical gaze: see exactly what is wrong, why it is wrong, and what is the cure.  Moralizing in the abstract is of less use, though also necessary.         

“Process goals” are goals that can never be fully reached, but that make the world better the closer we approach to them.  The classic example is health.  Perfect health is impossible in this flawed world.  We could always be a little better off.  But striving for better and better health is obviously worth doing.  Similarly, we will never be able to feed everyone, but the FAO’s goal of secure, healthy, nourishing, accessible food for everyone in the world is a goal worth striving for; the closer we get to it, the better off we are.  Other such goals include learning, appreciation of diversity and beauty, and cooperation.  We might even list cleaning, fixing, and maintenance.

Freedom, tolerance, and wealth all stop at moderation.  Tolerance must stop before it reaches tolerance for rape, murder, and theft.  One should never be intolerant of persons as such, but certainly we must be intolerant of evil acts.  We must also frequently oppose actual enemies, even though they are persons and deserve respect and fair treatment as such.  Inequality and excessive wealth are notorious social evils.

There is a difference between goals that must be intrinsically moderate, like drinking (assuming one drinks at all) or exercising, and goals where the issue is targeting rather than moderation per se.  Tolerance is such a targeting goal: being tolerant of ordinary differences is close to a process goal (though it always requires some moderation), but being tolerant of Nazism is intolerable—the classic “tolerance paradox.”  Similarly, wrath is usually a bad thing, but wrath against leaders of genocide is appropriate and commendable. 

This gives us morals in pairs:  Caring vs indifference; courage vs. cowardice; peace vs. hate and hostility; proactive help vs. laziness; responsibility vs. irresponsibility; reason vs. irrationality; carefulness vs. carelessness; respect vs. scorn.  Courage comes before hate, though hate is the Problem, because hate comes from fear and thus courage is a prior and more basic virtue.

Another need is for proactive positive action, and that requires a vision of the Good and an ability to enjoy.  Cowardly defensiveness destroys enjoyment; it causes anhedonia.  If one can openly enjoy something, one is already moving toward the good.  It is natural for the social animals we are to want others to enjoy and to share in our enjoyments.  Puritans and constant complainers are notoriously easy to delude into genocidal evil.  Puritanism about anything—not just sex or alcohol—feeds the bad wolf. 

7. Towards a New Moral Order

            We need a new moral order (Anderson 2010), based on keeping the good wolves fed and the bad ones starved.  Morality exists because people are compulsively and necessarily social, and yet get offended and angry and then hateful and aggressive.  In this case, it should be the opposite of hatred, callousness, and irrationally violent response to perceived threat.

            Following Kant, the first rule of morality is to take all people, and ultimately all beings, as important, to value them (again following Batson), and to accept them as valid beings—fellow travelers on this planet.  As Kant said: they must be subjects of concern, not objects to be used. 

            This is one of the messages of epics like the Iliad, of the classic Scots ballads, and of great literature the world over.  The extreme opposite of the typical Hollywood “action movie,” in which cardboard characters are killed by dozens without anyone’s concern.  The slide from traditional literature to Hollywood thrillers is clearly related to the rise in genocide and violence; the latter tracks the former and other pop cultural forms that teach indifference to life.  The rise of inequality, especially the rise in power of giant multinational firms, is a much more obvious driver of indifference to people and of taking them as Kantian objects (Kant 2000).

            Great cultural productions can thus be used for self-improvement and for learning about the humanity and sensitivies of others.  If they are simply read for schoolwork, however, they do very little.  The depressing lack of empathy and humanity among well-educated leaders has often been noted.  Particularly sad is learning of the number of extremely intelligent, highly educated, creative people who sympathized with the fascists in Europe in the 1930s.  The most famous cases were Martin Heidegger, Ezra Pound, and Leni Riefenstahl, but there were countless more.  Poets from T. S. Eliot to e. e. cummings were sympathizers early on, and wrote viciously anti-Semitic poetry, though they cooled when they saw what was happening.  Fortunately, no significant thinkers or writers have seen fit to approve of fascism in recent decades (see Travserso 2019 for the nearest-to-exceptions). 

            The main pillars of that are caring, charity, and peace.  These can take us on to active help: feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and the other standard social goods.  We are called to be nice to all, but for life work do your best at what you do best to help.  St. Paul’s “gifts differing” (Romans 12:6) is a watchword: people have different strengths, and this allows a complex society to exist and to be far more productive and efficient than one in which everyone had the same skills. 

            Long-term, wide-flung interests should prevail above short-term, narrow ones.  In the real world, the short term must be considered, because failure to attend to immediate threats and concerns can kill before the long term is reached.  However, the world is now sacrificing more and more long-term interest to shorter and shorter benefits.  A classic case is overfishing.  At current rates of fishing, there will be no wild commercial fisheries by 2050 (Worm 2016; Worm et al. 2006).  This occurs largely because of overcompetition among fishers and subsidies by governments.  Another problem is the opposite: overplanning and top-down control. 

            A final need is more integrity.  Never humanity’s strong point, it has declined for the usual reasons, especially the loss of community to the rise of giant corporations and their passivity-creating media.  Ordinary lies are common enough now.  Even more common is a broader failure to keep commitments, as modeled all too well by our political leaders.  The highest integrity is working single-mindedly for more quality in life and thus real improvement of the world.  Quality ranges from better music to better environment to better leadership; everyone has some particular skill or calling, and can work for some cause, depending on innate and learned abilities.  The Japanese have a word, ikigai, “life value,” for living one’s calling in a satisfying way.

            Within this moral shell, the most important thing to do is avoiding hatred and rejection of people or any other beings on the basis of prejudice: imagined “essence” that is somehow bad.  Tolerance and valuing diversity are essential.  The costs of prejudice are substantial.  Subtly foregrounding “maleness” made African-American boys do better on tests, while foregrounding “blackness” made them do worse, because of internalized stereotypes (Cohen et al. 2006).  Similar results have turned up over a wide range of stereotypes, e.g. foregrounding “Asian” vs. “women” makes Asian-American women do better or do worse, respectively, on math tests (Clark et al. 2015).  A part of this is realizing that there are no pure races and no pure cultures, and there never have been.  The racist and culturist appeals to purity are major sources of evil.  Recently, even “progressives” have been seduced by pure-culture theories, as in the more naïve theorizing about decolonialization and cultural appropriation.  Decolonialization means fixing social inequalities, not rejecting all cultural change.  Cultural appropriation is bad when it involves insulting stereotypes of others, or stealing their livelihood—not when it is simply normal borrowing.  Some progressives are being lured into genuine right-wing thinking—the old fascist lies about pure cultures and their need to remain pure.  In fact, a social morality for the future would involve, critically, learning the best from all the world’s traditions about how to manage the environment, reduce conflict, and keep societies moral.  Every culture and society on earth has experiences with these problems and has something to teach us.

            Direct action should be to help, not harm unnecessarily; work for a living and some material comforts, but, beyond minimal personal comforts, only to share with others and help others in the world; constantly work to learn more, find more truths, and abandon more wrong views; defend, but only against real direct threats, not imagined or trivial social slights or indirect or potential enemies.  Morals thus cover social interaction, self-efficacy and self-control, learning, and public values.

            Religion teaches us to be as good as possible to sinners and lure them into a warm, supportive community.  Religions all idealize helping, concern, and peace, but often fail to encourage the interest, engagement, and love of beauty that are also necessary for the common good.  Puritanical religions in fact fear these, since they tend to make people think independently and want to change.

            Practical concerns and economic adjustments are not going to do all the lifting.  Economics has followed culture and ideology in the past, and will no doubt continue to follow.  Obviously, in the future, we will have to set up a society based on sustainable use of the earth, equality of opportunity, substantial public sector, and controls on inequality, but the immediate need is to unify behind a set of principles that will stop fascism and restart progress in those directions.

            The first step, since the root problem is hatred (in the broad sense—including deliberate dismissal), is to shore up civil and personal rights to provide maximal protection from abuse of minorities, women, children, and other vulnerable groups, and maximal recourse for those groups in case of injury.  Hate crimes (to say nothing of genocide) must be condignly suppressed.  That includes deliberate incitement to hate crime.

            Ideally, we will have physical neighborhoods held together by strands of mutual aid, co-work on projects, mutual responsibility, and general neighborliness.  Virtual and dispersed communities are also valuable and need all the encouragement they can get, but there is no substitute for face-to-face contact and mutual aid. This requires promoting tolerance; all traditional small communities had their experiences of intolerance and violence.

            We need to make our current values far clearer, but we also need to combine them with emotional and personal appeals, as religions do.  This takes us back to education and the media.  It also requires some resolutions, at the political level, about what kind of society we want.  The rapid descent of the Republicans from a party of business to a party of hate has been terrifying to watch.  It is similar to the evolution of fascism in Europe, and communism in the USSR and China.

            The old ideas of “economic determinism” do not work.  We have now seen genocide and other evils arising in every type of economic situation and every type of economic regime.  The classic modes of production are not helpful.  “Socialism” covers everything from Denmark and Norway to North Korea to Venezuela.  “Capitalism” covers everything from Germany to Equatorial Guinea.  This does not get us far. 

            We have, in fact, seen genocide arise in every type of system except true democracy with equality before the law and full equal rights for everyone.  And even true democracy has proved unable to get rid of war, violence, gangsterism, and everyday crime.  Obviously, we need all the laws we can have, to outlaw harming others gratuitously, but laws exist in a moral shell, and we need to work on that as well as on making the laws apply to all equally.

The nexus, always, is caring for and about others.  Only powerful self-interest combined with social pressure can lead to doing good.  Morals exist to drive people to do good even when scared. 

8. Rights and Rules

            The morality enshrined in the Constitution is based on the theory of equal rights.  If people recognize the need for equality before the law and equal opportunity under law, they must work from this principle above all.  Then, the clear moral order for the world is saving nature, promoting responsibility and mutual aid (with the more fortunate or strong helping those less so), promoting learning and truth, and nonviolence.

            It is important to understand that both this and other moral views can go with economic growth, wealth accumulation, and the other things that developers currently consider “good.”  There is no reason to pick one over the other except for common human decency.  In the long run, the Trumpian view is unsustainable, because it leads to dinosauric interests pushing the system into collapse, but in the short run, we have seen the lack of any real break from Obama’s growth economy to Trump’s.  “Capitalism,” whatever it is, can be range from rather benign to utterly malignant.  The socialist alternative is equally ambiguous; Norway and Venezuela are both “socialist” in some ways, but Norway has a morality based on social decency, Venezuela has a moral order based on Trump-style dictatorial violence and bullying.

            It is depressing to read how the British and Americans, good Christians and lovers of Shakespeare and Milton, ran most of the world slave trade that killed perhaps 100,000,000 people in the 18th and early 19th centuries.  It is similarly depressing (though less bloody) to read the sorry history of religious movements, communes, idealistic communities, grassroots utopias, and the hippie movement.  Good intentions not backed up by firm social rules led only to collapse.

            People being imperfect, progress comes from outlawing the bad and forcing minimal civil decency.  Appeals to inner virtue are not enough.  Historically, help has come from science and education, relative economic freedom within moral limits (as Adam Smith argued), and the Enlightenment program.  That program of democracy, equality, rule of law, separation of church and state, and civil rights has done wonders.  So has the idea of promoting people according to their knowledge and ability rather than according to their birth.  Meritocracy has a bad name recently, but any acquaintance with history shows that the alternatives were worse.

            Comparing societies and communities that minimize violence and cruelty with those torn by it shows that only strict and specific rules help.  Rights are general; if they are not backed up by specific laws and court judgments, they are empty.  All societies outlaw murder, and that ban has real effect, depending on how many ancillary rules are passed.  Above all, it depends on how much the societies in question frown on violence as a way of solving problems.  Some societies regard violence as the only “manly” or “honorable” way to deal with problems, and they have murder and warfare rates that are many times—sometimes orders of magnitude—greater than the rates in societies that privilege peaceful methods of coping (Baumeister 1997; Pinker 2011; Robarchek and Robarchek 1998). 

            The Founding Fathers of the United States were aware of the problems of hatred, autocracy, lack of checks and balances, and lack of recourse.  They instituted participatory democracy in hopes that people would pick the best, or at least the less awful.  They created a mesh of checks and balances that distributed power fairly well.  They separated church and state, to prevent the awful conflicts that had driven many of their ancestors from Europe.  Most important, they established a rule of law rather than a rule of men.  This worked well for a long time, but then the genocidal demagogue Andrew Jackson took over and began a long, bloody process of consolidating power in the hands of the president and then using that power to bad ends.  This process has now reached the very edge of fascist dictatorship, and American democracy may not long survive. 

            Absolutely necessary is the right to recourse.  People who are injured must be able to sue, to protest, to speak out, to vote evil leaders out, and to defend themselves in any reasonable way.  The success of democracies at preventing genocide and famine is notable, but even more important is the realization that in such democracies, only actual citizens avoid being killed or starved (Anderson and Anderson 2017; Howard-Hassmann 2016).  Noncitizens, such as Irish in the British Isles in the 1840s and Native Americans in the United States before 1924, are starved and killed without compunction. 

            Communities must have written and unwritten (customary) laws that strictly and thoroughly regulate violence and callousness.  These laws must be based on a principle of equality before the law, which requires at least some degree of economic equality, because otherwise the rich will simply buy their way out of enforcement.  Laws must be based on the principle that violence is the last resort in dealing with any problem other than direct personal attack.  They must also strictly forbid activity that destroys many solely to benefit a few, such as big dams, engineered famines, and exposure of impoverished workers or families to pollution.  There must be legal requirements to rehabilitate both victims and lawbreakers.

            Communities must extinguish specific bad behaviors by specific rules, but they go on to encourage general good behaviors and ideals by more broad appeals to morality.

            Above all, concentration of power in the hands of one person is always dangerous.  Even a long run of good administrators or autocrats comes to an end.  Sooner or later a bully or psychopath takes over.  I have seen this process on small scales in academia, where chairs and deans usually have enough power to devastate their units, ruin careers, destroy students, and corrupt or block research.  Academia usually picks better leaders, but one bad one does incalculable harm.  There are benevolent despotisms in the world—Singapore and Oman occur to mind—but they rarely last. 

            On national scales, the takeover of democracies by tyrants has been noted ever since ancient Greece, and the results were known to be awful even then, as Aristotle’s Politics tells us. Democracy works only so far as a way of picking good leaders; again, the ancient Greeks already knew of charismatic demagogues—in fact, they coined the words. Participatory democracy seems still the best way of picking leaders, but then they must be restrained by a mesh of laws that create checks and balances and prevent corruption.  The United States is hopelessly behind in these regards.  The extreme corruption and tyranny of the Trump presidency came after a long downward slide, visible since the Nixon presidency.  Similar devolution from Hungary and Brazil to Turkey and the Philippines characterizes politics in the 21st-century world.         

Today, to the classic rights, we need to add the right to a livable environment; a right to good education, at least to the point of literacy, basic science, basic math, and competence with technology; a right to free enquiry; a right to government honesty, with full recourse if the government knowingly circulates lies; and a right to decent medical care at little or no cost.  These all follow as entailed corrolaries of our natural rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

From what has gone before, the needs center on three areas: damping down conflicts caused by desire for wealth, power, and approval; balancing power so that it is distributed as widely and evenly as possible, with checks and balances at the top and equality before the law for all; and a widely distributed search for truth—science in a broad sense—instead of religious or ideological claims for absolute truth or nihilistic denial of truth’s existence.

In the United States, and increasingly in other countries, the rule of law has collapsed, and the first need if we can take the country back would be to restore that rule.  Second would be some sort of truth and reconciliation agenda for dealing with the hatred that has spun out of control in recent years, and not only on the right.  Rational and civil discourse must replace increasingly unhelpful confrontation and in-your-face insult.  Hate speech up to a point is protected as free speech, for the very good reason that “sunlight is the best disinfectant” (see below).  What needs to be stopped is actual incitement to violence.  Also, hateful lies should be checked by false-advertising laws.  I thouroughly agree with the proposal to make campaign statements and public speeches by leading politicians sworn testimony, with mandatory jail sentences for deliberate lies.

The simplest, cleanest model of mass violence is that a strongman backed and funded by sunsetting industries whips up hatred of minorities that have long been salient as weaker rivals or enemies.  Obviously, action must start by preventing evil leaders from rising, and preventing them from leading a charge by deploying ever more vicious rhetoric.

Individual violence is more complex, but turns on issues of greed, power, and social acceptance and respect.  Individuals are not, however, violent because of those motives; they are violent because they have learned that violence is the best way to get those goals under existing circumstances.  Alternatives to violence thus become needed.  Peterson and Denaley’s findings (see above, p. 33) show that mass shooters have a characteristic background, involving abuse, and usually announce their plans in some way before they act.  Proactive prevention of abuse and proactive listening, reaching out, and treating young people with violent and suicidal or murderous ideology is obviously needed.

From a wider social context, several obvious things need doing in the United States to accomplish any of these goals.  Among these are: making campaign statements sworn testimony to prevent outright lying, ensuring voting rights, ending gerrymandering and voter suppression, getting big money out of politics and making all political money fully transparent, fighting corruption, saving the environment, and cracking down on hate crimes and incitement of them. 

We need an entire new civil rights movement, focused immediately on putting a total end to gerrymandering, voter suppression, partisan purging of voter rolls, new Jim Crow laws, and similar games.  We need to limit money in politics, starting with a Constitutional amendment to end dark money, demand full disclosure, and force politicians to recuse themselves from voting to help, subsidize, or act in support of any direct economic interest (as opposed to public-interest and worker groups, and even trade organizations) that funded their campaigns. 

Freedom of speech must be defended, but does not include direct incitement to violence, or libel, or false advertising.  These provide enough of a platform to allow us to ban campaign lies, Fox News-style public lying for evil ends, and direct rabid hatred that cannot help but lead to violence.  A great deal of “hate speech”—ordinary racist rhetoric, for instance—must be protected, because if it is banned then those in power will ban anything that annoys them.  This is a “slippery slope” argument that is quite true.  We have hundreds of years of experience, in every realm from religion to education to politics to community “civility” and “political correctness,” to prove it.  The principle is, once again, my rights stop where yours start.

A major part of this must be vastly increasing research on social problems, especially evil as herein defined.  Both scientific research and investigative reporting are required.  The great newspapers are a shadow of their former selves.  We desperately need much more exposure of dark places.

We must ban subsidies as much as possible, and certainly ban subsidies to maintain dinosaur industries that cost more than they produce. We must block the chain from lobbyist to “regulator”; those who lobby for a polluting industry can never be allowed to regulate it.  Above all, we must take actual social and environmental costs—the hard cash people lose—into account in all social and political accounting.  Oil is profitable only because its real costs are passed on as externalities.  Many calculations have shown that gasoline would cost hundreds of dollars per gallon if those costs were internalized.  (For more, see Anderson 2010.)

The only way to get these goals accomplished is the tried and true combination of mass peaceful demonstrations, teach-ins, media campaigns with new media dedicated to the task, proposals for comprehensive legislation, and above all getting people voted into office at all levels of government from waterworks boards on up (see Chenowith and Stephan 2012 on what succeeds in people’s campaigns).  These are the measures that worked for the labor movement, the civil rights movement, the antiwar movements, the environmental movement, and every other popular cause that got beyond shouting.  Voting and media attention without demonstrations and other active measures are not enough.

Social pressures, leadership, and social behavior are critical, motivating most of the good and evil behavior; cultural models are critical in providing plans for how to act; and individual personality and environment factors finally determine what a given person will do.  The social, political, and economic environment provides a back story, but the direct motivation is typically social pressure by leaders and peers.  Improving bad situations requires full social change.  Revolutions rarely work; they simply bring other violent leaders to the fore to replace earlier ones.  Social and cultural change requires deeper and more systematic, and therefore more gradual, evolution.  This requires personal commitment.  The oft-heard argument that changing oneself is a waste of time because only vast social changes matter is self-defeating.  Without changing ourselves, unless we are already committed actors, we will never have the courage or drive to change anything.

            Bringing about all those changes will depend on teaching and otherwise carrying the word, on contributing to organizations that fight for justice and truth, and on modeling civil behavior.  People need to choose reasonably what groups to join and what groups to prioritize.  Joining extremist political groups is the order of the day.  We need centrist groups, community organizations, aid associations, and other groups that will bring people together to help and to meet each other—groups that will be unifying rather than divisive.

One cannot keep a totally open and tolerant mind.  As in eating and drinking, moderation is advised.  The ills I am addressing in this essay—genocide and its small-scale correlates such as bullying, callousness, and domestic violence—do not deserve “open minded” assessment.  They must be stopped.        

Very few ways of feeding the good wolf have worked in the past, but those few have worked very well.  Unsurprisingly (given the human condition), they largely add up to empowerment of individuals through provision of human rights.  We also need to go back to civility in society, as long argued by Jurgen Habermas (1987), and stop fighting each other over every change.

            By far the best way has been guaranteeing civil and human rights, equal for all, before the law, and enforced strictly by executive and court action.  This has eroded disastrously in the United States, but grown steadily in much of western Europe.

            Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela exemplify the most important: appealing to solidarity and natural human social goodness in the face of oppression.  Next most important and effective has been empowerment.  Doing scientific research to find out what improves the human condition is a strong third.  Forthrightly opposing evil is a long fourth, but still needs to be done. 

            Group hatred has traditionally been addressed by getting the groups together in positive situations, giving them common goals or working with the common goals they already have, affirming irenic and tolerant values, stressing the advantages of diversity, looking for common ground, striving to make groups as equal as possible (at least in opportunity and before the law), stoutly defending civil rights and explaining why those are beneficial to all, and other well-known methods. 

            All this does work, but not perfectly.  The most notorious case of failure was the heroic attempt made in Yugoslavia to get the various nationalities in that “united Slav” (“Yugo-“Slavia”) country to get along.  Unfortunately, it was counterproductive; the well-meaning majority tried too hard, alienated a vicious and noisy minority, and faced breakup, war, and genocide when Yugoslavia threw over communism (these insights come from my own questioning and observation in Croatia in 1988).  “Multiculturalism” in the United States has had some similar problems; when it emphases the classic American e pluribus unum, it works, but too often it emphasizes differences and even antagonisms without emphasizing the common ground and common goals. It often fostered the deadly mistake of seeing subcultures and ethnic communities as closed, steel-walled spheres, completely cut off from each other.  That view directly causes and fosters ethnic hatred.

            Some traditional societies have dealt with potential religious conflicts for centuries, and managed them by a number of social rules and strategies.  The people of Gondar, an Ethiopian city that is a traditional stronghold of Christianity but has a large Muslim population, have learned to get along, and have taken ISIS in stride, partly by casting it as non-Muslim or otherwise aberrant (Dulin 2017).  Similar accommodations have worked until recently in many countries, but the breakdown of very old and long-established ones in Iraq, Syria, and China bodes ill for the future.

            The standard methods of increasing happiness—gratitude, good thoughts, reaffirming values, and other mindfulnesses (Lyubomirsky 2007)—are also of some use, but never transformed a society.  Only uniting economic incentives, charismatic leaders, and common morality ever works to improve conditions.  We need positive and inclusive dialogue that is factual yet hopeful.  We need healing and rejuvenation.  Recall, also, that mindful meditation reduces existential fear and thus defensiveness and intolerance (Park and Pyszczynski 2019).

             Wayne Te Brake (2017), studying the decline of religious war in Europe, found that nation-states had to facilitate the process of getting people to live in harmony.  The bottom line was that people who were neighbors had to get along.  Where the cuius regio, eius religio rule held, the country had only one religion, and intolerance kept right on, but in areas where pluralism was established, governments finally realized they had to guarantee rights to religious minorities—ushering in the Enlightenment, by slow degrees.  It appears that government peacemaking led to philosophers and politicians coming up with ideas of religious freedom, which eventually led to ideas of liberty of conscience.  Something similar happened with civil rights in the modern United States in the 1950s and 1960s, but the results have been less satisfactory so far.  State and local governments have dragged their feet.  Still, the model is there.

            The good wolf is fed by empowerment, which brings confidence and hope, and allows rational assessment and coping.  Weakness and fear feed the bad wolf.  They lead to scared and defensive reactions, including sudden breakdowns into terror, rage, and violence, and allowing strongmen above the law to rule the polity. Society, especially social leaders protecting their stakes, almost always do the actual feeding.

            For having a decent world, and for having a future for the world, we must make moral choices, not simply economic ones.  We must make a moral choice to help people rather than hurt them.  That involves honesty with ourselves about the ways that weakness, resentment, overreaction to trivial or imagined slights, and overreaction to trivial harms combine to feed the bad wolf and thus feed displacing resentment onto weaker people and onto the natural world. 

            Then we must work to feed the good wolves, all of them, everywhere, out in the world.  The food of good wolves is caring and consideration for all, especially as shown through empowerment by decent, supportive, respectful behavior.

Appendix: Special Topics

            Freedom of speech is most at risk.  The Trump administration is attacking the media in exactly the way Hitler did in the 1930s.  Unfortunately, some of the misguided “progressive” camp is going after the media too, in the name of suppressing “hate speech.”  There are classic problems with this, all identified by the Founding Fathers, and by Tom Paine and John Stuart Mill.

            Since the people in power will naturally be the ones doing the censoring, all opposition to those in power will soon be censored, and everything that supports them will be permitted, no matter how vile it is.  This is, in practice, the greatest reason why censorship is generally bad. 

Hate speech is in the eye of the beholder.  No definition can be tight enough to stop people from insisting that what they say is not hate speech, and what their opponents say is always hate speech no matter how nicely phrased.  (Politeness can be a way of subtly maintaining white privilege, for instance.)  Hate speech can be educative–if not the speech itself, then from the fact that people say it, believe it, and act on it.

            Suppressing speech drives it underground, where it spreads like wildfire—as censored things always do—and is attractive simply because it was suppressed.  There is an Arab saying that “if you forbid people from rolling camel dung into little balls with their fingers, they would do it, because they would think that if it is forbidden there must be something good about it.”  Moreover, suppressing speech makes the suppressed people into instant martyrs, no matter how unsavory they seemed before.

            Last, it is immoral to shut other people up because you happen to dislike what they say.  They have a right to their opinions and their mouths.

            If what they say is downright libel, or a direct call to violence, or a lie that directly leads to physical harm to people (like a con game, or incitement to murder), that is something else.  Lying under oath is properly forbidden.  It has been suggested that campaign speech should be sworn testimony, at least when facts are stated, and thus lies like Trump’s would be illegal.  We also have no freedom to disclose proprietary secrets, or to plagiarize.  Freedom is not a matter of absolute freedom; it is a matter of considering others’ rights.  However, the wise activist errs on the side of liberty.

            All this we learned in the Free Speech Movement in Berkeley in the 1960s, but it has all been said before, ever since Voltaire and Jefferson.

            Similar conclusions apply to freedom of press, assembly, and religion.  However, religion has now been so thoroughly abused as a cover for political campaigning and even for money-laundering and profiteering that it must be restricted.  Taxing the churches seems an inescapable necessity if the US is to flourish.  Politics is probably protected speech, up to a point, but outright campaigning by churches—with donations of laundered or illegally-gained money—is banned in the US by the Johnson Rule.  It is inappropriate for churches and temples. 

            Preachers who are clearly in it for the money rather than the souls are all too common, and tax laws must recognize this.  The problem is not just one of politics; the rapidly escalating religious hate that has swept the world, and notably the United States, in the last generation is to a very large degree a product of preaching for money.  Corrupt and evil men posing as preachers find that the easiest way to make it pay is to preach hate and right-wing politics.  This is the story of ISIS and the Taliban as well as of Trump’s preacher claque.

            Thus, cleaning up the institution of religion would seem to be a part of assuring liberty of conscience.  Above all, though, liberty of conscience must be preserved.

            Tolerance, the most desperately needed and vitally important civic virtue, is also under an astonishing amount of attack from the left as well as the right.

            It really should need no defense.  Many of the same considerations as those above will apply.

            If you do not tolerate others, they will not tolerate you.  They may not even if you do tolerate them, but, in general, hate breeds hate, acceptance breeds acceptance.

            We are all in this together.  A functioning society must grow, change, and build, and can do that only by unified effort, mutual aid, and solidarity.  The alternative is mutual destruction.  The dominant group may win for a while by doing others down, but it merely hurts itself—first by losing those other groups and whatever they can offer, but second by starting a spirit of hate and rivalry that inevitably tears up the dominant group itself, in due course of time.

            As usual, there are limits.  Obviously, we do not want to tolerate rape, murder, or robbery.  The argument is for tolerating people as individuals—the essential personhood behind whatever unacceptable behavior they may sometimes present.  They deserve fairness and consideration, but if they are acting to harm others, they must be stopped.  Toleration of ideas is a good; we need to argue and negotiate and work them out.  Toleration of specific behaviors is allowable only in so far as those behaviors do not actively and unnecessarily harm people.  Not all harm to people is bad.  Plato and Aristotle were already pointing out 2400 years ago that surgeons “harm” people for their own good.  One wants to minimize hurt, but some pain is necessary. 

            In short, tolerance is a major goal, but must be qualified by common sense.  None of this affects tolerating people as human beings, or, for that matter, tolerating other life forms.  Essential acceptance of living beings, simply because they are fellow travelers on the planet, is the basic and essential need of a functioning society.

            It is therefore unacceptable to hate or reject anyone because of skin color, ethnicity, language, history, or the like.  No morality can justify that.  Total personal rejection of anyone for any reason is unacceptable.  We may have to kill a person in self-defense, but we are not given license to hate that individual simply for being.  We are also not given license to kill off his entire ethnic group just because he attacked us.  We know that “races” are not biological entities, and that all human groups are pretty much identical in potential, but even if we did find a group that was—say—less intelligent by some measure than the average, we would morally have to pay them the same respect and treatment as everyone else. 

            This is the real underpinning of the classic Enlightenment virtues: liberty, equality, fairness, justice as fairness, and civil behavior in civil society.  Never mind that the Enlightenment was financed by slavery and colonialism.  The point is that much of its content was explicitly directed against slavery and class discrimination.  No one in the history of the world had opposed slavery in general until 18th-century religious thinkers, largely Quakers, did so.   Fairness means serious attention to disadvantaged groups, not just even-handed treatment of all.  Equality before the law has been in sorry shape under Trump, with flagrant favoring of whites and rich people over the rest.

            Racism and religious bigotry are more open now than they have been since the 1960s or perhaps even the 1920s.  However, the real underlying problem seems to be a more general increase in hostility and antisocial aggression.  We have mass shootings in which the victims are country music fans (Las Vegas), Baptist churchgoers (Texas), Walmart customers, and other ordinary Americans.  By far the greatest number of mass-murder and terrorist killings in recent years have been of this sort; very few are either Islamic-extremist or otherwise religiously or racially motivated.  Ordinary murders are also increasing again after years of decline. 

            It thus seems that there is a major need for calming speeches and for ideas on how to reduce violence and antagonism in general.  Certainly, we still need to combat racism, and to defend freedom of religion, especially freedom from bullying in the name of religion.  We need even more to combat overall hostility.

            This brings us to solidarity:  Mutual aid, mutual support, mutual empowerment and strengthening.             It worked for the labor movement and for the old-time Democrats; disunion, carefully nurtured by the right wing and now by the far left, has led to the decline of both those institutions.  The war between Clinton and Sanders supporters took down Clinton in 2016, and will guarantee a Republican win in 2020 if it is not resolved.

            A major part of this is civility.  We are getting farther and farther from civil discourse.  The right wing is usually the leader and always the most successful in extreme, exaggerated, intemperate, and insulting remarks, and we should leave that to them.  We always lose if we try that tactic. 

            This brings up science and environment.  The Trump administration, including the Republicans in Congress, have launched a full-scale war against both.  They do not stop with dismissing science that is embarrassing to their corporate donors, such as research on climate change and pollution.  They have attacked everything from conservation science to Darwinian evolution.  This is perhaps the area where the Republican base—giant primary-production firms, racists, and right-wing religious extremists—shows itself most clearly.  “Scientific” racism and creationism are now supported; the genuine science that disproves these is attacked.  Budget cuts to basic science and to science education are planned; they are serious enough to virtually destroy both.  Republicans realize that promoting such a wide anti-scientific agenda—climate change denial, claims that pesticides are harmless to humans, anti-vaccination propaganda, anti-evolutionism, racism, and so on—can only succeed if the entire enterprise of science is attacked.  The whole concept of truth is a casualty, with the calls for “alternative facts.”  Ideas of proof, evidence, data, and expertise are regarded as basically hostile to Republicanism.

            Clearly, it will be national suicide ot allow this to go on.  Not only is further scientific research necessary to progress; a government that makes policy in defiance of the facts of the case will not survive.  We have already been afflicted with Zika, MRSA, and a host of other germs because of indifferent attention to public health.  Rising sea levels are eating away at coastlines.  Bees and other critically important insects are disappearing.  Foreign policy made in a fact-free environment has devastated the Middle East.  The future will be incalculably worse.  Attention to science education, moral education, and humanistic education remains small.

            Part of this is environmental concern, and there we need to draw on traditional moralities.  Most cultures, worldwide, have solved the problems of sustainability—usually by teaching respect for all beings.  Children absorb this at a very young age.  They go on to remember that trees, fish, grass, and future humans all need to be regarded as worthy of consideration—to be used only as necessary and to be protected for future uses or simply to keep them alive.  The western world has long been an outlier, worldwide, by treating resources as things to destroy without a second thought. 

            With a proper spirit of respect, we will be able to preserve species and environments and to avoid destroying the environment with pollutants and excessive construction.  In the short run, we will have to fall back on laws.  The framework existing as of 2016 was inadequate but was a good start; it is now lost, and we will have to start from scratch, hopefully with better laws to be designed in future.  There are countless books on solving the environmental crisis, and to go further into it here would be tedious.  What matters is recognizing that we must think of sustainability and respect.

            The Endangered Species Act has been under permanent attack by Republicans since it was proposed.  The ostensible reason is that the act saves worthless weeds and bugs at the expense of human interests.  The real reason is that it protects habitat that corporate interests want to use.

            Balancing environmental protection against immediate use is always difficult, and requires much more attention than it usually receives, but in this case there should be no question.  “Extinction is forever.”  Once a species is extinct, it can never be brought back (despite recent claims for reconstruction through DNA—still merely a vision).  Most of the species proposed for protection are economically and ecologically valuable.  A few “weeds and bugs” do get protection, but they are probably more important than they look.  We still have no idea what is important in nature.  Sometimes, loss of an apparently minor species has caused meltdown of a whole ecological system.  Beyond mere utility, there is an issue of respect for life and living things.  Individuals can be replaced; species cannot.

            We also need a mechanism for moving quickly to protect species that collapse suddenly.  A new pesticide, an epidemic, a rampantly multiplying introduced pest, or an ill-considered human action can rapidly change a species from common to endangered. 

            The need for environmental protection and conservation is now obvious to everyone except certain giant corporate interests, who persist in seeing everything natural as a problem to be eliminated.  Even far-right activists admit a need for some action.  Sustainability of resource use is obviously necessary when at all possible, given the rapid expansion of US population and economic activity.  Some things will inevitably be lost; we need to restore a great deal to make up for that. 

            Anti-pollution rules, wise use rules, and conservation in general are under full and total attack by the few corporate interests, however.  This has led to some extreme rhetoric on all sides.   Always, the worst problem is the fossil fuel industry, which not only causes most of the pollution and global warming, but is fighting for its life against cheaper, more efficient, ecologically preferable energy sources.  It now survives thanks to enormous taxpayer subsidies, so it plows vast sums into lobbying and into spreading disinformation.  The amount this industry spends on those activities could very possibly finance a full-scale conversion to clean energy.

            One huge problem that is widely ignored is loss of farmland.  Soil conservation has been quite effective in the US in recent years, leading to complacency.  The real problems now are urbanization and pollution.  Vast areas of productive soil and waters are lost to these.  California has urbanized almost a third of its farmland, including almost all the very best land, in the last two centuries.  Within my memory, “Silicon Valley” (the San Jose Valley) was probably the most productive orchard land in the world.  It now has no orchards at all.  Nothing is being done to halt the steady conversion of the best land to suburbs and parking lots.  Other states suffer less, but the problem is nationwide (and worldwide). 

            Conversely, there are some reasons to pull back on Obama’s new national monuments, and rather more reasons to look for more due process in future.  Obama declared vast areas of mixed-use land as national monument, without local consultation or input, and with some disregard for established interests.  In general, one can only sympathize with land protection, but more local input is highly desirable for both pragmatic and democratic reasons.

            Forestry has also suffered from a see-saw battle between lock-down preservation and totally destructive and wasteful clearcutting.  Wiser solutions (reforestation, controlled burning, thinning, etc.) have been well known for over 100 years.  They are too rarely invoked today.  A scan of satellite photographs of Oregon is instructive:  tiny pockets of overcrowded locked-down preserves, surrounded by vast moonscapes of badly recovering clearcuts.  Oregon has lost most of its songbirds, as well as its forestry futures.  There is a desperate need to maintain more wilderness, for reasons that have filled many whole books, but that would need to include some burning to preserve actual wild conditions.

            Specific conservation areas of major concern:

Biodiversity and endangered species preservation

Forest management: sustainable logging, controlled burning, disease control, etc.

Grasslands, wetlands and streams, brushlands, deserts:  sustainable management

Agriculture: getting away from deadly chemicals, continuing to fight soil erosion, saving farmland from urbanization, reducing meat and increasing vegetables, etc.

Pollution

Urban sprawl and urban crowding; urban blight; lack of parks, markets, etc.

Aesthetics

Park and recreation areas that are actually accessible to everyone

Environmental education       

Regulating imports: banning endangered species and hunting trophies, controlling dangerous pest importation, banning palm oil, banning or discouraging other ecocidal crops, etc.

            There is now no question that the world is warming rapidly, and that human-released greenhouse gases are the main reason.  The outright denialist positions are now apparently monopolized by public-relations people working for fossil fuel corporations.  (There is a long list of books and articles documenting this.)  Since not only all scientists, but all persons who have spent much time outdoors over more than a couple of decades, must admit that global warming is occurring, the denialists have fallen back on saying that it’s happened before.  Indeed it has; we know the causes, which were either the earth changing its tilt in regard to the sun (so the sun more effectively warmed the earth) or natural releases of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide and methane.  The most dramatic well-known episode of that was a massive outpouring of CO2 from volcanoes, about 50 million years ago.  The Eocene world warmed rapidly and dramatically, and stayed warm for about 200,000 years.  Then it cooled so fast that trees growing in the high Arctic froze in place.  Explorers unthinkingly used some of them for firewood, only later discovering that their firewood was 50 million years old.  We are now releasing quantities of greenhouse gases comparable to those released by the volcanoes.

            The immediate consequences include slow but sure sea level rise, and increase in global temperatures to the point where major changes in biota and in human lives will occur.  In a bit of karma, the world’s main oil producing region, the lowland Middle East, will become uninhabitable in a few decades, as air temperatures soar into the 180s.  No one knows where this will end.  There is no reason to expect that the earth will not suffer the fate of Venus, with surface temperatures in the hundreds of degrees.

            The fastest and most effective way to deal with this is by leaving or restoring natural vegetation, especially forests.  That alone could blot up 20% of atmospheric carbon, given quite possible scenarios.  Other agricultural changes in the direction of less fuel-intensive, more biointensive farming would greatly help also.  There is a long literature on this, some reviewed in: Griscom, Bronson; Justin Adams; Peter Ellis; Richard Houghton; Guy Lomax; et al.  2017.  “Natural Climate Solutions.”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114:11645-11650.

            Ultimately, the solution must extend to clean power; power generation for electric grids, transportation, and industry accounts for the other 80% of greenhouse gas release. 

            The denial industry has been financed by the large fossil-fuel corporations, who have hired public-relations firms and in-house scientists.  The Koch brothers are the most conspicuous organizers and funders of the effort, but ExxonMobil, Shell, and other firms have been involved. 

  • Health

            All other developed countries, and many less developed ones, now have government health care systems: socialist, single-payer, or government-insured.  All these systems work better than the US system, but every normal measure: life expectancy, days lost to work, maternal mortality, infant mortality, and coping with illnesses in general.  The US mix of government, private insurance, and private or religious health care is a disaster.  American pay twice as much as Europeans for vastly inferior care.  The only reasonable solution is to expand Medicare and Medicaid to cover everyone, while also expanding the CDC and other government agencies that deal with health. 

            Health education is another problem, as is the level of nutrition in virtually all environments in the US (and, in this case, most of the rest of the world also). 

            Research should add more work on prevention and education to the ongoing research on actual pathology and treatment.  We are not doing enough to prevent conditions like substance abuse.   We are not doing enough to stop pollution and clean up polluted environments.

  • Education

            Another value in extreme danger under the Trump administration is education.  His Secretary of Education opposes the whole idea of education, in the usual sense, and totally opposes public education.  She is systematically planning to minimize schooling and turn it into indoctrination in right-wing views.  We need the exact opposite: education to produce genuinely better people—people who are not hateful bullies, but who want to help others.

            Americans are not getting the type of education they need.  This would be one that 1) teaches civics, including the Constitution and a non-whitewashed US history; 2) teaches actual science and how one can tell falsehoods and investigate truth; 3) teach the young about the depth and complexity of human emotions. 

            Humanistic education these days runs too heavily to comic books and other media that may be well enough in themselves, but do not have the sustained engagement with human feelings and thoughts that one gets from Shakespeare, Cao Xueqin, Dostoievsky, Thomas Mann, or Toni Morrison.  Serious music seems to have disappeared from most people’s lives; again, whatever is true or not about “quality,” music of Victoria or Beethoven engages much more deep and complex emotions than the popular stuff.  Whatever one likes or feels is appropriate, people need more insights into humanity than they get from American popular culture.  A reasonable order of teaching children would be starting them with civil behavior (considerate, respectful, sharing; responsible reasonable), then going on to teach compassion and helpfulness because we are all in this together and must follow something like the Golden Rule.  This should be done along with reading, writing, history, and math, if we are to survive.

            The Republican tax cuts have caused a massive and steadily increasing flow of wealth from the poor and middle class to the super-rich.  Cutting tax deductions that the middle class uses, while maintaining those for the rich, accompanies huge cuts to the highest brackets of taxing and trivial and temporary cuts to the rest of us.  The resulting rise in national debt will be managed by cutting Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other programs that transfer wealth to the less fortunate.  The worst problem with that, from an economic point of view, is that money in those programs is immediately spent—it goes directly into circulation, to buy goods and services.   The rich, in contrast, hoard their money, waiting for ideal investment possibilities.

            This is bad enough in the current good times, but Republican policies will certainly cause a depression in the near future.  At that point the less affluent will lose their jobs and savings, and the rich will have every incentive to move their wealth offshore—investing in other countries or stashing their money in tax shelters like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.  Other countries will be developing while the US is depressed; hence the rich will invest in the other countries. 

            By that time, also, education will have been devastated by Republican policies and funding cuts (see Kansas, currently leading in that area).  There will be no pool of young, educated people to re-grow the economy.  The depression will feed on itself, bringing the United States down, and letting other nations pick up the lead.

            The Democrats must unite, first of all, before doing anything else.  The current disunion (routinely described in the media as a “circular firing squad”) is suicidal.  Democrats will never win any close elections until they at least vote for each other. 

            Then, obviously, appealing to the former base—the great working class—is the next most important thing to do.  Democrats are perceived, with much reason, as having forsaken the workers to pursue other issues, many of which are of interest mainly to well-to-do, educated urbanites.  Populist issues like health care and tax fairness should be foregrounded.

            Third is getting out the vote.  This should be obvious, but Democrats have failed to do it for the last several elections.  Money is spent on lavish media campaigns—not terribly effective—instead of the proven doorbell-ringing and precinct phoning and activism.

            Fourth is a concentrated fight against voter suppression and gerrymandering.  Again, this should be obvious, but Democratic officials have been surprisingly quiet about it.

            Fifth is more aggressive calling out the Trump administration on their constant lies and misrepresentations, and above all naming names of their funders and backers who are really calling the dishonest shots—the Koch brothers on global warming, for instance.

            There are many other issues I could name, but those five, in order, seem to me the key ones.  Without attention to these five, the Democratic party is finished, and the US will be a one-party nation.

            First, the standard freedoms, including all human and civil rights, guarantee of impartial justice (especially impartial to dollars) and rights to organize.  Explicitly, money is not speech.

            Next, full rights to a decent environment—minimal pollution and waste, no subsidies for primary production, preservation of as much of nature as possible given the need to maintain a decent standard of living.

            Next, no offensive war; war only to defend the country from direct attack, but that can cover going after terrorists abroad.

            Then, firm graduated tax rate, written into the constitution.  No tax exemptions except for legitimate business and work expenses, and actual, effective charities. No exceptions for churches, for “charities” that do not spend over 80% of their incomes on actual charity work (as opposed to “overhead” and administration), or political outfits masquerading as “non-profits.”  Offshore tax havens and the like would be absolutely illegal, with extreme penalties.

No subsidies, no favoring specific businesses, minimal restriction of business and trade, but firm regulations such that harm and cheating do not happen. 

            Free universal health care (free up to a point—small deductibles possible, and no free discretionary treatment such as plastic surgery for looks).

            Free universal education with arts as well as sciences in the schools.

            Savage penalties for corruption, which would be defined to include donating campaign funds beyond a set low limit.

            Universal national service: a year in the military, a year doing environmental work, then a year of social work.  Lifetime emergency call-up, as in Switzerland.

            Discouragement of hate and hate speech.  Citizens see their duty as opposing it and damping it down.  No penalties, but extreme, savage penalties for violating civil rights and for hate crimes.

            Campaign fund regulations, especially in sensitive things like judicial elections.

            Aesthetics encouraged; national conservation in museums, sites, etc. 

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Barbara Anderson, Christopher Chase-Dunn, Peter Grimes, Hollie Nyseth Brehm, Jennifer Skornik, and Andrea Wilson for ever-valuable comments.

References

Aalerding, Hillie; Femke S. Ten Velden; Gerben A. van Kleef; Karsten K. W. De Dreu.  2018.  “Parochial Cooperation in Nested Intergroup Dilemmas Is Reduced When It Harms Out-Groups.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 114:909-923.

Abrams, Lindsay.  2015.  “Big Oil’s Decades of Deception: Report Reveals that Exxon’s Known the Truth about Climate Science since 1981.”  Salon, July 8, http://www.salon.com/2015/07/08/big_oils_decades_of_deception_report_reveals_that_exxons_known_the_truth_about_climate_science_since_1981/

Acharya, Avidit; Matthew Blackwell; Maya Sen.  2018.  Deep Roots: How Slavery Still Shapes Southern Politics.  Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Ahmed, Nafeez.  2019.  “How US Climate Deniers Are Working with Far-Right Racists to Hijack Brexit for Big Oil.”  Le Monde Diplomatique, June, https://mondediplo.com/outsidein/brexit-climate-deniers

Allport, Gordon.  1954.  The Nature of Prejudice.  Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Altemeyer, Bob.  2010. “Highly Dominating, Highly Authoritarian Personalities.”  Journal of Social Psychology 144:421-448.

Altınay, Ayşe Gül.  2019.  “Undoing Academic Cultures of Militarism: Turkey and Beyond.”  Current Anthropology 60:Supplement 19:S15-S25.

Ames, Daniel, and Susan T. Fiske.  2015.  “Perceived Intent Motivates People to Magnify Observed Harms.”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112:3599-3605.

Amrith, Sunil.  2018.  Unruly Waters: How Rains, Rivers, Doasts, and Seas Have Shaped Asian History.  New York: Basic Books.

Anderson, Barbara; E. N. Anderson; and Roseanne Rushing.  2004.  “Violence:  Assault on Personhood.”  In Reproductive Health:  Women and Men’s Shared Responsibility, Barbara A. Anderson, ed.  Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.  Pp. 163-204. 

Anderson, E. N.  2010.  The Pursuit of Ecotopia.  Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio.

Anderson, E. N.  2011.  “Drawing from Traditional and ‘Indigenous’ Socioecological Theories.”  In Helen Kopnina and Eleanor Shoreman-Ouimet, Environmental Anthropology Today.  London:  Routledge.  Pp. 56-74.

Anderson, E. N.  2014.  Everyone Eats.  2nd edn.  New York: New York University Press.

Anderson, E. N.  2019.  The East Asian World-System: Climate Change and Dynastic Cycles.  Springer.

Anderson, E. N., and Barbara A. Anderson. 2012.  Warning Signs of Genocide.  Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.

Anderson, E. N., and Barbara A. Anderson.  2017.  Halting Genocide in America.  Chesterfield, MO: Mira Publishing.

Anderson, Kjell.  2015.  “Colonialism and Cold Genocide: The Case of West Papua.”  Genocide Studies and Prevention 9:9-25.

Applebaum, Anne.   2017.  Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine.  New York: Penguin/Random House.

Arendt, Hannah.  1963.  Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.  New York: Viking.

Aristotle.  1953.  The Ethics of Aristotle.  Tr. J. A. K. Thomson.  New York: Penguin.

Atran, Scott.  2010. Talking to the Enemy: Faith, Brotherhood, and the (Un)Making of Terrorists. New York: HarperCollins.

—  2015.  “Response to a Request for Recommendations to the UN Security Council Committee on Counter Terrorism.”  Journal of Political Risk, vol, 3, no. 12, online. file:///C:/Users/owner/Downloads/Atran%20on%20what%20to%20do.html

Auzanneau, Mattheiu.  2018.  Oil, Power, and War: A Dark History.   Translated by John F. Reynolds.  Corvallis, OR and White River Junction, VT: Post Carbon Institute and Chelsea Green Publishing.

Azarian, Bobby.  2019.  “A Complete Psychological Analysis of Trump’s Support.”  Psychology Today,

Bandura, Albert. 1982.  “Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency.”  American Psychologist 37:122-147.

—  2016.  Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm and Live with Themselves.  New York: Worth Publishers, MacMillan Learning.

Baron-Cohen, Simon.  2011.  Zero Degrees of Empathy: A New Theory of Human Cruelty.  London:  Allen Lane.  In US as:  The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty.  New York:  Basic Books.

Bartlett, Steven James.  2005.  The Pathology of Man:  A Study of Human Evil.  Springfield, IL:  Charles C. Thomas.

Baskin-Sommers, Arielle; Allison M. Stuppy-Sullivan; Joshua W. Buckholz.  2016.  “Psychopathic Individuals Exhibit but Do Not Avoid Regret During Counterfactual Decision-Making.”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113:14438-14443.

Batson, Daniel.  2011.  Altruism in Humans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bauer, Michal; Jana Cahliková; Julie Chytilová; Tomáš Želinsky.  2018.  “Social Contagion of Ethnic Hostility.”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115:4881-4886.

Baumeister, Roy.  1997.  Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty.  San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Baumeister, Roy F.; Laura Smart; Joseph M. Boden.  1996.  “Relation of Threatened Egotism to Violence and Aggression: The Dark Side of High Self-Esteem.”  Psychological Review 103:5-33. 

Beauchamp, Zack.  2018.  “Study: 24 Million Americans Think like the Alt-Right.”  Vox, Aug. 10, https://www.vox.com/2018/8/10/17670992/study-white-americans-alt-right-racism-white-nationalists

Beals, Alan R., and Bernard J. Siegel.  1966.  Divisiveness and Social Conflict: An Anthropological Approach.  Stanford:  Stanford University Press.

Beck, Aaron.  1999.  Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger, Hostility, and Violence.  NY: HarperCollins. 

Bélanger, Jocelyn J.; Julie Caouette; Keren Sharvit; Michelle Dugas.  2014.  “The Psychology of Martyrdom: Making the Ultimate Sacrifice in the Name of a Cause.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 107:494-515.

Besteman, Catherine.  2019. “Militarized Global Apartheid.”  Current Anthropology 60:supplement 19:S26-S38.

Blim, Ben.  2018.  “The Lifespan of a Lie.”  Medium, June 7, https://medium.com/s/trustissues/the-lifespan-of-a-lie-d869212b1f62

Boehm, Christopher.  1999.  Hierarchy in the Forest.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bornstein, Robert F.  2019.  “Synergistic Dependencies in Partner and Elder Abuse.”  American Psychologist 74:713-724.

Bourdieu, P.  1991.  The Political Ontology of Martin Heidegger.  Tr. Peter Collier.  Stanford:  Stanford University Press.

Bowles, Samuel. 2006. “Group Competition, Reproductive Leveling, and the Evolution of Human Altruism.” Science 314:1569-1572.

— 2008. “Conflict: Altruism’s Midwife.” Nature 456:326-327.

—  2009.  “Did Warfare among Ancestral Hunter-Gatherers Affect the Evolution of Human social Behaviors?”  Science 324:1293-1298.

Bowles, Samuel, and Herbert Gintis. 2011. A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Brandt, Richard B.  1979.  A Theory of the Good and the Right.  New York: Oxford University Press.

—  1992.  Morality, Utilitarianism, and Rights.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

— 1996.  Facts, Values, and Morality.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, Dee  1971. Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Browning, Christopher R.  2018.  “The Suffocation of Democracy.”  New York Review of Books, Oct. 25, https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxvzKtWgjBJltLPfDjrHQfZMrwQc

Byler, Darren.  2018.  “China’s Government Has Ordered a Million Citizens to Occupy Uighur Homes.  Here’s What They Think They Are Doing.”  Chinafile, Oct. 24, http://www.chinafile.com/reporting-opinion/postcard/million-citizens-occupy-uighur-homes-xinjiang?fbclid=IwAR0oiTYptmpsLovi8SMaCMM8DJzLPwDcgktHRqzbWjPCMCo2c5_8J8JcHmA

Cahill, Tom.  2017.  “Here’s How Much Exxon Paid Republicans Who Urged Trump to Ditch Climate Deal.”  Resistance Report, June 1, http://resistancereport.com/politics/exxon-paid-republicans-paris/
 
Cai, Weiyi; Troy Griggs; Jason Gao; Juliette Love; Joe Ward.  2019.  “White Extremist Ideology Drives Many Deadly Shootings.”  New York Times, Aug. 4, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/04/us/white-extremist-active-shooter.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Cameron, Hazel.  2018. “State-Organized Staration: A Weapon of Extreme Mass Violence in matabeleland South, 1984.”  Genocide Studies International 12:26-47.

Caprara, Gian V.  2002.  Review of Prisoners of Hate by Aaron Beck.  Contemporary Psychology/APA Review of Books 47:180-184.

Castano, Emanuele.  2012.  “Antisocial Behavior in Individuals and Groups.” In The Oxford Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, Kay Deaux and Mark Snyder, eds.  New York:  Oxford University Press.  Pp. 419-445.

Cattaneo, Lauren Bennett, and Aliya R. Chapman.  2010.  “The Process of Empowerment:  A Model for Use in Research and Practice.”  American Psychologist 65:646-659.

Chenoweth, Erica, and Maria Stephan.  2012.  Why Civil Resistance Works.  New York: Columbia University Press.

Cheung, Maria; Torsten Trey; David Matas; Richard An.  2018.  “Cold Genocide: Falun Gong in China.”  Genocide Studies and Prevention 12:38-62.

Choi, Donghyun Danny; Mathias Portner; Nicolas Sambanis.  2019.  “Parochialism, Social Norms, and Discrimination against Immigrants.”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116:16274-16279.

Choi, Jung-Kyoo, and Samuel Bowles.  2007.  “The Coevolution of Parochial Altruism and War.”  Science 318:636-640.

Christian, David.  2004.  Maps of Time:  An Introduction to Big History.  Berkeley: University of California Press.  New preface, 2011.

Clark, Jason K.; Kelsey C. Thiem; Jamie Barden; Jillian O’Rourke Stuart; Abigail T. Evans.  2015.  “Stereotype Validation: The Effects of Activating Negative Stereotypes after Intellectual Performance.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 108:531-552.

Clutton-Brock, Tim.  2016.  Mammal Societies.  New York: Wiley Blackwell.

Cohen, Geoffrey L.; Julio Garcia; Nancy Apfel; Allison Master.  2006.  “Reducing the Racial Achievement Gap:  A Social-Psychologicval Intervention.” 

Collier, Paul, and Nicholas Sambanis. 2005.  Understanding Civil War: Evidence and Analysis.  2 v. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Copeland, William; Dieter Wolke; Suzet Tanya Lereya; Lilly Shanahan; Carol Worthman; E. Jane Costello.  2014.  “Childhood Bullying Involvement Predicts Low-Grade Systemic Inflammation into Adulthood.”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111:7570-7575.

Council on Foreign Relations.  2019.  Modern Slavery: Its Root Causes and the Human Toll.  [Online presentation.]  Posted by Council on Foreign Relations, Oct. 17, https://www.cfr.org/interactives/modern-slavery/?utm_medium=social_owned&utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=modern-slavery&utm_content=101719&fbclid=IwAR3liNVOwm3K647DO5FxwsGHdtEd7k-u0Xv3fBKl1CVg_2N6I8N79UGCRP4#!/section1/item-1

Curry, Oliver Scott; Daniel Austin Mullins; Harvey Whitehouse.  2019.  “Is It Good to Cooperate?  Testing th Theory of Morality-as-Cooperation in 60 Societies.”  Current Anthropology 60:47-69.

De Becker, Gavin.  1997.  The Gift of Fear.  New York: Random House.

De Dreu, Karsten K. W.; Jδrg Gross; Zsomber Méder; Michael Giffin; Eliska Prochazkova; Jonathan Krikeb; Simon Columbus.  2016.  “In-group Defense, Out-group Aggression, and Coordination Failures in Intergroup Conflict.”  Proceedings of the American Academy of Sciences 113:10524-10529.

de Waal, Frans.  1996.  Good Natured:  The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Denworth, Lydia.  2017.  “I Feel Your Pain.”  Scientific American, Dec., 58-63.

Dikötter, Frank.  2019.  How to Be a Dictator: The Cult of Personality in the Twentieth Century.  London: Bloomsbury.

Doğan, Gŏnül; Luke Glowacki; Hannes Rusch. 2018.  “Spoils Division Rules Shape Aggression Between Natural Groups.”  Nature Human Behaviour 2:322-326.

Duckitt, John.  1994.  The Social Psychology of Prejudice.  New York: Praeger.

Duckitt, John.  2001.  “A Dual-Process Cognitive-Motivational Theory of Ideology and Prejudice.”  Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 2001:41-113.

Dulin, John.  2017. “Transvaluing ISIS in Orthodox Christian-Majority Ethiopia: On the Inhibition of Group Violence.”  Current Anthropology 58:785-804.

Dunbar, Robin.  2010.  How Many Friends Does One Person Need?  Dunbar’s Number and Other Evolutionary Quirks.  Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press.

Durkheim, Emile.  1995 [1912].  The Elementary Forms of Religious Life.  Tr. Karen E. Fields.  New York:  Free Press.

Edsall, Thomas B.  2018.  “The Trump Legions.”  New York Times, Nov. 1, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/01/opinion/the-trump-legions.html?fbclid=IwAR38AfAXUb7bMylKR0Rlm-ylz3ha6Sh8kQSv-V4NWfpYUf0Ii9sib25Pkks

Eisinger, Jesse.  2017.  The Chickenshit Club: Why the Justice Department Fails to Prosecute Executives.  New York: Simon and Schuster.

Ellis, Albert.  1962.  Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. New York: Citadel.

Ellsmoor, James.  2019.  “United States Spend Ten Times More on Fossil Fuel Subsidies than on Education.”  Forbes, June 15, https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/united-states-spend-ten-times-more-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-than-education/?fbclid=IwAR1D1nxoOs1mczovgR6Xm7cWHh0aoUcM7COcc4yuAo1rAnSRKP8maHloMEA#2283014c4473

Falk, Dean, and Charles Hildebolt.  2017. “Annual War Deaths in Small-Scale Versus State Societies Scale with Population Size Rather than Violence.”  Current Anthropology 58:805-813.

Fattal, Alexander L.  2019.  “Target Intimacy: Notes on the Convergence of the Militarization and Marketization of Love in Colombia.”  Current Anthropology 60:supplement 19:S49-S61.

Fields, R. Douglas. 2019.  “The Roots of Human Aggression.”  Scientific American, May, 64-71.

Fiske, Alan Page, and Tage Shakti Rai.  2014.  Virtuous Violence: Hurting and Killing to Create, Sustain, End, and Honor Social Relationships.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fletcher, Joseph.  1980.  “Turko-Mongolian Monarchic Tradition in the Ottoman Empire.”  Harvard Ukrainian Studies 3-4 (1979-1980):1:236-251.

Folley, Aris.  2019.  “Top Oil Firms Have Spent $1B on Branding, Lobbying Since Paris Agreement: Study.”  The Hill, March 27, https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/436117-top-oil-firms-spend-millions-on-lobbying-to-block-climate-change?fbclid=IwAR1wwz9Hux7nKsxU32BWkcX22aV0X6J_eKfIhorwO2zxk87ucFhUOI1Hf4Y

Frankl, Viktor.  1959.  Man’s Search for Meaning:  An Introduction to Logotherapy.  Boston:  Beacon. 

—  1978.  The Unheard Cry for Meaning:  Psychotherapy and Humanism.  New York:  Simon & Schuster.

Friedman, Ann.  2017.  “Embrace the Sweet Bliss of Ignorance.”  Los Angeles Times, Dec. 20, A13.

Fromm, Erich.  1941.  Escape from Freedom.  New York:  Farrar & Rinehart.

Fry, Douglas P. (ed.).  2013.  War, Peace, and Human Nature: The Convergence of Evolutionary and Cultural Views.  New York: Oxford University Press.

Fukuyama, Francis.  2016.  “America: The Failed State.”  Prospect Magazine, Dec. 13, http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/america-the-failed-state-donald-trump

Galtung, Johan. 1969.  Violence, Peace, and Peace Research.  Journal of Peace Research. 6(3):167-191.

Gertz, Matt.  2017.   “Breitbart Is Not Independent, It’s the Communications Arm of the Mercers’ Empire.”  MediaMatters, April 21, https://mediamatters.org/research/2017/04/21/breitbart-not-independent-its-communications-arm-mercers-empire/216128

Gigerenzer, Gerd.  2007.  Gut Feelings:  The Intelligence of the Unconscious.  New York:  Viking.

Gigerenzer, Gerd; Peter M. Todd; and the ABC [Adaptive Behavior and Cognition] Research Group.  1999.  Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Goffman, Erving.  1963.  Stigma:  Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity.  Englewood Cliffs, NJ:  Prentice-Hall.

Goitein, Elizabeth.  2019.  “What the President Could Do If He Declares a State of Emergency.”  The Atlantic, Jan.-Feb., https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/?fbclid=IwAR0r9sHrMY3rflhWKSrb9-1gSSGUq-kj6vl7QZS3pEbUvxhIcV8QVoC18Zg.

González-Forero, Mauricio, and Andy Gardner.  2018.  “Inference of Ecological and Social Drivers of Human Brain-size Evolution.”  Nature 557:554-557.

Graeber, David, and David Wengrow.  2018.  “How to Change the Course of History (At Least, the Part that’s Already Happened).”  Eurozine, March 2, file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/Graeber%20and%20Wengrow%20on%20society.html

Greenaway, Katharine H., and Tegan Cruwys.  2019.  “The Source Model of Group Threat: Responding to Internal and External Threats.”  American Psychologist 74:218-231.

Greene, Ross.  2016.  Lost and Found: Helping Behaviorally Challenged Students (and, While You’re At It, All the Others).  New York: Wiley (Jossey-Bass).

Guimond, Serge, et al.  2013.  “Diversity Policy, Social Dominance, and Intergroup Relations: Predicting Prejudice in Changing Social and Political Contexts.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 104:941-958.

Gusterson, Hugh.  2019.  “Drone Warfare in Waziristan and the New Military Humanism.”  Current Anthropology 60:supplement 19:S77-S86. 

Gusterson, Hugh, and Catherine Besteman.  2019.  “Cultures of Militarism: An Introduction to Supplement 19.”  Current Anthropology 60:supplement 19:S3-S14. 

Habermas, Jürgen.  1987.  The Theory of Communicative Action.  2 v.  Tr. Thomas McCarthy; Ger orig 1981.  Boston:  Beacon.

Hahl, Oliver; Minjae Kim; Ezra W. Zuckerman Sivan.  2018.  “The Authentic Appeal of the Lying Demagogue: Proclaiming the Deeper Truth about Political Illegitimacy.”  American Sociological Review 83:1-33.

Haidt, Jonathan.  2012.  The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.  New York: Pantheon.

Hämäläinen, Pekka.  2008.  The Comanche Empire.  New Haven: Yale University Press.

Hammami, Rema.  2019.  “Destabilizing Mastern and the Machine: Palestinian Agency and Gendered Embodiment at Israeli Military Checkpoints.”  S87-97.

Harff, Barbara.  2012.  “Assessing Risks of Genocide and Politicide: A Global Watch List for 2012.”  In Peace and conflict 2012, J. Joseph Hewitt, Jonathan Wilkenfeld, and Ted Robert Gurr, eds.  Boulder, CO: Paradigm Press.  Pp. 53-56.

Harris, Judith Rich.  1998.  The Nurture Assumption:  Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do.  New York:  Free Press. 

Hawley, Emily.  2018.  “ISIS Crimes Against the Shia: The Islamic State’s Genocide Against Shia Muslims.”  Genocide Studies International 11:160-181.

Healy, Melissa.  2018.  “No lie: Voters Tolerate Politicians’ Fibs.”  Los Angeles Times, Dec. 24, A5.

Heid, Markham.  2019.  “The Roots of Good and Evil.”  The Roots of Good and Evil, Special TIME Edition, pp. 16-23.

Hemming, John. 1978. Red Gold: The Conquest of the Brazilian Indians. London: MacMillan.

Henrich, Joseph.  2016.  The Secret of Our Success: How Culture Is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating Our Species, and Making Us Smarter.  Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Hobbes, Thomas.  1950 [1651].  Leviathan.  New York:  Dutton.

Hope, Mat.  2019.  “Revealed: How the Tobacco and Fossil Fuel Companies Fund Disinformation Campaigns throughout the World.”  Desmogblog, Feb. 19, https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/02/19/how-tobacco-and-fossil-fuel-companies-fund-disinformation-campaigns-around-world?fbclid=IwAR0oI640hIv9HYUrCf0AUCJKIgrqPaWfH5JHp5H5tfSGNEPyybEkAlrH71o

Hostinar, Camelia E., and Gregory E. Miller.  2019.  “Protective Factgors for Youth Confronting Economic Hardship: Current Challenges and Future Avenues in Resilience Research.”  American Psychologist 74:641-652.

Howard-Hassman, Rhoda E.  2016.  State Food Crimes.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hume, David.  1969 [1739-40].  A Treatise of Human Nature.  New York: Penguin.

Ibn Khaldun.  1958.  The Muqaddimah.  Tr. Franz Rosenthal.  New York: Pantheon.

Kachanoff, Frank J.; Donald M. Taylor; Thomas H. Khullar; Julie Caouette; Michael J. A. Wohl.  2019.  “The Chains on All My People Are the Chains on Me: Restrictions to Collective Autonomy Undermine the Personal Autonomy and Psychological Well-Being of Group Members.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 116:141-165.

Kahneman, Daniel.  2011.  Thinking, Fast and Slow.  New York:  Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 

Kant, Immanuel.  2002.  Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.  Ed/tr Allen W. Wood.  German original late 18th century.  New Haven: Yale University Press.

Kaufman, Scott Barry.  2018.  “The One Personality Trait That Is Ripping America (and the World) Apart.”  Scientific American, Oct. 26, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-one-personality-trait-that-is-ripping-america-and-the-world-apart/?fbclid=IwAR0kZdrrSVC3UCRamGkHdVFDAKLG2Hm00PDCcHS8OGdvbYHl5ZYC_8kpW7Q

Kiernan, Ben.  2007.  Blood and Soil:  A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur.  New Haven: Yale University Press.

Kincaid, John D.  2016. “The Rational Basis of Irrational Politics: Examining the Great Texas Political Shift to the Right.”  Politics and Society 44:525-550.  

Kirby, Alex.  2017.  “Taxpayers Give Billions in Fossil Fuel Subsidies, Lose Trillions to Related Health Costs.”  EcoWatch, July 25, https://www.ecowatch.com/fossil-fuel-subsidies-2467529956.html

Kissel, Marc, and Nam Kim.  2018.  “The Emergence of Human Warfare: Current Perspectives.”  American Journal of Physical Anthropology 168:doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23751.

Klaas, Brian.  2017.  The Despot’s Apprentice: Donald Trump’s Attack on Democracy.  New York: Hot Books.

Klein, Naomi.  2007.  The Shock Doctrine.  New York:  Metropolitan Books (Henry Holt).

Klein, Naomi.  2014.  This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.  New York: Simon and Schuster. 

Kluger, Jeffrey; Tiffany Sharples; Alexandra Silver.  2019.  “What Makes Us Moral.”  The Secinece of Good and Evil: Special TIME Edition, pp. 6-15.

Kohrman, Matthew; Gan Quan; Liu Wennan; Robert N. Proctor (eds.).  2018.  Poisonous Pandas: Chinese Cigarette Manufaturing in Criotical Historical Perspectives. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Kopnina, Helen, and Eleanor Shoreman-Ouimet (eds.)  2011.  Environmental Anthropology Today.  London:  Routledge.

Korsgaard, Christine M.  1996.  Creating the Kingdom of Ends.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kteily, Nour; Emile Bruneau; Adam Waytz; Sarah Cotterill.  2015.  “The Ascent of Man; Theoretical and Empirical Evidence for Blatant Discrimination.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 109:901-931.

Kteily, Nour; Gordon Hodson; Emile Bruneau.  2016.  “They See Us as Less than Human: Metadehumanization Predicts Intergroup Conflict via Reciprocal Dehumanization.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 110:343-370.

Kyle, Sarah R.  2017.  Medicine and Humanism in Late Medieval Italy: The Carrara Herbal in Padua.  London: Routledge Taylor & Francis

Lang, Samantha F., and Blaine J. Fowers.  2019.  “An Expanded Theory of Alzheimer’s Caregiving.”  American Psychologist 74:194-206.

Langer, Ellen. 1983. The Psychology of Control. Beverly Hills: Sage.

LeDoux, Joseph.  2015.  Anxious: Using the Brain to Understand and Trust Fear and Anxiety.  New York: Viking.

Lefebvre, Henri.  1992.  The Production of Space.   (Fr. orig. 1986.)  New York: Wiley-Blackwell. 

Lerner, Melvin.  1980.  Belief in a Just World:  A Fundamental Delusion.  NY:  Plenum.

Li, Lillian.  2007.  Fighting Famine in North China: State, Market, and Environmnentqal Decline, 1690s-1990s.  Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Lombardi, Lisa.  2019.  “Where the Demons Play.”  The Science of Good and Evil, Special TIME Edition, pp. 24-29.

Lopez, Ian Haney.  2017.  Dog Whistle Politics:  How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class.  New York: Oxford University Press.

Luce, Edward. 2017.  “The Retreat of Wsestern Liberalism.  New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.

Lutz, Catherine.  2019. “Bureaucratic Weaponry and the Production of Ignorance in Military Operations on Guam.”  Current Anthropology 60:supplement 19:S108-S121.

Lyubomirsky, Sonja.  2007.  The How of Happiness:  A Scientific Approach to Getting the Life You Want.  New York:  Penguin Press.

MacIntyre, Alasdair.  1984.  After Virtue:  A Study in Moral Theory.  Notre Dame, IN:  Notre Dame University Press.

—  1988.  Whose Justice?  Whose Rationality?  Notre Dame, IN:  Notre Dame University Press.

MacLean, Nancy.  2017.  Democracy in Chains:  The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America.  New York: Viking.

Madley, Benjamin.  2016.  An American Genocide:  The United States and the California Indian Catastrophe, 1846-1873.

Mann, Michael.  2018.  “Have Wars and Violence Declined?”  Theoretical Sociology 47:37-60.

Maslow, Abraham.  1970.  Motivation and Personality.  2nd ed.  Harper and Row.

Mason, Lililiana.  2018.  Uncivil Agreement: How PoliticsBecame Our Identity.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mayer, Jane.  2016. Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right.  New York: Doubleday. 

Mazzucato, Mariana.  2018.  The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy.  New York: PublicAffairs.

McLaren, Karla.  2013.  The Art of Empathy: A Complete Guide to Life’s Most Neglected Skill.  Louisville, CO: Sounds True Publishing.

McNeill, John Robert, and William H. McNeill.  2003.  The Human Web:  A Bird’s-Eye View of Human History.  Norton. 

Mencius.  1970.  Mencius.  Translated by D. C. Lau.  London: Penguin.

Metzl, Jonathan M.  2019.  Dying of Whiteness: How the Politics of Racial Resentment Is Killing America’s Heartland. New York: Basic Books.

Miller, Virginia P.  1979.  Uknomno’m:  The Yuki Indians of Northern California.  Socorro, NM:  Ballena Press.

Monbiot, George.  2019.  “Demagogues Thrive by Whipping Up Fury.  Here’s How to Stop Them.”  The Guardian, Oct. 3, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/03/demagogues-fury-violence-outrage-discourse?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0-WHNr-MQk0FG0LYZpq1H53lR7eYbFFicfSfv76Ci3VdKPoBIaqs0lmt0#Echobox=1570091915

Morris, Ian.  2010.  Why the West Rules…For Now.  New York:  Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Mutz, Diana C.  2018. “Status Threat, Not Economic Hardship, Explains the 2016 Presidential Vote.”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115:E4330-E4339.

Nelson, Diane M.  2019.  “Low Intensities.”  Current Anthropology 60:supplement 19:S122-S133.

Nesbit, Jeff.  2016.  Poison Tea: How Big Oil and Big Tobacco Inventd the Tea Party and Captured the GOP.  New York: St. Martin’s.

Neuborne, Burt.  2019.  When at Times the Mob is Swayed: A Citizen’s Guide to Defending Our Republic.  New York: New Press.

Nisbett, Richard, and Dov Cohen.  1996.  Culture of Honor: The Psychology of Violence in the South.  Boulder, CO: Westview.

Nova (Magazine).  2017.  “Jeanine Pirro, Alex Jones, and Other Conservatives Call for Civil War if Democrats Succeed in Removing Trump.”  Nova, Aug. 5, http://www.nova-magazine.net/jeanine-pirro-alex-jones-james-woods-conservatives-civil-war-democrats-impeachment-trump/

Nyseth Brehm, Hollie.  2017a. “Re-examining Risk Factors of Genocide.”  Journal of Genocide Research 19:61-87.

Nyseth Brehm, Hollie.  2017b.  “Subnational Determinants of Killing in Rwanda.”  Criminology 55:5-31.

Oil Change International.  2017.  “Taxpayers Charged $7 Billion a Year to Subsidize Fossil Fuels on Public Lands.”  Ecowatch, online, May 24, https://www.ecowatch.com/taypayers-subsidize-public-lands-2420255485.html?utm_campaign=RebelMouse&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_content=EcoWatch

Osgood, Charles E.; G. Suci; P. Tannenbaum.  1957.  Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Park, Yong Chin, and Tom Pyszczynski.  2019.  “Reducing Defensive Responses to Thoughts of Death: Meditation, Mindfulness, and Buddhism.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 116:101-118.

Parks, Craig D., and Asako B. Stone.  2010.  “The Desire to Expel Unselfish Members from the Group.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99:303-310.

Pascoe, Bruce.  2014.  Black Emu, Dark Seeds: Agriculture or Accident?  Broome, WA: Magabala Books Aboriginal Corporation.

Paxton, Robert O.  2004.  The Anatomy of Fascism.  New York: Knopf.

Peterson, Christopher; Steven Maier; Martin E. P. Seligman.  1993.  Learned Helplessness.  New York:  Oxford University Press.

Peterson, Jillian, and James Denaley.  2019.  “Who Are the Mass Shooters?”  Los Angeles Times, Aug. 6, A11.

Pinker, Stephen.   2011.  The Better Angels of Our Nature:  Why Violence Has Declined.  New York:  Viking.

Putnam, Robert.  2000.  Bowling Alone:  The Collapse and Revival of American Community.  New York:  Simon and Schuster.

Rawls, John.  1971.  A Theory of Justice.  Cambridge:  Harvard University Press.

Rawls, John.  2001.  Justice as Fairness: A Restatement.  Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press.

Reardon, Sara.  2018.  “After the Violence.”  Nature 557:19-24.

Reynolds, Arthur J.; Suh-Ruu Ou; Christina F> Mondi; Alison Giovanelli.  2019.  “Reducing Poverty and Inequality Through Preschool-to-Third-Grade Prevention Services.”  American Psychologist 74:653-672.

Rich, Frank.  2018.  “The Original Donald Trump.”  New York magazine, http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/04/frank-rich-roy-cohn-the-original-donald-trump.html?utm_source=fb&fbclid=IwAR33Wu1P-i5tIWSFrRGH1SrF5aaJqngPFpgBgJXbIkMkqLAUHO9RAIlxjzo

Robarchek, Clayton.  1989.  “Primitive Warfare and the Ratomorphic Image of Mankind.”  American Anthropologist 91:903-920.

Robarchek, Clayton, and Carole Robarchek. 1998. Waorani: The Contexts of Violence and War. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Rogers, Carl.  l96l.  On Becoming a Person.  Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Rolheiser, Ron.  2018.  “Moral Outrage.”  Internet posting by author, April 15.

Rosenbaum, Ron.  2019.  Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of His Evil.  New York: Da Capo Press, Perseus Group.

Rovenpor, Daniel R.; Thomas C. O’Brien; Laura De Guissmé; Antoine Roblain; Peggy Chekroun.  2019.  “Intergroup Conflict Self-Perpetuates via Meaning: Exposure to Intergroup Conflict Increases Meaning and Fuels a Desire for Further Conflict.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 116:119-140.

Róźycka-Tran, Joanna; Paweƚ Boski; Bogdan Wojciszke. 2015.  “Belief in a Zero-Sum Game as a Social Axiom: A 37-Nation Study.”  Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 46:525-548.

Rummel, Rudolph. 1994.  Death by Government. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books.

—  1998.  Statistics of Democide. Munchen, Germany: LIT.

Sahlins, Marshall.  2008.  The Western Illusion of Human Nature.  Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press. 

Salaman, Redcliffe.  1985.  The History and Social Influence of the Potato.  2nd edn., ed. by J. Hawkes.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sapolsky, Robert.  2017.  Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst.  New York: Penguin.

—  2018.  “Double-Edged Swords in the Biology of Conflict.”  Frontiers in Psychology, 9:2625 (online).

Saucier, Gerard, and Laura Akers.  2018.  “Democidal Thinking: Patterns in the Mindset Behind Mass Killing.”  Genocide Studies and Prevention 12:80-97.

Savransky, Rebecca.  2017.  “Poll: Most Republicans Say Colleges Have Negative Effect on the United States.”  The Hill, July 10, http://thehill.com/homenews/news/341305-poll-most-republicans-say-colleges-have-negative-impact-on-us

SBS News.  2018.  “Thousands of Batons, Cattle Prods and Handcuffs Ordered for China’s ‘Education’ Camps.”  Oct. 24, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/thousands-of-batons-cattle-prods-and-handcuffs-ordered-for-china-s-education-camps?fbclid=IwAR1jxoM-Bv3w8ebQuTiaVJel-yjjvFsQm1u53aZP9-B8nQiiOiVLiTZ34S4

ScienceBeta.  2019.  “Does Osteocalcin, Not Adrenaline, Drive Fight or Flight Response?”  ScienceBeta, Sept. 12, https://sciencebeta.com/bone-fight-flight-response/?fbclid=IwAR09yGV2zvCDPvPZDMYykmjSYC3PB-xZ1XUXkkxqhGrlpTHbIcIrMxyWewk

Scudder, Thayer. 2005. The Future of Large Dams. London: Earthscan.

Sen, Amartya.  1982.  Poverty and Famines:  An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation.  Oxford:  Oxford University Press.

Shaw, Martin.  2013.  Genocide and International Relations: Changing Patterns in the Transitions of the Late Modern World.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Silverstein, Ken.  2018. “The Fear Factory:  How Robert Mercer’s Hedge Fund Profits from Trump’s Hard-Line Anti-Immigrant Stance.”  Yahoo! News, Nov. 2, https://www.yahoo.com/news/fear-factory-robert-mercers-hedge-fund-profits-trumps-hard-line-immigration-stance-090041709.html?fbclid=IwAR0jq3icmtvX7AuiKMJlGhGJXGW8pju1LBtP3VljEC5LHnd_8N59BvqEDB8

Smith, Adam.  2000 [1759].  The Theory of Moral Sentiments.  Amherst, NY:  Prometheus Books. 

Smith, Adam.  1910 [1776].  The Wealth of Nations.  New York: E. P. Dutton.

Snyder, Timothy.  2015.  Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning.  New York: Tim Duggan Books.

—  2018.  The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America.  London: The Bodley Head (division of Penguin Random House).

Stanton, Gregory.  2013.  “The Ten Stages of Genocide.”  Posting, Genocide Watch website: http://genocidewatch.net/genocide-2/8-stages-of-genocide/

Staub, Ervin. 1989. The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

— 2003. The Psychology of Good and Evil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

—  2011.  Overcoming Evil: Genocide, Violent Conflict, and Terrorism.  New York: Oxford University Press.

Stavrou, David.  2019.  “A Million People Are Jailed at China’s Gulags.  I Managed to Escape. Here’s What Goes on Inside.”  Haaretz, Oct. 17, https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-a-million-people-are-jailed-at-china-s-gulags-i-escaped-here-s-what-goes-on-inside-1.7994216?fbclid=IwAR1Z8w4C5mPVHTcJxxxeJvDSIKMzaPF2CyMj1A8Ne4L-oP85zutFX3rxrsI

Stavrova, Olga, and Daniel Ehlebracht.  2016.  “Cynical Beliefs about Human Nature and Income: Longitudinal and Cross-Cultural Analyses.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 110:116-132. 

Stedman, John Gabriel.  1988.  Narrative of a Five Years’ Expedition against the Revolted Negroes of Surinam.  Ed. Richard Price and Sally Price.  Baltimore:  Johns Hopkins University Press.  (Orig. ms 1790; orig. publ. 1806-1813.)

Stenner, Karen.  2005.  The Authoritarian Dynamic.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, Robert J., and Karin Sternberg.  2008.  The Nature of Hate.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press.

Sun, Lena, and Janet Eilperin.  2017.  “CDC Gets List of Forbidden Words: Fetus, Transgender, Diversity.”  Washington Post, Dec. 15,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/cdc-gets-list-of-forbidden-words-fetus-transgender-diversity/2017/12/15/f503837a-e1cf-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html?utm_term=.8aef9ac3d868

Tadmor, Carmit T.; Ying-yi Hong; Melody M. Chao; Ayala Cohen.  2018.  “The Tolerance Benefits of Multicultural Experiences Depend on the Perception of Available Mental Resources.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 115:396-426.

Tatz, Colin.  2018.  “Seldom Asked, Seldom Answered: II(b) or not II(b)?”  Genocide Studies International 11:216-227.

Tatz, Colin, and Winton Higgins.  2016.  The Magnitude of Genocide.  Santa Barbara: Praeger, “an imprint of ABC-CLIO.”  

Taylor, Kathleen.  2009.  Cruelty: Human Evil and the Human Brain.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Te Brake, Wayne.  2017.  Religious War and Religious Peace in Early Modern Europe.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Timmons, Heather.  2017.  “The Three Ultra-Rich Families Battling for Control of the Republican Party.”  Quartz, online, Dec. 5, https://qz.com/1085077/mercers-vs-kochs-vs-adelsons-the-three-ultra-rich-families-battling-for-control-of-the-republican-party/

Tom, Joshua C.  2018.  “Social Origins of Scientific Deviance: Examining Creationism and Global Warming Skepticism.”  Sociological Perspectives 612:341-360.

Tomasello, Michael.  2016.  A Natural History of Human Morality.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

—  2018.  “The Origins of Morality.” Scientific American, Sept., 70-75.

Traverso, Enzo.  2019.  The New Faces of Facism.  Translated by David Broder (French orig. 2017).  Verso. 

Turchin, Peter.  2003.  Historical Dynamics:  Why States Rise and Fall.  Princeton:  Princeton University Press. 

—  2006.  War and Peace and War:  The Life Cycles of Imperial Nations. New York:  Pi Press.

—  2016.  Ages of Discord.  Chaplin, CT: Beresta Books.

—  2019.  Becoming Human: A Theory of Ontogeny.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Turchin, Peter, and Sergey Nefedov.  2009.  Secular Cycles.  Princeton:  Princeton University Press.

Turner, James Morton, and Andrew C. Isenberg.  2018. The Republican Reversal.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vine, David.  2019.  “No Bases?  Assessing the Impact of Social Movements Challenging US Foreign Military Bases.”  Current Anthropology 60:supplement 19:S158-S172.

Waller, James. 2002.  Becoming Evil:  How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing.  Oxford:  Oxford University Press.

Waller, James.  2016.  Confronting Evil: Engaging Our Responsibility to Prevent Genocide.  New York: Oxford University Press.

Weir, Kirsten.  2018.  “Dismantling Hate.”  Monitor on Psychology, Jan. 42-47.

Weisband, Edward.  2017.  The Macabresque: Human Violation and Hate in Genocide, Mass Atrocity and Enemy-Making.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.

—  2019.  “The Macabresque: Human Violation in Comparative Analytical Perspectives.”  Journal of Genocide Research 21:323-334.

Werner, Emmy, and Ruth S. Smith.  1982.  Vulnerable but Invincible:  A Longitudinal Study of Resilient Children and Youth.  New York:  McGraw-Hill. 

Werner, Emmy E., and Ruth S. Smith.  2001.  Journeys from Childhood to Midlife: Risk, Resilience and Recovery.  Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Whiting, John W. M.; Irvin L. Child.  1953.  Child Training and Personality: A Cross-Cultural Study.  New Haven: Yale University Press.

Wiessner, Polly.  2019. “Collective Action for War and for Peace: A Case Study among the Enga of Papua New Guinea.”  Current Anthropology 60:224-244.

Williams, Kipling D.  2007.  “Ostracism.”  Annual Review of Psychology 58:425-452.

—  2011.  “The Pain of Exclusion.”  Scientific American Mind, Jan.-Feb., 30-37.

Woodham-Smith, Cecil.  1962.  The Great Hunger.  New York: Harper & Row.

Worm, Boris.  2016.  “Averting a Global Fisheries Disaster.”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113:4895-4897.

Worm, Boris; Edward B. Barbier; Nicola Beaumont; J. Emmett Duffy; Carl Folke; Benjamin S. Halpern; Jeremy B. C. Jackson; Heike K. Lotze; Fiorenza Micheli; Stephen R. Palumbi; Enric Sala; Kimberley A. Selkoe; John J. Stachowicz; Reg Watson.  2006.  “Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services.”  Science 314:787-790. 

Wrangham, Richard.  2019.  The Goodness Paradox.  New York: Pantheon (Penguin Random House).

Zaki, Jamil.  2019.  The War for Kindness: Building Empathy in a Fractured World.  New York: Crown.

Zeki, Semir, and John Paul Romaya.  2008.  “Neural Correlates of Hate.”  PLoS One 3 (10):e3556.

Zimbardo, Philip.  2008.  The Lucifer Effect:  Understanding How Good People Turn Evil.  New York: Random House.

—  2018.  “Philip Zimbardo’s Response to Recent Criticisms of the Stanford Prison Experiment.”  Blog, June. http://www.prisonexp.org/response

Northwest Coast: Traditional Indigenous Relationships with Plants and Animals

Sunday, March 10th, 2019

Northwest Coast: Traditional Indigenous Relationships with Plants and Animals

E. N. Anderson

Draft of March 2019

This is a book in progress.  It is about half done.  What is needed is a search through old collections of “myths and texts” to find as much documentation as I can of traditional conservation and sustainability ideas.  I have also only begun work on the art section and some other sections.  I have been working on this book off and on for over 30 years, and at 78 I fear I will not live to finish it.  The press of events has made it impossible to work for the immediate future.  So here is half of it, for anyone that wants that much! 

You are free to use it, but cite it fully and list as “work in progress.”

Contents

Preface

Introduction

1.  Nature

2.  Traditional Culture Areas

3.  Cultural-Ecological Dynamics

4.  Traditional Resource Management

5.  White Settler Contact and Its Tragic Consequences

6.  Resource Mismanagement Since 1800

7.  The Ideology behind It All

8.  Respect

9.  Worldviews Underwriting Knowledge

10.  Teachings and Stories

11. The Visual Art

12.  Conclusions

Appendix 1.  A Note on Languages

Appendix 2.  The Old Northern Worldview

Appendix 3.  The “Wasteful” Native Debunked

Preface

            This work tells the story of traditional management of plant and animal resources by Native peoples of the Northwest Coast of North America.  There, management strategies are rooted in practice developed over thousands of years of living off the land.  A broad ideology of conservation, wise use, care, and respect has evolved. 

            There are many similarities between Northwest Coast views and those of other hunting and fishing peoples of the northern hemisphere, and one feature of this book is to trace resemblances and relationships—more suggestively than systematically, but at least with some grounding.

The book is the product of many years of thinking about experiences, many of them long ago.  I first visited the Northwest in 1960, driving major highways through Washington and Oregon.  Work exigencies have taken me back to the area, for at least flying visits, in most years since.  I did field research on the Northwest Coast in 1983-87, primarily in 1984 and 1985.  I lived in Seattle from 2006 through 2009. 

My research was rather varied in nature, and in the end focused largely on the writings of Wilson Duff, an anthropologist active in the mid-20th century (Duff 1996).  However, I did field work on ecological and environmental issues for about several months in 1984 and another three in 1985, largely among the Nuu-chah-nulth and Haida.  I have driven or hiked through every part of the region treated, covering every mile of major highway in Washington, Oregon and California, and a fairly thick sampling of British Columbia and southern  Alaska.  I can also draw on a great deal of field experience in Mexico and some in Mongolia, where I could live with Indigenous people who still fully maintained beliefs and ontologies similar to the ones described herein.

            This book is also a belated fulfillment of a promise:  to help Native people get fair treatment in their land claims.  Aboriginal title to land and rights to manage resources were not recognized in Canada.  They were finally given some standing from the late 1990s, but use and management rights are still controversial.  In the United States, Native peoples were recognized as “dependent nations” from the earliest years of the republic, but the interpretations of this have fluctuated, depending on whether “dependent” or “nations” was being foregrounded.  Treaty rights to fisheries were disregarded in Washington state, for instance, until Judge Boldt in 1978 ruled that they had to be enforced.  Title to land was recognized, but was signed away (often at gun point) through unequal treaties, or was simply stolen or acquired by duplicity.  Various claims and compensation have resulted, but in both Canada and the United States there is a long way to go.  In 1985 I promised to Haida friends that I would write what I could that would be useful.  I have since written several items about Northwest Coast human ecology, notably my introduction to Wilson Duff’s writings (1996) and relevant sections in my books Ecologies of the Heart (1996) and Caring for Place (2014), and the time has come to bring all together.

Earl Maquinna George, Nuu-chah-nulth scholar, has written:  “The work of a non-native is colored by the inability of the outsider to experience the context of the information collected…there are many parts of native life that have never come out in their work” (George 2003:38).  Of this I am painfully aware, and I am in no position to do any better.  Fortunately, I can often rely on quoting George and other First Nations writers.  Many Indigenous persons are now leading scholars of their traditions, and I will have much occasion to refer to them below.

The position of a person who has devoted his life to being a cross-cultiural interpreter is never easy.  Recently, people like me have been criticized far more severely than Earl George would do.  The point under it all is that we really do not have the lived experience of people who grew up with the label “Native American.”  We do not have the specific experiences of oppression, stereotyping, prejudice, and disenfranchisement.  On the other hand, we can use the data, and we can bring some comparative focus to the enterprise.  We can also bring a real desire to understand and help.  Above all, we can help get the word out.  I try to quote as much as possible, from both early collections and modern works. 

            There is a serious issue with making use of traditional stories recorded in collections of texts.  Many of these were recorded with full permission, for publication, and were told by people who had the rights to tell them.  Many were not.  I have tried to confine my citations of traditional stories to material in the first category, but to do anything like a proper job, I must cite materials that may be in the second.  I have, however, consciously tried to avoid using distorted, “edited,” bowdlerized, or otherwise “settler”-altered materials, and materials clearly recorded from shaky sources or published without even the pretense of permission. I ask forgiveness for errors.  I believe that the traditional teachings of the Northwest Coast are so important that they should be made available to the wider world if they are already out there in published form.

            In usage, I prefer the term “Native American,” though it has drawbacks.  Most of the people in question call themselves “Indians,” but often prefer to be “Native Americans” in formal contexts.  In Canada “First Nations” is now the polite term of reference.  “Indigenous” is a vexed term, but cannot be avoided.  “Local” and “traditional” have their usual vague meanings.  I am quite aware that while some traditions are thousands of years old, some are only a generation old; if their bearers think of them as “traditions,” I am not going to object.  

Similarly, we are stuck with “supernatural” to refer to spirit beings, though they are considered perfectly natural on the Northwest Coast, and include the immortal essences of ordinary animals, these having been “supernaturals” in ancestral times.  I try to avoid making irrelevant discriminations such as “natural” and “supernatural” (see Miller 1999), but most sources use the word, and better recent coinages like “supramundane” are just not current usage.  Finally, the term “authentic” has become so polarized in Northwest Coast studies that I try to avoid it altogether.  It has been especially problematic in art, where modern Native American works were often criticized in the past for not being like those of a hundred years earlier, these latter being somehow more “authentic.”  I apologize for any offense given by particular usages. 

            Native terms are spelled as they are in the sources I quote.  I am not a professional linguist, do not speak any Northwest Coast languages, and am in no position to decide what is “correct,” in a land with dozens of languages and hundreds of local variants.  Many different systems of linguistic transcription are in use, and many Native people prefer the old missionary syllabary system, despite its unsavory origins and implications, because it has been so familiar for so long.  See Appendix 1 for a quick guide to languages.

            I am grateful to a wide range of people, but owe a special debt to my coworker in the 1980s Evelyn Pinkerton, who is not only the finest ethnographer I have ever seen at work but a superb scholar and human being.  I have also had special help and support over the years from Marnie Duff, Leslie Johnson, Joyce LeCompte-Mastenbrook, Nancy Turner, and many other scholars.  My contacts with First Nations people were all too short, usually confined to brief interviews, but I need to acknowledge in particular Guujaw (Gary Edenshaw), Ki-Ke-In (Ron Hamilton), Nelson Keitlah, the late Ray Seitcher, and others.  For particularly valuable advice in the field work years and since, I am grateful to Ron and Marianne Ignace.  I thank also many people whose names I withhold for various reasons of privacy.

Introduction

            The Northwest Coast of North America is of interest for many reasons, not least being the careful management of plant and animal resources by Indigenous peoples there.  Thanks to care backed by an ideology of respect, the Native people supported dense populations with rich artistic traditions and complex stratified societies.  The environment was not just sustainably managed; it was managed to get better over time.  Burning for berries, stocking fish, cultivating root crops, and other techniques exemplified in real time the visionary goal of “sustainable development” that seems so hard to imagine in today’s world.

The characteristics of the Indigenous Northwest are so well described in so many books that it would be tedious to go into detail; see the classic cultural summaries in the Smithsonian Institution’s Handbook of North American Indians, Northwest Coast volume (Suttles 1990). 

            Defining the region is, however, briefly necessary.  The Smithsonian Insititution Handbook is divided into volumes by culture areas.  My “Northwest Coast” overlaps their Plateau (Walker 1998) and Subarctic (Helm 1981), and even makes incursions into California (Heizer 1978).  The problem is that the Indigenous people did not divide themselves into neat culture areas.  The classic Northwest is defined by large plank houses, monumental visual art, ranked societies with chiefs, commoners and slaves, dependence on fish for subsistence, and heavy use of wood in this thickly-forested environment.  The Plateau is defined by large pit houses, use of riverine fish (anadromous or not), heavy use of roots dug in semidesert lithic plains, less strongly ranked societies, and smaller settlements.  The Subarctic is a land of small lightly-built houses, seminomadic societies made up of small bands or groups, and heavy use of mammalian prey (though fish remained staple in many areas). 

Obviously, there will be border groups that partake of two or three cultural areas—sharing one trait with one area, another with another.  The Tsetsaut, Wetsuweten and other Athapaskan-speaking groups shared varying amounts of Northwest culture while being Subarctic in other ways, including linguistic affiliation.  The Wasco and Wishram along the Columbia mediated between Coast and Plateau; so did some other groups.  The little-known Calapuya and Molalla of Oregon do not seem to fit comfortably into any category.  The Yurok, Karok and their neighbors in California neatly bridge the gap between Northwest and California.  The Klamath and Modoc might be considered Northwest Coast, Plateau, California, or even Great Basin.  The areal classifications are modern constructs, not some sort of cast-iron reality. 

Given this ambiguity, I see every reason to draw examples and principles from the farthest extent possible.  Essentially, any group in a drainage basin whose outlet is on the Pacific is within my purview.  This lets me go far inland up the Columbia and Skeena rivers.  I will, of course, usashamedly take examples from even farther afield, where they are relevant (largely in the case of Athapaskan groups that are in other drainages but are very similar in culture to the ones in my area of focus, but also from as far afield as east Siberia).

Using river drainages to define areas has the advantage that the drainages are biologically real and important things, unlike the culture areas, which are somewhat arbitrary classification schemes imposed originally by museum scholars.  Moreover, the rivers provided trade and communication corridors.  Northwest Coast trading was long-range and extensive.  Routes led for hundreds of miles, and individuals often traveled hundreds of miles themselves.  Heavy-loaded canoes went up and down the coast, and there was even regular canoe traffic across Hecate Strait between Haida Gwaii and the mainland; this is such dangerous water that off-season kayakers are often lost today, and many a big boat has been wrecked.  Rivers unified peoples.  Individuals of totally unrelated languages could, and frequently did, meet at major fishing areas, trade, exchange ideas, and frequently marry.  It was evidently rather rare, in anything close to a border zone, to speak only one language.  Many people grew up with two languages in the home. 

The boundary between America and Asia is similarly meaningless culturally.  Since Franz Boas, anthropologists have realized that the northeast Siberian Indigenous peoples were culturally similar to the Northwest Coast ones, though the languages were different (except for Yuit, shared across Bering Strait).  Boas persuaded the wealthy New Yorker Morris Jesup to fund a major “expedition” to study societies on both sides of the Strait.  It was not an expedition in the normal sense, but funding for ethnographers and archaeologists to spend months or a year in a given area, finding all they could about it.  Some of the great classics of ethnography resulted, and some shall be considered below. 

Since then, studying the two sides of the North Pacific as one area has been an agenda pursued by William Fitzhugh and his associates (see esp. Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988), Ben Colombi and James Brooks (2012), and others.  Even farther afield, I encountered attitudes and practices in Mongolia that were essentially the same as what I have seen in the Northwest, and the connecting links via the Siberian societies prove a continuous cultural pattern, not independent invention.  I shall thus introduce Asian examples as occasion affords.

More tenuous are connections across the Subarctic to old Europe.  The Jesup Expedition found no lack of evidence of continuity.  Such things as skis/snowshoes, dogsleds, complex harpoons, skin tipis, and particular forms of sewn skin clothing prove conclusively that there was a “circumpolar” cultural area.  Since we also observe the same patterns of belief and practice in regard to hunting and animals prevalent throughout this area, we can safely assume that there has been at least some sort of ongoing contact, however indirect, thin, qualified, and tentative.  I have thus defined an “Old Northern worldview,” based on these patterns.  I have, however, relegated it to an appendix (Appendix 2), in the rather confident expectation that I will be challenged for vast overgeneralization.  Time will, hopefully, tell how much sharing matters in this case.

            Finally, I cannot stress strongly enough that all groups within this vast area are different, and the families and individuals within them are different from each other.  Generalizing at the level found in this volume is at a very general level indeed.  It blurs out countless major differences and minor nuances. I am concerned with very broad principles of environmental management.  These can be safely generalized, but only if they are kept at a high level of abstraction.  In what follows, I will make distinctions where necessary, but readers should remember that extensive quotes from individuals apply, in the last analysis, only to that individual and, hopefully, his or her ethnic group.  I quote to illustrate very broad and general points about northwestern North America or even the Old Northern worldview in general, but the quotes will have nuances and specific details relevant to the quoted individual’s own life and experience. 

            I, personally, am struck by the similarities across this vast area—the reverence for salmon and wrens that stretches from ancient Ireland to Haida Gwaii, the personhood of moose by the Yukaghir and Beaver—but readers should be aware that the ancient Irish are otherwise not much like the Haida, nor are the Yukaghir the Beaver in disguise.  We have had more than enough of the ascription of “shamanism” to all Indigenous peoples, of the myth of the Noble Savage (Ellingson 2001), and of the stereotype of the “primitive in harmony with nature.”   I am quite conscious of both the differences between groups and of the extreme danger of essentializing and overgeneralizing.  I am trying to tease out particular themes that are both widespread and valuable from a maze of cultural specifics.  Readers are warned not to take anything I say as essentializing some mystic unity among these groups. 

            I am not alone, though, in finding commonalities.  The Haida have been compared for over 100 years with the Vikings, and this has been put on a systematic footing by Johan Ling, Timothy Earle and Kristian Kristiansen (2018).  They define a type of society, the maritime chiefdom, based on seafaring, trade, slave-taking, and some on-shore production of goods and food.  They see close similarities between early Bronze Age and Viking Scandinavia, which is hardly surprising, but then observe that societies from the Haida to the Solomon Islanders display similar patterns: chiefdoms made up of fiercely independent people, united behind leaders of descent groups, living by fishing and seafaring, trading extensively, and taking, trading, and using slaves.  They compare these with nomadic herding peoples, who often have similar patterns of high mobility and extensive trading. 

            On the Northwest Coast, the Haida are certainly the best example.  Some of the Kwakwala-speaking groups, such as the Lekwiltok, come close.  The Nuu-chah-nulth, Makah, and other coastal groups are more local, less trade- and slave-oriented, more satisfied with producing for themselves.  There is, in fact, a smooth gradation from the Haida through these groups to the Salish peoples, perhaps more often targets of slaving than slavers themselves, and much more local in their journeys.  The interior groups often traded and had some slaves, but did not take long sea journeys.  This gradation from sea-raider to local producer makes one dubious of the value of inventing a “maritime mode of production” (as Ling et al. do).  One may better speak of a natural adaptation to local circumstances.  Be that as it may, the comparison stands.

Northwest Coast people and neighboring Siberians share certain ideas, just as westerners share ideas of individualism and individual rationality without losing cultural identity thereby.  These ideas are worth attention, but do not diminish cultural and personal uniqueness. These groups also share much more specific things: details of shamanism and vision quests, specific folktales and songs, specific traits of material culture, even games and clothing styles.  Also, trade kept links open; Anastasio (1972:169) provided a list of 53 classes of goods regularly traded in the Plateau, from abalone shells to yew wood for bows, and even that list is incomplete.  Turner (2014:137ff) similarly discusses the effects of trade on language; words were borrowed freely all over the region.  The cultural links are real and multifarious. 

However, I could write a whole book about the differences between all, and about the dangers of essentializing. This is not that book, but it is written with a lively awareness of that issue.

1.  Nature

The northwest corner of North America is a land of vast forests and high mountains.  It is difficult country for making a living, especially for hunter-gatherers.  Most of the biomass is tied up in wood.  Moreover, the trees are living chemical factories, producing compounds that discourage insects and other herbivores.  Thus, compared to the deciduous forests of eastern North America or the tropical rainforests, they are quite poor in wildlife.  One can hike for miles without encountering anything more than a squirrel or two and a flock of chickadees and nuthatches.  Old-growth mixed forests develop a richer fauna, but much of the region is covered with Douglas fir, famously well protected by its hardness and its chemical defenses against herbivores of all types.  After living in Doug-fir woods for years I am convinced it is about the most inedible tree on earth.  Nothing bothers it.

Food, from a human standpoint, concentrates along the rivers and coasts.  The fish resources are legendary, and even now have to be seen to be believed.  The major fish resource is anadromous (sea-running) salmonids of seven species.  Five species are called “salmon” by Anglo-Americans, two others are “trout.”  The “salmon” are—in rough order of popularity as food—the chinook or king (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha), sockeye (O. nerka), pink (O. gorbuscha), coho (O. kisutch), and chum or keta (O. keta).  The “trout” are the rainbow, which when sea-running is the “steelhead” (O. mykiss) and the cutthroat (O. clarki), which very locally sea-runs too.  Several other trout and char species occur, and a few of them occasionally sea-run.  (The Great Book on Pacific salmonids is Thomas Quinn’s The Behavior and Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout, 2nd edn. 2017, a must-read for all those interested in Northwest ecology.  Among many good accounts of salmon and Native salmon fisheries are Grabowski 2015, Hunn 1990, and Ross 2011 for the Columbia.)

Large rivers may have several runs of the major species, each run coming at a different time and being slightly different genetically from other runs of the same species in the same river.  Salmon smell and taste their way home; the young imprint on their place of rearing, and can detect the scent of their native river far out to sea.  Once in the river, they smell their way up to their origin stream.  Magnetic sense allows them to navigate by that method too.  They evidently recognize bodies and currents of water.  They often do, however, pioneer new homes, especially if—as often happens—landslides or other events have made old homes unreachable.  Salmon are famous for their ability to cross many obstacles—swimming up major waterfalls—but they cannot deal with a really high waterfall.  Also, making a river harder to negotiate may cause them to starve before they reach home.  Each run has evolved to store exactly the amount of fat it needs to swim upriver—they do not feed once in the rivers.  In the past, landslides sometimes blocked rivers and at least temporarily stopped runs.  Modern dam, railroad, highway and other construction that make rivers faster, rockier, more barriered, or otherwise more difficult lead to elimination of runs, through this unfortunate mechanism.

The amount of fish was enormous in the old days.  The Fraser River sockeye run was estimated to be around 160,000,000 fish in 1901, though in 1904 it was down to 6,500,000 due to cyclic variations.  Runs are subject to disastrous accidents that depress that year’s run for a long time without affecting other years’ runs.  The total Fraser salmon run may have produced 3 million to 60 million kg of fish (figures from Michael Kew as summarized by Ignace and Ignace 2017:515).  The Columbia and Yukon systems had many more.  Smaller but still enormous runs negotiated the other rivers.  Even tiny creeks had their own tiny runs.  The large rivers had runs of all six or seven species.  Smaller streams often had fewer.  Steelhead were particularly adaptible (even tiny California creeks have steelhead runs),  Tales of streams that appear “more fish than water” abound from the old days, and a photograph in Thomas Quinn’s book (p. 434) shows that this can be only a slight exaggeration for some streams even today.

Salmon must die after spawning, because their decaying bodies fertilize the water and provide the necessary nutrients for the young.  This sacrifice of life for the newborn is widely noticed and emotionally appreciated by Native peoples, who—in most areas—quickly learned to return all bones to the water to sustain the runs.  Bears take enormous quantities of salmon and eat them on the banks, thus fertilizing those banks as well as the water; thus, incredibly lush vegetation develops along the rivers.  Closing the cycle, much of that vegetation has evolved to dispersed by bears—typically, the bears eat the fruit and then excrete the seeds packaged in fertilizer.  Humans, by managing berry and root resources, took this natural cycle to a new level of sophistication.  

The odd scientific specific names of the salmon are Siberian local names for the species; “sockeye” is a straight borrowing from a Salishan language into English.  All the Native languages have different terms for each species.  Few have a general term for “salmon,” though some do (me in Kwakwala, for instance).  Many indigenous people find it ridiculous that Whites lump such dissimilar fish under one term.  Settler societies, in fact, soon acculturate, and refer to “pinks,” “sockeyes,” and so on, never using the word “salmon” again except in broad economic-statistical contexts.  Northwest Coast people are apt to laugh at outsiders naïve enough to refer to a given fish as a “salmon.”  The odd “Latin” species names of the salmon are the Siberian local names, showing that Siberia too has different names for all.

These species are ecologically differentiated.  Chinooks become huge, especially in the Columbia River drainage, where early-running “springs” were known as “June hogs” from their enormous size.  They run far up the rivers.  Sockeye are smaller, and spawn in small streams draining into lakes, and the young fish rear in the lakes before moving to sea.  Some populations have evolved to spend all their lives in lakes, never growing large or going to sea; these are known as “kokanee salmon.”  They are particularly typical of lakes far from the ocean.  Pinks run into the lower courses of rivers in enormous numbers.  Coho, usually rather small, run very far up into small tributaries and streams; they need particularly cold and clean water, and are thus rapidly dying out in drought-stricken California.  Chum salmon stay in wide lower river courses and estuaries.  Steelhead run into even smaller and more marginal streams than coho, and were the widest of all in distribution, with runs all the way to southern California.

The earliest known use of salmon by humans in North America occurred in central Alaska some 11,500 years ago; the salmon were chum (Halffman et al. 2015).  It is interesting that salmon had already reached that northern drainage by then; it had been totally frozen and unusable not many thousand years before.  Salmon generally return to their native rivers, but are also fast at pioneering when new habitat is available.

Recently, the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) has become a ranched or farmed fish in the Northwest, with locally disastrous consequences; it has escaped locally and competes with the native fish, but far more serious are the diseases and pests it brought with it, which have totally wiped out the pinks and decimated other species in the areas of farming (largely southern British Columbia).

Salmon were the key resource everywhere that major rivers or their tributaries ran.  Closely related fish, including trout and char of the genus Salvelinus and many whitefish of the genus Coregonus, abound in streams and lakes but do not normally enter the ocean.  They are locally the staple fish, especially in colder inland areas.  Interestingly, one thing the entire world seems to agree on is the superior eating quality of salmonids.  They are the height of gourmet dining more or less everywhere they occur, including areas where they have been recently introduced—notably the southern hemisphere, which has few of its own but which has taken to farming salmonds on a huge scale. 

A conoisseurship of salmon exists on the Northwest Coast, among both Native people and settler societies.  True salmon gourmets can not only tell the species, they can tell which river a salmon came from and sometimes even which run in a particular river.  (At least they claim this.  I have not seen a taste test done.)   One learns to tell the rich, subtle flavor of chinook from the deep, oily meatiness of sockeye and the ethereal, evanescent fragrance of fresh-caught pink. Cohos and farmed Atlantics are more modest but still excellent food, though true Northwesterners tend to abstain religiously from farmed salmon.  Chum or dog salmon is less flavorful, as the names imply; it was saved for use as chum (bits of fish thrown out to lure other fish to be caught) or for feeding the dogs.  Recent attempts to rehabilitate it as “keta salmon” have not met with much success.  Still, it was highly valued by groups like the Nuu-chah-nulth because it was abundant and easy to dry.  It is said to develop a fine flavor when properly dried.

Other riverine resources included sturgeon, which, like the salmon, are anadromous.  The white (Acipenser transmontanus) and green (A. medirostris) occur.  Both are large; the white can be mammoth, reahing 20 feet and 1200 pounds.  Both have suffered from overfishing even more than most river fish.

Another very important resource, especially in the Columbia River drainage, was “eels” (lampreys, Lampreta or Entosphenus, formerly called Petromyzon).  Especially important is the the Pacific lamprey Entosphenus tridentata.  These too are anadromous.  They have proved less popular with settler societies, possibly because of their strange appearance, but they are said to be superb eating.  Many Native groups still relish them and want to manage them for recovery, though they are notorious predators of salmon (see Jay Miller’s very important article on lampreys, 2012).  They too needed respect; Miller quotes Patricia Phillips on Oregon usage: “Night eels were only supposed to be cut with a knife made from freshwater mussel shell, otherwise the eels would feel insulted and fishermen might not catch any more of them.”  (Lampreys caught at night were supposed to be better and healthier than day-caught ones.  Miller 2014:130.)

Many other fish species occur, with suckers being locally very important, especially well inland where anadromous fish are available only during major runs.  Some suckers have huge spawning runs of their own, into shallows or spring areas, and these runs may be critically important to local groups.  The Lost River Sucker of the Oregon-California border, now acutely endangered, was so important to the Modoc that it was a religiously important fish.  The Achomawi similarly revere the suckers of Big Lake in northeastern California, and they have been able to get some protection for this run.  

An important article by Virginia Butler and Michael Martin (2013) points out that, at least in the Columbia River drainage, salmon were far from the only important fish.  They were probably the most important single resource, but, locally, other species could outweigh them in total importance.  Many small freshwater fish occur and could be used, but were probably insignificant resources (on fish in the Northwest, see Hart 1973; McPhail 2007; Wydoski and Whitney 2003).  In the Pend Oreille drainage, for instance, a wide range of local trout, whitefish and other species was important.  Kevin Lyons (2015) provides a very valuable study with complete lists, catching technologies, and life history data.

Elsewhere, open seacoasts afforded sea fish, sea mammals, and shellfish. Marine fish abound, and many strictly freshwater species are common enough to support indigenous communities around lakes in the interior.  Even the rivers had shellfish, including the formerly abundant, valuable, and easy-to-harvest freshwater mussels (Jones 2015). 

The candlefish (Thaleichthys pacificus), a smelt so rich in oil that dried ones can literally be used as candles, was a staple food, specifically an oil source.  It was so important that it is known on the coast as “eulachon,” pronounced and frequently spelled “ooligan,” from Tsimshian halimootxw, “savior”—the same term now used for Jesus (Daly 2005:113, 193).  Getting oil from it originally involved letting the fish decay in cold water till the water could be heated to cook the fat out.  This properly aged ooligan grease is an acquired taste (as the present author can attest).

Ocean fish were at least as important as salmon for the more maritime groups.  Herring were especially abundant, gathering to spawn in bays.  The roe was almost as important a resource as the herring themselves.  Halibut, rockfish, “cod” (a general term for fish, mostly not cod), and other marine fish were important.  The Haida, living on islands with small and generally poor salmon streams, depended more on sea fish than on anadromous ones.

Other marine resources were extremely important too.  The Northwest Coast is absolute paradise from a shellfisher’s point of view.  Rocky shores provide attachment for abalones, mussels, chitons, and limpets.  Chitons, now a little-noted resource, were very popular because of their excellent flavor (Croes 2015; I can confirm both their popularity among the Haida and their excellent flavor in Haida Gwaii).  Sandy beaches and, above all, the vast mudflats of the bays and estuaries provide clam habitat.  Shifting bars in bays and estuaries were ideal for oysters, which require this environment.  The cold, nutrient-rich waters are moved by currents that carry enormous amounts of nutrients to these relatively passive feeders.  Shellfish do not offer many calories, and a day of hard gathering in cold wet conditions may involve more expenditure of calories than it brings in, but shellfish were so common on the coast that they usually paid well.  Vast shell middens thus dot the coastline, and in fact shellfish are still an enormously important commercial resource in the Northwest.  Seaweeds were also major resources, though less well known because they do not preserve archaeologically and have only occasionally been well documented as foods.  (On these types of sea resources, see Lamb and Hanby 2005 for fine photographs and general accounts).

Marine mammals once abounded.  Seals and sea lions were important meat sources.  Some Northwest Coast peoples did extensive whaling—quite an accomplishment for people in open dugout canoes (Colson 1953; Sapir 2004; Sepez 2008).  The importance of sea mammals has been underestimated, because heavy whaling, sealing, and sea otter hunting depleted these resources before anthropologists got to the area.  Protection has allowed the gray and humpback whales to recover somewhat, and many now frequent the sounds of wesern Vancouver Island, where they allow such close approach that people sometimes pat them on the head.  Whaling could pay well under such circumstances, though it was still difficult enough to demand incredible levels of ceremony and magic (Sapir 2004).  Sealing was so extensive that the seal resource base was reduced even before European contact, at least in California (Kay and Simmons 2002) and possibly all along the coast.  Deward Walker (2015) has provided an extremely thorough and detailed account of riverine seal and sea lion hunting along the coast from Washington to California.

Seals and sea lions used to come far inland along the rivers (Walker 2015).  Here they ate a great deal of fish, which evidently did not endear them to the local people, who hunted them when possible.  White settlers exterminated them from the rivers, but with protection they are now back, eating enormous quantities of fish, including endangered runs and rare, declining species such as sturgeons.  This is a source of some concern (Walker 2015).  Restoring Native hunting would be a very good way to handle the situation.

Land mammals are numerous:  moose (very locally), deer, elk, mountain goat, mountain sheep, and smaller animals such as marmots and squirrels.  The land was generally rather poor in game, but many areas were exceptions:  lush mountain meadows, lowland prairies, riparian strips, and wetlands. 

Birds were locally important.  As usual, water was more productive than land.  Millions of ducks, geese, swans, cranes, alcids, and other waterfowl flocked to the coasts, lakes, and marshes.  On land, grouse were locally common, especially in forest openings and prairies.

A final note about animals from the human point of view is that some were food:  fish, shellfish, herbivorous mammals.  Some were competition: bears, wolves, mountain lions and other predators all of which consumed humans on occasion, but, more importantly, competed for the same foods.  Some animals were neither very edible nor dangerous, but were respected for their intelligence and thus their presumed role in creating the world: coyotes, ravens, mice, many others locally.  The complexities of these relationships will appear in due course.

Plant foods concentrated in meadows, glades, and wetlands:  Many species of berries, roots, tubers, stems, shoots, leaves, even flowers.  Many trees had edible inner bark, gathered when soft in spring and eaten ground up or in long strands like noodles.  Some fungi and lichens were edible.  In most of the region, these plant and fungal foods did not supply many calories compared to fish or mammals, but they were often essential and always valuable for nutrients.  In the interior parts of Washington and Oregon, root foods were extremely important.  Increasingly as one goes south through Oregon into California, plant foods such as acorns became more abundant, being about as important as fish to the California groups.

Berries were among the more important plant foods in most of the area.  Huckleberries and blueberries (Vaccinium) are especially common and widespread, especially in the mountains.  They tend to be fire-followers, which is important for reasons that will appear.  Highbush cranberries (Viburnum) are locally common.  Blackberries and raspberries (Rubus) occur in many species.  Particularly common and important in the coastal northwest is the salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), a raspberry of indifferent flavor but extremely high bearing; it also has edible shoots that are like bitter celery. 

With berries, as with fish, humans compete with bears for the resource.  Many tales recount the problems thus occasioned.  A hungry grizzly can supposedly eat 100,000 berries a day.  I have watched a grizzly pick up whole huckleberry bushes and pass them through her teeth, pulling off berries, leaves and twigs and swallowing all together.  Berries are a plant’s way of getting birds and mammals to disperse (and fertilize) its seeds, and bears probably take much credit for distributing berries around the landscape.

Critical in all the above is the extreme contrast between fantastically rich waters—shoreline and sea—and usually poor land resources, especially at high altitudes.  On land, there were similar if less extreme contrasts between berry and root patches—mostly openings, prairies, and plains—and the forests, which were very poor in foods that humans could exploit.  Not only are they minimally productive of edible material; most of what they do produce is tens or hundreds of feet up, out of normal human reach.  Even in the water, there are differences.  At one extreme are choke points where falls and rapids delay salmon migration and concentrate the fish ascending the river; the most famous one is The Dalles on the Columbia, but there are similar if less dramatically productive cascades in most large rivers.  At sea, certain points where currents meet and upwelling zones appear are particularly productive. 

The commonest tree is Douglas fir.  Its superior wood now makes it a staple of world trade, but it was of less use aboriginally; the hard wood is difficult to work, though it makes excellent firewood.  A useful statistic is that a mature Douglas fir may have 70,000,000 needles, a fact not at all surprising to the present author, who spent years sweeping a deck under a grove of them.  (For this, and for more useful information about forest management conflicts, see Satterfield 2003.)  Since Douglas fir grows only in sun and usually only in disturbed habitats, it is naturally a follower of fire, flood, and blowdown.  It is thus the ideal tree for management by clearcut-and-replant, and therefore dismal cornfield-like stands of “Doug fir” cover most of the accessible Northwest today.

Much more useful to Native people was the red cedar (Thuja plicata, technically a cypress, not a cedar).  Its wood is softer and easy to work, but extremely durable, making it the preferred material for canoes, totem poles, and woodwork in general.  One can carve, split, or bend it with convenience, and it is very tractable and cooperative—few knots or splinters or checks or splits.  It grows to enormous size—only the redwoods are much bigger—and thus a single log can make a dugout big enough to carry a whole crew and several tons of freight.  Dugouts are still made of cedar today, mostly for show but sometimes still for use.

Cedars invaded the Northwest rather slowly after the glaciations, not becoming common in more northern areas till about 6000 years ago; cedar and spruce are still spreading northward.  Cedars could be overharvested.  On Anthony Island in Haida Gwaii, where the red cedar is at the very edge of its range, cedars decline dramatically from about 500 AD, when the island became the site of a large village with many canoes and totem poles (Lacourse et al. 2007). 

The related yellow cedar replaces the red in cold and wet areas.  Its wood is useful, and its shreddy bark makes perfectly serviceable clothing.  Another useful tree was the red alder (Alnus rubra), much smaller but with hard wood.  The Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia) provided the best bows (as the European yew did in old England).  Many small trees with distinctive characteristics exist, such as the Oregan crabapple (Malus fusca), a true apple with extremely hard wood and small fruits that are sour but good (see long, detailed study by Reynolds and Dupres 2018).  Much commoner and more visible are the true firs, Abies species.  Many species exist, some of which grow to 250’.  Despite priority over the name, they have lost it to the Douglas fir in the Northwest. It is not a fir (it may be closer to pines), but is far commoner and has much better wood, so it has usurped the name “fir.”  In western Canada, true firs are called “balsams.”  In the northwestern US, they are “true firs.”

Old-growth coastal forests in the Northwest are quite incredible sights.  (Vaillant 2005 gives a stunning and romantic description.)  Many species of evergreens grow to 200’ or more, some over 300’.  The redwoods of northwestern California can reach 379’; they are by far the tallest trees in the world.  The only other trees on earth conclusively known to break 300’ are the Douglas fir and Sitka spruce.  Possibly other Northwest Coast trees (grand fir, sugar pine, and red cedar) broke 300 in the past.  The sheer amount of wood is incredible.  Wildlife is thin, and mostly far up in the canopy.  Stands were often over 500 years old, since fire and other catastrophes are rare. 

Soil fertility was maintained by nitrogen fixation by lichens, and also—more exotically—by bears dragging salmon up from streams.  The bears would eat some salmon, scavengers would eat more, and the fish and bear-dung would fertilize the land, sometimes as heavily as a modern farmer fertilizing a crop (Gende and Quinn 2006).  This kept alive many trees that needed much nitrogen and could not get it otherwise, such as Sitka spruce.

The interior is different:  fires are much more frequent, and the dominant trees are the fire-following pines and Douglas firs.  (On forest fire regimes, see Agee 1993.)  These do not grow under their own shade, and thus are slowly replaced by shade-tolerant hemlock, cedars, balsam firs, and so on if the fires do not return.   This can take a while.  Douglas firs can live hundreds of years.  Replacement is just beginning in the 100-year-old forests around Seattle.  Soil has much to do with it.  Replacement is far along on rich, deep soils, but barely starting on barren ridgetops.  In the drier and more lightning-prone parts of the interior, fire intervals are much more common than this, so pine and Douglas fir remain dominant indefinitely.

Douglas firs do not tolerate extreme cold, though they can take a lot, and they are replaced in high mountains and north of central BC by spruces of various species.  The interior north is dominated by white spruce, with black spruce on wet sites.  Middle mountain slopes and plateaus that burned often were occupied by lodgepole pine.  Resources are few in pine forests, but include a wide range of fungi (some now commercially valuable) as well as edible cambium and a few herbs.

The typical replacement situation involves alder or cottonwood coming in first.  Alder normally comes in first, especially in less fertile areas, because it fixes nitrogen, as beans do, using symbiotic root bacteria (Rhizobium).  Faster-growing but nitrogen-demanding cottonwood and willow take over in very fertile sites.  Maples, wild cherries, and several other species of trees occur as minor components in the forests. 

The extensive openings created by wetlands, prairies, high mountain meadows and tundras, coastal barrens, and the like are covered by a wide variety of grasses, composites, herbs and bulbs.  Most of these are useful to humans for food, medicine, basketry, cordage, bedding, and many other purposes. 

The vast lava plateaus of interior Washington and Oregon were originally covered by grassland or sagebrush.  These environments were rich in edible roots and bulbs, as well as other plant resources, plus deer and pronghorns.  Root crops are low in calories and take a lot of work, so fish remained the main resource in most of the region.

            Productivity of the seas and waters was almost uniformly high, but the land was uneven in this regard.  Vast areas of rugged, high mountains were almost worthless to early humans except for hunting marmots and mountain goats, and a few other resources.  Much of the forested area was thin on resources, and fire to produce openings was welcome.  At the other extreme of productivity were the mouths of the major rivers.  Here the nutrients of a large percentage of North America were concentrated.  Tens of millions of salmon and countless lesser fish swarmed in the waters.  The extensive mud banks were veritable factories of clams and oysters.  Waterfowl in millions flocked there.  The rich alluvial soil produced roots, berries, and herbs, as well as fast-growing trees.  Bits and pieces of this riverine richness still exist along the lower Skeena, Fraser, Skagit and Columbia, but so terribly hurt by mismanagement that we can form no real idea of what it was like 300 years ago.

2.  Traditional Cultural Areas

In this study I discuss the region classically defined as the “Northwest Coast” (Suttles 1990) and “Plateau” (Walker 1998) cultural areas, as well as neighboring Athapaskan-settled areas linked by rivers and trails to the coast.  Roughly, this comprises what is today the panhandle of Alaska; most of British Columbia; all of Washington, and Oregon; northwestern California; and small neighboring bits of Yukon and Idaho.  Operationally, I am largely defining my topic area as the region where salmon are common enough to be a major resource.  This basically means the Pacific-slope drainages from the Klamath to Alaska.  However, I exclude Alaska itself, except for the panhandle, because it is culturally so different as to require a separate discussion.  I also exclude most of Idaho and western Montana, where the rivers run to the Pacific but the fish are few enough to make the people adapt to other resources, and thus the cultural ecology is different indeed.

Within this area, most of the basic ideas I am considering are broadly similar:  respect for animals and plants, taking them as people (“other-than-human persons”), managing them for conservation but cropping them heavily, and so on.  Since I am concerned with cultural representations of conservation, it is these similarities that matter to my immediate project, and thus I feel comfortable about treating in one book a range of societies that are fantastically different in many other ways.  However, the differences matter too.  One notable example is the contrast between the spectacular totem poles and housefronts of the northern Northwest and the unobtrusive, low-key, but exquisitely detailed arts of the other regions.

The classic Northwest Coast was the realm of large permanent villages and highly complex societies dependent on sea fisheries and salmon.  They are the creators of the great art objects and ceremonies that makes the Northwest so famous.

The Athapaskan groups ranged from small mobile bands hunting big game and camping seasonally for fish to groups bordering on and culturally close to the Northwest Coast tribes.  The Athapaskan groups share a particular and striking epistemology that will be of major concern below.

The Plateau peoples are the most varied ecologically, ranging from the Shuswap and Lakes in the northern forests to the Yakima on the sagebrush deserts of interior Washington.   They lived on a varied diet of fish, game, roots, berries and other plant foods.  Their usual houses were substantial pit houses:  the foundation was dug out two or three feet deep into the ground, large logs were set up in a square, and substantial timbers were put over these to make a domed roof; the whole was then covered with sod.  These large, comfortable, well-insulated houses were ideal for the climate, and they hardly changed for 5,000 years.  The Plateau people were highly mobile, at first in canoes, later on horseback, and their mobility patterns have locally persisted to this day; they may suddenly disappear from one place and reappear in another they supposedly “abandoned” decades before, to the surprise of Euro-American settlers (Ackerman 2005; Pryor 1999).

Humans entered North America from Asia, probably about 16,000 years ago, give or take a millennium.  Earlier dates are suggested by equivocal but interesting evidence from both North and South America.  The stock that came in at these early times was similar to recent finds in south-central Siberia at 24,000 and 17,000 year old levels.  These finds have been genetically sequenced (Raghavan et al. 2014) and prove to be somewhat intermediate genetically between Europe and East Asia; they have many resemblances to earlier Chinese finds and to European and west Asian populations.  The split between east Siberians and Native Americans is about 20,000-23,000 years old; the Athabascans separated later, about 13,000 years ago (Raghavan et al. 2015).  There is no believable evidence of early contact from Europe to the Americas (despite some claims in the media).  There is no question that Native Americans entered the Americas via the Bering Strait within the last few tens of thousands of years.  Native Americans now hold that “we have always been here,” but this applies to their existing languages and societies, not to their ultimate genetic ancestors—as their origin myths generally show, since most relate migrations, or tell of times before humans, when the animals were the people.

Archaeological finds in the Northwest go back to about 12-15,000 years ago, but the area must have been settled before that.  Humans were in South America by 13,000 years ago.  They must have gone through the Northwest to get there.  An early site, On Your Knees Cave on the Prince of Wales islands in Alaska, goes back to 10,300 years ago, has obsidian from Mt. Edziza, on the mainland some 200 km away (Moss 2011; Turner 2014-1:57; on Mt. Edziza, see Reimer 2018).  A wetsite on Haida Gwaii has even preserved wooden tools that look like recent ones but are over 10,000 years old (Moss 2011:90).  Now-extensive archaeology has turned up a long record of gradual learning to use the land more and more efficiently.  There are few, if any, sharp breaks in the record; apparently, people and societies have been developing rather smoothly (Moss 2011), with no evidence of the vast migrations and sudden cultural intrusions that delight archaeologists of Asia.

It is now widely agreed that the main early route into the Americas was along the Northwest Coast.  The famous “Plains corridor” between the Cordilleran and eastern Canadian ice sheets probably did not open early enough to be a competitor, though evidently people came down it as soon as they could.  The Pleistocene glacial maximum, which covered Canada with ice from Atlantic to Pacific and made travel impossible, was earlier than we used to think—more like 19,000 than 16,000 years ago (Clark et al. 2009).  Thus, people could probably have come down the coast by 15,000 BC.  But what was then the coast is now 300 feet deep, the sea levels having risen.  So we know nothing of the earliest migrants. 

By 10,000 years ago, however, people were established in Haida Gwaii (the Queen Charlotte Islands) and elsewhere along the coast.  There is total cultural continuity in Haida Gwaii; apparently the ancestral Haida settled there and never moved.  They were drying salmon in large villages 7000 years ago (Cannon and Yang 2006), e.g. at Namu, where occupation goes back to 11,000 yeas ago.  Salmon and shellfish increases there from 6000 years ago (Moss 2011; Turner 2014-1:84).

The Archaic period lasted from before 10,000 BCE to about 4400, and was characterized by small, mobile groups wandering the landscape, hunting and fishing.  After 4400, the Pacific period set in, lasting until contact with European settlers.  Settled life rapidly advanced, with “storing large volumes of food; increased population density, sendentism, [increasing] household
and community size; escalated warfare; development of canoe-based land-use patterns; more institutionalized social status differences,” and more intensive management of resources (Sobel et al. 2013:31).  Pit houses appear in the interior by very early dates, and were common everywhere by 3000 years ago (Turner 2014-1:85).  By this time also, high-elevation sites were occupied, evidently for berrying and other resource extraction (Turner 2014-1:97).

            Development was fairly slow in early millennia, though large pit houses appear quite early in the record.  Very large, complex societies were established by 1000 BCE.  In the Fraser River canyon, truly astonishing developments existed by 1800 years ago.  At Bridge River, a ttributary that joins the Fraser just north of Lillooet, by 1400-1300 BP there was a huge village with dozens of house pits, some large enough to imply houses holding some 50 people (Prentiss, Cross, et al. 2008; Prentiss, Foor, Hogan, et al. 2012; Prentiss, Foor, Cross, et al. 2016).  Also notable was the rapid rise of inequality; there were chiefs and commoners—more accurately, high-ranked and lower-ranked lineages—and they were very different indeed in the archaeological record.  This village, and other large villages on the middle Fraser, were abandoned around 1000 years ago.  This appears to be due to overhunting, overfishing, and presumably the Medieval Warm Period’s negative effects on fish (the water may have grown too warm for healthy runs).  People reverted to more egalitarian and nomadic lifestyles.

Prentiss and her collaborators review several possible reasons for the rise of inequality in a village like this.  Social learning and imitation is expectably involved.  Self-aggrandizing individuals probably arose; “competitive signaling” by feasts and donations presumably occurred, as it did later.  Presumably some coercion was involved.  There must have been rebels, surely.  Inequality could emerge partly through competition between individuals—presumably their families would slowly evolve into ranked lineages.  Prentiss tends to favor a more moderate situation, in which “house size evolves to solve problems to do with labor management, kin relations, and defense” (Prentiss et al. 2012:544). One assumes some ideological and ceremonial reflection of this (ibid.), but no obvious evidence suggests itself.  Fishing, and control of good fishing spots, was the basis of it all. 

Further research showed diminishing returns to hunting and fishing as the site grew more populous.  More and more mouths had to be fed from less and less available food. This would have meant competition, with the better providers winning out.  Powerful lineages could have arisen as the more successful families consolidated their hold.  Thus in their 2018 paper, the Prentiss group opts for Malthusian pressure as the driver of inequality, social complexity, and bigger, better-built villages.  It would not be the first or only time in history when food problems drove hierarchy and dominance.  When the fishery declined sharply around 1000-900 CE, the population dispersed and the village was abandoned.  It was reoccupied just before settler contact, but abandoned for good in the 1850s, as gold rushes drove Indigenous people away from the Fraser.

Pit houses got larger in early millennia.  On the coast they began to give way to plank houses by 4000-5000 years ago; square house-floors a thousand years older may indicate even earlier ones (Ames and Sobel 2013:131; Moss 2011).  One survives (as an archaeological ruin) from 800 BCE (Sobel 2013:31).  Many were found at the Ozette site.  A single house could contain 35,000 board feet of planks and a village could have a million board feet tied up in housing (Ames and Sobel 2013:138), to say nothing of the amount used for containers, tools, and fuel.  Houses 400 and even 1200 feet long are claimed in early explorers’ accounts, especially for the Lower Columbia and Lower Fraser areas, where resources were really rich.  These would have been adjacent “townhouse” units housing whole villages.

In fact, the whole Northwest Coast shows remarkable continuity, with in-situ development of cultures.  The best-known areas are, unsurprisingly, those nearest the archaeology faculties of the University of British Columbia and the University of Washington.  Here, fairly complex cultures are already known by 3000 years ago, and the modern cultures seem to have been established well over 1000 years ago.  Something of a cultural peak was reached in the Marpole phase along the lower Fraser River and in neighboring areas, 2000-3000 years ago (for Fraser culture history see Carlson et al. 2001).  This may correlate with drier conditions that changed resource availability (Lepofsky, Lertzman et al. 2005).  Major stone fortifications in this area show a great deal of warfare was present in the late prehistoric period (Schaeper 2006).  The global altithermal from around 9000 to 4000 years ago gave way on the Coast, as elsewhere, to a cold period about 3800-2600 (Moss 2011:138).

The same correlation of drying with reduced salmon, more diverse exploitation, and resultant rapid rise in cultural complexity was independently noted for the interior Plateau (Prentiss et al. 2005).  There, complexity of village life increased sharply around 2500 years ago when drier conditions set in.  It reached almost modern levels about 1100 years ago at the start of the Medieval Warm Period, a relatively warm period from the 900s to 1300 CE.  Some increase took place thereafter, in spite of the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1800.

A more recent site is Sunken Village, on Sauvie Island in the Columbia at Portland.  Here, vast acorn processing and storage facilities exist.  Acorns and hazelnuts were staples.  “The acrorn-leaching technology and baketry of Sunen Village show marked similarities to those of much more ancient Jomon period acorn-processing sites throughout Japan” (Turner 2014-1:101), with similar basket and bag techniques; this is independent invention rather than diffusion. 

Another revealing, though tragic, find was of a young man who apparently fell and froze some 300 years ago at the edge of a glacier in British Columbia near the Alaska border.  Recent melting revealed his body.  He had eaten salmon, crab, and coastal vegetables, so he was evidently coming from the coast.  Particularly interesting was a magnificent spruce-root hat he wore, a masterpiece of basket technology (Turner 2014-1:105 shows a photograph).  Apparently he not only has living relatives, but is probably an individual remembered in local oral tradition (Moss 2011:142-144).  He was cremated and his ashes scattered near where he was found.

By the time the white voyagers and traders reached the area in the mid-18th century, an incredible linguistic diversity existed in the northwest.  This evidently dates back to the very early settlement.  There was maximal opportunity for unrelated groups to establish themselves, and for related peoples to diverge so much that their original relationships are now untraceable.  Many high-level linguistic linkages have been postulated (e.g. between Haida and Na-Dene and between Wakashan and Salishan), but I am unconvinced (not dogmatically so; just skeptical) after looking at a fair amount of evidence.  One fairly well-documented, though still controversial, relationship is striking, however:  Na-Dene has now been argued to be related to Ket, a rarely-spoken language within a group of very closely related “Yeniseian” languages spoken along the central Yenisei River in Russia (Vajda 2004).  It is not really surprising, given histories of migration and contact, to find a large language family whose closest relationships are in the Old World rather than next door in the northwest.

There were six very different language phyla along the coast:  the Haida on their islands; the Na-Dene (Tlingit and Athapaskan) on the northern coasts and throughout the northern interior; the Tsimshian in the lower Skeena and Nass drainages and neighboring coast; the Wakashan (including Haisla, Heiltsuk, Kwakwala and Nuu-chah-nulth) along most of the rest of the coast, the Salish along the “Salish Sea” coasts and much of the interior; and the tiny Chemakuan language family on the Olympic Peninsula.  Haida has often been argued to be a part of the Na-Dene group, but the evidence is poor; most of the resemblances seem to me to be either clear borrowings (e.g. yel ??? for raven in northern Haida; raven is yel in Tlingit, gagak in southern Haida  CHECK THIS) or fairly likely ones.  If there is a true relationship, it is at a very deep level.

There were several additional language groupings in the interior.  Theoretically related to Tsimshian in a huge “Penutian” phylum, but the evidence for relationships among these languages does not convince me.  One group includes Cayuse and Molalla in Oregon.  It is not obviously related to Tsimshian, or indeed to any other group.  Also “Penutian” are the Sahaptian languages of the middle Columbia River in Washington and Oregon, and the Chinookan languages of the lower Columbia River.  None of these show overwhelmingly obvious relationships to the group originally called “Penutian” languages, which occur in California.  Further research on relationships is needed.

People and groups could easily switch languages, and bilingualism was frequent.  The Gitksan may be an Athapaskan group that switched to a Tsimshianic language fairly recently (Miller 1982) or may include descendents of many Athapaskans.  The Inland Tlingit of southwest Yukon were certainly Athapaskan-speakers till recently, and preserve some memory of the change.

These languages were usually grammatically and phonologically complex.  The Salish languages are among the most difficult in the world for outsiders to pronounce.  Nancy Turner has shared with many of us a word from Nuxalk (a particularly difficult Salishan language): čłp’xwłtłpskwč’, meaning “he had in his possession a bunchberry plant” (just the simple word p’xwłtłhp “bunchberry” with a third person possessive). 

In spite of the difficulties, practically every adult knew at least two, often completely unrelated, languages, and many knew three or four.  A kaleidoscopic variety of languages was jammed into a very small space.  War, raid, trade and intermarriage were all constant.  Intermarriage guaranteed that many people spoke two languages from birth, and in some areas it was said that the very concept of having only one native language was strange.  There was thus little barrier to the spread of even the most difficult-to-communicate knowledge, including technical trainings, myths, songs, and religions.

Tragically, all these languages are disappearing, and some are long gone.  One aspect of this has been the loss of the higher style registers.  Chiefs could speak in extremely formal, rhetorical, arcane styles.  Wilson Duff’s notes, which I studied in the 1980s, record that the last speakers of the highest level of chiefly rhetoric passed away in the 1960s.  This left Florence Edenshaw Davidson, one of the more impressive women in Native American history (Blackman 1982), as the last fluent speaker of apparently somewhat less arcane, but still highly aristocratic, Haida.  I was fortunate to meet her and one or two other elders before their passing, but heard no speeches.  (John Enrico recorded an enormous amount of data from Ms. Davidson, but has not seen fit to publish much of it.)  I was more fortunate among the Nuu-chah-nulth, where fine speechmaking in elite style is still extant among the elders.  If what I heard there is any sample (and I am sure it is), we have lost an incredible amount in losing the old elite registers and speeches. 

In historic times, the climax of cultural richness and complexity was in the north, among the Haida, Tsimshian, and their neighbors.  In prehistoric times, however, the climax may well have been around the Salish Sea.  This is the body of water whose Canadian portion is the Gulf of Georgia, whose American portion is largely Puget Sound, and whose shared portion is the Juan de Fuca Strait.  Since it is geographically and ecologically one, with its core area stretching from the Fraser River delta to central Puget Sound, it has recently acquired the much more apt name of Salish Sea.  The international border runs right through it, splitting a major ecological, linguistic, and cultural focus in two.

            Contact across the Bering Strait or even directly across the North Pacific—at least via lost and wrecked boats from Asia—maintained cultural connections.  The Bering Strait comprised a cultural highway, as Boas pointed out long ago (Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988).  One language, the Eskimoan Yupik, was and is spoken on both sides of the strait.  Songs, tales, and other lore were found to link the Siberian Chukchi and Koryak with the American Tlingit and others. 

Metal came to the Northwest by trade and in the wrecks; the Northwest people also learned to work naturally occurring copper from the Copper River (Alaska) and elsewhere (see excellent review by Acheson 2003).  The earliest Boston and English traders brought more, up to tons per voyage (Acheson 2003:229).  All this helped greatly with the woodworking, especially iron from wrecks and later from traders.  This metal spread far inland, being often traded for interior products such as furs and “clamons”—elk hides prepared for armor (Cooper et al. 2015).  These hides can be made so tough that they will stop arrows and even long-shot musket balls.

            A final note on language is the rise, tremendous flourishing, and final decline of Chinuk Wawa, known as Chinook Jargon in English (and thus in most of the literature).  This is a drastically simplified form of Chinook, with many loanwords from other languages.  These are largely Nuu-chah-nulth and Washington Salish languages, but include English and French.  The Wawa developed within and for the fur trade in the late 18th century.  It probably had some degree of ancestry in widespread and presumably somewhat altered Chinook spoken before contact with the whites.  The Chinook language was the most important of a small group of closely related languages spoken on both sides of the lower Columbia River.  The Chinook people, situated at the mouth of that great corridor, naturally became major traders, and their language was widely known far up the Columbia and up and down the coasts.  It was thus well placed to become the substrate for a trade jargon.  Chinuk Wawa uses a simplified phonology and drastically simplified grammar.  It was spoken throughout the Northwest Coast, though not commonly north of central British Columbia, and many whites were fluent speakers, though virtually no whites ever learned any of the traditional languages.  George Lang (2008) has provided a delightful and scholarly history of Wawa.  It survives in countless loanwords and placenames, though it has more or less died out as a spoken language.

3.  Social and Cultural-ecological Dynamics

Society consisted of lineages ranked in some sort of order of power or nobility. Within these were hereditary chiefs, ordinary people of status, and commoners.  There were rather few of the last; this was a world where there were more elites than masses.  This is, however, probably a post-European-settlement phenomenon, due to mass population decline and consequent shortage of people to fill the ranks of the titled (see Boelscher 1988:52 for the debate on this idea).  Below this were slaves, a distinctly separate class, made up largely of captives from other tribes and their descendents.  Raiding for slaves was universal and important.  Slaves could be killed, and sometimes were (de Laguna 1972 has particularly interesting accounts, though scattered through a huge book, and hard to find; see also Boelscher 1988:59-62).

Viola Garfield’s description of the Tsimshian can stand for the whole northern coast:  “Chiefs delegated work to their immediate relatives, wives, children and slaves and set a goal of the quantities to be collected.  They supervised men’s work while their senior wives supervised the labor of younger women and female slaves.  Feasts. Potlatches and ajor undertakings like the building of a new house, were planned several years in advance and surpluses were accumulated in accordance with such long range plans…all resource properties belonged to lioneages or their titular heads.  However, the privilege of using areas belonging to a[n individual] man were extended to his sons during his lifetime” (Garfield, Barbeau and Wingert 1950:15, 17). This latter custom conflicts with the normal rule of matrilineal inheritance, and was at the discretion of the chiefs.  

There has been debate on whether the Northwest Coast was a “class society.”  The slaves were clearly a lower class.  There remains a question of whether there was a major distinction between chiefs and commoners, or the chiefs were merely primi inter pares.  Certainly some of the great chiefs of the mid-19th century were rulers of villages and had large bands of followers, but they were to some extent a product of the settlers’ fur trade.  Scholars who have worked with more egalitarian groups like the Gitksan tend to think pre-fur-trade chiefs merely gave symbolic leadership to families (Daly 2005:196).  Scholars working with the more powerful groups of the outer coast, such as the Haida and Tsimshian, are more open to the “class” word (Garfield, Barbeau and Wingert 1950:28; Roth 2008).  Certainly noble families were acutely aware of their status, as all ethnographies and Indigenous writers of the truly coastal groups agree.   Class” is rather an ambiguous concept at best, and also the Northwest Coast’s more powerful groups were in process of change and differentiation, making their societies “boundary phenomena” in many ways.

Societies were also organized into “houses.”  The actual houses were usually large, and had names.  The house as a named institution, however, was more than that: it was often coterminous with the lineage, or with the group of close bilineally-reckoned relatives typical of central coast First Nations.  Houses thus became quite comparable to the “houses” of Europe, as in house of Windsor, house of Tudor, or house of Gotha—though obviously on a smaller scale.  This comparison was first taken seriously by Claude Lévi-Strauss (e.g. 1982), and has been much discussed since, especially by Jay Miller (2014, passim).

A particularly interesting institution was the name (Miller 2014, passim).  A child would have a personal name, but anyone of substance eventually succeeded to a hereditary title within his or her lineage, and new names could be created.  Names were honored titles comparable to those of feudal Europe.  As Macbeth was first addressed as Cawdor, later as Glamis, and finally as Scotland, so a Northwest Coast person would be addressed by the latest and highest name he or she had acquired.  The difference was that Macbeth took over the estates with those names, whereas Northwest Coast names are strictly personal titles; they imply decision-making power over lineage estates or other property, but they are not the actual names of properties.  Unlike many aspects of Northwest Coast culture, nametaking goes on today, and is increasingly important.  One of the most obvious immediate reasons for a potlatch is taking a new name.  This could have interesting kinship ramifications; among the matrilineal Gitksan, the father and his family had the work of producing and assembling spiritual and material wealth for a child’s naming ceremonies (Adams 1973:38-39). 

Many chiefly names that are mistakenly considered to be personal names in some of the literature are actually more comparable to titles.  Examples include Shakes in Tlingit Alaska, or Legaix among the Tsimshian near Prince Rupert.  One could be, for instance, the Capilano of North Vancouver, just as Shakespeare’s MacBeth became successively Cawdor, Glamis, and King when he took over those titles.  (Capilano—Salish keypilanoq—was the title of the head chief of the village near which Capilano Community College now stands.)

The hereditary chiefly name Maquinna, passed on for centuries on northern Vancouver Island, inspired an excellent discussion of this whole concept by the current Maquinna, Chief Earl George of Ahousaht (George 2003).  A trained anthropologist, he explains in anthropological terms the cluster of rights and responsibilities that the name actually labels.  As Maquinna, he has major responsibilities spread over the central west coast of Vancouver Island.  Another autobiography with enormous and fascinating detail on names and rank is that of the wonderful and impressive Kwakwakawakw noblewoman Agnes Alfred (2004).

Among outsider accounts, Christopher Roth’s account of Tsimshian naming (Roth 2008) and Boelscher’s of Haida (1988:151-166) are particularly thorough and excellent.  A very detailed section of W. W. Elmendorf’s ethnography of the Twana of Puget Sound (1960) describes naming in the more southerly reaches.   Roth points out that a name has a reality of its own, and the bearer of a name comes in a real sense to be the name—complete with all its duties and responsibilities.  Again, readers of Shakespeare’s Macbeth will (at least partially) understand.  Macbeth did not just get the letters “Cawdor” and “Glamis” after his name, let alone the word “King” in front; he became a very different social entity as he took over those titles.  Inheritance, marriages, and house traditions are similar to those of old Europe.  As Jay Miller reports for the Tsimshian:  “Today, Northwest natives are well aware of such parallels between the dynbastic marriages of European and of Tsimshian noble houses” (Miller 2014:97).  Some assimilation to European norms has probably taken place since white settlement, but the parallels go back long before contact.

Like kingship in medieval Scotland, Northwest Coast names are often spiritual and religious.  God appoints kings and kingship is a divine duty.  The ancestors are involved in the appointment of a new Legaix, and some names are so spirit-linked that they convey direct spirit power.  Names thus are unique; only one person at a time can have a specific name.  They are confined to their descent groups.  There are male and female names, chiefly and nonchiefly names, and names that go with particular functions. 

Names are not all formal hereditary titles of this sort.  Ordinary names include casual personal monikers, but even these usually have stories attached to them.  Family histories describe the origins of names identified with particular descent lines.  These follow from tales that often involve meeting supernatural beings and getting spirit powers, but may merely commemorate secular events.  These latter events can be minor or even silly, but once they become grounds for a name, they are canonical stories for the group (see Roth 2008, esp. pp. 40 ff.; cf. royal nicknames in medieval Europe, which conveyed respect even when intrinsically disrespectful like “Charles the Fat”).

An individual may take many names during life:  a youthful personal name, an adult name, and then any number of titles.  Taking a new name of any status, as well as any other change of status such as a marriage (at least between nobles), must be recognized with a potlatch.  This—plus a laudable desire for hospitality and fun— keeps the potlatch alive and flourishing today.  Even groups whose native language has died out often maintain names.  Names were often taboo when the wearer died.  All the Puget Sound languages have one name for the mallard duck, except for one group, the Twana, that calls them “red feet,” because a chief within historic time had had a name sounding like the usual “mallard” word (Elmendorf 1960:393).  Puget Sound Salish has special words for various types of naming taboos.

Residence on most of the coast was in very large plank houses that contained whole lineages or large families.  These could be enormous; a house reportedly 500 feet long existed on the lower Fraser just after 1800.  In front of these, among the northern and central groups, were the famous “totem poles,” which displayed family crests and portrayed historically interesting family stories or other events. 

Most of these events were mythical.  Rarely, however, they were recent, or not even local events;. Abraham Lincoln was carved on one pole.  A fascinating bit of evidence on what constituted as an event occurred in 1825, when a small group of Gitksan on a party of retaliation against a murder stopped at the first trading post in west-central British Columbia, kept by a Mr. Ross.  “Here they observed the white man, his possessions, and his strange ways, for the first time, and considered their adventure in the light of a supernatural experience.  They marveled in particular at the white man’s dog, the palisade or fortification around his houses, and the broad wagon road.”  One, Wa-Iget, took this dog as a crest, and had it carved on his totem pole at Kisgagas, under the name of ‘Auge-maeselos (“dog of Mr. Ross,” r being pronounced l; Barbeau 1929:103).  Another took the palisade, and built a small palisade around his totem pole (Barbeau 1950:10).

Southward, these were replaced by large carved house posts among the Nuu-chah-nulth and Salish.  South of northern Washington there was little or no large-scale carving.

The interior groups lived in large, but not very large, semisubterranean houses.  To build one, a large circular pit was dug down a few feet into the ground, with level floor and often a bench ring along the side.  Four large pillars supported a log frame roof that was then covered with lighter materials and then with earth.  Such a house was warm in winter, cool in summer, and resistant to all weathers.  It is very ancient in the region.  Similar houses were once constructed all over western North America and northeastern Asia.  (Versions of them often survive as ceremonial structures, such as the kivas of the Pueblos and the ceremonial houses of the Navaho and the central Californians.)  Semisubterranean houses were replaced by lighter, more portable or easily-built dwellings in most regions in the last few millennia. 

Inland, away from the great fishing stations, society rapidly became less complex and rich.  In the north, the deep interior was a world of hunters of large mammals.  They had exactly the opposite dynamic:  they had to be sparse on the ground and highly mobile, with few possessions.  Farther south, in the Plateau region, root foods became more important, and were managed intensively.  This was less divisive, and in any case salmon were important there too, if less so than on the coast.  Societies intermediate in size and complexity arose.  Intermediate complexity also characterized the first tier of Athapaskan groups in Canada and Alaska. 

The traditional explanation for this is that the groups “borrowed” ideas from the Coast,  presumably late.  However, current archaeology suggests that the complexity developed slowly throughout the region.  The Athapaskans and Plateau peoples were not latecomers, but were always part of the process.  The more concentrated the subsistence base, the more complicated life and communities became.

Throughout the Northwest, the relative importance of fishing at set places for anadromous fish is a good predictor of social complexity and village size.  This pattern was established by at least 3000 years ago. 

Interestingly, in the southern part of the coastal region, the fish were as common as in the north, but the societies were generally simpler; the reason appears to be that the rivers (and therefore the runs) were smaller, while the landward resources—seeds, nuts, game—were richer.  Evidence occurs in northwest California:  The Klamath River system is a large system that once had huge fish runs, in an otherwise rather barren area; and, as the model predicts, the groups along it had highly complex societies and large towns.  Elsewhere, people could and did scatter out in small villages near more varied productive sites.

The Northwest Coast people were generally a highly warlike set of societies, though there was a range.  The Haida and the Lekwiltok Kwakwakawakw enjoyed reputations as particularly fierce and terrifying warriors, at least in the 19th century.  Tsimshian groups conquered along fur trade routes, developing powerful chiefs.  By contrast, many of the southern groups—from southwest British Columbia south along Puget Sound and the coast—seem to have been relatively peaceful, but perhaps only relatively.  Fairly typical for most of the region is the following paragraph about the people of the Fraser River area in southern British Columbia:

            “Relations

[of the Lillooet]

with the Chilcotin were generally hostile, and stories are common of their raiding the Lillooet for salmon and attacking isolated hunting parties and wandering children for slaves….  The Halkomelem on the Lower Fraser River…engaged in warfare with the Lower Lillooet over elk hunting in the Pitt and Harrison river areas, and hunters of both tribes were massacred.  In the distant past, the Lillooet made war on the coastal people and took many slaves.  Sometime earlier, the Shuswap waged war on the Lower Lillooet, driving them from their lands and fisheries between Anderson Lake and Birkenhead River….  The lower Lillooet in the early 1800s were subjected to frequent raids by the Thompson.  Allied forces of Thompson, Shuswap, and Okanagan attacked the Lake Lillooet but remained friendly with the Fraser River Band of Lillooet…” (Kennedy and Bouchard 1998a:176).  All this action and violence took place in an area of only about 10,000 square miles.  Within that area—and, to generalize—within most of the Northwest Coast—all groups were at least occasionally hostile to each other. 

            Peace could be maintained by scattering eagle or swan down over participants in a ceremony.  This insured peace at the ceremony, and if done properly or in a treaty ceremony would insure peace between fighting elements, potentially for all eternity (though reality interfered with that vision).  Potlatches often involved a peace-treaty or truce component, with down being featured.  Thus, warlike tendencies were not uncontrolled or uncontrollable, and peace—necessary to maintain trade and management—was guaranteed most of the time for most communities.

War, strong chieftainship, and highly localized resources went together.  If a group was focused on a single river with a huge run of fish, they desperately needed to protect it, and they needed slaves to help process the fish during the run—any and all labor was valuable.  They thus tended to be warlike: making themselves secure, and then raiding outward for slaves.  Other groups had to be warlike to defend themselves, and so the process continued,

            Even so, in the more evenly productive landscape of Puget Sound, warfare and strong chieftainship seems rather subdued.  Groups could spread widely over the country and maintain large—and thus more secure—populations.  This may be part of the explanation for the individualism and personal freedom noted for these societies (Angelbeck 2016; Angelbeck and Grier 2012; Miller 2014).  Bill Angelbeck notes that the highly individualized quest for personal guardian spirits was a key part of this.  Each boy and many if not all girls went on a vision quest at puberty or in early teens, seeking guardian powers.  These were not usually spoken of openly.  They allowed a person to avoid irksome social duties by saying “my spirit doesn’t like/permit that” (Angelbeck 2016).  Since others did not really know what one’s spirit was, or what it wanted, this was hard to counter.  Angelbeck and Grier (2012) even use classic anarchist theory (as in Kropotkin 1904) to explain Sound Salish and nearby dynamics, and James C. Scott did for northern southeast Asia (Scott 2009).  The result seems a bit overdone—most hunting-gathering societies are individualist and free, and it is the northern Northwest Coast societies that are the anomaly.  One need not really invoke political theory.  Still, the point is worth making, and the high levels of individualism in the Northwest—not only Puget Sound—is worth remembering.

The social requirements of chieftainship in a warlike world are great.  Chiefs had to attract and keep warriors through generosity. A  pattern of competitive feasting and wealth giveaways is sure to develop.

Feasts come in many forms.  The Tsimshian word liligit, “calling people together,” includes occasions memorably listed by Joan Ryan, who holds the Sm’ooygit Hannamauxw title of the Gitksan people:

“[S]ettlement feasts (which occur after funerals); totem pole- or gravestone-raising feasts; welcome feasts (to celebrate totem pole-raising events); smoke feasts; retirement feasts; divorce feasts; wedding feasts; restitution feasts; shame feasts; reinstatement feasts (pertaining to Gitksan citizens who have disobeyed Gitksan laws [but repented]); first game feasts; welcome feasts (to celebrate births); graduation feasts (to celebrate recent achievements, either academic or spiritual); cleansing feasts (to restore spirits after serious accidents); and coming out feasts (to mark the transition from teen years to adult years).  The feast system is a vehicle by which the Gitksan Nation carries out activities and transactions that affect the daily lives of the House members” (Ryan 2000:ix).  And this is not even a totally complete list.  Similar occasions entail feasts elsewhere on the coast.  Note that almost all of these involve marking some significant change in status of an individual, said change requiring announcement, recognition, and validation by the whole community.  The purpose of many potlatches is in effect to get an actual vote on the change.  If it requires community acceptance, having everyone show up for the feast shows that the change is indeed accepted.  If few or no helpers will contribute to the feast, or if few show up, or if they show up but insult the host, the change is obviously not approved.  Few indeed would give a potlatch if this were a risk, but it did happen in the past, and occasioned fighting or actual war.

Among many accounts of potlatches, we may single out the Tsimshian chief William Beynon’s 1945 account of a series of potlatches by the Gitksan (linguistically close to the Tsimshian; Beynon 2000).  Potlatching was illegal at the time, but the Gitksan country on the Skeena was remote, and Beynon was hardly about to be excluded.  His account remained unpublished until 2000.  Beynon’s father was Welsh, his mother Tsimshian, which made him one of the lucky ones: White by Canadian law (patrilineal), Tsimshian by matrilineal Tsimshian law. 

The high point of feasting is the familiar potlatch of the Northwest Coast.  (The word comes from a Nuu-chah-nulth word meaning “to give.”)  Generosity was such a high value, and so useful in society, that Thomas McIlwraith recorded:  “A native store-keeper once ruefully commented on the fact that he woiuld gain no advantage from the goods on his shelves, since he hoped merely to sell them, not to give them away” (quoted Kramer 2013:738).  This certainly reverses most Anglo-American attitudes!

The reasons for the potlatch have been debated.  Some rather strange ideas have been floated, including the stereotypic-racist one that it was just craziness on the part of ignorant savages.  Better known and more reasonable is the hypothesis of Wayne Suttles and Stuart Piddocke (Piddocke 1965; Suttles 1987) that the potlatch arose to even out resources.  A group would give a potlatch in good times, and thus in bad times would be able to call on reciprocity from more fortunate people.  However, this hypothesis did not hold up well (Adams 1973; John Douglass, interview, 1984).  It turned out that potlatches would not work for this, because they have to be planned years in advance, before scarcity or abundance would be known.  Ordinary reciprocity works instead for the purpose (as Adams and Douglasss both emphasize).  On the other hand, Suttles’ data show some evidence for redistribution and evening-out in his major research area, Puget Sound and the Salish Sea (Wayne Suttles, 1987, and interview, 1984).

Potlatches may locally have served to equalize resources, but this has never been proved, and seems definitely unlikely in many cases.  Suttles (1987) has discussed the whole controversy, with pros and cons.  Since he wrote, the equalization theory has been abandoned by writers familiar with the region (Daly 2005:59-60).  One problem with it is that the potlatching group all gets together to finance the enterprise, and relatively poor individuals must often give up quite a bit; even guests may have to give more than ethnographies usually imply.  And a potlatch takes months to years to plan and stage, whereas local resource shortages tend to appear suddenly.  People needing assistance disperse to kin rather than waiting for the next potlatch somewhere.

The ostensible purpose of most potlatches is to mark ritually a major change in status: taking a new name (and thus a new position), coming of age, getting married, or dying.  Funeral potlatches have been the most important and widespread potlatches in recent times, but in the past nametaking was apparently the most important. 

Still, other cultures around the world mark such transitions without spectacular giveaways.  The giveaways, demonstration of powers and possessions, and feasts powerfully increase and mark the status of the potlatchers, and this is clearly their most important reason (Adams 1973).  John Adams (1973) showed that they also can serve indirectly to redistribute population, notably from larger but troubled groups to smaller and cohesive ones, because of shifting after the potlatch.  

In early times there was a much more compelling reason to potlatch.  Philip Drucker and Robert Heizer showed some time ago (1967) that the root purpose was organization and mobilization for conflict, including—focally—competition for warriors or for chief-status allies.  A successful chief wins loot by fighting.  This he can donate to warriors directly, or can translate into wealth for the whole group, thus organizing and leading his own people.  Either way, he can thus attract more warriors to his side or form alliances with neighboring groups.  A less successful chief must either defer or attempt to do better.  If he cannot be generous enough, his warriors defect, and he is as good as dead. 

Similar patterns of competitive feasting and generosity are well known for West Africa, highland Southeast Asia, early-day Afghanistan (Robertson 1896), and many other areas of the world.  Often, professional poets—the bards of Ireland, scops of Anglo-Saxon society, griots of Africa, song leaders on the Northwest Coast—sang the leader’s praises at such feasts.  

Particularly close to the Northwest Coast is the society of medieval Ireland (Europe’s northwest coast!)—as reflected in the epic “Cattle Raid of Cooley” (Kinsella 1969).  Society there depended heavily on salmon runs.  Chiefs competed to attract warriors by giving feasts and distributing wealth and booty.  Bards sang the praises of the generous.  Warfare included slave raiding and head-hunting.  Chiefs were called ri, usually translated as “king,” but that is a bit of Irish hyperbole—though the word is indeed cognate with Latin rex.   Chieftainship was based in the kinship group, and hotly contested.  This often led to the competitive feasting pattern, as in the Northwest. 

Some astonishing parallels occur:  the wren is a powerful bird for both Irish and Haida (and also the Quileute), because although it is tiny, it sings in the worst winter storms, and its song rings cloud and clear above the howling of the wind.  In societies that share a belief that song gives spirit power, this makes the bird a truly powerful being (Lawrence 1997 for the Irish; my own research on Haida).  Among the Nuu-chah-nulth the wren is the source of reliable words, “One Who Always Speaks Rightly” (Atleo 2004, 2011:98).  The belief in the magic power of song is shared all across Europe and Siberia, along with several folktales (such as the Swan Maiden and “Orpheus” myths) and a number of religious practices including reverence for tree spirits, but the Irish and Haida respect for the wren seems to have been a genuine independent development.   Moving to Scotland, we may add the clan crest, closely parallel to Northwest Coast concepts.  (The Anderson clan crest is an oak tree surrounded by a leather belt, which seems quite close to Haida and Tsimshian themes.)

Singers and tale-tellers graced potlatches also.  We know little of their professional status, but the major songs, dances, and masks were lineage property.  We also are somewhat unclear on the range of chiefly power; the great chiefdoms in which one man extended dominion over several villages seem likely to be products of the fur trade (as among the Tsimshian) in the early post-contact period (Matson et al. 2003).  Chiefs could be powerful, and there was an ideology of this; the Nuu-chah-nulth related chiefs and whales (Harkin 1998; Sapir 2004).  As Nuu-chah-nulth anthropologist Ki-Ke-In points out: “[T]he Nuuchaanulth [sic] people historically had policing, a judiciary system, and a most sophisticated and inclusive system of ownership and title….the entire sea and land territory and everything in it are vested in the Taayii Ha’wilth,” the head chief(Ki-Ke-In 2013:29).  He did not have European-style autocratic control, but he acted as leader of his wide, kin-linked community.  The value of the term “chiefdom” has thus been challenged (see Miller 2014:94), but the chiefs had enough power over enough area to make the term useful, even though the Northwest Coast chiefdoms were small in extent and low in population compared to the great chiefdoms of old Polynesia or Mesoamerica.

The survival of potlatching for 200 years after pacification of the northwest shows that it had other purposes than mere war mobilization.  The direct reason for a potlatch was and is usually succession to a great name.  Sometimes it was defense of that name, as when a potlatch was given to wipe away shame because a holder of a high title had—for example—stumbled at a feast, or been insulted. (Potlatches could, by the same token, shame an opponent.) 

The potlatching person or group will invite everyone in their personal networks.  Those who actually attend are showing their support for the new title.  Their very presence is essentially a vote for the new status.  They normally provide gifts of their own, also, and these show support for the title-holder.  In the old days this was a life-and-death matter; such exchanges made loyalty bonds that were expected to hold in war.  (Again, the Irish institution is so similar that one can usefully apply the explanations in The Tain, Kinsella 1969.)  Today, in the actively political and community-oriented world of the Northwest’s First Nations, such support is only slightly less vital.  Potlatching is the cement and mortar that holds the tribal organizations and political alliances together.  Those who condemned the potlatch as wasteful or irrational had obviously never studied the institution. 

Potlatches are about giving away vast amounts of food and other useful goods, but they are also about displaying what can never be given:  names, crests, dances, sacred possessions (Roth 2008:102ff).  A potlatcher may point out that the food shared out is the product of the potlatcher’s titled endowment property (Daly 2005:59, citing Philip Drucker as well as Daly’s own work).   Once again this institution recalls medieval Ireland and England.  The king could and did feast his followers and give away gold and coin, but he could not give away the crown jewels, the ritual sword and mace, or the intangible names and titles.  As on the Northwest Coast, many of the material possessions had supernatural qualities.  A Tsimshian inherited copper is not just a piece of copper sheeting, just as Excalibur was not just a sword.

A particularly common and widespread type of potlatch was the memorial potlatch, held first when a high-born person died, and then again when his or her totem pole—today, headstone—was raised (see notable discussion in Fiske and Patrick 2000).  This was the occasion to validate the succession:  the name-taker had to host the potlatch, feeding and giving lavish gifts to those who came.  Chiefs and others of status had to give potlatches for marriage, to call everyone to witness and support the couple.  Assumption of any new name or title provided other occasions for name-taking. A girl reaching puberty, and thus the age when arrangements for marriage can begin, has a “coming-out potlatch.” 

Potlatches still abound, for all these latter purposes.  Name-taking has replaced war.  Competitive gift-giving can replace physical conflict; “fighting with property,” as Helen Codere (1950) famously called it.  It can also be simple ambition, or lack thereof.  A friend of mine was in line to be a hereditary chief in one of the Nuu-chah-nulth groups, but did not want the responsibility at the time, so let his younger brother potlatch for the position; later the younger brother got tired of it, so my friend potlatched and took over the job. 

The demographic collapse on the Northwest Coast led to a pile-up of titles:  there were too few people competing for too many names.  This, plus the availability of trade goods, caused potlatching to spin into heights of lavish expenditure that horrified the Protestant missionaries.  They managed to get the potlatch outlawed in Canada from 1884 to 1953.  Potlatching continued anyway, but covert and somewhat distorted.  This was a major psychological blow to the people (Atleo 2011).  All the missionaries accomplished was giving a couple of generations of Native people a contempt for the overt racism in settlers’ law. 

Potlatching became extremely competitive among the Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutlan) peoples.  This was partly because of the pile-up of titles.  It was partly because their complex system of descent does not produce clear lineages, so many people have a chance at inheriting a name and set of privileges.  It was also partly because the central location of the Kwakwaka’wakw made them a crossroads for wealth, opportunity, and communication.  Their potlatches were the spectacular ones involving vast destructions of property, such as huge fires of burning whale and seal oil (highly precious commodities).  North and south of them, potlatches and feasts were calmer, more routine, and more concerned with actual orderly succession—not that that prevented politicking and gossip (cf. Boelscher 1988 for Haida, Roth 2008 for the Tsimshian). Boelscher (1988) pointed out that in potlatching as in other matters involving rhetoric, oratory, and public presence, there is a tremendous amount of individual jockeying for position, often by denying one’s own position with exaggerated modesty.  Rhetoric is highly formulaic and stereotyped, but people manage to assert individuality through practice.  As so often, autobiographies are particularly useful sources (e.g. Alfred 2004; Blackman/Davidson 1982; Spradley/Sewid 1969).

Devotees of potlatch literature will note that I am downplaying the gift/obligation side—so famously studied by Marcel Mauss (1990) and debated ever since—of the institution.  Complicated and highly variable rules of reciprocity, with or without interest, are reported.  All this is not particularly relevant to my purposes here, but quite apart from that I tend to find the gift exchanging rather secondary.  (See Daly 2005; Roth 2008; and other sources cited above, but I am also going with my own research observations here.)  Potlatching is war mobilization, social glue, name and title validation, status-change validation, validation of land ownership, and much else.  Gift transactions, however defined and managed, are more means than ends.  They are necessary and obligatory, but it is what they show—what they communicate—that matters. The gift-giver is rewarding guests for recognizing—some even say voting for—a due adoption of a new name and station in life.  The names and privileges, not the rewards, are what matter.  And in the old days of intergroup warfare, the rival power of chiefs mattered even more.

            The social structure of Northwest Coast peoples was thus based heavily on kinship—extended very widely, to include adopted kin, animals and mountains that were reckoned as kin, mythologically related groups descended from a mythic ancestor, and kin related by wide-flung marriages.  Position within the social system was all-important.  Social positions were loci of power, not only political but spiritual.  “A traditional chief had a moral and religious obligation to transform chaotic cosmic energy into socially useful power by being a conduit for it down throiugh his spine, ceremonial cane, or totem pole, which, above all, was the ‘deed’ to ‘his’ rank, name, house, and territory” (Miller 2014:96).

Northwest Coast society was made up of kinship groups:  patrilineages or patrilineal kindreds in the south, matrilineages in the north and northern interior, and various intermediate accommodations—including something close to double-descent—in the middle (especially among Wakashan speakers). 

The Na-Dene, Tsimshian and Haida peoples are all matrilineal, and in fact their combined territories make up largest matriliny-dominated area on the planet.  The Haida, Tsimshianic groups, and Tlingit had large and powerful matrilineages, and are among the most strongly matrilineal societies in the world.   (This disproves, among other things, the old idea—sometimes still heard—that matriliny is the result of hoe agriculture).  As late as the late 20th century, Canada’s strongly patrilineal and patriarchal legal system conflicted, often dramatically, with Indigenous law and practice.  A person with a Native mother and Anglo-Canadian father was a full member of both societies, and could move easily in both worlds.  An individual with a non-Native mother and Native father was a rootless person, not really part of either world.  When I did research on alcoholism in British Columbia, I found a disproportionate percentage of such individuals to be alcoholic.  Fortunately, since those days, Canadian law has become less narrowly patriarchal.  The point is that kinship really gives identity and personhood on the Northwest Coast; one is a member of one’s family in a way incomprehensible, or at least alien, to many non-Indigenous people.  We will later see how relevant this is to environmental actions.

These matrilineages are further grouped into larger groupings:  the Eagle and Raven moieties among the Haida, three or four comparable phratries among the Tlingit and Tsimshian.  One must marry outside one’s group.  All have Eagle and Raven groups, and a Haida Eagle cannot marry a Tsimshian one.

            Lineages are involved in resource ownership.  Among the Haida, for instance, lineage “members share rights to ancestral villages, to fishing, hunting, and gathering locations, including:

–major salmon-spawning rivers

–halibut and cod banks off shore

–important berry patches (especiallyi cranberry and crabapple)

–bird nesting sites (particularly species of sea gull, Cassin’s auklet, and ancient murrelet)

–rights to stranded whales on the coastline near lineage-owned lands

–trap and deadfall sites for land mammals along rivers

–access to house sties in ancestral villages” (Boelscher 1988:35).

Poaching on someone else’s land, even to take small items, was cause for fighting.

Especially in the northern coast, lineages (matrilineages in the north) had crests:  natural (or supernatural) things that were symbols and that provided some supernatural power for them.  Usually these were impressive animals, such as killer whales, grizzly bears, sharks, wolves, sealions, eagles, frogs and dragonflies (these being spiritually powerful beings), ravens, and the like.  Some plants were crests, as well as weather (Haida crests incuded cumulus and cirrus clouds), the moon, and various spirit beings.  People could add crests when interesting events involving crest-type beings happened to their families.  These crests were typically shown on totem poles, blankets, and even the person; a Haida man would have his lineage crest tattooed on his body (Boelscher 1988:142).

Almost equally important were lineage rights to particular songs, dances, designs, and other intellectual property.  Lineages and phratries even had their own origin myths, very different from other lineages’ stories.  In fact, laws regarding intellectual property were complex and sophisticated, rather like modern copyright legislation.  A song could be unowned and available for everyone to sing, or owned by the moiety or phratry, or by the lineage, or by a family or an individual.  Whoever owned it could allow someone else to sing it, but a substantial payment or exchange was required.  This could be indirect; lineage A might generously allow someone from lineage B to sing a lineage A song, but of course lineage B was expected to do something equivalently generous for lineage A at some point.  Showing off one’s lineage dances, songs, and arts was—and in many areas still is—an integral part of potlatching and feasting.  Often it involved competitive display; at other times it was closer to an arts festival.

Thomas McIlwraith, in his early days as ethnographer of the Nuxalk, inadvertently sang a song belonging to one family, whereupon an elder of that family had to adopt him on the spot to spare everybody serious shame and difficulty (quoted in Kramer 2013:737). 

Individuals owned the products of their own labor, especially things like bows and arrows, clothing, food, and personal articles, but also songs they composed and the like.  An individual might pass songs and crests on to his or her children; a man could even pass them to his children among the matrilineal Haida (Boelscher 1988:38), though that could be a touchy proposition.  Normally, privileges including songs and crests were the property of matrilineages in the northern coast, and passed on accordingly.

Among the matrilineal societies, women had great authority, and owned property.  Chiefs were generally (but not always) male, being the brothers of the women who were the hereditary heads of the lineages; but women had real power.  There is a famous story of a Haida chief taking refuge on a fur trader’s boat because he had dared to sell some furs belonging to his wife.  She and her brothers were out after him.  He had to stay on the boat, under protection of the trader, for months before he could work out an arrangement to go home.  Like other matrilineal societies worldwide, these were not “matriarchies,” but did give more power to women than patrilineal societies generally do.  On the other hand, among the patrilineal societies of the southern Northwest Coast, women were by no means meek or oppressed; they held their own and had considerable real power, partly through controlling access to and management of plant resources, many shellfish resources, and other subsistence matters.

These societies were organized in moieties; among the Tsimshian, the moieties had split into two parts, giving a four-phratry system, but the original moiety structure was still identifiable (Miller 1982).  Crest privileges and their artistic expression were taken so seriously that upper-class artists “worked in great secrecy, punihing with death any unqualified person unfortunate enough to stumble on their workshops hidden in the forest” (Miller 1982; if this runs true to Tsimshian form, however, the threat was enough and killings were very rarely carried out).

In general, ownership among the Northwest Coast peoples was extremely highly developed and complex—as far from the old idea of “primitive communism” as one could possibly get.  Few have doubted that this was related to the need for control over, and management of, resources.  Even the ownership of songs and art motifs could be seen as related to maintaining group solidarity and identity for defense of hard goods—although it was very much more than that, being integral to all aspects of social life.

The patrilineal societies were largely in the southern areas—Washington and Oregon, and the Fraser River area in British Columbia.  They were not so extremely lineal-oriented as the matrilineal groups; they tended toward bilateral reckoning.  The lineage system was comparable, however,

A different matter was the situation in the middle: the Nuu-chah-nulth, Kwakwaka’wakw, and some immediate neighbors.  Here reckoning was equally through father’s and mother’s line.  “The immerdiate family grouping (derived from four grandparents) is technically called a kindred, while the huge extended family, which was and is transnational or intertribal (throiugh eight great-grandparents), is technically called an intersept” (Miller 2014:79).  Names, titles and privileges were taken up by any member of the kindred who wanted to potlatch for them and could get enough support and resources to do so.  Individuals thus often had, and still have, titles inherited through the father’s line and others through the mother’s. Among the Nuu-chah-nulth this accompanied a kinship terminological system similar to that of the Hawaiians, with every relative in one’s own generation being “brother” or “sister,” and every one in the parent generation being “father” or “mother.”  This still persists for the parent generation, with the slight transformation that relatives other than actual mothers and fathers become “uncle” or “auntie.”  Since virtually all Nuu-chah-nulth can trace at least some degree of relationship to all others, the terms wind up being extended to all Nuu-chah-nulth in the generation above one’s own. 

It should be emphasized that family and traditional title are still important everywhere.  Kinship remains the basis of society, and large, close, mutually supportive families are the rule. 

4.  Traditional Resource Management

The Northwest Coast has always seemed anthropologically anomalous.  Despite being “hunters and gatherers,” the Native peoples maintained high populations, lived in large villages, and had a complex social organization (Coupland et al. 2009; Matson et al. 2003).  Noble families led large populations of relative “commoners,” and a large population of slaves (captured in wars and raids) provided a hard-working underclass.  Unlike the incidental slaves used for household services in many small-scale societies, the slaves of the northwest were a genuine population of critically important servile workers.  They cut and carried wood, drew water, and processed the fish that were the basis of subsistence. 

The Northwest Coast has turned out to be much less anomalous now that we have better data on nonagricultural populations elsewhere in the world.  Complex nonagricultural populations with large settlements and complicated ownership rules extended all along the Pacific Coast, even into Baja California, and were characteristic of southern Florida and several other parts of the New World, as well as of northern Australia and Mesolithic Europe.  All these societies depended to a great extent on sea and riverine foods, often anadromous fish.

Moreover, we now realize that the Northwest Coast groups practiced extensive horticulture.  They managed, increased, transplanted, and selectively harvested plants, and had at least one or two domesticated species.  (Tobacco was the only widespread one—which says something about human preferences.)   Of this more anon.  More and more authorities are now referring to the Northwest Coast people as horticulturalists, rather than hunter-gatherers. 

Above all, however, they were exploiters of the aquatic world.  Fish runs are highly concentrated in time and space, forcing the people that depend on them to concentrate in large social agglomerations on a regular basis.  This in turn requires some sort of comprehensive social organization, with strong authority structures provides by kinship groupings or chieftainship or—usually—both.  Also, the best fishing stations are well worth fighting for, and the resulting conflict forces even more tight military organization on the people.  Last, the enormous but brief salmon runs of the Northwest require huge bursts of labor, since people need to develop a virtual assembly line of filleting and drying the catch for preservation through the rest of the year.  Slavery becomes economic under such circumstances.  Raiding for slaves adds to fighting for fishing sites as an economically important activity.

Complexity has traditionally been explained by the “rich” or “abundant” resources of the Northwest, but this is a false claim.  The resources consist largely of fish, which are not always easy to catch.  The great salmon runs of the major rivers are indeed incredible, but one must average out the productivity of the rivers over the thousands of square miles of barren mountains and food-poor forests that make up 99% of the area in question.  In the southern areas—from central Washington and extreme southern British Columbia southward—root crops, berries, and nuts become increasingly abundant, but do not become common enough to be major staples till one gets to the lower Columbia River.  Moreover, salmon runs sometimes fail, especially in the north.  When a run failed, all the people could do was move away, hopefully finding some relatives to stay with. 

This meant that, for instance, maintaining the population of eight to ten thousand on Haida Gwaii was no easy undertaking.  The land was rather poor in berries and roots (though not as poor as it is now; see below).  There were few large game animals, only a tiny herd of caribou.  There were not even any large salmon streams.  The people had to carry out dangerous open-sea fishing for halibut and hunting for sea mammals.  Even more fearful was the need to cross the wide and treacherous Hecate Strait to trade for oil and other goods with the less-than-friendly Tsimshian.  The Haida needed formidable toughness and intelligence, and it is reflected in their stunning art and oral literature.  Similar cases could be made for other groups along the coast and into the deep interior. 

The Nuu-chah-nulth and closely related Ditidat and Makah of the outer coasts of Vancouver Island and the Olympic Peninsula depended to varying degrees on whaling.  The Makah got up to 80-90% of their food from whales and much of the rest from seals, and some Nuu-chah-nulth groups were not far behind (MacMillan 1999).  They could stay out in canones for days, keeping small fires on stone or other fireproof platforms in the canoes (Reid 2015:143-145).  Earlier authors tended to believe the Indigenous groups could not have caught many whales, but excavations at the Ozette site in Washington proved the contrary, and further historical scholarship by Joshua Reid and others has shown that the Native groups took not only the docile grays but also humpback, sperm, and other whales, even blues and orcas (Reid 2015:144-145).  Ozette was a village covered by a landslide on the Olympic Peninsula coast about 300 years ago.  Ozette also revealed a great deal of fine art, like that historically known, as well as large houses, and a complex use of plant materials, including all the common woods (see Turner 2014-1:108-110 for lists). 

 Whaling from an open canoe is very much like the whaling Herman Melville so graphically described in Moby Dick.  The difficulty of striking a swimming whale with an enormously heavy harpoon from an open boat is made clear by a famous photograph; an early photographer, Asahel Curtis, managed to immortalize the moment when Makah whaler Charles White struck a whale, and the picture has been reproduced countless times (see e.g. Reid 2015:175; a huge blowup of the picture decorates the Makah Cultural and Research Center in Neah Bay).  It is not surprising that whalers resorted to magical practices that could involve months of ritual preparation (Drucker 1951; Jonaitis 1999; Reid 2015:150). 

On a more practical note, these groups had to be prepared for finding themselves far out at sea.  A harpooned whale could run seaward, towing the harpooner’s canoe on what Melville’s whalers called a “Nantucket sleighride.”  They could take days to paddle back to shore (Drucker 1951).  If the night was clear, they could “steer by the pole star,” but fog was typical:  “Combinations of regular swell patterns and winds enabled them to fix their approximate location, even in the regular fogs that conceal the coast.  Experienced Makah mariners also used the water’s appearance and the set of the riptide to approximate their location when out of sight of land,” and they could also predict the weather (Reid 2015:142).  They thus had a navigational science similar to that of the Micronesians and other deep-ocean voyagers.  

The Makahs also developed a commercial sealing industry in the late 19th century, even purchasing and running some long-distance-voyaging schooners (Reid 2015:177-196).  Unfortunately, overfishing by settlers’ industrial craft virtually wiped out the whale and seal resource by the early 20th century.

Whale and seal products were traded widely, and these groups often had to depend on trade relationships for necessary food items; they were, to a significant extent, specialized whalers.  Such dependence on trade for staple food is unusual, to say the least, among hunter-gatherers.  The westcoast pattern developed from about 3000 to 2000 years ago, but dependence on whaling probably increased after the latter date. The Nuu-chah-nulth naturally yearned to possess the safer living of salmon streams, and fought many a war to acquire such.

On the other hand, sea mammals are not only bigger than fish, they average much fatter.  A seal or whale obviously equals a lot of salmon, and produces an enormous amount of oil as well as meat.  It is quite possible that some Northwest Coast groups got most of their calories from sea mammals, not fish, as was certainly the case for Aleutian and other island Alaskan Native groups (see e.g. Jolles 2002).

David Arnold (2008:24) estimates that the Tlingit consumed about 6 million pounds of fish a year in aboriginal times, given the very conservative estimate of 500 pounds of fish per person.  In fact they could well have required twice that.  500 pounds would represent only about 1200 calories of fat salmon, and only half as many of lean fish.  The Tlingit had little but fish to eat.  They did take many sea mammals and birds, but 500 pounds of fish per year is still a very conservative estimate.

Indeed, at the other corner of the region, the average Spokan ate almost 1000 lb. of salmon in a year.  (Ross 2011:359; I think the figure better applies to all fish.)   This would be about 1,400,000 pounds per year for the whole tribe, representing well over 100,000 fish (Ross 2011:359, citing Allan Scholtz).  And this though the Spokan, unlike the Tlingit, got half their calories from plant foods.  The Tlingit got their salmon at river mouths, where they were fat, while the Spokan caught fish far upriver, where they had used most of their fat reserves fighting their way up the Columbia.  Even so, 1000 lb. may be exaggerated, since the Spokan got half their almost calories from plants and some more from game.  A reasonable guess for the Northwest Coast as a whole would be two pounds of fat fish or three of lean per day.

Fish are low-calorie fare.  Three hundred calories per pound is typical for fish like halibut and rockfish.  Salmon fatten up for their runs up the rivers, and a fat salmon entering a river could be four times that rich in calories, but otherwise even salmon are not high in calories.  Herring and oolichans are high to very high in fat, but not available except during brief runs.  And the Native people lived hard outdoor lives—calorie consumption was extremely high.  The Tlingit would need up to twice Arnold’s estimate.  Other groups would need similar amounts.  Bears and other predators took a huge number of salmon also, and the pressure on the resource base was high.

Under the circumstances, it is not surprising that all possible resources were used.  This provided, and still provides, an incentive for managing the entire landscape sustainably.  Worldwide, the higher the percentage of natural resources that are used, the more people need to maintain the ecosystem.  Conversely, when people depend on a handful of non-native foods (as in the United States) there is no incentive to maintain the natural environment, and, indeed, every incentive to destroy it.  The wide spectrum of foods and industrial resources used by Indigenous peoples in the Northwest contrasts strikingly with the extreme poverty of crops grown on any significant scale by white settlers. 

Not only were salmon and sea fish important, but river fish now neglected, such as suckers and lampreys, were major resources.  The three local species of lampreys (Lampreta spp., formerly placed in the genus Petromyzon), called “eels” in the Northwest though not related to true eels, are now almost extinct.  They were major resources once.  Temain favorite foods—though now very hard to get (Miller 2012).  Two were parasites on salmon and other fish; the third was a small nonparasitic species.  Suckers were key resources in many inland areas, from the Columbia to the northeast California plateau.  Again many species are endangered, including the Lost River sucker, whose runs used to sustain the Modoc; diversion for irrigation has almost dried up its river.  Suckers remain important in the Pit River area, among other places.

Fish were always carefully managed, as will appear below.  Social groups had depended on the fish for millennia, and knew what they could take and how to maximize returns.  They used a variety of gears, traps, weirs, and other devices, including stone weirs to catch fish on receding tides (Menzies 2016).  Conservation was generally effected by limiting days of fishing, permitting escapements, and improving breeding conditions, rather than by limiting gears or daily takes.  Improving spawning success included things such as clearing redds, returning fish wastes to water for nutrients recycling, and protecting spawning streams.

Shellfish were also carefully managed by developing breeding grounds and enforcing limits.  Charles Menzies (2010; 2016:119-130) has described abalone management by the Tsimshian.  Populations collapsed after settler contact and overfishing.  This led to ethnographic erasure of the importance of abalone in precontact times.  Menzies’ archaeological work turned up massive amounts of abalone shells, leading to new realization of its former importance.  The same could be said of many other resources and foods that we now are beginning to realize were once important.

Marine and freshwater resources were managed carefully.  The high point was the creation of “clam gardens”:  Rock-barriered areas where beaches could upgrade or be developed to maximize clam production.  We will discuss these below.

Northwest Coast knowledge of the environment was as thorough, detailed and comprehensive as one would expect from 15,000 or more years of continuous occupation of and dependence on the land.  Ethnobiology of most groups has been documented in detail.  The most comprehensive work is Nancy Turner’s five-foot shelf of classic ethnobotanies, many of them coauthored with First Nations people, climaxing in her enormous Ancient Pathways, Ancestral Knowledge (2014; see esp. vol. 2, pp. 198-244).  The most comprehensive work on animals and places has been done by Eugene Hunn, especially in N’Chi Wana (1991), and his students such as Thomas Thornton, whose book Being and Place among the Tlingit (2008) goes beyond ethnobiology to discuss major ontological and epistemological points. 

Knowledge can be something as simple as knowing bird songs that announce plant seasons.  In spring, when salmonberries flower and set fruit, the woods are suddenly full of Swainson’s Thrushes returning from their winter homes.  Their exquisitely beautiful songs sound everywhere:  woodily woodily woodily woodily, rising up the scale.  The Saanich (Wsáneć) of Vancouver Island hear this as “weweleweleweleweś”—“ripen, ripen, ripen.”  (Turner and Hebda 2012:103.  Such playful wording of bird songs is widespread in North America; I have encountered similar Maya stories.) 

Northwest Coast peoples managed the environment extremely well (Alberta Society of Professional Biologists 1986; Deur and Turner 2005 Hunn 1990; Kirk 1986;  Menzies 2006; Miller 1999, who gives valuable comparative materials and seasonal rounds; Turner 2005).  The basic principle was to use and value everything, or almost everything.  Total-landscape management resulted.  The whole region was managed to some degree, and productive areas were intensively managed.  But since almost everything was useful, the first rule of management was to keep everything.  Since management was by village or extended family, it was also necessary to manage for long-term, wide-flung payoffs.  Short-term payoffs depleted the resource for one or a very few people.  That made short-term exploitation a selfish crime against society, and it was correspondingly condemned.  

They were the first to admit that they were far from perfect; every, or almost every, group has tales of overharvesting followed by famine.  The fact that these tales were retold with cautionary import is what matters.  There was a learning curve, and everyone knew it.  Many individuals, moreover, tell of overharvesting themselves and getting social sanctions applied in no uncertain terms (e.g. Atleo 2011:50).  Such stories are far more revealing of how management really accomplished than are the romantic stereotypes of the “Indian at one with nature.”

Fish management was notably careful.  Not only were spears and hooks universal, but very effective netting was done.  Trawl nets and set reef nets were used in the Salish Sea, and seines, weirs, scoop nets, and other nets were used everywhere.  Nettles might be grown especially for making nets, or tough grass traded in from other areas (Miller 2014:83).  It was easy to take all the fish from a small river or creek.

Thus, strict limits were set on fishing, and this was usually religiously represented—there were strong religious rules and ceremonies relating to fishing.  This is well documented all the way from the Tlingit in the north (Arnold 2008) to the Yurok in the far south (Swezey and Heizer 1977), and for most groups in between, e.g. the groups along the Skeena (Morrell 1985).  The first fish was subject to ceremonies; often it had to be taken by a religious leader.  (The best account is in Swezey and Heizer 1977, but similar practices were universal on the coast.)  People waited until the season was thus opened.  This allowed leaders to provide for escapement, for spawning or for the tribes upriver.  Swezey and Heizer (1977) report for the Klamath River tribes that the latter was a motive; not allowing enough fish to get through the lower river weirs was cause for the upriver tribes to make war on those downstream.  Ceremonies thus not only allowed escapement for breeding, but also kept the peace.

Other areas too had a fish leader to start the season.  The Lakes and Colville Salishans fished at Kettle Falls, and the Lakes scholar Lawney Reyes, recalling his childhood, reports:

“During the salmon harvest, the head authority at the falls was the appointed Salmon Chief.  Before any nets or traps were set or fishermen were positioned, he stood near the lower falls, facing downriver, and prayed.  The Salmon Chief welcomed the arrival of the chinook [salmon].  He apologized and thanked those salmon that would be separed or taken in the traps.  HE assured the hcinook that most would be allowed to go upriver to spawn and bring forth their young….

“It was the responsibility of the Salmon Chief to see that the closely related tribes…shared equally in all salmon that were caught.  Other tribes that came to fish at the falls were also treated fairly….  According to Sin-Aikst [Lakes] tradition, the first Salmon Chief was chosen by Coyote…. [who] made Beaver the Salmon Chief

[and told him]

…. ‘You must never be greedy and you must see to it that no one else is greedy.’” (Reyes 2002:46-47).

The Lakes and their neighbors had, in fact, such a supervisor for all hunting and fishing activities—there was a hunting chief as well as a salmon chief and other fishing leaders.  Such leaders of hunting and fishing had a special title, xa’tús, from a word for “first”(Kennedy and Bouchard 1998b:241; Miller 1998:255).  The salmon chief was locally called “salmon tyee” (Miller 1998:255), tyee being Chinook Jargon for “chief.”

The tight grounding of conservation in religion, including origin myths, is found everywhere in the region.  It goes a long way to disprove the occasional claim that conservation is actually a new idea, learned from the Whites.  Many early ethnographers segregated “religion” and “subsistence” in separate parts of their ethnographies; it would be better to take the religion-environment-subsistence interaction as the basic unity, with “religion” and “subsistence” being artificial categories imposed from outside.

The Nuu-chah-nulth and Tlingit, at least, and probably other groups, stocked eggs and fry in salmon streams (see e.g. Deur and Turner 2005:19; George 2003:74).  Gilbert Sproat describes this from the early 19th century (Sproat 1987 [1868]).  Since Sproat was the first European to visit the areas he described, this was evidently a pre-contact practice.  A Saanich origin myth of salmon, and of the use of wild parsley (Lomatium) as “medicine” to lure it, talks of the creator hero-twins stocking salmon as they went around Vancouver Island (Turner and Hebda 2012:132).   Earl Maquinna George describes the process in detail, and also points out that the Nuu-chah-nulth would clear choking vegetation out of streams but leave enough to keep the stream healthy; salmon need some logs for shelter and protection.  The Nuu-chah-nulth also understood that bears were people too, and needed and deserved their fair share of the catch, for all to cooperate and consent (Atleo 2011:100-101). 

Fish populations throughout the Northwest Coast region were carefully managed (Johnsen 2009).  The European settlers found fish incredibly abundant—rivers during runs were said to be “more fish than water.”  Some of this abundance is surely due to population recovery after Indian fishing was reduced in the contact period (Ames 2005:84), but an extremely important and little-remarked fact is that even the tiniest and most insignificant streams had runs at contact.  Even normal natural processes would have exterminated some of these small-stream runs.  Such streams have few fish and short run-times.  More to the point, one man with a net can easily “rob a creek” (take all the fish in it) in a couple of weeks of fishing.  Since most salmon run eventually into creeks small enough to rob, overfishing can quickly wipe out even a huge river’s salmon stocks.  We know that Indian fishing was heavy.  Only stocking combined with careful conservation could have maintained the runs.

Limiting fishing was, of course, the major and most necessary way to manage this.  It was done by many means, e.g. not fishing before a certain date or before a large escapement, and these limits were ritually enforced.  The classic account is by Swezey and Heizer (1977) for the Klamath River, but parallels exist throughout the region.  Competition and cooperation over resources drove protection of one’s tribal resource base (Johnsen 2009).  As usual, there are equivalent stories from other regions; Erich Kasten quotes Indigenous elders on Kamchatka as counseling leaving salmon and opening weirs (Kasten 2012:79).  One elder remembered asking, as a child, why some fish were spared and being told those were females that would reproduce the fish.  Today, the runaway market in Russia for caviare has doomed the female fish, which are often simply stripped of caviare and left to rot, to the horror of traditional persons.  Kasten recommends reviving traditional ways of conserving before it is too late.  Comparable accounts from Siberia make it clear that conservation was general there (e.g. Koestler 2012; Wilson 2012). Tsimshian anthropologist Charles Menzies records stories of overhunting and overfishing told as cautionary tales, with conservation morals drawn (Menzies 2012, esp. p. 165).  The Alutiiq conserved and managed fish until settler societies forced overfishing (Carothers 2012).

Another conservation measure was returning inedible parts of the fish to the water.  Salmon die on spawning because the young depend on the nutrients from their parents’ bodies; this enormous import of nutrients from the sea to the river headwaters allows the fantastic productivity of Northwest Coast streams, which would otherwise be extremely nutrient-poor.  (Coniferous forests make oligotrophic streams.)  The Native people know this, and some at least see it as equivalent to human parents feeding their children (Gottesfeld 1994b).  We will consider some teaching stories about this, below.  Returning the bones to the water seems to be universal along the acidic, oligotrophic streams of the coast, but on the Plateau the bones were more often ground up for human consumption (e.g. Ross 2011:429), probably because the streams are richer in nutrients and do not need the addition.

The Tlingit of Alaska not only stocked or restocked streams and took out beaver dams that were blocking these streams.  They also excavated shallow pools (ish) in small spawning streams, to prevent drying in summer, freezing in winter, and excess predation.  They devised a complex trap system to divert salmon fry while trapping dolly varden trout, which eat salmon eggs.  They not only prevented overfishing, they were careful to take about three males for every one female from the upriver runs, to maximize spawning.  This was done with the usual recognition of salmon as people deserving and requiring respect.  Steve Langdon calls this an “existencescape of willful intentional beings.”  Following Viveiros de Castro (2015) he speaks of “relational ontology” and “abductive reflexivity” (Langdon 2016).

In addition to stocking salmon, at least some Northwest Coast groups (specifically the Kwakwaka’wakw and nearby Salishan-speaking groups) protected clam beaches by creating low rock walls along the seaward side to prevent beach erosion (Williams 2006).  These “clam gardens” have now been the subject of major research by Dana Lepofsky and her colleagues and students (Augustine et al. 2016; Lepofsky et al. 2015; Moss 2011).  With the help of First Nations advisors and of Randy Bouchard and Dorothy Kennedy, experts on the ethnography of the local Salishan groups, Lepofsky and her group have found large numbers of rock walls separating, marking off, shoring up, and preserving large areas of clam beaches.  More, they learned that local people had been painstakingly clearing the beaches of large boulders, cobbles, and logs for countless centuries.  Also, clam digging—which was rigorously managed for sustainability—broke up the substrate, which otherwise became too hard for easy clam establishment.  The group tried these various techniques on sample beaches and found that the number of clams was increased severalfold.  They recommend that these techniques be introduced to modern beach management.

Given what we know of plant and fish management, and the importance of clams and other shellfish in the diet, it would be surprising if no enhancement of shellfish was done.  It is very easy to overharvest shellfish, and indeed many Native American groups did, as early as several thousand years ago (Rick and Erlandson 2008, 2009).  Huge shell middens stand up as islands or bars in marshy areas, and cover up to hundreds of acres along rivers and coasts in the Northwest; some were several metres deep.  As with fish, only diligent conservation and management could keep the shellfish resource flourishing in near-settlement locations.

In fact, what Lepofsky and her group found is really clam farming—as intensive and demanding as the oyster and mussel farming now practiced widely in Washington state.  It is at least as labor-intensive and landscape-changing as anything done on the Northwest Coast, and is quite comparable in both labor needs and results to the horticulture of many Native American groups in more easterly parts of North America.  Along with the emerging knowledge of plant management, it changes our idea of the Northwest Coast peoples; they were more like proto-agriculturalists than “hunters and gatherers.”

Birds too were carefully managed, with seabirds and their eggs being taken in a self-consciously sustainable way (Hunn et al. 2003), as is archaeologically confirmed by continued abundance of the birds on even very vulnerable islands (Moss 2007).

Game management is less easy to evaluate.  Overall, there are few declines demonstrated in the archaeological record—in fact, none was found in a major review by Virginia Butler and Sarah Campbell (2004; Butler 2005).  They did not even find a shift in exploitation from big game to lower-ranked resources.  Elk were as common 200 years ago as 5000 years ago.  Locally, the situation gets more interesting, with patterns of local decline or scarcity contrasting with considerable abundance (Kay and Simmons 2002, and see below).  The fact remains that the Northwest Coast was rich in game when first contacted by White settlers, and unlike the situation in California (Preston 2002), this first contact came before introduced disease reduced the population and allowed game numbers to rebound.

Game was conserved by conscious choice to shift hunting grounds when game became depleted, and by the whole complex of ideas associated with respect for animals (see below): not to take too many, to kill with a shot (rather than wound and allow escape), to use all of an animal, and other restrictions.  Explicit conservation was common.  This stands in marked contrast with, for example, June Helms’ careful description of the ecology of the northeastern Athapaskas (Helm 2000).  They not only shot what they could, they opposed government conservation ideas explicitly and at length, with the result that game was drastically depleted around settlements. 

Apparently, in the old days, the population of humans was so thin and mobile that it did not much affect local populations, and if it did people simply moved elsewhere.  Firearms and population growth created a problem that eastern Dene culture apparently could not solve (Helm 2000, esp. pp. 66-68, 79-84).  The contrast with the Northwest is similar to the contrast in South America between sparse groups like the nonconserving Machigenga/Matsigenka and more careful groups that are more populous and settled (Beckerman et al. 2002).

Among the Spokan of eastern Washington, “[l]and mammals were never stalked or taken at springs, as this was disrespectful and, if violated, was believed to be the main reason for game leaving an area” (Ross 1998:273)—naturally enough, as waterhole hunting is the surest way to wipe out local game.  Possibly less directly useful was the same group’s way of dealing with bears; “the successful hunter…sang the bear’s death song” and observed “three days of strict behavioral and dietary taboos to avoid dreaming of the bear or being burned later by fire or struck by lightning” (Ross 1998:273, 2011:314).  But this shows both respect for the bear and awareness of interaction and interdependence in ecology—though bears and lightning would not be associated by most peoples.  The Spokan were competent enough hunters to wipe out the game, using tricks like taking scent glands from animals and luring them with the scents (Ross 2011:307-308).  It is worth noting that the Spokan lived on fish and plant materials (mostly berries and roots), about 50% each; game was a rare treat (Ross 2011:311).

Wet sites that preserve many types of remains for archaeologists have given us new insights into the Northwest.  At Ozette in Washington state, whaling was far more important than anyone realized, and wooden arrows without stone points were far more common than stone-tipped ones (Croes 2003), showing that hunting was far more important than the relative rarity of classic “arrow point” discoveries had suggested.  Baskets show cultural continuity and adaptability over long time periods, and reveal the extreme importance of transporting and storing food (Bernick 2003; Croes 2003).

Plant Resource Management

The Northwest Coast peoples, like other western American hunter-gatherers, managed plant resources by cultivating, pruning, transplanting, fertilizing, and indeed all gardening activities short of actual domestication.  Many authors have surveyed these practices for the Northwest (e.g. Blukis Onat 2002; Deur and Turner [eds.], 2005, esp. Lepofsky, Hallett et al. 2005 and Turner and Peacock 2005 therein; Gottesfeld 1994b; Kirk 1986; Turner 2005).  In addition, Kat Anderson’s great study of Californian Native plant management practices (M. K. Anderson 2005) not only covers the extreme southern end of the region, but describes many techniques used throughout.  Jay Miller’s statement that “While women did encourage the growth of certain wild plants, they did this unobtrusively” (Miller 2014:21) is an odd observation.  Burning, planting, massively selective harvesting, and other techniques were far from unobtrusive.  They were also very successful, and carefully done.  In fact, in the same book, Miller more accurately says “this cultivating was intense—much more than a light or selective tending of ‘wild’ species (Blukis Onat 2002) .  Not quite farming, it was definitely gardening” (Miller 2014:131, from a previously published paper).  Women used digging sticks, and had appropriate prayers and formulae for working with them and with plants in general.

At least the Secwépemc (Shuswap) had recognized resource stewards; stewardship was a named office (Ignace and Ignace 2017:193-194).  They watched over fish, game, and plant stocks, organized and timed burning for berries and other resources, maintained trails, and oversaw conservation.  They appear to be a development from the “fish chiefs” and “game bosses” reported generally over western North America.

Burning was by far the most important method of managing the environment (Agee 1993, esp. p. 56; M. K. Anderson 2005; Stewart et al. 2002).  The Northwest forests do not burn easily, but they do burn.  Clearings, meadows, and brushfields burn much more easiliy.  The old idea that burning had little effect on resources is disproved by the rapid recent changes in environments the Native Americans managed by fire.  An idea that burning was relatively recent has been rendered unlikely by pollen studies and Native cultural traditions, though natural burning was common in the drier and higher areas and must have had much role in maintaining berry fields.  (They did, after all, evolve over millions of years before people were there to burn.)  The pollen records indicate localized burning going back at least several thousand years (Sobel et al. 2013:37).  Plateau forests burn much more easily, and were regularly burned for berries, to eliminate pests, and to renew the landscape and kill insect pests and ticks (Ignace and Ignace 2017:192; Ross 2011:267-272, citing an enormous literature as well as his own field work).  There was even special spirit power for burning (Ross 2011:271).  

Burning for berries was simple and productive (Joyce Lecompte-Mastenbrook, ongoing research; Ross 2011, esp. 344ff; many other writers).  The major berries of the northwest—huckleberries, blackberries, raspberries of various sorts, and so on—are basically fire-followers, and all the Native groups learned exactly how often and when to burn to maximize production. 

Root crops also grow largely in burned-over prairie and grassland habitats.  Fire suppression has made them rare or absent in many areas, and indeed the forests reclaim unburned areas rapidly.  The oak forests found from California (commonly) to Washington (locally) to British Columbia (only around Victoria) require burning for maintenance; those of BC are now succumbing rapidly to invasion by palnts favored by fire suppression. They once supplied numerous acorns, which were a staple in California and probably close to one in the Willamette Valley.  Acorns had to be leached, and in Oregon they were often buried in mud for the winter, thus becoming “Chinook olives” (Gahr 2013:74). 

However, in at least one area, pollen records show less burning in the last 2500 years, after Native cultures became complex (Walsh et al. 2008).  This seems to accompany a local wet phase, but it is a confusing finding.  Probably, small local fires reduced the chance of major fires that would have left a clearer signature in the record.

Berries “were closely tended and maintained by fire clearing until government prohibited this practice.  Today …due to lack of burning, they have changed in such a way that inferior species and subspecies of berries have replaced the quality species of the past (Art Mathews in Daly 2005:221; Gitksan data, but applicable everywhere in the Northwest).  I might chalk this up to “good old days” rhetoric if I had not observed it myself throughout much of western North America over the last 60-odd years.  Almost everywhere, the favorite berry patches of my youth have grown up to forests, brush, or grassland.  Invasion by inferior species is bad enough, but a far worse problem (and one thing Mathews was talking about) is the fact that shading and crowding make berry plants produce fewer and sourer fruit.  Every home gardener who has let trees encroach on his berry patch knows this, but it is rarely mentioned in the ecological literature.

Sugar also occurred in sweet sap and conifer cambium, and from Douglas firs, which sometimes exude a trisaccharide sugar from their twigs and branches; it gathers like snow on the twigs.  It was so loved in the interior that it was known as “breast milk” in some groups (Turner 2014-1:215).  Pit-cooking of roots such as camas turned the indigestible inulin to fructose, thus making them sweet; European sweets and starches were accepted quickly and seen as parallel (ibid. and many references cited there).  Balsamroot was similarly prepared not only for food but for medicine; it contains strongly antibiotic chemicals (Turner 2014-1:431).

The only domesticated plant acknowledged in most of the literature was tobacco.  Tobacco cultivation was certainly pre-Columbian, but not necessarily in all groups where it is known (Moss 2005).  One species (Nicotiana attenuata) was grown by the Haida and probably their neighbors, and also was grown widely in California and probably into Oregon.  It seems likely that other groups grew it but stopped doing so before anthropologists reached them.  N. quadrivalvis, a plant from the central part of the continent, was occasionally farmed in its area of origin, and may have spread into our region at some time.

Root crops were harvested in ways that propagated them:  large tubers were taken, small ones replanted; roots might be cut and the stem replanted. Harvesting was done such that weeds were eliminated.  Particularly favored crops show what appears to be actual selection from thousands of years of this care. 

Camas (Camassia quamash and C. leichtlinii; the latter may be simply a form of C. quamash) was particularly important, and has been for a long time (Lyons and Ritchie 2017).  It seems to have been at least partially domesticated.  It shows several traits characteristic of domestic crops, including large showy flowers (compared to its close relatives), large edible structures, and extremely good adaptation to gardens and gardening (personal observation, from garden cultivation of it by myself and many other persons I know).  Douglas Deur says it is a “cultivated plant” in the coastal forests, being maintained there only by human activity.  Presumably it was introduced from inland (see Deur and Thompson 2008:51; Gahr 2013:70). 

Turner and Hebda (2012:120-121) quote a detailed account by Marguerite Babcock of camas management in southeast Vancouver Island; it was clearly cultivated, and if not domesticated then very close to it.  Turner (2014-2:167-176) provides an extremely detailed account—unique in the ethnographic literature—of how much yield was obtained from various plant resources by Indigenous harvesting efforts.  Few resources yielded high.  Anyone with experience picking berries, which have changed less under domestication than most plants, will have a good idea of effort involved.  Domestic berries yield higher than unmanaged wild stands, but no higher than burned and cultivated wild stands (my considerable personal experience confirms Turner here).

Roots were managed by harvesting with digging sticks, thinning stands and allowing selection of particular sizes.   Balsamroot (Balsamorrhiza spp.) produces edible roots that develop over years into huge, woody, inedible taproots; these were left to reproduce, and very small roots were left to grow.  Carrot-sized roots were harvested (Ignace and Ignace 2017:190).

Wetland resources such as yellow pond lily nuts (the wokas of the Klamath; Colville 1902) and the wapato or “Indian potato” (Sagittaria; see Gahr 2013:69) were similarly managed.  They too may well have been on the road to domestication.  This sort of root management gave the Native people the ability to shift rapidly to cultivating potatoes.  The Haida were trading potatoes in bulk with English and “Boston” ships well before 1800.  In fact, potatoes have been a staple on the coast about as long as they have in Ireland.  The potato was introduced by the Spanish.  Surviving traditional potatoes of the Ozette and Makah types are still genetically South American (Ignace and Ignace 2017:515; Turner 2014-1:198-200), presumably from direct and early introduction by the Spanish. 

The root foods, including other managed ones ranging from glacier lilies (Erythronium) and frilillary (Fritillaria spp.) to clover (Trifolium, especially T. wormskioldii), were baked for long periods in earth ovens, to break down the long-chain polysaccharides, especially inulin, into digestible short-chain sugars.  As experimenters with cooking such roots may be painfully aware, the long-chain molecules can cause acute digestive distress if ingested without breakdown.  Nancy Turner’s five-foot shelf of books give the best and fullest information on these roots and their preparation; she and her students have devoted lifetimes to the research.

We know that fruit trees like Oregon crabapple, Indian plum, hawthorn, and moutain ash were managed, but we do not know much about it.  Techniques included pruning around them, opening land for them, and otherwise encouraging them.  They were often transplanted into new areas, and local orchards established.  Were the seeds planted?  Probably, but we do not know.  Hazelnuts are better known; they were carefully managed throughout the Northwest, with trees carefully tended, pruned, and probably transplanted locally (Armstrong et al. 2018). 

Fibre crops were also managed.  The Secwépemc, for instance, “carefully tended” patches of Indian hemp (Apocynum cannabinum) “by removing brush and undergrowthnear the patch to encsure straight and thick growth of the perennial hemp shoots” (Ignace and Ignace 2017:191).  Cutting the shoots for fibre made the new ones grow out straight and tall.  This is typical of Indian hemp management all over western North America (see e.g. M. K. Anderson                                                                              2005).  Indian hemp was sometimes transplanted to new areas in California and presumably in the Northwest Coast region as well.

Bow staves were taken off living yew trees in the coastal forests, junipers and other trees in the Basin and probably the Plateau.  This indicates major forbearance and the working of conscience.  Yews and junipers produce few straight branches. Staves are best taken off the lower part of a branch, to get the compression wood.  The branch very slowly regrows.  With junipers, only one stave in about twenty years can be taken (Wilke 1998), and for yews the figure is probably about the same.  This means that people must be restrained by their conscience; no one can patrol all the few trees with straight branches.  All over the Northwest, one sees yew trees with the characteristic scars, indicating that people saved their bow trees.  (For the same reason—bow staves—yew trees were planted thickly around castles in the British Isles in the middle ages. Many of them are still growing, providing a thick shade.)

Similar “culturally modified trees” or “CMT’s” include cedars used for bark or planks.  Cuts were made near the foot of the tree and then about 20 or 30 feet up, the cuts being shallow for bark and deep for planks.  The bark was pulled off in long strips.  The planks were sometimes split off, but it was easier to let the tree grow until the stresses of growth split the plank off without human effort.  The scars, again, show that people took only enough for their needs, without killing or greatly harming the trees.  The scars healed and bark could be taken again (see e.g. Schlick 1998:59). 

The only true domesticate was the dog.  In some groups, it was subject to serious selective breeding—most unusual for small-scale societies.  A wool-bearing variety of dog was developed by the Salish.  The painter Paul Kane managed to see and draw one; it looks rather like a lamb.  It sadly became extinct in the mid-19th century, but biologist Russell Barsh (pers. comm., 2007) is trying to breed it back.  Another endangered special variety is the Tahltan bear dog, developed for bear hunting by the Tahltan people of northern British Columbia.  It somewhat resembles the Karelian bear dog of Finland.  Other groups apparently also had special hunting breeds in the old days.

Moreover, wild animals were probably tamed on more than a few occasions.  Early accounts speak of Salish women trapping mountain goats in spring, when they were shedding their winter coats.  The women pulled the loose fur off the goats and let them go.  The wool was then spun with the dog wool, and woven on sophisticated native looms to make the beautiful traditional blankets.  Mountain goats are notoriously tameable—they became pests in Glacier National Park, begging for food from tourists—and it is fairly obvious that the Salish tamed their goats.  Goat hunting did go on, but I suspect it was done as an unobtrusive cropping of semi-managed herds.  The rifle has changed game hunting in America; bow hunting required a close approach.  The sensible thing to do with the smaller, more tameable animals, like mountain sheep, mountain goats, and deer, was to keep the herds as tame and unsuspecting as possible, taking laggards and easily-shot animals but never taking enough to alarm the group.  This is why archaeology reveals a “poor management” practice of taking many females and young rather than concentrating on the conspicuous, wary adult males, as a modern rifle-hunter would.  (On hunting in western North America in general, see Frison 2004; Kay and Simmons 2002.  Frison was a rancher and an expert hunter, and draws on his knowledge.)

The Northwest Coast Native peoples were formidable hunters, and certainly kept game populations down.  Respect was a needed, and not always adequate, check on overhunting.  Stories warned people to take no more animals than they needed, or even a specific small number.  For the Shuswap, “’Stinginess’

[in distributing fish and game…invited bad luck for the future….  Most of all, resource management was carried
out through a value system that enforced the use of all parts of killed animals
and sanctioned individuals who were wasteful” (Ignace 1998:208).  A major origin myth of the Coeur d’Alene
instructs hunters to take no more than two deer per hunt (Frey 2001:4, and
subsequent discussion throughout book).  The
Kaska “do not kill animals needlessly,” realize that “animals are best saved
for times when they are most useful” (Nelson 1973:155), are averse to using
poison because animals eating the poisoned animals will die in turn, thus
killing needlessly (ibid, 244), and in short “have a well-developed conservation
ethic” (ibid, 311).

The same could be said for all the
other Northwest Coast groups, so far as ethnography goes. In fact, these rules
are common worldwide among hunting groups, including European ones. 

Clearly, the Native peoples knew
overhunting all too well, and knew exactly what its effects were and how much
hunting would be suicidal (see Kay and Simmons 2002).  These stories make no sense at all unless
people had overhunted, had found out the consequences to their cost, had
consciously learned better, and had even more self-consciously developed a
stern morality of conservation!  The fact
that this morality was taught so diligently, with so many stories, proves that
it met a felt need.  Historians routinely
use the existence of a law as proof that the outlawed activity was common
enough to be a problem.  The same can be
said here. The Chinook and their neighbors had rules about taking no more than
necessary, but supplying the Anglo-American settlers made this a negotiable
issue, and one hunter supposedly took 20 to 30 deer per day in one early-19th-century
winter (Gahr 2013:66; I am fairly sure several hunters were involved, but in
any case the toll was unsustainable).

Martin and Szuter (1999, 2002)
found that “no man’s lands” between warring tribes were rich in game, while
village areas were not.  (Similar
findings are reported from South America to Vietnam, and I have found the same
thing in Mexico).  Martin and Szuter argue
that the game was killed out near settlements, though bothering and disturbing
may have had more to do with driving them away.
Of course the game animals are smart enough to move to safe places.  We can observe this today throughout the
world.

In short, Native people had good
sense but were not infallible, and they created morals accordingly.  Contra the old stereotypes, they are not
wantonly wasteful killers (pace Krech 1999, last chapters; see Appendix 3 below),
not natural conservationists (pace Hughes 1983), and most certainly not mere
animals with no impact on nature (see appalling quotes from Anglo settlers in
Pryce 1999:85-90, and her excellent discussion of this whole issue).

 

The role of cultivation was underplayed
by early anthropologists.  This was
partly because they wanted to emphasize the sophistication of “hunter-gatherer”
societies as a way of disproving evolutionary schemes.  Douglas Deur and Nancy Turner (2005) point
this out, but they exaggerate the case.  It
remains true that the Northwest  Coast
peoples were hunting-gathering societies, without significant domestication or
agriculture.  Most hunter-gatherer
societies manage the environment, often intensively.  Early anthropologists knew that, and had no
reason not to make the hunter-gatherers seem even more sophisticated by
emphasizing it.

Much more true is Deur and Turner’s
point that women were rarely taken seriously by early ethnographers.  Indeed, what Fiske and Patrick say of the
Babine could be said of almost all Northwest Coast peoples:  “We do not have reliable accounts of women’s
lives, property, or social obligations for the early contact or precontact
eras.  All the available fur trader and
missionary accounts are full of contradictions and replete with biases” (Fiske
and Patrick 2000:238). 

Deur and Turner (2005:33) note that
the famous fish dependence of the Northwest Coast peoples must have been
overstated, because living on fish would cause unhealthy overconsumption of
protein and perhaps of vitamin D.  The
peoples in question had to have been eating a lot of carbohydrates.  Records show diet breadth was always great;
people worked to maintain diversity in all matters. 

On the other hand, it should never
be forgotten that roots, berries, and shellfish are all low to extremely low in
calories, and the Northwest Coast people could not have gotten much of their
subsistence from them.  What has been
missed is not so much the plant foods but the importance of oil, both from
ooligan fish and from mammals (sea lions, whales, deer, elk, and so on).  Early accounts stress the enormous importance
of oils in trade, feasting, and food.  The Makah used to compete to see who could
drink the most whale oil at feasts (Colson 1953).  People were desperate for oils.  Suffice it to say that “ooligan” is derived
from a Tsimshian word meaning “savior,” now used for Jesus.  Watertight boxes of oil from the ooligan
(oolichan, eulachon), a smelt that is mostly fat by dry weight, were traded all
up and down the coast.  The Haida sailed
their great canoes over tens of miles of some of the most dangerous waters in
the world, and traded their most valuable possessions, to get these boxes of
oil.  The biggest ooligan run was on the
Columbia River, where the commercial catch in the peak year, 1945, was over 5.5
million pounds—and the noncommercial (including Indigenous) catch at least as
high (Reynolds and Romano 2013).  The
fish is almost extinct in the Columbia drainage now, thanks to dams and pollution.

Oil provided necessary
calories.  In the Northwest, clothing is
not much barrier against the constant rain, which soaks or trickles through
anything.  Thus oil was used externally
as “clothing,” as well as being consumed internally to keep metabolism up.  Anyone who has lived and worked with Native
people on the outer coast is aware of the incredible calorie needs that working
in that climate entails, and of the incredible amounts of food that have to be
eaten to keep body warmth while carrying out any task.  Early descriptions of people paddling for
four continuous days in cold rain (Drucker 1951; Sproat 1987 [1868]

) may be hard to match now, but I have seen many feats of sustained effort in cold rain that at least make the old stories thoroughly credible.  They are possible only if the workers are eating heavily.

Today, the old oil sources are largely gone, and drinking oil straight is no longer in vogue, so recent writers have generally missed the importance of this in the past. 

An account of a typical meal was provided by William Clark around 1805, in his famously creative spelling.  He “was invited to a lodge by a young Chief” of the Clatsop in Oregon, and received  “great Politeness, we had new mats to Set on, and himself and wife produced for us to eate, fish, Lickorish [shore lupine, Lupinus littoralis], & black roots [edible thistle, Cirsium edule], on neet Small mats, and Cramberries [Vaccinium oxycoccos] & Sackacomey beris [kinnikinnik, Arctostaphylos ua-ursi[, in bowls made of horn, Supe made of a kind of bread made of berries [cf. salal, Gaultheria shallon] common to this Countrey which they gave me in a mneet wooden trancher, with a Cockle Shell to eate it with.”  (Quoted in Gahr 2013:65, from Lewis and Clark 1990:118; her notes in brackets).  The dominance of fish and berries is notable, and the few plant foods were roots.

An obvious question is how many of the cultivation techniques of the Northwest were learned from early European settlers.  By far the most important management technique, burning, was certainly aboriginal; every Native American group in a burnable environment used this method, as did hunters, foragers, and horticulturalists around the world.  Unlike the equivocal situation in California, where natural fire is so common that it makes aboriginal burning difficult to assess, historic and archaeologically evidenced burning on the Northwest Coast can usually be safely ascribed to Native activity.  Natural fire is exceedingly rare west of the Cascades in Oregon and Washington and the Coast Range crest in Canada (see Lepofsky et al. 2005). 

Intensive root-digging was certainly pre-contact, and indeed goes back far in the archaeological record, and the diggers must have known the effects of their cultivation on the crops.  Otherwise, Wayne Suttles (2005), James MacDonald (2005), and Madonna Moss (2005) have considered the matter, coming to rather little resolution. Intensive pruning and transplantation and at least some fertilizing are recorded, but are very possibly post-contact.  Clearing, weeding, fencing, sowing, transplanting, mulching, and fertilizing are all documented (Turner 2014-2:193).

Enormous quantities of plant foods were gathered.   A tribe of a thousand people could easily run through a million camas bulbs in a year, and a single family might eat 100,000 to 200,000 salal berries in a year (Deur 2005:14).  Salal is the commonest berry bush over much of the Northwest, and its bearing capacity, especially when periodically burned over, is incredible—thousands of families gathering on that scale would not make a dent in its yield. 

Boas records a no-nonsense conservation belief among the Kwakwaka’wakw:  “Even when the young cedar-tree is quite smooth, they do not take all of the cedar-bark, for the people of the olden times said that if they should peel off all the cedar-bark…the young cedar would die, and then another cedar-tree near by would curse the bark-peeler so that he would also die” (George Hunt, ed./tr. Franz Boas, 1921:616-617; several other conservation-related beliefs and prayers are given in this section of Boas’ ethnography).

On the other hand, as we have seen, overharvesting cedars was known to occur, though in a different group with less cedar to manage (Lacourse et al. 2007).

More general, and perhaps more valuable, was asking permission of a tree or plant to take its bounty (see below).  Native persons still ask a tree for permission to take some bark, and then thank and praise the tree.  Boas and others recorded many praises and requests of this sort (Turner and Peacock 2005). 

As discussed earlier, resources were owned in the Northwest Coast, according to complex rules and ownership systems.  Nancy Turner et al. (2005; Turner 2014, vol. 2, passim) provide a review, but the full complexity defies summary, and must be found in the old ethnographies, and especially in Richard Daly’s ethnography of the Gitksan and Witsu’weten.  The latter was based on trial evidence of ownership, and thus has an extremely full, detailed and accurate account.  It applies only to the two groups mentioned, but broadly similar ownership patterns exist throughout.  They are generally even more precise and self-consciously maintained along the coast itself, least precise and tightly enforced in the deep interior.

 Along the coast and up the major rivers, every fishing spot, productive cedar grove, and berry patch was tightly owned.  Good hunting grounds for localized species like marmots and mountain goats were also.  Widely necessary goods that were locally abundant but otherwise nonexistent, notably mineral resources, might be open to all (Daly 2005:263).  Complex arrangements for sharing, loaning, and even renting are widely reported, especially for fishing sites.  If a run failed or a slide blocked a stream, a group would be in desperate straits, and neighboring groups would then allow fishing access.  Daly (2005) reports boundary markers, special passes (braided straps and the like) used by people borrowing access, and other highly specific ownership applications.  Male ethnographers underappreciated the importance of female ownership of plant resources, which was incredibly complex and detailed (Turner 2014-2:90-91), quite comparable to land rights of intensive farmers.  Rights were loaned, land was opened, usufruct was differentiated from outright ownership, and sharing was subject to complex rules and norms.  Generosity was always idealized, but ownership strictly enforced.

            Finally, the region had few food taboos.  Animals that ate carrion—including those famous tricksters, ravens and coyotes—or were otherwise more or less disgusting were avoided.   The Haida did not eat killer whales, because humans (especially males, and most especially those who die by drowning) are reincarnated as killer whales and killer whales that die are then reborn as humans.  Killer whales are easily identifiable as individuals by their patterns, and, at least as of the 1980s, Haida would discuss which local killer whale was which recently deceased Haida man (I have heard people do this, and Boelscher 1988:183 also notes it).  The Haida word for “killer whale,” sgaana, also means “spiritual power.”  (A shaman is sgaaga, one who has power; one high god figure was Sins Sgaanaa, “power of the shining heavens”; Boelscher 1988:172-173.)  The Haida also regarded some foods as high status, some as low; the former were foods that came from large animals—whales being particularly high—or that were taken by collective effort, like salmon and berries.  Low foods were those that involved individual and unobtrusive collecting:  shellfish and similar beach foods, especially (Boelscher 1988; I also noted this

in Haida Gwaii, though some shellfish, such as chitons, were so well liked that they had a certain degree of status).  There seems little comparable information on other groups, except the general observation that salmon and large land mammals are highly regarded everywhere.  Whales were certainly special among the whaling groups. 

Studying this successful management reveals a fascinating truth.  The Native Americans managed superbly on the basis of an ontology that postulates spirits in everything from salmon to mountains, and that leads to a practical conclusion that vision questing and contacting spirits through soul-voyages will provide the deepest and most valuable information about the world.  Modern settler societies introduced the idea of hard-headed, pragmatic, rational science, and promptly devastated the resources of the region through incredibly stupid behaviors.  It simply did not occur to these rational, scientific invaders that if you catch all the fish you will have no fish left.  It did not occur to them that if you cut all the trees there will be no trees.  When, belatedly, they came to realize these subtle facts—occasionally by 1880, usually not until well into the 20th century—they had no way of motivating change toward better management.  The result today is rapid extinction of fisheries, with yet another river going out of production almost every year; loss of forest resources, often permanently; loss of berries, roots, and game; and a landscape which in many cases has become a moonscape.  Counter-trends—restored fish, successful farming (far more productive than pre-Columbian root-crop cultivation), sustainable forestry—have come from counter-traditions.  Either the Native Americans have regained some control of their resources (as in Haida Gwaii) or “counter-cultural” settler groups have had their way.  Of these latter, small-scale and mixed farming remains fairly widespread, but organic farming, community forestry, fish restoration by dam removal, and other successful interventions are rare and sporadic.

            In short, mystical spiritism and “irrational” vision-questing outperform economic rationality to the point of total contrast.  This is, obviously, a huge embarrassment for those who still hold that Western Man has some special pipeline to divine wisdom. 

            The reasons for the failure of rational scientific management are clear.  The direct reason is the “steep discount slope”: people discounted the future.  It could take care of itself; only today, or next year, matter.  This has been elaborated into various forms of corporate logic: shareholder payouts, government tax bases, imperative demand, and the rest.  The result is always the same: maximize profit now and forget the long term.  This led to massive accumulation for a while, supporting thousands of people.  But now the landscapes in question are ruined for the foreseeable future, and the short-term profits were usually not reinvested very productively.  Over even the medium term, Native management wins out hands down.  There are more people now than there were once, but that is because the current population gets its food largely from elsewhere.  The areas that supported dense Native populations from local resources are now in many cases deserted.  Some farmland areas—especially the Willamette, Columbia, Yakima, Okanagan and Snake valleys—produce enormous amounts of food, far more than aboriginally, and this may make up for the loss of fish and other foods, but does not excuse the overall damage.

            The reasons for the success of spirit beliefs (“animism” if you will) are not so clear.  Being less than convinced of the reality of sentient, agentive wills within bushes and clouds, I tend to think the reasons are fourfold.  First, animism leads people to respect their environments.  Second, spirit vision questing validates individual knowledge and experience; people learn to take seriously their experience-based perceptions of the world.  Third, Northwest Coast religions are intensely social.  The spirits are part of society, but, more to the point, life is with other people.  One has to be responsible toward them, including the children who will need fish and trees and roots 50 or 100 years from now.  Fourth, respect for everything means that everything should be used—it is disrespectful to ignore a being that is offering itself to you—but that nothing must be overused; that too is disrespect.  Thus, the landscape was used comprehensively but lightly.  Everything had some sort of use, down to the most insignificant scraps of vegetable tissue.  Nothing was overused; monocropping was not a concept.  (The vaunted reliance on salmon has been exaggerated in the literature, as will appear.)  There was an overall, light pressure on the landscape.

Many readers of this book—if it reaches its intended audience—will see plants, salmon, and rocks as conscious agents who decide what to do for their human friends.  (And not all those believing readers are Native American.  I personally know several anthropologists who were converted to Northwestern spirit beliefs by experiences in the field.)  I have no quarrel with this conclusion, or with others that will appear below.  What matters is that we understand that Native management was sustainable in important ways, while settler management has not been, and that this is a problem in need of exploration.

5.  White Settler Contact and Its Tragic Consequences

Endemic local dissention probably explains the ease of European conquest, as well as Jared Diamond’s “guns, germs and steel” (Diamond 1997).  From Cortes and the Pizarros onward, Europeans immediately learned that they could take advantage of Native rivalries to set Indians against Indians and clean up on the result.  In the rare cases when Indigenous people could unite and stay united, they generally held their own.   On the Northwest Coast, the successes of the Tlingit and Tsimshian in early fighting stand as examples, but solidarity never reached beyond the “tribal” level, and the Native people never forged a united front.  Even the rare unity showed by the Nez Perce in the Nez Perce War did not save them; they were harrassed by other tribes and eventually betrayed by Blackfoot warriors.

The total population of the Northwest Coast in precontact times was at least 200,000-250,000 and very likely more, quite high given the resource base.  White man’s diseases, local wars, and massacres reduced the population about 95% by 1900, as established by Robert Boyd (Boyd 1999; Boyd and Gregory 2007; Trafzer 1997).  In one particularly horrendous case, the peoples of the lower Columbia River area, as Boyd relates, “plummeted from in excess of 15,000 to just over 500 survivors” between about 1770 and 1855 (Boyd 2013a:247), a decline of 97%.  Perhaps most serious from California north into Washington was the malaria epidemic of 1830-33 (Boyd 1999; Boyd et al. 2013 passim).  Conversely, some of the tribes of the interior, where malaria was rare or absent, may have lost “only” 75% or so between 1770 and 1900.  They lost population in the 20th century, when—for instance—the 1918-19 and 1928 influenza epidemics wiped out whole communities.  However, the most extremely remote suffered no major long-term declines in population from introduced diseases, since the epidemics—these flu events being apparently the worst—reached them along with modern medicine (see e.g. Helm 2000:120-123, 192-219). 

Boyd notes depression and despair after epidemics; this has been underestimated in the past.  We now know how utterly devastating the loss of even one or two loved ones can be to a community, particularly to children.  The loss of 95% of one’s society is, to moderns, unimaginably horrible, except to those who have gone through genocides.  I suspect it colors the often-gloomy myths and tales of western North American Native people.  One recourse, but a surprisingly rare one, was to blame the whites, who had inadvertently or deliberately introduced the disease and who sometimes threatened to unleash it on the Native population (Boyd 2013a).  This blame was a contributing factor to some killings of settlers; aboriginally, unexplained deaths were assigned to witchcraft, and witches were sought out and killed.  Often these victims were medicine persons, since it was assumed that those who had curing power might well have killing power too.

Boyd and others rightly stress disease as the major killer, but the role of war, massacre, hard usage, denial of hunting and gathering options and of relief food, and other directly brutal behavior need more emphasis than they usually receive.  Catherine Cameron and others have recently established, in an important volume (Cameron et al. 2015), that disease was less important, especially early in contact, than has been alleged in most of the literature, and that declines were often due to direct violence.  Boyd certainly establishes the importance of disease in the Northwest, but it is certainly true that other causes of mortality were highly important.  Small wars around the edges of the region—the Rogue River War in southwest Oregon, the Modoc War in northeast California, the Bannock War in Idaho, the Nez Perce war of 1877 fought from Idaho to Montana, the Chilcotin War in central British Columbia, and others—led to many casualties.  Of course these were wholly one-sided, and usually started by openly genocidal settlers.  Governments collaborated to varying degrees.  The Rogue River War of 1855-56 was extreme, in that troops and settlers indulged in mass murder, leaving few survivors (Beckham 1996).  The Bannock War of 1878 was also notably one-sided as to fatalities.  These two conflicts resemble genocide more than actual war; there was some serious fighting, but inevitable victory by troops was followed by indiscriminate killing.

Wars wound down after this, but starvation, exposure, and other forms of mistreatment continued to kill many Native people on and off reservations.  Alcoholism and suicide have taken a grim toll.  Suicide, especially among young people caught between cultures and feeling they do not belong, reached epidemic levels in several cases, leading to some of the highest rates in the world.  These effects of conquest and racism deserve to be placed with disease as major causes of fatalities.

Native populations began recovering around 1900, and are now close to early levels.  Marriage into settler societies has contributed to this.  However, parts of the Northwest have fewer people now than in 1700.  The languages and cultures suffered blows from which many have never recovered. 

The natural environment did not fare any better.  Clearcutting has destroyed almost all the old-growth forest and created many landscapes where good forest is not recovering.  The fish resources, especially the salmon, are a tiny fraction of what they were, and fish populations are still declining.  In addition to the standard problems of overfishing, dams, and pollution, new problems continue to arise.  Farmed Atlantic salmon have introduced diseases and parasites that are rapidly wiping out the native species in southern British Columbia.

The Native people were rapidly dispossessed of their fisheries and other resources, often despite treaties.  They were urged to follow the “white man” and take to farming, but when they did their lands were routinely seized by greedy whites; one well-studied case study is the life of Arthur Wellington Clah (Brock 2011), who initially succeeded very well in the settler world, but was chased off parcel after parcel until he died in poverty.  (He figures in this book in a less direct but very important way: his son Henry Tate and grandson William Beynon became the great chroniclers of Tsimshian society, Beynon in particular being a superb ethnographer.)  In the 1980s I studied the ways the previously very successful Native fishery in British Columbia was systematically cut to pieces by right-wing governments and shady practices.  The Columbia River, once the richest salmon stream, has suffered from both dispossession of Native rights and destruction of the vast majority of its fish resources.  It will probably lack anadromous fish of any kind by 2100.  (Excellent studies include Dupuis et al. 2006, Ulrich 2001; see also Grijalva 2008 for the general problem of environmental justice and Native Americans). 

Forced acculturation and active repression of Native traditions further devastated the cultures.  The boarding schools, in particular, were sites of major problems.  Fortunately, both the people and their cultures began to get some measure of attention around 1900, allowing a reversal of population decline, and, to some extent, of cultural decline.  A standard history on the United States side of the border is Alexandra Harmon’s Indians in the Making (1998); a British Columbia equivalent is John Lutz’ Makúk: A New History of Indian-White Relations (2008); for a notably temperate, dispassionate, thoughtful Indigenous view, see Richard Atleo’s Principles of Tsawalk (2011).  The clear writing and sober, understated tone make all these books noteworthy.  Harmon’s is better for political machinations that created “tribes” and blood quanta; Lutz’ book is outstanding for its superb history of Indian labor, with discussion of the ways the Indians were forced out of logging, fishing, trapping, and other activities that formerly gave them a good living         

The modern “tribes” and “nations” are creations of settler government policy.  From the start, the settler groups needed clear polities and clear leaders to negotiate with.  Finding fluid polities and leadership systems, the settlers simply created clear-cut “tribes.”  Sometimes “tried to create” is more accurate; groups remained cantankerously independent and fluid.  The process has been described many times, notably in Alexandra Harmon’s and John Lutz’ books and in Andrew Fisher’s Shadow Tribe (2010).  It has left us with most unclear understandings of earlier arrangements, at least on the United States side of the border, where change and population decline came earlier.  The high population density and extensive trade show that there was some way of organizing life above the village level, but we do not really know what it was. 

Native Americans were not even citizens until 1924 in the United States, 1961 in Canada.  Significantly, though, British Columbia had defied the national government by giving Indians provincial voting rights in 1949.  By this time the land was almost completely alienated.  In the United States, at least some large reservations and solid treaty rights obtained, but Canada has been much less accepting of Native title and rights.  The Indians in British Columbia have only tiny reserves and few subsistence rights.  On the American side, having treaties and reservations has not made the Native people much better off than their Canadian neighbors.  A classic study concerns the Okanagan, whose territory was split in half by the border.  Canadians thought the Canadian Okanagan were better off, United States writers thought those on the US side were, but in fact the Okanagan were in the same desperate poverty and want on both sides (Carstens 1991; there is a similar study of the Blackfoot). 

In the early 20th century, less direct cruelty and rapacity was seen, but jobs were scarce for Native people.  Economic depression often led to psychological depression.  Many communities dealt with aimless, disordered lives by heavy drinking.  Others did what they could, especially by maintaining the old hunting, gathering, and fishing ways for sheer survival.

Similar findings occur for tribes split by the Alaska-Canada border.  “In recent years…the Canadian Han have enjoyed far better subsistence hunting and fishing rights than their Alaskan counterparts” (Mishler and Simeone 2004:xxii-xxiii).  This is a very recent situation, and subject to possible change in future.  Conditions for Indigenous hunters, and for game, have rapidly deteriorated in Alaska with a series of Republican governors backed by the oil industry and representing affluent White constituencies, including rich sport hunters who decimate animals needed by Native people for subsistence. 

Conversely, the Canadian situation improved dramatically when courts began recognizing Native rights in the 1990s.  In 1991, in the case of Delgamuukw vs. the Queen, a British Columbia court handed down an infamous decision that denied the existence of Native land title, basically because the Natives had no written records and therefore their obvious occupation of the land for 12,000 years or more did not count.  This was overturned by the Canadian Supreme Court in 1997, and Native title recognized, at least under some circumstances.  This led to the Nisga’a signing a treaty in 2000 that ceded official title of their lands (and, allegedly, some neighbors’ land too) in exchange for money and use rights.  Other tribes still contest their cases.  It should be noted that Canada had recognized at least some native claims from the beginning of British rule in 1763, and thus most of the nation was covered under signed treaties.  However, British Columbia had been a separate colony (not officially part of Canada) for many years, and had not done so, except for a very few in the far northeast and southwest, involving very small areas of land.

The reservations were bones of contention, because treaties were often unfair, and in any case the United States Congress rarely ratified treaties made with Indians.  This led to feelings of betrayal, and consequently to some violent outbreaks by people who had been promised larger and better lands.  The reservations were often treated as concentration camps until the 1930s (or even later).  However, the fact that reservations really helped was made clear by the “termination” of the Klamath tribe in the 1950s (Stern 1966).  The reservation was privatized; almost all the land was taken even before the Indians got their shares, and then the Indians were cheated out of most of what was left.  They have been trying ever since to get a bit back.

Repression of culture and language were comparable in both countries.  The United States’ lack of a safety net has cut deeply; Canadian Native peoples can expect (though they do not always get) better health care and other services.  Racism remains widespread and extremely virulent.  Let not the reader be fooled by the genteel parlor-liberalism of Vancouver and Seattle; the rural Whites are unreconstructed, and they are the ones the Native people must deal with on a day-to-day basis.  When I asked one rural British Columbian why he thought the Indians created so much fine art, his reply was “They are too lazy to work.”

Land claims, treaty rights, and aboriginal title have been the subject of many lawsuits, some successful, in the last 30 years, and the situation has improved somewhat; the problem is so fiendishly complex that discussion must remain outside the scope of this book, even though this book owes everything to that exact question.  For a particularly good story of the movement that inspired my work, see Ian Gill’s All That We Say Is Ours (2009), a biography and history of the Haida struggle to maintain land claims and fisheries.

More directly relevant is the destruction of traditional culture.  An amazing amount survives, but the languages are almost gone everywhere; very few tribes have any speakers under 50, and those few have a bare handful.  Nowhere is there a viable linguistic community of young people, except among the most remote groups of the far north.  Some 40% of the Indigenous languages of North America are gone, with another 40% spoken only by older people.  Stories, knowledge, art, and experience persist after the language is gone, but usually become rapidly impoverished.  Sad experience from more heavily impacted parts of the continent, to say nothing of Celtic languages in Europe, shows that all eventually will die out, unless current attempts at reclaiming traditions and educating the young are much better funded.  Language and cultural loss is an environmental disaster as well as a humanistic one.  Knowledge of the environment and of managing it is encoded in the language used to talk about it, and when the language goes, the knowledge diminishes with it, as has been shown in many studies (see e.g. Hunn 1990).

Language revitalization movements rarely work, partly because they tend to be school-based, often using the familiar rote-drill method that convinced my generation that we could not learn languages.  Native American writer Barbra Meek in We Are Our Language (2010) provides an account of one of the more hopeful, but typical, ones (from just outside our area), and a full review of the relevant literature.  Successes are rare; the lifelong work of Nora and Richard Dauenhauer (e.g. 1987, 1990) among the Tlingit is exemplary but, alas, atypical.  The rural environments in which many Native people live are conducive to the mindless claim that people can learn only one language well.  In fact, the more languages one knows, the better one is at learning more languages, and also at thinking and learning in general.  (In my experience, those who claim otherwise do not know their own languages well.)  Certainly, those Native Americans who have become fluent in both Native and settler tongues have tended to do well.  But the foolish claim persists, and still prevents many children from getting a fair chance at important learning opportunities.

It also remains to be seen whether heritage languages learned as second languages in school will preserve the (formerly) accompanying environmental knowledge.  Teachers are aware of the concern, but traditional ecological knowledge is generally passed on in the bush, or similar settings, and in some cases can only be passed on in such contexts.  The knowledge may be more easily passed on in English in the bush than in a heritage language in a settler-style classroom.

Some recent writers, Native and white, have attacked the “myth of the vanishing Indian” because the Indians did not in fact vanish (see e.g. Harmon 1998).  True, but their populations were reduced by an average of 95% in the Northwest, as in the rest of the New World (Boyd 1999; Boyd and Gregory 2007; Trafzer 1997).  As of the 1890s, there was every reason to believe that the Indians as a separate people would cease to exist in a very few years.  Many groups did vanish entirely, at least as linguistic and cultural entities.  In the Northwest, the grim roll includes the Tsetsaut, the Chemakum, and several Chinookan groups.  (Many groups elsewhere on the continent were completely gone before 1800).  The many people who forecast the final extinction of the “race” had every reason to do so. 

The convenient argument that “introduced diseases” did all the damage is dishonest.  Massacres, one-sided “wars,” and deliberate denial of health care were almost as bad.  Some groups were subjected to outright genocide—merciless attempts at total extermination by the United States.  Among Northwest Coast groups, this was especially the case in the Rogue River “war” of the 1850s (Beckham 1996; Youst and Seaburg 2002).  The Athapaskan and Takelman peoples of the Rogue River drainage had resisted invasion of their lands, and when miners and settlers flooded in, violence quickly spiraled out of control.  There was some actual fighting—it was not pure massacre—but the hopelessly outnumbered Rogue people soon lost, and the genociders moved in.  Local “exterminators”—that was the word used at the time—with the often-grudging aid of the United States Army killed almost all, and exiled the few who were not slain.  An area that had supported at least 10,000 people was left with virtually no Native American inhabitants. 

The survival of the last 5% of the Native Americans of the Northwest was due to heroism on the part of the survivors and their few White allies.  The fact that the Indians did not vanish is due most of all to the incredible toughness of the survivors.  Anthropologists and historians have collected or reconstructed several stories of Native American individuals who not only survived but led their people through the fires of hell.  These make some of the most deeply moving reading one can find in this world.  (Notable examples include Ford 1941; Sewid 1969; and Youst and Seaburg 2002.  The first two are recorded autobiographies, the last an amazing job of reconstructing a long and eventful life from scattered and fragmentary records.  See also Atleo 2004, 2011; George 2003; and Reyes 2002 for later-period accounts.) 

Changing white settler attitudes were also involved.  “Indian lovers” were hated and despised in the 1870s and 1880s, but gradually prevailed, and shamed the nations into changing their ways somewhat.  Anthropologists were leaders in this from the beginning.  Unfortunately, many pro-Indian individuals, including some anthropologists (notably Alice Fletcher), backed breaking up the reservations into individual allotments, in a misguided attempt to make the Indians into Anglo-style small farmers on family-owned holdings.  This proved disastrous; the Native peoples lost almost all their land (see e.g. Stern 1966 for the Klamath).  The million and a half acres of the Siletz Reservation in Oregon dwindled to a few scattered plots, and the Grande Ronde suffered similarly (Youst and Seaburg 2002).  Ironically, gambling is saving it: casino earnings are used to buy back a few acres at a time.

Bad enough to deny the near-extinction of the Native people, and the total extinction of many groups and more languages.  Worse to say, blandly, that the Indians kept right on going, and thus write the heroism of the survivors and the villainy of their persecutors out of the human record.

We need to remember the grim record.  We need to teach it in history courses, just as Europe teaches Hitler’s holocaust.  We need to do everything we can to prevent such genocides in future, and denying them is the worst possible course.

Racism continued through the 20th century, and even the tolerant and successful Sin-Aikst (Lakes) scholar and artist Lawney Reyes had bitter memories of insults, persecution, and ill treatment in youth (Reyes 2002). I remember noting in the 1980s the way the British Columbia newspapers, when highlighting “social problems” such as crime, substance abuse, and dependence on welfare, usually picked a Native family to foreground in any story.  The corresponding Washington state media almost always picked a Black one.  The proportions of Black and Native people in these polities was about the same in both, and was quite small.  White Anglos had by far the most “social problems,” in actual numbers.

Also disastrous have been many of the missionary institutions, which not only attacked Native religion and even family and kinship, but also forcibly removed children into boarding schools that were, in fact, often nothing but sex slave camps where the children were violently abused by beatings and rampant sexual molestation.  Little attempt was made to teach.  The Catholic church, in Canada and in Rome, knew about the rampant sexual molestation in Catholic schools throughout North America and Europe for decades and did nothing about it.  The Church, and the Anglican church, have now made some apologies, but few amends.

Native languages were banned.  A whole “stolen generation” (to borrow an Australian phrase) has resulted.  In my research on alcoholism treatment on the Northwest Coast, I found that all people I interviewed who had been through the residential schools had been active alcoholics for at least some of their lives.  The percentage of alcoholism was much lower among those who had escaped this brand of welfare.

The churches and missionaries got the potlatch outlawed from 1884 to 1953 as a heathen institution incompatible with the modern state; apparently the missionary mind is such that mass organized sexual abuse of minors was regarded as more properly compatible therewith.  Ironically, the first legal potlatch in 1953 was the one organized by Wilson Duff and Kwakiutl artists to inaugurate the totem pole park at the British Columbia Provincial Museum (now Royal British Columbia Museum; see Hawker 2003:138).

Treaty rights to fishing and whaling were guaranteed in the United States and eventually enforced (though not until the late 20th century), but Canadian First Nations still struggle for similar recognition (see e.g. Coté 2010).

Conditions on the reservations and reserves slowly improve.  However, bureaucracy enters, insidiously, in even the best-intentioned situations.  Displacement of Native peoples was followed by waste and misuse of resources by settlers of all sorts.  The Canadian government has had to intervene to save many Northwest Coast groups from starvation and disease, as well as from the alcoholism and violence that followed destruction of livelihood and culture.  Even the welfare system that results has its negative effects.  In their detailed major study of bureaucracy and law in a colonial Canadian context, Fiske and Patrick state:  “It

[i.e., the welfare system]

sustained the hierarchy of state/nation relations that circulates limited resources within the nation while disempowering the extended family…and…has aggravated relations of dependency” (Fiske and Patrick 2000:119).  Even the most benign extension of alcoholism treatment, nursing services, and the like has the effect of rubbing in the “problems” and “difficult situation” of the indigenous peoples.  They do not love this (Fiske and Patrick 2000, e.g. p. 182).

However, thanks to anthropologists as well as Indigenous people, the languages and cultures are at least recorded and available for study.  Some Native people have denounced such recording, but sufficient refutation is found in the marvelous picture of Nuu-chah-nulth elder Hugh Watts reading to his grandchildren from the texts that Edward Sapir collected from Hugh’s great-grandfather, Sayach’apis, in the early 20th century—and the photo is presented by Charlotte Coté, also a descendent of Sayach’apis (Coté 2010:83).  Sayach’apis’ texts represent one of the greatest literary documents in any culture worldwide, let alone one that was reduced almost to the vanishing point in his time.  We are more than lucky to have them, and to have Sapir’s warm and respectful biography of Sayach’apis (Sapir 1922)—a tribute and acknowledgement far ahead of its time, and even of ours.

6.  Resource Mismanagement Since 1800

The Northwest has been as devastated as the rest of the world by foolish exploitation in the last 150 years.  Overlogging has decimated the forests.  Careless plowing and grazing have led to ruin of the soil in many open areas.  The game is shot out.

The mentality was classic pioneer: maximize initial drawdown of all resources, meanwhile hoping to move on to the next open area, or, at worst, build up a replacement in the form of agriculture or the like.  The worldview has been unkindly but accurately summarized as “rape, ruin and run.”  This mentality is not confined to Anglo-Americans (Anderson 2014).  It has been detected archaeologically in the settlement of Polynesia and in the Bronze Age and Iron Age Mediterranean.  It characterized the Japanese spread into Hokkaido.  The Russians and Chinese both acted it out in Siberia.  But the Anglo-Americans had an extreme form of the ideology, one that typically considered all nature to be an enemy, to be utterly destroyed as soon as possible and replaced with a Europe-derived artificial landscape.  And they had the tools: guns, steam engines, fish wheels, machines of all sorts.

Another and more insidious and deadly difference from the Native Americans was and is that the settlers were interested in only a very few resources.  They depleted the game.  They mined gold and later coal and other minerals.  They logged the forests.  They concentrated on salmon and later on other fish.  Gone was the sensitive total-landscape management that concerned itself with berries, roots, bark, grasses, small animals, and other resources.  The white settlers not only drew down the immediately saleable resources with little thought of sustainability; they destroyed the other resources without even considering them.

White individualism contrasts with Native American sociality, but is really a lesser problem in this case, since the Whites tended to stand as a united front against Native Americans. 

The worst damage is to the fish resource, especially the river-running species.  Indian management was displaced over time and replaced with far worse Anglo-American management (excellent histories of this exist:  Arnold 2008; Harris 2008; Schreiber 2008).  Salmon are at least a concern even to Whites, but lampreys, sturgeon, suckers, and other species have almost disappeared without much attention paid to them.  (Sturgeon survive only in a few of the biggest rivers.)  Dams, overfishing, pollution, and the other usual factors have wiped out the salmon from much of their original range and reduced them to low abundance everywhere.  The final “unkindest cut” has been farming Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar).  Parasites—notably “fish lice,” parasitic copepods—from these fish escape and decimate the local salmon, which have no resistance.  A small salmon-farming industry in the waters east of Vancouver Island has led to total extermination of pink salmon throughout the region—millions of wild self-reproducing salmon sacrificed for a few thousand high-cost alien ones.  Naturally, Native people have objected to fish farming (Schreiber 2002; Schreiber and Newell 2006—the latter contrasts correct but “spiritual” Native knowledge with either incredible blindness or outright lying by the White managers).

The fate of the Northwest Coast fisheries shows something about ownership regimes.  The White settlers prefer private property, and, failing that, national government ownership and control:  National Parks and Forests in the US, Crown lands or provincial and national parks in Canada.   The national governments lease out most land outside parks for forestry or mining by giant corporations.  The Native people, by contrast, universally vested property rights in localized kinship groups—communities, in a word. 

For farming, individual ownership has its points, but experience shows that fisheries don’t work that way.  Native control allowed exquisitely careful management of stocks—using the most efficient methods to get the exact number of fish that could be safely taken, and then stopping the fishery.  Western control has led to individual or national development that was incompatible with fish—dams, for instance—and to virtually uncontrolled overfishing at all levels.  State and national governments simply do not have the necessary focus, attention, or priority structure.  They have other things to do, like use the rivers to generate hydroelectric power or to dispose of pollution.  They are also subject to voter pressure by fishermen desperate to take just a few more and let the future take care of itself.  There is simply no way to prioritize the fishery while simultaneously regulating it tightly enough to preserve it. 

British Columbia and Washington are the worst cases, with their fisheries devastated.  Alaska still has enough Native and local control to keep some fisheries healthy, but mining interests are closing in fast.  Oregon has, ironically, saved some of its fish thanks to powerful sport-fishing lobbies.  The sport fishers are not dependent on fishing for survival, like the commercial fishermen, and thus are more willing to let some fish escape now to make sure there will be fish tomorrow.  Long and detailed studies of the resulting biological, cultural and social disasters are legion. 

Andrew Fisher’s excellent study of the devastation of the Columbia River Indians and their salmon is one example (Fisher 2010).  Dams and overfishing wiped out the salmon; racism and oppression did not succeed in exterminating the Indians, but reduced them to greater and greater poverty over time.  Fisher quotes some racist comments from settlers, over time, that are too revealing to leave out here.  The local Indian agent, John D. C. Atkins, opined in 1886 that the Indian “must be imbued with the exalting egotism of American civilization so that he will say ‘I’ instead of ‘We,’ and “this is mine’ instead of ‘This is ours’” (p. 90).  A textbook used in Oregon schools in the first half of the 20th century said that “the Indian vanished because he could not learn the ways of the white man.  He could not survive in competition with the dominant race” (144).  This at a time when thousands of Native Americans were trying desperately to survive, and by and large succeeding, in the face of genocidal racism.

A case study, perfect for our purposes because it shows the whole situation in microcosm, is Charles Menzies’ study of the abalone fishery of northern British Columbia (Menzies 2010, 2016).  As he summarizes it:  “In the face of aggressive overfishing of bilhaa (abalone) by non-Indigenous commercial fishermen, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans closed all forms of harvesting of bilhaa” (Menzies 2010) in spite of the fact that the Gitxaala (Tsimshian) and probably other groups had been harvesting these shellfish with extreme care for sustainability for thousands of years.  This caused some hardship for the Gitxaala.  Menzies documents their caring regime, and advocates a return to a controlled fishery; but it may be too late.

California’s major bit of Northwest Coast scenery, the Klamath drainage, provides a particularly revealing case.  The Klamath Basin at the headwaters was settled early on by farmers and stockmen, displacing the Indians in the genocidal Modoc War.  More recently, drought has reduced the Klamath flows, while irrigation has expanded in the farming areas.  There is no longer enough water for both farms and fish. 

This came to a head in 2003.  The U. S. Bureau of Reclamation had disposal over most of the upstream water, and it was subjected to intense lobbying by the upriver farmers and downriver fishers.  The farmers are largely well-to-do Republicans.  The fishermen downriver are less affluent and very often vote Democrat, and they include large Native American groups.  2003 being a year of Republican national and state governments, the water went to the farmers, and the fish died.  (Much of this is from my own research; see e.g. Service 2003 for a neutral account; Williams 2003 for an unabashedly pro-fish position; Carolan 2004 for a broader overview, but he incredibly misses the political dimension, thus his account is of rather limited worth.  See Swezey and Heizer 1977 for the far superior pre-contact management system.)

The conflicts above thus involve political power as well as property regimes.  Decisions essentially always go to Whites over Indians—racism being severe in the Northwest, particularly in the 19th and early 20th centuries—and to giant corporations over everyone and everything else.  Some dramatic exceptions have occurred, however, starting with Judge Boldt’s decision in Washington state in 1974 to enforce the treaty rights giving the Native people an equal share of the fish resource.  Since then, Canada has had to recognize at least some Native title to lands.  Other decisions have restored many community management regimes and ownership systems in both nations.

Significantly, the classic claim that humans go for the main chance—material or financial maximization—is massively disproved by this history.  Throughout the last 200 years, White authorities have decided for regimes and stakeholders that were devastating the resource base with extremely low returns to themselves or society.  The potatoes and barley raised by the White farmers up the Klamath were worth far less than the fish would have been if the runs had been maintained.  Political power—from votes, campaign donations, skin color, and actual political position—trumps financial benefit (except to the giant corporations, and even then often only in the short run). 

An interesting case is the evolution of  the MacMillan Bloedel timber corporation.  H. R. MacMillan and Charles Bloedel brought scientific sustainable forestry practices to British Columbia and Washington, respectively.  They appear to have been quite idealistic and to have run their companies well.  Eventually they joined forces.  At first all went well, but long before MacMillan died in 1976, the logging was out of control.  By the 1980s, after decades of corporate mergers and political shenanigans, “Mac and Blo” became a worldwide byword for evil and irresponsible logging.  Things have improved since, especially since Mac and Blo fell on hard times and were taken over by Weyerhauser in 1999.  However, the sustanable forestry of the original founders is still a dream (the literature on this is huge and need not concern us; see Vaillant 2005 for a dramatic but accurate popular account).

An interesting comparison comes from the Russian coast closest to the United States.  Anna Kerttula (2000) describes Russian mismanagement and waste of resources.  The Yup’ik villagers there had been sustanably and efficiently hunting sea mammals, birds, and fish while the Chukchi herded reindeer on the tundra.  Russians brought wasteful hunting and herding practices (throwing away much of the meat).  They also damaged the tundra seriously by construction and driving heavy vehicles, and caused rampant pollution.  This was totally uneconomic; it was subsidized by the state as a way of “civilizing” the “natives,” whom the Russians despised openly and treated as utter inferiors.  When the USSR collapsed, this artificial and destructive economy collapsed with it, and the local people were thrown back on their traditional subsistence economy—much damaged by Russian environmental abuse.  It is interesting to see how clearly foolish and culture-bound the Russians’ “superior” practices were.  We in America are so used to Anglo settler mismangement that we tend to forget just how awful it is, and how much it is driven by culture rather than economics.  The Russian way is culturally different enough to be striking in that regard.

  The result of these bad management practices, and above all of the politics that creates them, has been widespread economic ruin in the rural Northwest, especially the Native communities.

Today, global warming is causing even more widespread damage.  It has caused millions of acres of forest to die; pine beetles give the coup de grace, but the real problem is warm winter that spare the beetles from freezing, followed by hot dry summers that weaken the trees.  Fish, root crops, and other resources are succumbing to increasingly hot and dry conditions. 

However, in recent years, comanagement of resources has come in, with local Native communities cooperating with government agencies (Natcher et al. 2005; see above).  One notable area is the west coast of Vancouver Island (Goetze 2006; Pinkerton 1989; Pinkerton and Weinstein 1995).  This does not always work well, especially when the government ignores Native input—as is often the case (e.g. Nadasdy 2004).  Obviously, comanagement works only if it is in fact comanagement.

            Perhaps it is best to leave the last word to Snuqualmi Charlie, talking to Arthur Ballard in the 1920s.  He concluded a long story of Moon’s creation and transformation of the world:

            “Moon said, ‘Fish shall run up these rivers; they shall belong to each people on its own river.  You shall make your own living from the fish, deer and other wild game.’

            “I am an Indian today. Moon has given us fish and game.  The white people have come and overwhelmed us.  We may not kill a deer nor catch a fish forbidden by white men to be taken.  I should like any of these lawmakers to tell me if Moon or Sun has set him here to forbid our people to kill game given to us by Moon and Sun” (Ballard 1929:80). 

7.  The Ideology Behind It All

            Native American biologist Raymond Pierotti has written:  “A common general philosophy and concept of community appears to be shared by all of the Indigenous peoples of North America, which includes:  1) respect for nonhuman entities as individuals, 2) the existence of bonds between humans and nonhumans, including incorporation of nonhumans into ethical codes of behvior, and 3) the recognition of humans as part of the ecological system” (Pierotti 2011:198-199).  These indeed fully apply on the Northwest Coast, where they are considerably elaborated.

            Thanks to early and superb ethnographic research, we can understand the Northwest Coast ideologies of management in a way we cannot do for other parts of the world.  Enormous record of myths, texts, tales, and instructions, compiled by early and more recent ethnographers, allows us to see exactly what people said in traditional times.

            Some of the Northwest Coast ethnographic collaborations are particularly impressive.  The Tsimshian chief William Beynon collected materials for several ethnographers.  All too predictably, he never got authorship credit for this, though he did most of the work; his first major publication under his own name came out in 2000, 42 years after his death (Beynon 2000).  He was in fact the real ethnographer in many cases (Halpin 1978).  Incredibly impressive also is the work of Edward Sapir with Tom Sayachapis and other Nuu-chah-nulth elders, of Franz Boas with George Hunt, and of James Teit with many interior Salish.  Teit became a major activist for Native American rights as well as an ethnographer, and his story—forgotten until a stunning recent biography (Thompson 2007) saved him from oblivion—is one of the most impressive in the history of “action anthropology.”  

More recent collaborations, such as Nancy Turner’s “five foot shelf” (much of it written with Native coauthors) and the collaboration of Eugene Hunn (1991) and James Selam, carry on the great tradition.  Just out of our region, but very close and sharing the same ideology, are the Yupik of Alaska, whose ethical relations with the animal persons has been described in exquisite detail by Ann Fienup-Riordan (1994, 2005).  She quotes elders at enough length to fill several books.  Many Northwest Coast groups remain sadly little known, but at least we have excellent work by many ethnographers for representative groups from every region.  No other part of the world except the American Southwest and the central desert of Australia has been so well documented in terms of ecological and environmental beliefs.  We do not have a single account of local knowledge and conservation in a modern American town that is as good as the work of Turner or Hunn or Fienup-Riordan.

One major component was attachment to place.  Northwest Coast groups had lived where they were for countless years; the Haida seem to have occupied Haida Gwaii for over 10,000 years, continuously.  Knowledge of and devotion to one’s immediate habitat is at a level possibly unparalleled in the world.  On the Skagit River, the local version universal Northwest Coast story of the boy left alone who must re-create his slain tribe includes a passage that says it all: the people he revives from bones “had no sense…so the boy made brains for them from the very soil of that place” (Miller 2014:70-1).  That line really says it all.

Conservation was based on the simple principle of “leave some for others.”  The Nuu-chah-nulth phrase was “7uh-mowa-shitl,” “keep some and not take all” (George 2003:74; the 7 represents an initial catch in the voice).  This is John Locke’s point that individual users, even if they are owners of his beloved “private property,” have an obligation to leave “enough and as good” (Locke 1924) for others when drawing on a resource base. 

There are, however, several crucial beliefs lying behind this.  These beliefs are the keys to conservation in Northwest Coast ideology, and all the resources of the collective representation of community are deployed to make people accept them.

A good place to begin is with seven “fundamental truths” of Northwest Coast ecological thinking, as abstracted by Frank Brown and Kathy Brown (2009:folder, p. 2) of the Heiltsuk Nation:

“…1.  Creation:  We the coastal first peoples have been in our respective territories (homelands) since the beginning of time.”  (This might be interpreted as “since the beginning of our peoples as identifiable cultural and linguistic entities,” since in fact much migration has occurred, and many of the origin myths actually recount it.  But, for instance, archaeology demonstrates cultural continuity in Haida Gwaii for well over 10,000 years.  The Haida and the other major groups of the Northwest certainly or almost certainly emerged in their present homelands and have been there since the glaciers.)

“2.  Connection to nature:  We are all one and our lives are interconnected.

“3.  Respect:  All life has equal value.  We acknowledge and respect that all plants and animals have a life force.”  

“4.  Knowledge.  Our traditional knowledge of sustainable resource use and management is reflected in our intimate relationship with nature and its preictable seasonal cycles and indicators of renewal of life and subsistence.

“5.  Stewardship:  We are stewards of the land and sea from which we live, knowing that our health as a people and our society is intricately tied to the heath of the land and waters.

“6.  Sharing.  We have a responsibility to share and support to provide strength and make others stronger in order for our world to survive.

“7.  Adapting to Change:  Environmental, demographic, socio-political and cultural changes have occurred since the creator placed us in our homelnds and we have continuously adapted to and survived these changes.”

More specific rules for food gathering are listed by Inez Bill of the Tulalip of northwest Washington state:

“Taking and gathering only what you need so Mother Nature can regenerate her gifts to us.

“Remembering to not waste any of our traditional food.

“Sharing what you gather with family, friends and elders that are not able to go out and gather whenever possible.

“Including prayer and giving thanks when gathering.
“Preparing local native foods at gatherings.

“Preparing food with a good heart and mind so when you serve your meal, people will enjoy their meal.

“Providing nourishment for our people and their spirits, but also the spirit of our ancestors.  We will strive to continue this way of life” (quoted Krohn and Segrest 2010:42). 

There is some obvious modernization and settler society influence here (“Mother Nature…”) that may divert attention from two critically important traditional ideas:  prayer and thanks while gathering, and having a “good heart and mind” when preparing and distributing.  Throughout the Northwest Coast and onward to a great deal of North America and Siberia, these are vital points for maintaining good relations with the spirits of plants and animals, and indeed with the spirit powers in general.  One may contrast the Euro-American food rules for the Muckleshoot school, a few pages later in the same folder:  “No trans-fat and hydrogenated oil.  No high fructose corn syrup,” etc. (Krohn and Segrest 2010:49).  The contrast of spiritual and chemical is significant.

            Rodney Frey, writing on the Coeur d’Alene of northern Idaho, also (and with appropriate modesty and tentativeness) identifies five basic principles, but they are somewhat different:  “…the understanding that the landscape is spiritually created and endowed…that the landscape is inhabited by a multitude of ‘Peoples,’ all of whom share in a common kinship…. That… [humans have an] ethic of sharing [which includes the animal people too]….that…the gifts [of nature] are also to be respected and not abused…and…one is to show thanks for what is received…  The fifth and final teaching encompasses…the ethic of competition” (Frey 2001:9-12).  The last is particularly interesting.  Humans do not simply wait around for the gifts to come to them.  They must work, compete with each other and with other beings, and compete with the powers of weather and geography.  Life is not easy, and nothing comes without major effort.

            Richard Atleo (2011:143-144) sees unity as basic, but coming from reconciling complementary polarities.  He sees individual identity as “an insignificant leaf” (144) in face of basic unity.  He elaborates a philosophy of haḥuuƚi, “land” in the sense of communally owned and managed place (cf. Australian Aboriginal “country”), deriving from the idea of unity.

Marianne and Ron Ignace explain  the Secwépemc (Shuswap) foundational belief thus:  “…ce ntral to the relationship between an animal and the fisher or hunter who ‘bags’ the animal is the concept that the animal gives itself to the fisher or hunter….  Plants as sentient beings also give themselves…. Therefore, the harvesting of all things in nature presupposes prayer that thanks the Tqelt Kúkwpi7 (Creator) for providing the animals or plants…as well as thinking th eanimals or plants for giving themselves…. All parts of the Secwépemc land and environment are …thought of as a ‘sentient landscape.’” (Ignace and Ignace 2017:382 ).  This belief appears to be universal throughout northwestern North America and eastern Siberia.  More specific to the Shuswap is a tradition of painting one’s face red or black at power places, such as lakes and mythic spots, but other groups have similar ways of paying respect to spiritual sites.  This general custom extends through much of east Asia, where such sites may be tied with sacred cloths, circled clockwise on foot, and otherwise revered.

            These are not new ideas, and not the product of Native Americans catching up with the environmental movement of the 1960s.  Manuel Andrade, collecting Quileute language texts in 1928, recorded a “speech…spontaneously offered” by Jack Ward, “when he found out that the texts which he was dictating would be published.”  The entire short speech is worth looking up; it is devoted to calling on the Whites “to observe conservancy of the products of the land….”  Jack Ward speaks in eloquent Quileute.  Andrade translates: “…you should take good care of the trees….  Be careful with fire.  Make sure to extinguish it when leaving a camping ground.  Otherwise, all the animals of the woods may disappear, such as elk, deer, and others.  This applies also to the fish…. Let no one…destroy too much trout, steal-head [sic], salmon, and all other kinds of fish.  Proud and happy I am knowing that my people, the Indians, are moderate in the use of nature’s supplies, never killing wantonly the fish in the waters…. But you, White people, are wasteful. You are not mindful of what you do in your camps, and consequently, many trees are often destroyed by fires.  It is heartbreaking to us Indians to see how the country around us has changed…all the animals in the land are beginning to disapper.  Much of the fish in the…waters is disappearing.  Many of the good trees are disappearing….” (Andrade 1969 [1931]:12). 

            I believe all these principles apply to all northwestern cultural groups, with varying emphasis in varying areas.  All these themes can be identified in folktales and teachings throughout the region, and indeed throughout all northern North America.

Countless authors have pointed out for decades that the Northwest Coast people, and indeed most North American indigenous groups, consider plants and animals to be people—“other-than-human persons,” in the standard phrase, apparently introduced by A. Irving Hallowell from his studies on the Native peoples of central Canada (1955, 1960).  Like humans, these people have spirits that are conscious and have agency and language.  All have a life force.  The Nuu-chah-nulth anthropologist Ki-Ke-In relates that there are many ch’ihaa, spirits, in the world, which draw closer in winter; that humans and other beings have a life force, thli-makstii, which goes ultimately into the stars after death, eventually ending in the Taa’winisim (Milky Way; Ki-Ke-In 2013:28).  Plants were people, and as such critical in ceremonies and in the search for guardian spirits (Turner 2014-2:324-350).

Other-than-human persons can take human or humanoid form when in their own world; salmon, for instance, are people who live in houses at the bottom of the ocean, and don their salmon skins only to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of their relatives on shore.  (This represents Philippe Descola’s ontology of shamanism [Descola 2013], being the same belief that he reports from his South American researches.)  The Katzie Salish, living where the most sturgeons spawn, in the lower Fraser drainage, believed the Creator had two children; the boy was the ancestor of the Katzie, the girl of the sturgeons.  Whenever they caught a sturgeon, it was their beloved sister sacrificing herself for them (Jenness 1955).  Widely believed among Salishan groups is the idea that all living resources are human-like in their own homes, donning outer coverings for human use.  Berries are like small babies in their real—spiritual—state (Miller 1999).  For the Sahaptin, “waqayšwit ‘life’ [is] an animating principle or ‘soul’ possessed by people as well as animals, plants, and forces of nature.  The presence of ‘life’ implies intelligence, will, and consciousness.  This is the basis for a pervasive…morality, in which all living beings should respect one another and are involved with one another in relations of generalized reciprocity” (Hunn and French 1998:388).

Thus, the basic or original being that became an animal, or was transformed into one by the Transformer, was incarnated in all subsequent animals of that kind, or—alternatively—remained as master of them.  Thus, mythic Raven is incarnate in all ravens, or else exists in the spirit world as the guardian of all ravens. The former version of the belief seems to prevail in the north.  The latter prevails in some parts of the coast (being e.g. reported for the Puget Sound Salish by Miller 1999:10-11).  It is the standard form in many areas to the south, including Mexico.  (This belief reaches to the Maya of Quintana Roo.  The deer god Siip, Zip in old literature, still has some role in overseeing deer today; the “leaf-litter turkey,” a giant ocellated turkey, is the eternal master of wild turkeys, punishing hunters who take too many of them; see Llanes Pasos 1993.  Versions of the same belief extend into South America [Blaser 2009; Descola 2013]).  The Yukaghir have spirits of the animals, overall game-guardian spirits, and locality spirits (Willerslev 2007).  Even farther afield, so do the Khanty of northwest Siberia, for whom an excellent ethnography by Andrew Wiget and Olga Balalaeva (2011) is now available.

The leading character in creation myths was a Transformer who changed ambiguously humanlike persons, and more or less formless supernatural beings, into the humans, animals, trees, and geological formations of today.  This story is known from Alaska (e.g. the Han people; Mishler and Simeone 2004) to California and beyond (see comparisons, mostly for the central coast, in Miller 1999; and many stories in Boas 2003 and Thompson and Egesdal 2008).  People who are broadly humanlike but have some animal-like characteristics became the animals they resembled.  Formless supernaturals became rivers and mountains. 

Usually the Raven is the transformer on the coast, Coyote the major one in the interior.  (The missionaries originally used the Chinook word for “coyote” for God; Lang 2008:70.)  A being without specifically known form does the job farther north and east.  The Gitksan Transformer, Wegyet, can be either raven or humanoid, apparently at will; similar shape-shifting is found in several other creator figures throughout North America.  The Tsimshian had a high god known as gal (Miller 2014b:42) and the Haida seem to have regarded the Shining Heaven as a high god.

In the Columbia Plateau region also, there was a widespread concept of a high god who oversaw the animal spirits.  Coyote may have been the immediate creator of much that we have here, but he was under control of a higher power.  (The old idea that “primitive” people lack a high god and have only animistic spirits was disproved a century ago; Lowie 1924.)   For the Colville of northeast Washington, the creator was originally a sort of Power-in-process, a being whose existence was the flow of his creation.  Eventually “the ‘chief’ who made the world and all its creations decided thereafter that he would have no body, legs, or head, and would instead become Sweatlodge for the continued benefit of human beings” (Miller 2010:47; cf. Ray 1933).  He lives on, instantiated in every sweatlodge created since. 

Also reported from the Plateau and not from other areas is a concept of sacred spaces with sacred deer:  “Near my home is a sacred area—about one acre—where sacred deer used to live.  One adult deer would always present itself only to a young man just before he was about to get married.  But only to a young man who, before starting his hunt, had for three days sweated while singing his power song, of course fasted,” and been virtuous.  He would shoot the deer, give the meat to his intended-wife’s mother to redistribute, and make the hide into a robe for the new wife or (in due course) their baby (Ross 2011:145, quoting an unfortunately unnamed elder recorded in Ross’ field notes). 

Not only plants and animals, but also mountains and rivers, were people, and were owed consideration accordingly; “we…talked to the river, so we could get some fish from it without hurting the river at all,” as an Elder woman told First Nations student Johnnie Manson (2016).

Such kinship with all being obviously made conservation a great deal more compelling.  Even people who care little for unrelated fellow humans will care for their own kin.

This implies that animals are not just killed by humans; they offer themselves voluntarily to their human relatives.  Their spirits then reincarnate in new members of the species, just as human souls reincarnate within a descent group. 

Today as in the past, a new baby will be examined to see which recently-deceased elder has reincarnated.  The Khanty (Wiget and Balalaeva 2011) and Yukaghir have the same belief, and the ever-perceptive Rane Willersley (2007:50ff.) points out for the latter that, while the essence of the person is reincarnated, the new child is his or her own person—not just a recycled relative.  This is so strikingly like genetic reality that one assumes the indigenous peoples noticed that descent produces great similarities in appearance and basic personality and yet considerable differences in the final result.  Like Aristotle realizing that heredity must be a “pattern” conveyed from parent to child, rather than a tiny homunculus or divine intervention, the Northwest Coast people recognized the inheritance of traits and reasoned an explanation based on their worldview.

If the souls of previously hunted animals were treated with respect, new (newly reincarnated) individuals of that species will offer themselves.  Of this much more below, but at this point we must quote Richard Atleo’s point that Northwest Coast people pray for the animals to make themselves available, but when European “religious people pray to God for a supply of meat…the meat has no say in the matter” (Atleo 2004:85).  The key here is respect, as will appear below. 

Under special circumstances, humans can visit the salmon people, or the bear or mountain goat people, and see them in human or humanoid form.  Countless Northwest Coast stories recount such adventures (see e.g. Andrade 1969 [1931], with tales of visits to shark people, seal people, and others).  Unsurprisingly, there is also a Yukaghir one: (Willerslev 2007:89-90).  Humans can marry animals, plants, or even stars, and many Northwest Coast kinship groups are descended from such unions.  Totem poles typically show the animal ancestors of the sponsors of the pole.  Hunting involves the hunter leaving the human realm and entering into animal worlds.  This often requires a great deal of ritual, in which the hunter’s wife is often essential, especially in hunting for large animals from whales to deer (see S. Reid 1981 for a detailed description of Kwakwaka’wakw ideology in this area).

Many a local crest derives from such visits.  Some members of the Tsimshian Blackfish phratry “met Nagunaks” when they “inadvertently anchored over his house” at the bottom of the sea; “he sent bglue cod, one of his slaves, to investigate…. The steersman was annoyed by the splashing of the fish, caught it and broke its fins,” which caused the sea-guardian Nagunaks to take them to his house, warn them never to harm animals unnecessarily, and then release them with privileges and songs, sending them off in a fast-speeding copper canoe.  They thought they had been gone for four days, but they were gone four years.  The privileges became lineage crests and emblems (Garfield, Barbeau and Wingert 1950:42).  This is a version of a story known not only throughout the Northwest Coast but through much of North America and Eurasia.  The sequence of offense, warning, release with teachings and privileges, and days that were really years is canonical.

This is a form of the Native American theory that Eduardo Viveiros de Castro defines as “’perspectivism’: the conception according to which the universe is inhabited by different sorts of persons, human and nonhuman, which apprehend reality from distinct points of view.  This conception was shown to be associated to some others, namely:

  • The original common condition of both humans and animals is not animality, but rather humanity;
  • Many animals species [sic], as well as other types of ‘nonhuman’ beings, have a spiritual component which qualifies them as ‘people’; furthermore, these beings see themselves as humans in appearance and in culture, while seeing humans as animals or as spirits;
  • The visible body of animals is an appearance that hides this anthropomorphic invisible ‘essence,’ and that can be put on and taken off as a dress or garment;
  • Interspecific metamorphosis is a fact of ‘nature.’
  • …the notion of animality as a unified domain, globally opposed to that of humanity, seems to be absent form Amerindian cosmologies.” (Viveiros de Castro 2015:229-230).

The Northwest Coast people, however, do not so often seem to see the anthropomorphic form as the real or essential one; in many cases, it seems that animal persons have two forms, equally their own.

Animals have powerful spirits, and are in fact spirit beings, able to move back and forth between our everyday world and the spirit realm.  For the Spokane, “[a]nimals are in touch with, and move between, the two worlds.  That sensitivity allows certain animals to foretell eveents, such as weather, death, or the arrival of a guest.  They can see into the spirit world…. Through animals, man can obtain a vision into that other world; through them, he finds his spirit power….” (Egesdal 2008:140.) 

Animals have many powers.  In the northern Northwest Coast, the land otter (the river otter, Lutra canadensis) can lure one to drowning and then take over body and soul and turn the person into an “otter-man,” a zombie-like being.  This is still a matter of concern, and on Haida Gwaii the fear has spread to the Anglo-Canadian settlers, who can be quite nervous about the “gogeet” (Haida gagitx, otter-man; Anderson 1996).  Otters move easily in both the great realms of life, land and water (de Laguna 1972; Halpin 1981a; Jonaitis 1981, 1986); they even enter the underworld (they live in burrows).  Moreover, they play a lot, and even incorporate humans into their play.  Most daunting of all, they often try to lure people into the water to play with them, as I have personally experienced on several occasions.  Significantly, otters abound in shamanic art (charms and the like) but are largely absent from public art (totem poles and crest art; Jonaitis 1981, 1986, and my personal observation), though a few appear on Gitksan poles (Barbeau 1929:73, 88).  Barbeau recorded a shaman’s otter song, for curing, among the Tsimshian (Garfield, Barbeau and Wingert 1950:122).  The bukwus or “wild man” took the place of the otter, to some extent, in Kwakwaka’wakw tradition (Halpin 1981a).

At least among the Tahltan, mink and weasel have some similar magical powers (Albright 1984).  For the central Salish groups, the fisher, a very otter-like animal, has magic curing powers, and passing a stuffed fisher over a person is part of healing (Lévi-Strauss 1982). 

            The dog is ambiguous, as in most of the world (Amoss 1984; for the Yukaghir, Willersley 2007:76; the Tłįchǫ Dene are descended from a dog who took human form and married a human woman).  As the only aboriginal tame animal, it moved in the human and the nonhuman realms, as the otter moves in three worlds.  It is singularly absent from myths and art on the Northwest Coast, though obviously not elsewhere.  (The Tłįchǫ Dene, who are well outside the Northwest Coast cultural area, treat dogs with respect but think them unable to survive in the wild—unlike wild animals and the Tłįchǫ themselves.  The Tłįchǫ also tend to think of animals as very different in powers and natures from humans, though still being other-than-human persons.  One Tłįchǫ wanted to learn caribou knowledge, and eventually could turn himself into a caribou—but he learned so much that he became a caribou and could not become human again, since he had more caribou knowledge than human knowledge; Legat 2012:89.)

            Salmon are people too, and abundantly present in myth.  Something of the empathy between human and salmon people is found in a powerful song recorded by Marius Barbeau and translated by William Beynon—the song the salmon sing as they go upriver:

“I will sing the song of the sky. 

This is the song of the tired—the salmon panting as they swim up the swift current.

            I go around where the water runs into whirlpools.

            They talk quickly, as if they are in a hurry.

            The sky is turning over.  They call me.”

                        This was sung by Tralahaet (a Tsimshian chief) and translated by Benjamin Munroe and William Beynon, early 20th century.  Recall that the salmon give birth and die; this poem is about sacrificing one’s life for the rising generations.  (Garfield, Barbeau and Wingert 1950:132.)

            “Commonality between species” means “we are all brother and sisters not only to each other, but also to every life form.”  This implies “respect, kindness, generosity, humility, and wisdom” not only toward and for humans, but for other life-forms (Atleo 2004:88).  It should be pointed out that “brothers and sisters” here translates Nuu-chah-nulth words that cover all related persons in one’s own generation.  Since Nuu-chah-nulth kinship is reckoned over many generations, almost all traditional Nuu-chah-nulth can trace some relationship to almost all others, and thus are all literally brothers and sisters (or whatever generation term is appropriate).  And, since animals are persons involved in human kin networks, one can be quite literally brother to a wolf or sister to a whale.  This extension of kinship does fade over distance, and a far-off “brother” or “sister” can be no closer to oneself than some of my long-lost third cousins are to me.  However, it is taken seriously, to a point really striking to an outside observer; correspondingly, my Nuu-chah-nulth friends were struck by the weakness of kin ties among Euro-Canadians.

            One may add that society—human, but also other social mammals’ society—is reinforced by strong social codes.  These are generated, and apply, at the level of community: for humans, on the Northwest Coast, the local realm of a chiefly lineage or lineage-group and associated commoners and others.  This would involve around 500 people—fewer in the cold interior, many more around the rich Salish Sea.  It also involved all the nonhuman lives in the area. 

            Communities were tightly organized.  This too varied, from the extremely close-knit kin and community groups of the Nuu-chah-nulth to the loose and flexible ones of the interior Athapaskans, but the similarities still strike me as more important than the differences.  Even the Nuu-chah-nulth recognized individuals and their needs, balancing them with the collectivity in a very self-conscious manner (see Atleo 2004:55-56).  The strong awareness that a community is made up of interacting individuals led to a philosophy of individuals-in-society.  This integrated harmoniously with the philosophy of people-in-nature—more accurately, no “nature,” only different kinds of people. 

            The contrast is with the western world, where the usual alternative to individualism is “communitarianism,” which, often, consists of justifications for top-down autocracy.   Northwest Coast community morality integrates the individual in the community but does not subject him or her to a king, pope, or dictator.  Chiefs had real authority, and in some parts of the coast could sometimes get downright tyrannical, but their power was limited—usually very much so.  These were face-to-face communities, strongly ranked but small enough that the chief knew he had to get along; otherwise, as noted, he would be abandoned or killed. 

            What Theodore Stern says of some Plateau groups would apply throughout the Northwest:  “On winter nights [children] were an apt audience for elders reciting myths; daily they heard the headman’s exhortations and on special occasions the war stories….  From their parensts and grandparents, as well as those brought in to speak of their lives, they heard praised the virtues of obedience, of honesty, and of charity to the unfortunate” (Stern 1998:406).  The “unruly” were punished.  Teaching stories were filled with lore on managing and the morality behind it (Turner 2014, vol. 2, esp. pp. 244-266). 

            Thus, the Northwest Coast peoples could be paradoxically freer than most westerners manage to be.  Rampant individualism cannot work in practice in a large group, for obvious reasons, and the western remedy has always been top-down autocratic control—by church if not by centralized government.  The ancient Greeks already saw, and criticized, this, in their pessimistic ideas on the sequence from democracy to aristocracy to tyranny.  The alternative of free self-organizing and self-governing communities was not unknown to them.  It was a reality later in much of the Celtic and Germanic world until medieval times and locally later, but it never replaced the dismal alternation between libertarian and tyrannical alternatives. 

Thomas Hobbes (1651) is the locus classicus; he saw no alternative to “warre of each against all” except a totalitarian king.  If only he had known enough about the peoples he called “savages,” he would have realized there were other possibilities. 

On the other hand, recall what has been said of warfare above; typical of the Northwest Coast was superb relations with nonhuman persons, good relations with one’s own people, and warfare with other people of different language and homeland.  The goal, at least for some, was peace with all species within one’s own lands, and warfare outside of that.  By contrast, the western world has long had an ideal—often neglected but never quite forgotten—of peace with one’s own species everywhere.  Unfortunately, modern western societies also exhibit total war against nature. 

            The intense Native American relationship of community and land must be continually stressed, and this brings us back to stewardship.  A group is localized, and their local world is desperately important.  Its mountains, trees, major rocks, and rivers are transformed beings that are part of local society.  They may be actual kin to the humans of the immediate area.  This concept is alien to the modern Euro-American settlers, who have been in the area for three centuries or less.  However, it is similar to the rootedness of many villages in Europe, with their sacred wells, their megalithic monuments, and their churches built on sites of pre-Christian temples.

            This and the two previous principles led to a powerful and quite deliberate conservation ethic.  Conservation was “wise use” of every resource, rather than lock-down preservation.  It contrasts especially with the modern concept of sacrificing most of the land for devastating misuse while locking up a tiny fraction for aesthetic or recreational reasons.  The Northwest peoples used all the land in a carefully managed, sustainable manner. 

For example: “Among the Lower Lillooet, resource stewards…directed the use of specific hunting grounds and some fisheries.  These were hereditary positions, at least in the historic period, but required special knowledge.  Spiritual qualities were not requisite for this position, but such qualities were required for the specialized hunters” (Kennedy and Bouchard 1998a:182).  All other groups in the northern interior had these stewards also.  The Spokan, for instance, had a fish leader or fish chief to oversee fishing, and a fish shaman to make sure that all the rules of proper resource management were kept; there was also a fish trap keeper (Ross 2011).  Rules that were pragmatic (no blood or waste in the water; it repels salmon) merged into purely ritual rules, all being believed equally necessary to keep the fish coming.

The Lakes (Sinixt) Salish of southern British Columbia had almost all moved to Washington state (to a reservation with related groups), had mostly merged into other groups, and had been declared extinct in Canada as long ago as 1956, but when a road was punched through their main surviving cemetery they all appeared in force and blockaded the road (Pryor 1999).  A threat to the old sacred ground brought the tribe together again.

Individual moral experience, especially the vision quest, is discussed and constructed into community morality.

This is brilliantly described by the Nuu-chah-nulth scholar Richard Atleo, a traditionally-raised Northwest Coast person who is also highly educated in European science and philosophy: “In traditional Nuu-chah-nulth culture…the world of good and evil is known and experienced collectively through the practice of oosumich [vision quest; spiritual discipline including bathing in cold water].  Consequently, in these communities the collective spiritual experiences of people determine human perceptions of the nature of the world.  There can be no equivalent to a Plato, or a Socrates, or some such individual who might create a school of thought abvout reality that is later shared by some loyal followers.  Rather, good and evil are determined by consensus through personal spiritual experiences that are reflected in the physical realm.  Individual experiences are judged in the context of broad community experiences” (Atleo 2004:37).  Atleo has gone on to elaborate concepts of consent, continuity, personal independence and responsibility, and polarity, including the reconciliation of opposites (Atleo 2011).

Socialized conservation comes naturally to the highly social Nuu-chah-nulth, who live in a world of kinship and community that is tight and close even by Native American standards, but it applies generally. The first words I learn in most languages are “hello” and a couple of cuss-words, but the first word I learned in Nuu-chah-nulth was tłeko, which is most simply translated “thank you!” but which has so many deeper implications of exchange, interdependence, formal relations, and group morality that it is routinely used even by Nuu-chah-nulth who are otherwise strictly English speakers.  (See e.g. Coté 2010:xi-xii. She spells it “kleko,” which is itself interesting; English-speakers find “tł” difficult as an initial, and substitute “kl”; traditional Nuu-chah-nulth speakers of my acquaintance have the opposite problem, and naturally substitute “tł” for “kl,” thus, for instance, saying “ten o’tłock.”  Coté is Nuu-chah-nulth, but finds the English spelling more convenient.)  The Nuu-chah-nulth tend to pack a huge range of associations into one word, instead of multiplying highly specialized words as English does. 

The Haida seem a good deal more self-consciously individualist, and the Athapaskan groups less communal in lifestyle, but they have the same philosophy; the difference is that the resulting consensus is looser.  (At least this is my experience, and I know at least some would agree with me.)  The contrast of Nuu-chah-nulth and Euro-Canadians is really striking in this regard, as anyone who has observed extensive interactions within and between these groups can testify.  Discussion to reach a collective moral conclusion contrasts vividly with defiant independence and militant liberty of conscience (Atleo 55-56; 2011, amply confirmed by my own research). 

On the other hand, note that in the final analysis the Northwestern collective morality is based on individual experiences, from which the shared principles are then teased out.  This contrasts with the rigid top-down morality and power/knowledge of many western institutions:  the more hierarchic churches, the schools, and above all the state.  (Of course, this brings church and state into many a conflict with the individualistic Euro-Canadians and Euro-Americans!  But that is another story.)

The Plateau groups, however, display a key difference:  Individuals can indeed use their spiritual experiences on vision quests to start social movements that take on a life of their own.  The “prophets” famous in 19th-century Plateau history almost certainly have a long, complex history reaching back centuries or millennia.  This makes them more like the ancient Greeks, especially when one remembers that the philosophy of Plato—and still more that of sages like Pythagoras—had a strong spiritual component.

This brings us to the vision quest, the all-important life-transforming experience that all Northwest Coast young people used to experience, and that a surprisingly large number still undergo.

Let us begin with Richard Atleo again: “Oosumich is a secret and personal Nuu-chah-nulth spiritual activity that can involve varying degress of fasting, cleansing [often by using herbal emetics], celibacy, prayer, and isolation for varying lengths of time depending upon the purpose” (Atleo 2004:17); it also includes beating oneself with medicinal branches, including those of a plant containing a natural soap, which thus has a cleansing effect (Atleo 2004:92).  For whaling it could last eight months, for hunting three or four days (Atleo 2004:17). 

The Nuu-chah-nulth oosumich, or uusimch (George 2003:48; phonetically ʔuusumch) is a quest for spiritual power and purity.  “Oo” or uu literally means “spiritual mysteries” and is used just to mean “be careful” (Atleo 2004:74, 83).  It is related to management practices, even controlled burning, which similarly manages the world to reconcile conflicting impulses of destruction and preservation (Atleo 2011:133). 

Related lonely quests for power, with bathing in cold water, beating oneself with medicinal branches, fasting, and other self-denials, occur among most Northwest Native groups (Benedict 1923; Miller 1988, 1997, 1999).  Similar spiritual quests are known throughout the continent.  Such quests or spiritual retreats are undergone throughout life by medicine persons, warriors, and others in need of extra spiritual power.  The extreme eight-month retreats of Nuu-chah-nulth whalers (e.g. Atleo 2011:101-102) show the great danger, great potential benefits to the whole community, and consequent special needs for spiritual power of that enterprise.  (Herman Melville’s Moby Dick is worth recalling.)   “Indian doctors,” shamans or spirit-possessors, were primarily curers, but they could kill by sorcery, become invisible, foretell the future, protect people, and find lost persons and objects (see e.g. particularly complete account in Ignace and Ignace 2017:387-393; also Jolles 2002:;172-173). 

Secwépemc children as young as five or six might receive spirit powers.  Elders might “doctor” them with animal skins or parts to give them the power of the animal.  Ron Ignace received grizzly bear and woodworm powers this way.  Woodworms, the larvae of wood-boring beetles, are known throughout the Northwest for their ability to drill slowly and patiently through the hardest wood, and thus give persistence and tenacity.  In early adolescence, youths went for the more typical Northwestern vision quest: “…a yong person had to live in solitude for days, potentially weeks and months, often on more than one stay.  Through…fasting and prayer in solitude, individuals found their personal seméc (spirit guardian power)…. Songs would come to them, given by an animal or a force of nature, like fire or water, that thus showed itself to the person questing and transferred its spirit power” (Ignace and Ignace 2017:383-384; see long list of spirit powers on p. 386).  The initiate thus had to shift for himself or herself for many days, with only the few resources brought along for the trip.  One elder lamented the difficulty of finding remote enough places in this modern world.  Getting one’s power from natural beings created an intense bonding with the wild and with natural realities.

Bathing in cold water was apparently a universal part of the quest in the Northwest.  Under conditions of hunger, cold, stress, and loneliness, the young person would sooner or later have dreams and visions, and these would validate the calling.

Known from the Northwest to the Plateau (Benedict 1923) and the Plains (the classic account being Neihardt 1932, but there are many others), vision questing extends down into Mexico, but from the southwest and southern United States on southward it was often supplemented or replaced by group or social training and initiation. 

In the vast majority of cases, it is undergone around the time of puberty.  Often there is one long and arduous quest; sometimes a boy or girl will undergo several quests.  Boys usually—but not always—undergo longer and harder quests than girls, and further discussion below will focus on the boys, whose quests are much better described in the literature. 

            The typical adolescent spirit quest usually involves isolation at a Power Place, an area of great known concentration of spirit power.  Power places can be mountaintops, dramatic cliffs, waterfalls, stream eddies, or other dramatic spots.  Mountaintops are the ones preferred for spirit questing, because of their isolation and extreme conditions of cold, violent weather, spectacular scenery, and fearfulness. 

The youth subjects himself to fasting, drinking only cold water, bathing in cold water, purification, staying awake as much as possible, and continual praying or crying for visions.  After a few days or at most weeks of this, visions or powerful dreams are virtually guaranteed.  Stress physiology combined with cultural expectations insure that even the least sensitive person will have them. 

The quest was highly individual among the Plains and Plateau nations, more socially constructed and integrated into collective ceremonies on the Coast, and reduced to a quiet, secret, lonely forest experience among the Athapaskan groups.  There is a huge literature on it, particularly for the Coast. 

The Salish peoples are especially well covered.  Among them: “In order to exploit his natural environment successfully a person needed to establish lines of communication with the nonhuman realm. He would doso primarily through a vision or encounter with a more or less individualized, personalized manifestation of the power which pervaded the wild realm of nature…. Contact could be achieved only if the human supplicant were purged of the taint of human existence….  Daily bathing in the river was the cornerstone of this regime” (Amoss 1978:12-13, from research with the Nooksack).  The young person had to be away from humans, in a power place, subjecting him- or herself to privation and discomfort.  Women were restricted in action, less often allowed to go far off, and thus tended to get lesser powers (Amoss 1978:13-14).  They could, however, become clairvoyants.

The vision typically tells the youth what power he has—or, in western psychological terms, gives the youth mental freedom to realize what he really wants to do with his life (cf. Jilek 1982).  For the Plains tribes, it normally gave warrior power, but the Northwest Coast groups, with their highly varied range of activities, presented a wider range of possibilities.  Woodworking power came from Master Carpenter or an equivalent spirit being, thus proving the deeply religious nature of art in traditional society.  Seamanship, fishing, housebuilding, and all manner of other powers could be given. 

Since this power comes from the all-important spirit world, it cannot be gainsayed.  Thus, if parents had been hoping the boy would become a woodworker, but the spirits make him a hunter, a hunter he shall remain.  This is not infrequently used by a boy or girl to validate his or her career choice at the expense of parental planning.  Many a college student forced by parents to “go into medicine,” learning of this aspect of the spirit quest in an anthropology class, has dearly wished for such an institution in modern America.

Obviously, some of these spirit gifts were more noble than others, and youths were counseled to be happy with whatever they got.  Some delightful stories make the point.  Among the Upper Skagit, one youth got only the power to win eating contests.  He was embarrassed and ashamed.  But then a much more powerful enemy tribe challenged the Upper Skagit people to war or equivalent competition.  The Upper Skagit had the good sense to demand the right to pick the type of contest…and of course our poor youth was soon the hero of his people (Collins 1974).

Special, everywhere, was healing power.  All the way from Siberia to California (thus bridging the Bering Strait), healing or shamanic power had a special name, separate from other spirit power.  A healer received power to travel to the spirit world to find out the cause and cure of illness.  The whaling power of the Nuu-chah-nulth was also of a special nature, and involved meditating among human skulls and other mementi mori, as part of dealing with the danger of the art.

            The spirit vision quest thus gives meaning and direction to life.  It has thus been rehabilitated lately for treating adolescent alienation and problematic behavior, and community alienation and aimlessness (Amoss 1978).  This is especially true among the Salish groups, because among them the youth returns to society and dances out his vision in a public ceremony.  A youth is not supposed to reveal or talk about the actual spirit that gave him the vision, but he receives a song and dance that sometimes make the spirit identifiable.  A youth who moves and growls like a bear, or a wolf, for instance, reveals what sort of spirit he has.  Others then dance their visions, or simply dance along with everyone. 

This gives the Salish youths a chance to validate their power, life choices, and personal experience of the Divine, as well as to reconnect with their culture, community, and identity.  This is done through dancing during the winter ceremonial season.  The youth—and the adult for the rest of life—dances in such a way as to demonstrate, but not show too clearly, his or her spirit power.  Onlookers can only guess what animal or other spirit the individual received, but his or her life and work demonstrates the actual power received.  

Spirit dancing holds the community together, reveals and reinforces social structure, spreads resources widely, and acts as religious focus; as such, it maintains a vibrant cultural and social world in what is otherwise a situation of limited possibilities (Amoss 1978).

Spirit dancing has proved a powerful social therapy.  It has been instrumental in reducing alcoholism, suicide, depression, and anomie among young people, especially if combined with other help.  It has given people a sense of control and self-efficacy.  Literally hundreds, perhaps by now thousands, of Salish youths have had their lives turned around by it (Amoss 1978; Collins 1974; Jilek 1972).

Psychologist Wolfgang Jilek (1972) memorably described his findings on this and his conclusion that the spirit dancing worked far better than clinical therapy for the Salish youths.  I have talked to Jilek, and many others, about this; the encounter that I most remember was with a Catholic priest who had actually taken part in the dancing.  Someone with me asked “Doesn’t the church say that is all from the Devil?”  To which the priest replied, quietly and seriously, “Anything that has the effects I’ve seen must be from God.”

Returning to the wider—lifelong—quest for spirit power, as Richard Atleo says, powerful individual spiritual experiences validated individuals’ sense of self, and then fed back into the community’s collective experience of spirituality and thus of morality.  Morals were constantly being tested against individual transformative experience.  Since the latter was, inevitably, highly conditioned by cultural expectation and tradition as well as personal experience, it normally reinforced the moral tenets of the people. 

On the other hand, it also allows for change, and validates ideas about how to cope with new circumstances.  This is most obvious on the Plateau, with its many prophets announcing visions about the Whites, the horses they brought, and other new matters.  These prophets were lifelong vision-questers, who had mystical experiences and intense spirit journeys on a regular basis throughout life.  The coastal Salish also had prophet cults, and other groups had individuals who taught new adaptations.

The relevance of this to conservation will appear below, in the consideration of traditional stories.  Many of these depend on some young person having a spirit vision in which the animal persons tell him or her what they expect and need from humans.  The vision is described matter-of-factly—the youth meets a mountain goat and is led to the home of the goats—but many touches reveal that the journeys are spirit journeys rather than physical ones.

Spirit journeys by medicine persons were also regular features of life in the Northwest.  Healers sent their souls to the spirit worlds for many purporses.  They also used their special spirit powers, those peculiar to the curing life.  Curing was especially important, and usually involved sucking out objects or “pains” magically implanted in a patient by a witch or else going to the land of the dead to retrieve a lost soul (see e.g. Boyd 2013a).  More directly relevant to ecology were spirit-journeys to find out why the fish were not running or the game was scarce.  Typically, the finding was that a taboo had been broken—in particular, someone had been disrespectful to the animal persons.  Social rules were powerfully reinforced.

A point not often enough made is that the major role of curers in traditional times was probably treating mental illnesses and sicknesses.  Infectious diseases were rather few, until the Whites brought the full range of Old World conditions.  The healers had no way of coping with these, and died along with their patients.  In pre-contact times, the few infectious diseases were generally either minor and easily treated with herbs, or were chronic and fluctuating.  Probably much more common were physical traumas—accidents, bear bites, war wounds, falls—and these could be treated by first aid and some dramatic placebo-effective ritual. 

Conversely, mental and social problems were evidently numerous and serious.  Winter confined people in their houses with seemingly endless rain, cold, and night outside.  Summer brought frantic activity to get food put away.  Dangers of war and interpersonal conflict were always present.  Anyone even slightly prone to depression, aggressiveness, schizophrenia, or other problems would be sorely tested.  Thus, healers had to specialize in these conditions.  Of course, they interpreted them as spiritual, but their ways of dealing with them were pragmatic.  Psychologists such as Wolfgang Jilek (1972) have pointed out that traditional psychological therapy was stunningly effective, and was based on principles perfectly comprehensible to a modern psychologist.  I can testify to the truth of this from some experience (Anderson 1992; Anderson and Pinkerton 1987). 

All this ritual, healing, and animal protection is part of a religious system loosely known as “shamanism.”  A better name should be coined.  True shamanism is a tightly defined complex of religious ideas and behaviors that centers on Siberia and central Asia (the classic account by Eliade, 1964, is dated and less than satisfactory; see the superb work of Caroline Humphrey 1995, 1996, and the beautifully illustrated work of Pentikäinen et al. 1999 for better overviews).  The word “shaman” is the word for a soul-sending individual healer, in the Tungus languages of eastern Siberia.  Northwest Coast religion is so similar that is can be called “shamanism” without stretching definitions, but as one moves farther east, the characteristic shamanistic features gradually fade, and we are left with a religion more focused on individual spirit experience, less on the spectacular and complex rituals of the shaman per se. 

Shamanism is based on individual soul-travel to the land of gods and dead or to the skyworld or underworld, to find lost souls or lost objects, find causes and cures for illness, and otherwise fix social and personal problems.  The shaman has an animal familiar, or several of them, and often other kinds of spirit powers exist.  Shamans can normally transform themselves into animals or spirit beings.  Ordinary people with special spirit powers can transform also.  Folktales in shamanic societies almost invariably include many competitions between rivals, to see who can assume the most powerful shape, foiling the rival (see Bland 2012).  (Such stories endure even in modern Europe, e.g. the Child ballad of “The Twa Magicians,” a Scottish tale that survived into the 20th century).  Moreover, animals—usually the predators in particular—can transform into humans, or into other shapes.  In fact, the transformation, interpenetration, and mutual shape-shifting and soul-shifting between human and natural realms is a key basic tenet of shamanic societies.  (This problematizes, to say the least, Descola’s claim that “animism” postulates spiritual similarity but physical difference beween people and other-than-human persons; Descola 2013.)

Some authors describe all Native American religion as shamanic, even the priestly religion of the high cultures of Mesoamerica and the Andes.  Others do not even allow the Northwest Coast into the “shamanism” camp.  Still others draw the line somewhere in between.  Some exceedingly acrimonious exchanges have taken place about this.  Some of the best studies, like Jay Miller’s Shamanic Odyssey (1988; see also Miller 1999), integrate Northwest Coast religion into the shamanism complex.  Others do not.

This allows us better understanding of the superficially “strange” or “exotic” ethnozoology of the Athapaskan peoples of northwest Canada.  Recent superb descriptions of these people by Julie Cruikshank (1998, 2005), Jean-Guy Goulet (1998), Leslie Johnson (2000, 2010), T. F. McIlwraith (2007), Paul Nadasdy (2004), Robin Ridington (1981a, 1981b, 1988, 1990), Henry Sharp (19878, 2001), David Smith (1999) and others have presented a very consistent picture. From somewhat outside our area, but from closely related Athapaskan peoples, comes the thorough account of Richard Nelson (1983), which speaks to conservation issues.

The Athapaskans see the world through trails and paths (Johnson 2010; Legat 2012; Ridington 1981b, 1988).  They have complex terminologies for types of places, mostly habitats for hunting and gathering.  They may name features that seem small and insignificant to outsiders, while leaving whole mountains unnamed—as do many peoples worldwide (Johnson 2010; anthropologists were surprised at this, but the beautiful high ridge I see from my window has no name, and it is in a major city).  The trailways were taken by ancestral beings long ago, and the small features were spots that were critical in those mythic adventures.  Again there are world parallels; I have stood in a quite young grove of trees, in Kakadu National Park in Northern Australia, that is locally regarded as composed of transformed supernatural beings from the Dreaming time. 

Robin Ridington has studied the Dunne-za (“Beaver”) people of British Columbia.  He reports:  Beneath each mountain or valley lay the body of a giant animal that had been sent below the earth’s surface when the great transformer Saya taught the Dunne-za of old to be hunters rather than game.  The melodic lines of their songs were said to be the turns of a trail to heaven and the steady rhythm of drum, the imprint of tracks passing over this imaginary terrain” (Ridington 1981b:240).  The giant underground animals are widely known in the Northwest (Sharp 1987), and are the explanation for earthquakes; stories about one of them cluster around the faults running through Seattle.

Ridington continues to describe finding the game by dreaming where they are.
Camps among the Dunne-za were always set up so that there was bush unbroken by human trails in the direction of the rising sun.  People slept with their heads in this direction and received images in their dreams.”  Dreaming the locations of game is also noted for related nearby groups by Henry Sharp (1987, 2001) and Jean-Guy Goulet (1998).  The hunters, among these Athapaskan groups as among other North American Indigenous nations, find that “the animals could not be killed unless they had previously given themselves to the hunter in his dream images.  It was said that the real hunt took place in the dream and the physical hunt was only a realization of what had already taken place” (Ridington 1981b:241).

Leslie Johnson has written at length about the differences between this moving-traveler view of the world and more static or totalizing views (Johnson 2010).  She contrasts the Athapaskan view, rich in narrative, personal history, and subsistence knowledge, with the abstract, arbitrary, geometric grids laid down on the land by modern states.  True, but having grown up in rural Nebraska almost a century ago, I can testify that a few generations of farming and childrearing transforms a grid into a richly-known, well-loved, story-laden landscape. It is the living, or “dwelling” (Ingold 2000; Legat 2012) that counts.  The Anglo-Canadians may have soullessly gridded the land, but more serious is their tendency to “rip, ruin, and run,” taking all the fish or trees or minerals and leaving a desert.  If they had stayed and made a living from the total landscape, as the Native peoples did, they would have come to appreciate it—as Johnson and other long-resident immigrants have indeed done.

For Canadian Athabaskan peoples, animals exist as spirits, as well as in fleshly form.  One dreams of these animals, and dreams of their trails.  The spirit comes from the sky (Ridington 1981a, 1988) or some other nebulous place, moves about on earth.  The hunter dreams the path and goes to intersect the animal.  If successful, he kills it, and the animal’s soul returns to spirit land, to take fleshly form again later (as we have seen, above, for other groups). 

One summary of an Athapaskan worldview sees the past as “continually pulled through to the present” by stories and experiences; humans constantly learning spiritual and practical knowledge; “all beings take different trails, each utilizing different places within the dè [land, country],” (Legat 2012:200).  All are related and interact.  Stories and trails hold the world together. 

What is astonishing is that the hunters do, in fact, dream where the moose and deer are, go where their dreams lead, and actually find and kill the animals.  Often, Anglo-Canadian hunters have no success using their hi-tech hunting methods in the same woods.  Thanks to the work of Goulet (1998), Ridington (1981a, 1981b, 1988, 1990), Sharp (2001), and David Smith (1998), we have some sense how bioscience can explain this.  The hunter notices countless cues at a preattentive level while he (men do most of the hunting) is out in the forest.  Every faint track, nibbled twig, bent branch, distant sound, muddied watercourse, old bedding ground, and unusual bird noise is noted.  Trying to notice and evaluate all these cues consciously would overwhelm the mind.  They are attended preconsciously or at the bare edge of consciousness.  At night, they are all integrated in dreams—and the dreams do, indeed, tell the hunter where lies the game.  Psychologists now hold that the purpose of dreams is to integrate and organize such preattentive knowledge, and process it or store it for use.  The Dunne-za were years ahead of the psychologists.

The First Nations of the Northwest know every tree, every rock, and every fishing spot in a vast wilderness better than I know my own living room.  They also believe also that giant fish produce earthquakes by twitching their tails (Sharp 2001), and that animals have spirits that communicate with hunters.  These beliefs make perfect sense in the context of animism.  Many, perhaps most, cultures worldwide explained earthquakes by assuming a giant animal lived underground.  Spirits that communicate is not only the basic postulate that defines “animism”; it is also a perfectly logical and reasonable explanation for what is perceived by hunters in traditional situations. 

A particularly fasciating belief, subject of a long and brilliant study by Julie Cruikshank (2005), holds that glaciers hate to have meat fried near them.  This belief obtains around Glacier Bay among the Tlingit and their neighbors, and has apparently even spread to some local Whites.  As Cruikshank points out, people avoid throwing meat into the fire, or otherwise creating a smell of burning meat, because it attracts bears (as McIlwraith 2007:114 also reports).  Since a glacier is a huge, moving, unpredicable, constantly changing, and dangerous thing, it appears like a grizzly bear to people who believe that all animated and growing things have spirits.  Nothing could be more natural than assuming that the glacier will wax savage at the smell of scorching meat, as a grizzly would. 

            The coast proper had a quite different set of ideological systems, widely based on extended kinship groups: moieties (dividing society into halves), phratries (dividing it into fourths—originally by halving the moieties), lineages, and other extended kinship groups.  Individuals could inherit or be given privileges and spirit powers; so could groups, from whole communities down to families.  Especially common were powers, songs, myths, and art motifs inherited at the lineage to moiety levels—that is, the level of large groups but not entire communities.  A large group could sponsor a potlatch, and a community needed the variety and competition allowed by having several groups each with its own powers.

            This system reached a high development among the Tsimshian peoples (Adams 1973; Beynon 2000; Menzies 2016 [Southern Tsimshian]; Miller and Eastman 1984).  These groups—the Coast Tsimshian, Southern Tsimshian, Nishga, and Gitksan—were divided into four phratries, probably created by dividing into two the moieties basic to neighboring societies.  The key concept is halait: supernatural, spiritually derived power, or anyone manifesting that power, as in a dance, ritual, or chiefly display of authority.  Halait were spiritual groundings of chiefship and power.  They are validated and explained by adaox, “the family-owned histories of the origin, migrations, and eventual settlement…of the Houses…they indicate how the latter acquired their crests and powers” (M. Anderson and Halpin 2000:15. These last include the naxnox, hereditary privileges in the form of masks, totem pole motifs, dances, songs, myths, and ritual regalia. 

            These are displayed in actual ceremonial contexts.  Initiation and name-taking was necessary to assume naxnox.  A chief would have to go to heaven (or have a vision of it).  This made him a semoiget, “real person.”  On return he would often be able to display a terrifying power, such as cannibalism (biting people or pretending to) or eating dogs.  Dogs were considered inedible and even poisonous, so tremendous power was necessary to eat one and survive.  In practice, the devouring was faked (at least in reported cases), but—just as wearing a mask makes one into the being represented by the mask—the fakery had a transcendent reality.

            The full displays in the winter ceremonies included potlatches, feasts, dances, storytelling, and other performances.  Here and elsewhere on the Coast, they were carefully planned and absolutely spectacular.  No one who watches even the etiolated winter dances of today fails to be profoundly moved.

            Of course, all this had everything to do with ecological management and resource ownership.  Here is the great Tsimshian? Gitksan? leader and spokesman Neil Sterritt explaining it:

            “For centuries, successive Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en leaders have defended th boundaries of their territories.  Here, a complex system of ownership and jurisdiction has evolved, where the chiefs continujally validate their rights and responsibilities totheir people, their lands, and the resources contained within themn.  The Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en express their ownership and jurisdiction in many ways, but the most formal forum is the feast, which sisometimes referred to as a potclatch” (as quoted in M. Anderson and Halpin 2000:31).

8.  Respect and Its Corollaries

            The Browns’ Fundamental Truth 3 seems to me the most critical characteristic of Northwest Coast thought, and indeed of Native American thought in general.  It deserves special treatment.

Above all, the Native peoples believe that one must show “respect” to the animals or they will not offer themselves to be hunted successfully.  Even where the discourse of “respect” is eroding with westernization, the practices of treating slain game animals politely and reverently still go on, with that as the ultimate justification (McIlwraith 2012).  It is particularly striking to find these beliefs still vividly and powerfully alive and motivating even among quite acculturated groups that have been subjected to Canadian colonial domination and coerced assimilation for a couple of centuries; as McIlwraith points out, they were supposedly assimilated more than 50 years ago.   McIlwraith cites a whole lineage of authors on this (McIlwraith 2012:25, citing Goulet 1998; Nadasdy 2003; Ridington 1990; Tanner 1979; Teit 1919; and many others).

Critically, respect involves not taking more than one needs for immediate consumption.  This includes family and needy neighbors.  It also includes guests, especially for rituals involving necessary feasting.  A large feast may mean a very large take.  Still, taking too many animals is always bad and disrespectful and always is subject to punishment.  This clause frightens even the greedy (if they are at all traditional in their beliefs).  It succeeds well in practice, as I know from research in both the Northwest Coast and Maya Mexico and several places in between. 

This wide concept of respect—iisʔaḱ in Nuu-chah-nulth, and as usual the word covers far more than English “respect”—is found throughout the Northwest, and, indeed, much more widely.  The Gold Tungus of Siberia have the same basic attitudes (Arseniev 1996), which are apparently continuous right across Bering Strait.  The Mongols share this; traveling in Mongolia I found the same concept of respect for all nature, from trees to rocks.  A young Mongol friend of mine wanted to collect pretty rocks, but did not, because it would be disrespectful to the rocks to move them for such a frivolous reason.  The word used in Mongolia is shuteekh, focally respect for elders.  Khundelekh is used among some Mongols (Marissa Smith, email to me, July 8, 2013), and in Inner Mongolia bishirt (Lulin Bao, pers. comm., 2014).  Many other cultures, from Rumania to South America, have the same concept. My student Jianhua “Ayoe” Wang found respect to be the key concept for environmental management among his Akha people in southern Yunnan (Wang 2013).  The idea of respecting flowers and rocks by leaving them in place is found in the Northwest Coast too.  Annie Peterson Miner, last speaker of Miluk Coos, after commenting on the need for a girl to share her first berries and a boy his first game without eating them themselves, added:  “Annie said that picking flowers and gathering shells and rocks were also prohibited.  ‘It might start to rain or bring bad luck.’  She said, ‘Things were just to be there, not to be picked.’   It was also bad luck to catch wild things” (Youst 1997:68). 

The same basic stories about the person who killed wantonly and was given stern warnings by the supernaturals are heard from Alaska to South America.  Every Northwest Coast collection of tales records myths about this, and often actual stories of people punished for it, for example by having to give all their kill to relatives (Atleo 2011:50), or being turned to stone with one’s dog for hunting too many mountain goats (Teit 1919:241-242), or simply having accidents and bad luck (very widely).  I have heard such stories in both British Columbia and Yucatan. 

Evert Thomas (pers. comm. at Society of Ethnobiology meeting, 2009) tells me that among the Bolivian Quechua, susto (fear sickness) in children can come from overhunting by their parents; the masters of the game punish the hunter by making his family sick.  The Khanty, who at least until recently practiced sustainable hunting and careful reindeer herding, apparently have similar ideas (Wiget and Balalaeva 2011).   Even the Yukaghir, who are now apparently far less conserving than the Northwest Coast peoples, have something of this idea (Willerslev 2007). 

Sport hunting and trophy hunting are thus definitely out of favor, being clearly disrespectful: killing an animal for pleasure, and as often as not leaving the carcass to rot.  This put the people of Iskut in another quandary:  should they guide White sport-hunters?  Survival forced that issue—they had to do it to get enough money to live—but it was a debate.

Thomas Thornton’s Tlingit consultant, Herman Kitka, recalls “Uncle noticed how we enjoyed the [halibut] fishing; he told us that to fish for the halibut for fun we would be wasting our food supply—to do so would offend the Holy Spirit and cause us to lose our blessing and go hungry” (Thornton 2008:124).  And  he lets others use the resources at Deep Bay, of which he was designated monitor:  “’I don’t own it,’ I tell them, ‘I’m just taking care of it’” (Thornton 2008:168).  Thornton comments on this:  “This typifies the Tlingit attitude towards conservation:  it is not a matter of ‘resource management’ as much as a matter of taking care of places.”  Kitka also noted that when a weir blocks the river totally, the salmon leave because they are “insulted,” not because they’re physically stopped:  “Those little sockeye get offended if you don’t leave them a hole in your [fish] weir; they won’t come back…” (Thornton 2008:173-174).  Tlingit often tell guests, in formal contexts, Tleil dagák’ ahwateeni yík, “Don’t leave insulted like those little sockeyes”  (Thornton 2008:173).  Thornton’s superb account of the phenomenology of place and land among the Tlingit has much more of this kind.

Weirs themselves also need respect.  They are ritually constructed and often consecrated, and thus they become persons.  This is known for the Iroquois and Yurok, as well as for Northwest Coast peoples.  They must be treated with proper attention, and (among the Iroquois and Algonquian, in early times) given wives (Miller 2014:135-142).

Mistreating fish is deadly.  When a man on the Nass harmed a small salmon gratuitously, his whole village was destroyed by fire (Barbeau 1950:77).  Frogs are even more dangerous when offended; a widespread northern coast myth deals with individuals who wantonly cast frogs into the fire, only to have frogs destroy their village by giant conflagrations (versions in Barbean 1950:65-75; many other versions exist).  Salmon remains are usually returned to the rivers, insuring good nutrition for the young, but among the Tsimshian they are burned, and failure to burn every leftover causes trouble (Barbeau 1950:165-176).

Deploring sportfishing as disrepectful “playing with fish” is so widely condemned that it has become the title of a book of “lessons from the north,” by Robert Wolfe, who encountered this particuilar lesson among the Yupik of Alaska (Wolfe 2006).

Respect is also basic in Plateau societies.  It “included not only other human beings but also food, air, water, the plants and animals whose lives were taken, and all other aspects of nature….  The very acts of making or teaching art were highly regarded” and artists respected (Loeb and Lavadour 1998:79).

Rodney Frey, talking about the educational function of Native American folktales, uses as examples the moral injunctions to hunters:  “’Nothing will they throw away,’ ‘you must not be proud,’ ‘you must not kill too many of any kind of animal’” (Frey 1995:173).  These are his prime examples not of Native conservation, but of Native moral discourse; he is not selecting game management to talk about.  It was simply what came first to hand.  Note that hybris is condemned as well as waste.  Respect means proper humility before one’s animal spirit beings, as well as intelligent management.  For one thing, it means not mentioning the name of whatever one is hunting or fishing for, or otherwise being overconfident about one’s expedition (see e.g. Palmer 2005).  It also means killing the animal cleanly, with one shot (animportant mark of respect for the game among my Maya friends in Quintana Roo, too).

The pattern is worldwide, and extends to the Yuit of St. Lawrence Island.  R. Apatki, talking to Carol Jolles in 1992, tells us:

“Whatever they first caught, they show them to…God….

They return the bones, whatever they are to the fields.

Those

[bones]

that belong to the sea, they went to throw away down to sea….

They light small lamps.  There they sacrifice.  The small ceremonial fires are some sort of altars….

They

[the ancestors]

had taken very good care of it [St. Lawrence Island], just like they honor it, those people.

They take good care of the hunting grounds, these places—all hunting ground.  Respectfully.

They don’t go to places until when it is time to go there.

They don’t put some things [trash and the like] on hunting grounds.  They respectfully use them….” (Jolles 2002:296-297; the whole text is well worth looking up).

Jolles also gives accounts of respectful treatment of kills.  Estelle Oozevaseuk told her in 1989 of giving water to seal kills, a universal custom among Inuit peoples and their neighbors, and giving bits of food to fox kills and others (Jolles 2002:298-299).  A whole complex of respectful behaviors is described in following pages: special games, special ways of dividing kills, special stories.  Reverential ceremonies for major games animals, notably whales, go on all year.  Jolles effectively shows how closely the respect for animals tracks the very respectful, structured behavior traditional within the human community.

            Finally, one is not supposed to boast of success.  Hunters and fishers return saying they have taken nothing much.  (This also is shared widely; Willerslev [2007:37] reports it for the Yukaghir, and I can testify from experience that it is a rule in Finland.)  Boasting brings ridicule and censure, but it also can actually drive the animals away, since it is disrespectful of them. I think anyone with much experience in the field will understand these and related concepts.  I have seen more than one proud White hunter humbled, and more than one biologist as well.  One need not believe in spirits to see the value of humility in the bush.

South Wind, the Tillamook Salishan trickster and transformer hero, learned this the hard way.  He caught no fish, day after day, till it was explained to him that he would have to cover any fish he caught with green branches and leaves, then burn the bones and skin in a fire that is to be extinguished.  Water from washing up must go on that fire, not in the bush (Deur and Thompson 2008:38).  Similar stories come from the Chinook (Boyd 2013b).  More common and interesting is the instruction to return all bones (and often other waste) to the water (which the Tillamook and Chinook did not do, at least with the first salmon).  As noted above, it restores necessary nutrients.  The Tututni had a rite in which “[a] religious leader offered thanks to the fish for returning once again…the villagers sent out their private thoughts of gratitude.  This giving of respect to the salmon—and in othersettings to deer and elk, roots and berries, and other gifts from the lands and waters…was not some romantic construct.  The Tututnis saw themselves as…citizens along with the plants and animals, and it was proper to show appreciation” (Wilkinson 2010:22-23).

Frey (2001:9) tells of a Coeur d’Alene woman who resisted a pest control worker’s call to get rid of spiders.  As she said, “’…that Spider might have had a message for me, something to say to me.  Why would I want to kill him?’”  And two pages later, we read of a man who wanted to rob a muskrat’s store of food, but was prevented by his wife (Frey 2001:11).  The Coeur d’Alene pray extensively before hunting or gathering wild foods, and also give thanks, often by leaving some tobacco where they have gathered (Frey 2001:180-182).  He quotes a wonderful oration about respect for deer who have given their lives to the hunters as food (p. 205).  

An extreme (and possibly a bit self-serving) bit of rhetoric on the Northwest Coast is a Nuu-chah-nulth speech to a just-harpooned whale: 

“Whale, I have given you what you wish to get—my good harpoon.  And now you have it.  Please hold it with your strong hands.  Do not let go.  Whale, turn towards the fine beach…and you will be proud to see the young men come down…to see you; and the yong men will say to one another:  What a great whale he is!  What a fat whale he is!  What a strong whale he is!  And you, whale, will be proud of all that you hear them say of your greatness” (Coté 2010:34, quoting text recorded and translated by T. T. Waterman).  Significantly, the Nuu-chah-nulth abstained totally from the very active whale fishery initiated by Anglo-Canadian settlers on Vancouver Island (Coté 2010:64).  Apparently they saw that the whales were not treated with respect.

As usual, this has parallels all over North America.  The Yup’ik of southwest Alaska have enormously elaborate rules (Fienup-Riordan 1994, 2005) for paying respects to mammals and fish, even the small, poor-quality blackfish (valuable because once a winter staple for dogs as well as a back-up food for humans).  Fish see traps and nets differently according to the behavior of the fishers; the fish want to sacrifice themselves to those that have treated their previous incarnations with respect (see esp. Fienup-Riordan 1994:123). 

Seals are thought to live in a giant ceremonial men’s house under the sea.  Here they arrange themselves by social rank, as humans do.  They discuss “whether to give themselves to human hunters” (Fienup-Riordan 2005:xvi), giving themselves only to those that show respect.  When seals are caught and shared out, the seals’ yuit (persons; sing. yua) go into their bladders, so these are saved and restored to the sea at a major festival at the start of winter (the sealing season and the ceremonial season; the Yup’ik have an extremely rich and evocative ceremonial life, beautifully described by Fienup-Riordan).  Here too, bones had to be ritually disposed of; seal bones had to go into fresh water (1994:107), but salmon bones were not returned to rivers.  “Yup’ik cosmology is a perpetual cycling between birth and rebirth, humans and animals, and the living and the dead” (1994:355), and between land and sea also.

Generosity to other humans is rewarded by generosity from nature; generous hunters are successful hunters (Fienup-Riordan 2005:38; a belief that seems to be worldwide).  Other social rules too lead to good fortune if followed, bad fortune if violated.

In general, there was a strong separation between sea creatures and land ones, but they were interlocked by trails and processes.  Sea creatures wanted land amenities (hence the seal bones in fresh water), land creatures wanted sea goods (see 1994:140ff.).  This fits well with Claude Lévi-Strauss’ analysis of the separation of land and sea, and its mediation by travel and myth, among the nearby Tlingit and other groups (Lévi-Strauss 1958, 1995).

People are observed by a high god, the Ellam Yua, “person of universal awareness.”  “Ella can mean ‘outside,’ ‘weather,’ ‘sky, ‘universe,’ or ‘awareness’” (Fienup-Riordan 1994:262).  The ellam iinga, all-watching eye, is shown as a small circle with a dot in the center, a universal motif in Yup’ik art (p. 254 ff.).  

As in most of the Arctic and much of Asia, there were elaborate rules for dividing up large animals and giving particular parcels to particular categories of relatives.  Any violation of rules led to the animals going away.  For instance, if the blackfish are taken with an ordinary dip net, instead of a special device reserved for them, “the blackfish will become extinct and be depleted” (Clara Aagartak, quoted Fienup-Riordan 1994:119).  Most of this long book consists of similar rules.  The great Greenlander ethnographer Knut Rasmussen found equally elaborate rules in the central Arctic (Rasmussen 1931, 1932).

The Tłįchǫ Dene, far to the northeast of the Northwest Coast, have very similar concepts.  Blood of a slain animal must be cleaned up, butchering must be done properly, and there are many rules for such matters.  “The Tłįchǫ elders attribute the disappearance of wildlife to industrial development and to a lack of respect, which inevitably causes destruction” (Legat 2012:30).  On one hunting trip, caribou did not show themselves, so the hunt leader made the people eat all the meat they had brought and made Dr. Legat send away her leather backpack—whereupon the caribou immediately appeared.  Since there was meat and hide in the camp, they had not felt needed (Legat 2012:84).

            James Teit records for the Tahltan:  “The Meat-Mother watches her children, the game, and also the people.  When people do not follow the taboos, and do not treat animals rightly, the latter tell their mother; and she punishes the people by taking the game away for a while, or by making it wild, and then the people starve…the Moose children are the most apt to tell their mother of any disrespect shown them: therefore people have to be very careful of to how they treat moose” (Teit 1919:231-232, as cited in McIlwraith 2012:68-69). 

Among the Spokan, as reported by John Alan Ross:  “After killing a deer, the hunter exercised considerable care in butchering…and skinning…for fear than an act of disrespect would impair his future hunting success, or worse, keep the offended species away from the hunting range of his group” (Ross 2011:256).  Ross records several other respectful practices also, including slitting the throat of a slain game animal to release its life-force (p. 257).   He also watched as a youngster borrowed his great-grandfather‘s traps and went out to trap coyotes without thinking to carry out the necessary ritual; the elder expected both of them would now be kept awake at night by the laughter of the coyotes, who, of course, would laugh at the trapper rather than approaching the traps (Ross 2011:290). 

Plants too had to be respected; when berrying, shouting “to a distant partner…was considered as being disrespetful to the plants” and would cause them to withhold berries; recent widows could not pick (Ross 2011:352).  Ceremonies, especially for the very valuable huckleberries, paid respect to the berry plants.  Roots were the subject of ceremonies, including the rather touching one that recognized a young girl when she got her first digging stick and another when she dug her first root—which was, of course, given away (Ross 2011:335; or the root might be worn as a charm).  Wild rose was ritually very important, used to drive away evil spirits and influences, cleanse after a death, and the like; brushes of the plants were used, and water in which flowers or hips were soaked (Ross 2011:351 and passim). 

Finally, a particularly touching example of respect and care is the universal custom of leaving something for the rodents when taking resources they use.  People often find and steal the caches of seeds, nuts, and roots that rodents make, but they always leave enough to keep the animals from starving.  Ross (2011:249) reports that, also, cattail leaves were left for squirrels for nesting material.  This has some self-interest to recommend it—without the mice, no more caches—but less practical is the widespread tendency to leave something valuable to humans also. 
 

Similar beliefs extend to Mexico.  A Nahuatl fish-trapping charm recorded around 1600 says, in part:   “I have come to lay for you your oriole arbor, your oriole fence, within which you will be happy, within which you will rejoice, within which you will seek all kinds of food, the flowery food…My elder sister the Lady of Our Sustenance…spread out for you your oriole mat, your oriole seat…she is awaiting you with her atole drink…” (Ruiz de Alarcón 1982:166-167, modified).  The oriole arbor is a fish trap, and this is a charm to lure fish into it!  Apparently the idea of promising much to a flighty water-creature is widespread. 

Finally, the K’iche’ Maya of Guatemala do not allow men to touch the metates that the women use to grind maize, because for a man to touch it “shows the stone no respect” (Searcy 2011:93).  I have not heard this among the Yucatec Maya, who are less sharply gender-divided than the K’iche’, but certainly the idea of respect for stones—let alone living beings—is thoroughly established among the Yucatec too.  My Yucatec friends respected animals—domestic, game, or useless—and would completely understand the Spokan hunter.  They took pride, for instance, in killing with one shot, and were both ashamed and heartbroken when they wounded a game animal and thus made it suffer.

Respect also must be given to the supernatural powers (as in all cultures).  In Haida Gwaii (Haida Land—the Queen Charlotte Islands), every stream has a Creek Woman, a female supernatural who guards and protects that creek and its salmon.  A man once swore at the Creek Woman of Pallant Creek, because he kept losing his hat—one he was not entitled to wear in any case.  The woman destroyed the whole town (Enrico 1995:160-169).  This prohibition on disrespect for spirit guardians of waters carries right across the Bering Strait, being important to the Mongols (Roux 1984:132ff.).  Insulting supernaturals draws collective punishment, as did disrespect for God in ancient Israel.  

Natcher et al. (2005) describe a situation in which Native people—Tutchone, in the Yukon— resisted advice from biologists to release caught fish that were small-sized or rare.  The Native persons insisted that this would be disrespectful to the fish, whose spirits would be offended.   Moreover, sport fishing was even more disrepectful of the fish—it was wanton destruction for fun.  Needless to say, these beliefs made for major problems in communication between the Tutchone and the Anglo-Canadian biologists.  McIlwraith (2007:123) found the same opinion among the nearby Tahltan-speaking Dene of Iskut.  Other conflicts between Native thinking and biologists’ “scientific management” surface (Schreiber and Newell 2006).

However, respect can be anti-conservation as well.  Respect includes taking an animal that offers itself to you.  This is another belief shared all round the subarctic, from the Cree (Brightman 1993) to the Yukaghir (Willerslev 2007:35; see the already-cited sources for the Northwest, with a particularly good discussion in Nadasdy 2004).  In fact, it goes right down to South America.  In Paraguay, a Native American game management program ran into heavy water because the local people, the Yshiro, were willing to conserve, but had to take peccaries that offered themselves, thus severely discomfiting the biologists (Blaser 2009; there was special concern for the rare and local Flat-headed Peccary). 

The offering-and-reincarnating belief can thus become a charter for overhunting.  This has occurred among the Yukaghir, who have the same basic beliefs about animals as the Northwest Coast peoples, but are now seriously overhunting game (Willerslev 2007:30-35).  Rapid decline in game numbers are met with the pathetic line I have heard from fishermen all over the world:  “They’ve just gone elsewhere for a while.”  However, even the Yukaghir have traces of a respect-by-not-overhunting belief.  Thus Willerslev expresses very well a tension clearly found all over the Siberian and Native American world:  “In fact, it would be fair to say that we find two polar tendencies in Yukaghir subsistence paractices:  One in the direction of overpredation…, the other in the direction of limiting one’s killings to an absolute minimum….” (Willerslev 2007:49).  The Yukaghir have rather different reasons for this from Native Americans, but the basic ideas are the same.  The Yukaghir’s neighbors, including the Mongols, Tuvans (Kenin-Lopsan 1997), and Tungus, are far more conservationist in their ideology and behavior, but face some of the same tension.

However, even the Yukaghir must have once had a stronger restraint on hunting.  They would long ago have hunted themselves into suicidal starvation without it.  Apparently, Soviet cultural oppression (chronicled in harrowing detail by Willerslev) ended it.  (Willerslev cites Soviet ethnography claiming that massive overhunting is aboriginal and traditional in the Arctic, but this is so obviously tendentious as to be ridiculous.  The Siberian Arctic has been settled for centuries by Russians, and their devastating cultural impact on hunting beliefs as on everything else was felt by the early 18th century; see e.g. Georg Steller’s observations in Kamchatka in the 1740s [Steller 2003].) 

Similar problems with overhunting, justified by reincarnation, are reported for eastern Canada (Brightman 1993; Krech 1999; Martin 1978).  Similar cultural pressures from settlers have occurred there.  Most sources seem to maintain that eastern Canadian hunters maintain respect and hunt with some care (Berkes 1999), but unquestionably there has been heavy hunting in the past, especially in the fur trade days (Martin 1978).  Overhunting by Native people does occur in the Northwest, but I am convinced from my own experience and that of other researchers I know that overhunting is far less common than it would be otherwise—and far less common than among local whites.  The Coast Salish traditions, for instance, hold that a family could take only one grouse per year (Krohn and Segrest 2010:97)—a tight limit.

The rigors of hunting must be undergone, partly to show the animals that the hunter really wants and needs them.  If they then come to care about the hunter and the people dependent on hunting success, they will offer themselves.  On the other hand, if the hunter has offended them, they will take off and be unapproachable.  Sometimes a mountain can withhold them.  Near Iskut is a hill called Stingy Mountain, because the mountain goats there are notoriously good at escaping hunters.  An outsider would probably find that the mountain affords good lookout and listening posts for the wary goats, but the local people say the mountain is deliberately refusing to let them be hunted (McIlwraith 2007:116).  Among the Yukaghir, even one’s own protective spirit can be stingy (Willerslev 2007:43), but I have not encountered this idea on the Northwest Coast.

Thus, if an animal offers itself, it has to be killed.  It spirit goes on to reincarnate in another animal.  Hence the problem with fish, above, and similar problems with moose conservation (again the same problem surfaces for the Yukaghir).  McIlwraith (2007) reports that the people of Iskut refrain from killing cow moose when they possibly can, especially if the cow is likely to be pregnant; so, if a cow just stands there when a hunter comes up on her, the hunter is in a terrible quandary.  The ban on killing female game animals in breeding season (and moose pregnancies last almost a year) is widespread if not often emphasized in the literature (see e.g. Miller 1999:98 for the Salish), and is another part of the “respect” rule that says “don’t waste.”

In fact, this dilemma has caused confusion for both indigenous people and anthropologists.  The indigenous people must always decide whether respect in the form of not taking too much or respect in the form of taking what is offered prevail in a given situation.  The anthropologists argue about whether the “natives” “conserve” or not, depending largely on whether they have observed people take what is offered or go with the conserving option.  Individual hunters differ greatly in this regard.  I suspect the general pattern is what I found among my Maya friends:  the greedier ones go with taking what is offered, the more thoughtful ones with conservation.

This brings us back to the problem that, since the animals’ souls go on to reincarnate, there is little recognition of the finite quality of game.  A Cree (from eastern, not western, Canada) told Harvey Feit (2006):  “The animals are still there, they just do not want to be caught.”  Obviously this attitude is unhelpful for conservation.  Long experience with hunters and fishers of all races, however, teaches me that almost all of them say this, whether or not they believe in reincarnation of animal souls.  Fishermen in particular almost never admit the fish are actually getting scarce.  The fish are always out there, “just not biting today.”  Sometimes they secretly know the truth, and will admit that over a drink, but usually they are genuinely in denial; such at least is my experience, studying fisheries development in many countries. 

Critically, however, respect also involves the point mentioned above:  not taking more than one needs for immediate consumption.  This includes family and needy neighbors.  It also includes guests, especially for rituals involving necessary feasting.  A large feast may mean a very large take.  Still, taking too many animals is always bad and disrespectful and always is subject to punishment.  This clause frightens even the greedy (if they are at all traditional in their beliefs).  It succeeds well in practice, as I know from experience in both the Northwest Coast and Maya Mexico. 

The animal, when dead, must still be treated with respect, since its spirit lives on and takes notice.  This is particularly true in more northerly groups.  Inuit and Yuit groups offered fresh water to kills, and treated them respectfully; disrespecting a dead animal could lead to major accidents (see e.g. Jolles 2002).  Cutting up a dead walrus disrespectfully was thought to lead to the terrible winter of 1878, and more recently disrespect to a slain bear caused a snowmobile crash and human death (Jolles 2002: 98-9, 183).  Once again, this extends across the Bering Straits, reaching an apogee in the bear cult of the Ainu. 

Significantly, only wild game is thought of this way.  Domestic animals get less respect.

 “Respect,” however, goes much farther than this.  One does not speak ill of animals, or insult them.  Saying anything disparaging about a fresh kill is particularly serious (see e.g. McIlwraith 2007:115).  Animals must be killed as cleanly and painlessly as possible.  McIlwraith was told quite graphically to be sure a fish was dead before gutting it:  “’How would you like to be gutted if you were still alive?’” (McIlwraith 2007:117; I remember being told similar things by Anglo fishermen in my childhood).  Very widely throughout the Northwest, fresh water is offered to a newly-killed animal (especially sea mammals, along the coast).  Various ceremonies, some of them extremely elaborate, must be performed.  A large animal may be decorated before being brought home.  This practice extends right across the Bering Strait into Siberia, where it is widespread.  Permission must be asked, and thanks given, even to small bushes and herbs for use of their valued parts (see e.g. Turner 2014-2:316-320, and for ceremonial recognition 326-328, 337-342). 

Many geological features remind children of such matters.  Typical is a story McIlwraith (2007:146) brings us from Iskut:  A hunter protested against a goat refusing to be caught, and the hunter and his dog were promptly turned to stone.  The rock is evidently one of those vaguely human-shaped rocks that people everywhere love to tell stories about.  It is pointed out to children as a cautionary tale.  There are similar cautionary rocks everywhere in the Northwest, and for that matter throughout the world.

An actual recent event—not a folktale—was related by Lawrence Aripa (quoted in Frey 1995:177-179).  There was an individual named Cosechin who was a doctor and prophet of the 19th century (see Pryor 1999).  However, this story probably does not apply to him, but to another Cosechin, or to some generic bad actor who has, in the story, picked up the name.  In any case, it is considered historically true.  The ellipses represent Mr. Aripa’s pauses in the story, not my leaving out material; italics represent spoken emphasis. 

A person named Cosechin

“was just cruel…to animals.

He would knock down trees

            and not use them.

He would grab leaves from the trees in the springtime

            and scatter them to try to kill the trees.

And you know it’s the custom of the Indian that when they’re going to use

something from a tree

            or…even fish or hunt,

                        they…ask permission first…

                                    ‘Mr. Tree may I use some part of you

                                                or I need it…for warmth for my children,’”

And so on.  Cosechin treated humans just as badly, but notice the animals and plants come first.

Cosechin was told to reform, and threatened.  He shaped up for a while, but

            “he went back to his old ways like. 

And then…all of a sudden…he disappeared….” 

The obvious implication is that someone did away with him, and no one was about to inquire into the matter.  There are many similar stories in the literature.

The Northwest Coast and the Quintana Roo Maya definitely prefer—or used to prefer—to err on the side of caution.  The literature suggests that overhunting seems much more common in Siberia and perhaps east Canada.  Again, I suspect this is due to outside influence, but there is a difference of opinion on this (Brightman 1993; Krech 1999). And the Northwest Coast people explicitly credit past overhunting for their conservationist rules.

To western biologists, the combination of intimate knowledge and “exotic beliefs” is incomprehensible.  Conversely, to First Nations people, the biologists’ cold numbers and impersonal regard for animals as mere statistics is incomprehensible.  Nadasdy describes many cases of nonmeeting of minds.  These would be hilariously funny if they were not so tragic, but in fact they are tragic, because the biologists generally win, with disastrous consequences not only for the Native people but for the animal populations.  Nadasdy (2007) has more recently argued for adopting the Native viewpoint on spirits and personhood among animals, or at least a willing suspension of disbelief regarding it.

We can now, however, see why the First Nations believe as they do.  They relate to the animals through lived experience, not through abstract book-learning.  Thus their knowledge and teaching are experiential and procedural, not analytic and declarative.  Being close to the animals in question makes avoiding the agency heuristic difficult or impossible.  The animals are assumed to have a human consciousness within them.  They can talk, and even take off their animal skins and appear in humanoid form.  Because of these things, relationships with the animals are intensely emotional, and the emotions in question are complex and deep.  Finally, this emotionality drives a relationship of mutual power and mutual empowerment; the animal persons have their power, humans have theirs.  Biologists, on the other hand, assert a particular kind of power/knowledge and also represent the power of the State intruding on local societies (Nadasdy produces an excellent, detailed Foucaultian account of this). 

The recent work in northwest Canada, and similar work elsewhere, is surprisingly disconnected from cognitive anthropology.  This was not true of earlier researchers like Robin Ridington, and is not true of some modern ones like Leslie Johnson, but most of the above-cited authors seem ignorant of the cognitive anthropology literature, or at least do not cite it.  Yet, they could profit from cognitive anthropology at least as much as cognitive anthropology can profit from the Canadian research.  Cognitive anthropology can benefit from their attention to total phenomenological experience, especially the embodied and procedural types of knowledge and the awareness of emotional and moral responses.  The Canadian researchers and their equivalents elsewhere could benefit greatly from cognitive anthropology’s rigorous investigation of specific word meanings and semantic domains, from procedures to assess cultural consensus and variability, from awareness of models and the relationship of models to reality, and, in short, from much greater awareness of exactly what they are recording and how to make sure they are getting it precisely right. 

Some of them would fear this as too scientistic or cut-and-dried, or too limited to small domains like firewood taxonomy.  Yet, one need only recall such studies as Steven Feld’s Sound and Sentiment (1982) or Keith Basso’s Wisdom Sits in Places (1996), which are thoroughly sophisticated in use of ethnosemantic and psychological methodologies, to realize that extremely sensitive and humanistic studies of feeling and experience can benefit from cognitivist techniques.  Both groups can benefit from more attention to the immediate experiential bases of knowledge; both have dealt with the issue at some length, but traditional cognitivists have often confined their attention to limited and rational systems, while some of the newer researchers are prone to think in generalizations (like Nadasdy’s highly defined and rather stereotypic contrasts of “hunters and bureaucrats”), and could pay more detailed attention to fine-grained systems.

The Northwest Coast and North Woods Native peoples have a cosmology that is not only “spiritual” but intensely moral.  They ask for permission before taking anything from nature; I have seen women ask permission of a tree to take a bit of its bark.  In regard to animals, respectful treatment is required:  killing only for necessity, not killing too many at a time, treating the remains in accord with ritual regulations that communicate respect, giving away one’s first kill (especially for male hunters) or first basket of berries (for girls; to elders; Gahr 2013:68) and much of one’s subsequent meat take, and so on through countless rules.  There were ceremonies for the first salmon taken in the year, and also first fruits and first roots ceremonies (Gahr 2013:68 for the Chinook, but every well-described group reports them or something equivalent).  These are taught through myths—typically stories that communicate the dreadful consequences of not following the rules (Anderson 1996).

As so often, related ideas from the nearest parts of Eurasia illumine these relationships.  Siberians—both hunters and herders—butchering animals may apologize, or pray, or even say “I had no idea to kill, I killed you by mistake” (Stépanoff et al. 2017:58).  Herders maintain the attitudes of hunters, and vice versa; they all know the animals of their neighborhood, they treat them with respect, and then care for them in life and, ritually, in death.  Animals have souls and spirit power, and agency not only in normal animal ways but in spiritual and sacral ways. 

Kinship is closely involved in this.  Extended kinship groups (widely called “clans,” though not always such in technical anthropological usage) are religiously and ritually constituted, and succession to leadership titles in them is by means of potlatch involving wealth donations and feasting.  Clans in turn own and control resources.  Naturally, as was observed as long ago as 1826, an individual of authority in a clan, when hunting, “is particularly careful neither killing too many himself nor allowing any to do so” (William Brown, quoted Fiske and Patrick 2000:128).  In this group—the Babine—as in others, the clan maintained the fishing weirs and owned the fishing stations.  By introducing individual nets, the Canadian settlers ruined this arrangement, which of course had unfortunate knock-on effects on the entire kinship system as well as on resource management.  Enforcing conservation is almost automatic in a clan-owned weir but almost impossible in a world of individually-owned nets.

On the Northwest Coast, knowledge is divided sharply into esoteric vs public.  Esoteric is divided in turn into knowledge of shamans and knowledge of secret-society initiates.  Public knowledge is divided into special ritual and mythic knowledge of chiefs and ordinary knowledge available to everybody.  Most “science”—that is, empirical knowledge not depending on supernatural belief—is in the public sphere, but not herbal medicine, which is mostly a shaman specialty.  These other ways of dividing up and classifying knowledge are valuable in their particular situations. 

            Athabaskan knowledge is rarely formally discursive.  In other words, people rarely talk about it in general principles.  Significantly, conservation is an exception here, at least among some Athabaskans (Nelson 1983); others are much less prone to talk about conservation in general, but still talk about management rules (McIlwraith 2007).  People are quite conscious of, and vocal about, the need to manage and to harvest selectively. On the other hand, education was thorough, systematic, extensive, and carefully managed (Mandeville 2009:199-204).  It was done through a combination of field training and apprenticeship, myths and tales, ordinary storying, and plain old-fashioned outright explanation.

Teaching and discussimg was most usually done via stories—highly personal, specific, geographically grounded narratives (Cruikshank 1998, 2005; Frey 1995; Goulet 1998; Legat 2012; Mandeville 2009).   This is true of all Native Americans, from Alaska to my Maya friends in Yucatan.  In fact, it is worldwide.  I am used to it, not only from field work, but—much more—from my own rural and small-town youth.  All knowledge about hunting, fishing, and the outdoors was illustrated with stories, or told purely in story form, by my Anglo-American elders.  Talking about anything so grounded in personal experience and local knowledge is simply not reasonably done any other way.

Education was gender- and kin-structured.  Among the matrilineal Gitksan, for instance, much education was expected to come from the father’s side.  This was partly due to gender roles (a father would teach his son hunting), but partly to the desire to keep the father’s side involved in the ordinary and ritual life of the child.  Many privileges, ritual and ceremony came from the mother’s side, since the child would succeed to those, not to his or her father’s privileges.  Conversely, in patrilineal societies, a mother and her kin would teach the child both women’s work and their own family stories and privileges.

Other education processes involve meetings of the whole community, which may involve long and ritualized speeches and ceremonial rhetoric in general, as well as storytelling.  The Okanagan have a political process known as En’owkin (Armstrong 2005a), basically a council meeting of a type familiar over most of Native North America.  Everyone gets together and talks out issues, with elders—not necessarily older people, but rather citizens with special knowledge or political ability—address the issues.  Sharing and community are addressed as major values in such meetings. 

Conformity was less important than having one’s own spirit visions.  For the Kwakwaka’wakw (and they are not alone): “Everyone had to be divided from the familiar, the ‘natural,’ so that he could see freshly and learn to act according to circumstances and not according to routine.  The anti-social hero is typicallyl he who ‘looks through’ society.  I was one of the main aims of Kwakiutl society to use his insight…It would be true..to say of Kwakiutl society that it was based on common dissent.  Every member was carefully trained to be able to decide for himself” (S. Reid 1981:250-251; this was and is as true for women as for men). 

9.  Worldviews Underwriting Knowledge:  Confrontations between Native and Anglo-American Views

            The Native Americans have constructed a whole worldview from such experiential knowledge and from the logical conclusions they draw from it.  Given the well-demonstrated human psychological tendency to infer agency whenever possible, they inferred that there are spirits in the trees and animals, or divine game-masters guarding them.  The daughter of the spirit guardian of fish, for instance, might marry a forsaken boy and provide him with rich stocks of fish, as in a Wishram folktale (Sapir 1990:169). They also inferred many more mundane things, such as the idea that earthquakes are caused by monstrous fish or animals moving about. 

These views and many others, some reasonable, some shamanistic illuminations, comprise a whole cosmovision, or ontology—far more than a “religion” in the ordinary sense, far more than a mere worldview or creation story.  It is different from the western scientific view, and even from western religious stories, constructed as those are by priests and theologians.  A cosmovision based entirely on logical developments from direct, embodied, experiential knowledge is an amazing and wondrous creation (on Northwest Coast worldviews, see Turner’s superb overview, 2014-2:24-350, which defies summary but emphasizes the personhood of plants and landscapes including mountains and rocks). 

As Fiske and Patrick say (citing Theresa O’Neill), “Western philosophy marginalizes morality and spirituality as optional while ‘perceiving practical principles of processes of production, reproduction and power relations as basic to human life everywhere….’ Western notions of the self based on economics and the individual as opposed to notions of the self based on spirituality and the group underlie conflicts that arise in efforts ot create autonomous and/or parallel legal orders” (Fiske and Patrick 2000:236-237).  This is clearly a bit overdrawn—western thought does not consider morality optional!—but there is a real point here.  Both the fusion of spiritual, ethical, and practical in Native Northwest Coast thought, and the application of all three to both human and nonhuman persons, are really totally different from anything in the western tradition. 

On the potlatch, they quote the early anthropologist Pliny Earle Goddard to good purpose:  “There are perhaps two main principles involved; first that all events of social or political interest must be publicly witnessed; and second that those who perform personal or social service must be puiblicly recompensed.  There is a third more general social law that all guests on all occasions must be fed”  (Fiske and Patrick 2000:218, quoting Goddard 1934:1311.)

Thus, as Nadasdy points out in a passage that should be read by all those interested in traditional knowledge (2004:112), anyone analyzing traditional worldviews cannot separate out the knowledge that outsiders see as “practical” from the knowledge that outsiders see as “mere cultural belief.” 

One can, to be sure, take the clearly useful knowledge out of context and use it, but this does not represent the traditional view.  It is, thus, inadequate for comanagement or co-work purposes.  Yet, bureaucrats and outsiders generally have major problems with this; total acceptance of the Native view means accepting those giant earthquake-causing fish.  One can only hope for understanding.  There is never pure acceptance. 

Nadasdy sees no real hope of cooperation.  The bureaucrats must assert power over knowledge, the Native people must lose.  This is partly guaranteed, as he points out, by the fact that “numbers” and “scientific” evidence is all that is taken seriously by the Canadian government and its agencies; local knowledge is “mere anecdote” or “unverified.”  A better way of assessing local knowledge is desperately needed.

However, Nadasdy, and some other recent anthropologists (such as Jean-Guy Goulet 1998), in otherwise superb accounts of such knowledge, reify and essentialize culture.  They see experiential knowledge as confined to First Nations, and revealing “incommensurability”—that word again (Nadasdy 2004:62ff)—with bioscientific knowledge.  This is not the case—as Nadasdy admits (footnote, 2004:277), undermining his whole claim.  The Native people obviously have an incredible pragmatic knowledge of their resources, and that is fully commensurable with genuine bioscientific knowledge.  What is incommensurable is the abstract ontology behind the different views:  the Native spiritual one and the biologists’ lab-based reductionism. 

As to the wider issue of incommensurability, however, Nadasdy is working from a highly essentialized view of  “culture.”  He appears to see a culture as a perfectly integrated, rather unchanging whole.  My more practical view allows me to be more open about learning from others.  I bake bread by feel rather than by recipe; I use stoneground whole wheat flour, and used to grind my own.  My only modern convenience is a gas-fired oven.  In short, I bake bread the same way as the nameless women who invented it (except they used wood as the fuel).  I cannot imagine what their worldview was like, but the bread is pretty much the same.  Bread cares little about cosmovision, but—as every baker knows—it is a living thing, thanks to its vibrantly alive yeast networks, and knows a sure hand from an incompetent one.  In the ways that matter to it, those wonderful women of old are with me in my kitchen, and we all meet in perfect understanding.

Similarly, my elders in the Anglo-American midwest and south had many of the same attitudes as the Northwest Coast peoples.  We children were taught to kill animals cleanly, not take too many, not let them suffer, and so on.  We were taught to look down on indiscriminate shooters.  Moreover, many, if not most, hunters and fishers believed that ultimately a catch was a gift from God, not just a matter of your own skill.  You had to be grateful accordingly.  This all goes a fair way to bridging the gap between “indigenous” and “western.”

Worldviews do indeed influence the realities of counting sheep (Nadasdy 2004), but do not prevent comparison of the results.  Nadasdy’s main example of a failure to communicate does not involve cosmovision at all, but was a simple disagreement over whether the local mountain sheep were overhunted or not.  The more knowledgeable Native Americans thought so, and had all the good evidence.  The biologists thought otherwise, after hearing from powerful trophy-hunter interests.  One need not go beyond common sense, of a sourly cynical sort, to understand this disagreement. 

If people are trapped in narrow views, that is not incommensurability at work.  It is just ordinary narrowness.  In the case of Settler society not understanding Native society, it is all too often mere racism.  

McIlwraith (2007) appears to argue that biologists are so trapped in a mentality of lists and reductions that they cannot and therefore should not use “TEK” at all—they would only corrupt it.  This does not fit the practice of biologists I know (and I know many biologists).  In any case, there are real reasons to pick out the most useful bits of traditional knowledge and bring them into wider practice.  Of course it does violence to the holistic vision of culture, but so does all technical and medical practice.  Does one treat malaria, or contemplate its holistic phenomenology?  There is a place for the latter, and it may even be necessary in some sense, but direct treatment is what we usually wish.

            The Native view generates a particular morality, one of caring and nurturing; animals are protected and conserved out of “respect” or care, rather than because of mathematical models of populations (Nadasdy 2004).  Nadasdy points out that the Native people he knew tended to think of the mathematical models as disrespectful; they treated animals like things, instead of like the people—or “other-than-human persons”—that they are.  Readers who find this strange should think of pets.  Are dogs and cats in Anglo-American society mere numbers in a population graph, or are they individuals with complex lives and moral claims?  How would you, dear reader, feel if your pet were a mere number, to be culled if there are several other dogs in town?  This, in fact, occurred in northeast Canada, when Inuit dogs were indiscriminately killed in the mid-twentieth century, leaving the Inuit utterly heartbroken.

This is not to imply that wild animals are “pets” to the Native Americans; they are not.  They are hunted for food.  They are seen as having spirits that are powerful and often dangerous.  The point is that they are known to be complex, deep, individual beings, not just numbers or soulless automatons.  In this the Native people are more right than the scientists; animals may not have powerful guardian spirits, but they are certainly not automatons or mere creatures of instinct.  That view of them stems from the religious views of Descartes and his peers, who were concerned about souls, not science.  Long discredited in serious science, it remains basic to bureaucratic management.  Biologists talk of “harvesting” game, setting Indigenous peoples’ teeth on edge.

Proof that we are dealing with practical experience rather than essentialized Culture is found in eastern California.  There, ranchers who know the land and wildlife from experience find it impossible to deal with, or communicate with, biologists who know it only from books (Hedrick 2007).  Even though cows exist only to be sold for slaughter, they are not mere numbers to the ranchers; they are living beings with personalities and with needs for care.  Even though grass is merely a food for cows rather than a spirit being, the ranchers can tell if it is overgrazed or not; the biologists are clueless, and assume the worst, thus ham-handedly interfering with ranching.  So we wind up with serious disagreements among people who not only share an Anglo-American culture but in some cases actually took more or less the same general science courses in college!  Particularly ironic is that the biologists in Hedrick’s study took  the same superior, unwilling-to-listen attitude to the ranchers that Nadasdy’s bureaucrats did to the people of Yukon, though the ranchers were not only from the same culture but a good deal richer, and often better educated, than the biologists.  Status in these transactions does not depend solely on race or socioeconomic position.

            Nadasdy and many others have noted the double-bind in which indigenous people are often placed:  if they change with the times, they are no longer practicing their “traditional, authentic” culture and thus need no consideration, but if they do not change, they are “locked in blind tradition.”  Of course there was never a frozen “traditional, authentic” time.  They deserve consideration for what they have, not what they supposedly once had.  The Maya of Chunhuhub, within the time of my work there, have added several plants (such as Hawaiian noni and South American passion fruit) to their gardens, have tried out and abandoned pesticides, and have even taken to computers, but their culture and cosmovision still live.  They are getting more and more comfortable with international bioscience, abstract and rationalized as it is, but their direct knowledge, and the distinctive Maya culture built from that, go on.

            Nadasdy is contrasting an extremely traditional and land-based group with an extremely urban bureaucratic world.  The Anglo-Canadians who deal with the Kluane First Nation are often totally ignorant of the bush and are also trapped in Weberian bureaucratic rationalism.  Wildlife biologists who know nothing about wildlife except from books try to deal with people who know everything about wildlife but have hardly read a book.  Thus, though the contrast he evokes is not all-pervasive or intrinsic, it is certainly real and extreme in northwest Canada (as I can attest from my own research there).  Native peoples who have never seen a city try to deal with city bureaucrats who have never seen a moose.  The result is predictable, and chaotic.  Culture is real, and the fact that it is not necessarily destiny is easy to forget in the Yukon.  But personal experience is real too, and surely the Kluane would be much more able to deal with Hedrick’s ranchers than with biologists turned bureaucrat.

            Nadasdy is on surer ground when contrasting Native and bureaucratic views of the land as “property.”  The Athapaskan peoples were more or less nomadic.  They used the land, they managed it, they had a strong sense of it and of who belonged to what area, but of course they did not have a concept of formal title and deed, either collective or individual.  They were, however, not even remotely like the mere aimless wanderers on a vast unowned space, as the Canadian government officially held them to be (until very recently).  Since “property” and “title,” and even “rights” to land, are legal fictions rather than experience-derived knowledge, they are more amenable to Nadasdy’s cultural-idealist analysis.  Among other things, he points out (2004:233) that modern notions of “property” were developed partly in conscious opposition to the old (and mistaken) view of Native Americans as mere wanderers who owned and managed not at all.  He is, of course, referring primarily to John Locke’s famous, or infamous, line:  “In the beginning, all the world was America” (Locke 1924:140.)

This said, the contrast between ageless, culturally constructed, “spiritual” Native knowledge and rational, cut-and-dried “Western” knowledge is greatly overdrawn in much of the literature.  It has everything to do with the stereotypes of “the Indian” in romantic literature, from Locke to Chateaubriand and J. Fenimore Cooper to Walt Disney’s Pocahontas.  The Indian was sure and silent in the forest, taught by instinct and by native cunning.  His (or even “her”) knowledge was innate and mystical.  The westerner can never match the Indian’s woodcraft, but the Indian can never be rational and civilized like the westerner, and attempts to make Indians civilized end in dismal failure—Pocahontas’ archetypal death and Nadasdy’s community’s alcohol abuse.

            The problem comes not from contrasting a basically spiritual and moral view with a basically reductionist and materialist one—that is real enough in these cases—but from overdrawing the contrast.  Native knowledge is dynamic, flexible, experience-driven, and basically practical.  So is much of Western knowledge.  Native Americans construct from their local knowledge a spiritual cosmovision that has certain logical features, notably spirits of the animal and plant world.  Westerners had similar beliefs until recently, and many east California ranchers believe strongly in a Christianity that involves an intimate, personalistic relationship between God, humanity, and the land (Monica Argandona, pers. comm.; Hedrick 2007).  Perhaps many urban Westerners have become “rational” in Weber’s sense, but Westerners too have experiential and spiritual knowledge. 

Morality is constructed from experience, in all societies—indigenous or not.  Morals emerge and are negotiated within the family, the immediate peer group, and the local community—however far they may then be extended.  Westerners tend to confine morality to human persons, but do extend it at least to pets, and often to livestock and wild animals (at least “charismatic megafauna”). 

            Thus, cultural essentialization and reification fail.  Culture is not an arbitrary crust, a frozen crystalline array, or a unified, harmonious whole.  It is a lot of working knowledge, shared to varying degrees, constructed into varying levels of abstraction, and—above all—moralized.  It works from actual behavior to necessary working rules, and from there to abstract rules, covering both “is” and “ought.” 

            It is, thus, not deduced from general principles or from its big, broad covering assumptions or laws.  Quite the reverse:  the latter are induced from the daily practice.  They are, to exactly the extent that they are general and all-covering, removed from reality.  Reality tells us how to catch a fish, how to make a snare, how to ride a horse.  From this working knowledge we have to go farther and farther into speculation if we want grand generalizations.  We induce or infer these from increasingly abstracted principles.  The final claims—animals are persons, God is an angry god, science is objective—are the farthest from daily experience.  They do feed back on practice, as in the miscounted sheep, but even then the truth on the ground is more complex.  Racism and greed had much more to do with the sheep count than worldviews did.

10.  Teachings and Stories

            Northwest Coast storytellers are famous (Frey and Hymes 1998; Hymes and Seaburg 2013).  Folklore scholar Rodney Frey reports that he observed Mari Watters, Nez Perce storyteller, hear a twenty-minute dramatic Sioux presentation that was new to her, and promptly reproduce it with her own added touches (Frey 1995:152).  Experts on tales were not just any oldster; stories were associated with high status.  The Tsimshian ethnographer William Beynon—one of the greatest ethnographers of all time, but almost forgotten because he was Native—was a high chief (Halpin 1978; Roth 2008:78), and this gave him power and possession over many stories (MacDonald and Cove 1987).  An entire long book of superb stories of animals and divinities has come from notes taken by early ethnographers on the narrations of Coquelle Thompson, an Oregon Coast Athabaskan (Seaburg 2007).  Nancy Turner has compiled dozens of stories relating to plant management (2014-2:231-296).  Crisca Bierwert, story collector herself, has analyzed sensitively the problems of collecting and publishing Native traditions, and the variations, multiple versions, and sometimes downright corruptions that occur (Bierwert 1999).

            These stories get around—sometimes around the world.  Franz Boas (2006 [1895]:660) traced many elements all over North America and even to Asia.  Some, like the Flood, Swan Maiden, and Orpheus stories, are almost worldwide.  In a marvelous collection of tales from the Thompson Indians of south-central British Columbia (Hanna and Henry 1995), Annie York tells a version of the Swan Maiden myth that harmoniously blends European and Native elements of this story—known all across the Holarctic from Ireland to Canada.  It is delightful to see the ends meet this way.  (See also Snyder 1979—a study of this myth in Haida Gwaii and elsewhere, done by the great poet Gary Snyder, in his early days as an anthropology student.)

            Local stories capture truths.  A recent analysis showed that myths of a vast serpent under the earth coincide perfectly with the location of the giant east-west fault that endangers Seattle (Krajick 2005).  The local Salish had obviously observed enough earthquakes to know where to expect them, and they shared the worldwide, and thoroughly common-sense, belief that earthquakes are caused by a monster in the earth shaking himself.  (I have run into exactly the same belief in China, where people know that dramatic scarp faces are earthquake-prone locations, and hold that a dragon in the earth is responsible.  It is worth noting that the scientific explanation for earthquakes has been discovered within my lifetime.  When I was in college, the dragon was still as good an explanation as anything dominant in the geology of that era.)

            All Northwest Coast groups that have been studied report teachings about conservation and wise management.  These include cautionary tales, outright instruction, prayers, and other oral literature (see e.g. Ignace and Ignace 2017:203-210).

            Throughout the Northwest Coast, stories tell of people who were disrespectful to fish, mountain goats, and other animals, only to have these prey animals move away, leaving people to starve.  Native American ethnographers often stress these, and non-Native anthropologists have learned to recognize their importance as moral conservation teachings. 

Tsimshian ethnographer Charles Menzies repeats from the earlier Tsimshian ethnographer William Beynon a story of a salmon woman who married Raven, the creator-trickster; of course he inevitably disrespected her (his way) and she and the salmon left him to starve.  Other stories tell of disrespectful behavior toward salmon that lead to the same result (Menzies 2016:87-90). Menzies concludes:  “If respected, they will reward the harvester.  History has taught us that catching too much salmon…will result in a marked decline or total extirpation…The same history has also shown that not taking enough seems to have a similar effect [because of overspawning or disease—ENA].  Thus the oral histories provide guidelines…” (Menzies 2016:90). 

The Coos of Oregon told a story of children who caught and roasted a raccoon, laughing at its shrinking up and looking funny while roasting, all died except one who did not laugh.  This was universally known and taught to keep kids from laughing at animals (but the irrepressible Annie Miner Peterson, narrator of this story to ethnographer Melville Jacobs [1940:146-147], said she laughed anyway, and survived).  Peterson also narrated a story of a man who was pitied by the supernaturals for his poverty; he was given a strange fish for good luck; his wife made him ask for too much, and he lost the luck (Jacobs 1940:133-135).  This is a version of a story almost universally known from ancient Greece to China to America.

            The origin stories of the Northwest Coast all tell of a Transformer who traveled the world, making it what it is today.  Sometimes he is Raven, Mink or Coyote, sometimes wholly human or wholly supernatural.  Often, supernatural beings opposed him, and he changed them into what they are today.  Most widespread of these stories is that the ancestral Deer was a humanoid, found sharpening two stone knives to kill the Transformer.  The latter jammed the knives onto his forehead and made him a Deer, running off to be food for people henceforth.  More friendly was a powerful fellow transformer who made friends with the hero, and was thus given the privilege of choosing what to be; he chose to become the Nimpkish River (on Vancouver Island; versions in Barbeau 1950:150; Boas 2006 [1895]:306).  That is why this beautiful stream has all the kinds of salmon in it (or had before the logging companies massacred it—to the heartbreak of the Nimpkish people). 

            The close connection of humans and animals comes through in all the myths and tales. 

Myths, as elsewhere, convey the basic moral and personal lessons of the societies that tell them (see e.g. Atleo 2011 for an extended account of their uses in Indigenous education).  Long epics of human/nonhuman transformation and interchange are universal.  Famous examples include the bear-mother story (see e.g. Barbeau 1953:108-146) and a long, brilliant, tightly organized tale of human-salmon transformations and interactions (several versions in Barbeau 1953:338-367).  All these reinforce the general message of respeft for animals and concern for the entire living world. 

            Conservation is promoted by countless stories (Frey and Hymes 1998, esp. pp. 585-587).  Most promote it indirectly, by stressing the importance and interdependence of all plants and animals.  Thus whole books can be almost devoid of specific directions to conserve; Coquelle Thompson’s repertoire has almost nothing, for instance (Seaburg 2007).  But, given the wealth of stories in the northwest, even a small percentage adds up to a huge number of stories.  Many stories include incidental comments about saving a few animals to reproduce and maintain the population (e.g. Mandeville 2009:214).  Sometimes these few are referred to as “seeds.”

The commonest and most widespread concerns a hunter who takes too many animals, is captured by animal powers and taken into a mountain or under a lake, and instructed never to do that.  He is then released if his sins were not too great, but if he wantonly disregarded advice, he dies.  This story occurs with strikingly little variance from Alaska to the Popoluca of far southern Mexico (Foster 1945).  Related stories exist in the Old World, from Tuva (Kenin-Lopsan 1997) to the Caucasus (Tuite 1994). 

Rodney Frey (1995) gives several versions.  Since his book is about Native storytelling, not about animals or conservation, this represents a fair sampling of how important the story is.  The purest form he provides is a Wishram story, originally published by Edward Sapir and beautifully re-edited by Frey, of a man who got elk power, took too many elk, and was punished by death (Frey 1995:197-182 from Sapir 1995:283-285; it is the source of the quotes above on pride and taking too much). 

A happier outcome is found among the Thompson:  the hunter listens to advice.  A hunter of mountain goats was taken in by them in their humanoid form.  (The reasons they took him in are unclear in this version, but in other versions the hunter has helped a goat, or other animal, and been respectful to it, and is rewarded.)  He learned their ways, marrying and having a son in the process.  He returned to teach his people to respect them:  “When you kill goats, treat their bodies respectfully, for they are people.  Do not shoot the female goats, for they are your wives and will bear your children.  Do not kill kids, for they may be your offspring.  Only shoot your brothers-in-law, the male goats.  Do not be sorry when you kill them, for they do not die but return home.  The flesh and skin (the goat part) remain in your possession; but their real selves (the human part) lives just as before, when it was covered with goat’s flesh and skin.”  (Teit 1912:262, quoted Lévi-Strauss 1995:70).  Claude Lévi-Strauss has discussed this myth at length in another context, showing its relationship to other myths of kinship to the animal people. 

            A story from the Klickitat (southern Washington): 

“Coyote would go about hunting;

            he would shoot and kill all sorts of things.

And now then he shot and killed a deer.

Then he butchered it.

There were two young ones in its belly.

He threw them away and left them there,

            at that place there.

The two young deer lay there.

And rain and snow came upon them.

And the Deer who he had killed felt very badly at heart about them.

Then after that Coyote went all over

            and shot and killed nothing.”

For the obvious reason.  He is instructed to sweat in the sweat lodge five times (the Klickitat sacred number) and then never do such a thing again.  He leaves this instruction for human beings, who are soon to come into the world:

“’All right then….

And this is the way the people will do whenever they shoot

            and kill game.

They will carry all of it back home.

Nothing will they throw away.

Alnd always will they sweat for the purpose of the hunt….”

(Joe Hunt, collected and translated by Melville Jacobs in the 1920s, ed. and publ. Frey 1995:49-52)

            Wasting anything killed gets punishment:  no more game.  Note that the slain deer survives in spirit form and is able to bring this about.   Killing a pregnant doe is already bad, and made much worse by the lack of respect shown to the fawns.

            Even relatively useless animals must be treated with respect.  The Haida have a story of people who tortured frogs by burning them, the result being that the frogs burned their village (see e.g. Boas 2006 [1895]:608).

            And even Coyote himself.  He was vital to creation, he made the world what it is, but he was always a zany, greedy, irresponsible, delightfully silly rogue.  The idea of the Creator as a wild, wise, poetic fool not only makes beautiful poetry, it solves the “problem of evil”; evil was created by mistake and by foolishness.  Raven, along the coyote-less northern coast, has a similar role, but is smarter, greedier, and rather more sinister.  Still, he attracts the same mix of respect and scorn.

            One of the finest Coyote narrations ever recorded is Lawrence Aripa’s telling of the Coeur d’Alene story of “Coyote and the Green Spot” (Frey 2001:134-144).  It was originally told in English, allowing us to share the wonderful style that is otherwise inevitably lost in translation.  In it, Coyote’s long-suffering wife Mole reflects:
“This worthless Coyote,

            he’s no good,

                        he’s mischievous,

                                    he does things that are bad…

                                                But he’s a Coyote….

                                                            and we have to have Coyotes on this earth.”

She reflects on this several times as she revives him from the dead—her role in many a Coyote tale. Coyote’s tricks always fail, he always gets killed in the end, but he is always revived—because, as she says, “Well we do need a Coyote.”  He promises to reform when he revives, but of course is soon back to his tricks, and Aripa ends the story:

“But he is still the Coyote,

            and he will always remain the Coyote.”

And we are fortunate in that.

            This sense that all beings are necessary to the world, no matter how inconsequential or annoying they seem, is absolutely basic to Native North American religion, and has been underemphasized in the past.  We need it now.

            A sad indication of how much of the teaching is lost comes from a Salishan tale of a man who went off to join the seals.  (This story reminds us of the were-seal legends of Scotland and Ireland; as so often, Celtic and Northwest Coast thinking run parallel.)  Franz Boas recorded this story in the 1890s (Boas 2006:221-224), but without a moral, leaving it merely a story of a man who unaccountably went off to become a seal.  Around a hundred years later, Honoré Watanabe recorded a version from Sliammon narrator Mary George.  In George’s version, the man is actively captured or persuaded away by the seal folk, and becomes an ancestor of the Sliammon.  She added a long moral (extracted here):

“You always see seals.

            If you see them, you appreciate them.

            Talk nicely to them….

They are a part of us.

That’s why we really respect seals today…..

            Seals are our people.”  (George and Watanabe 2008:128-129.)

A related story was told by Annie Miner Peterson of the Coos (Jacobs 1940:149-150), and a long and complex seal narrative filled with ideals of respect for animals was recorded from Sauk-Suiattle Salish elder Martha Lamont (Bierwert 1996:230-309).  Presumably most other early collectors failed to hear or record morals in cases like this.  We are deprived of many applications that we now need to know.

            Sometimes conservation is stressed indirectly.  The Kutenai culture hero Yaukekam (I am simplifying the spelling) had to get the components of arrows from their animal keepers.  Ducks had the feathers, and he gave them the power to grow a new crop of beautiful feathers every year, freeing up the old ones for fletching, during the annual moult.  (Ducks do not make the greatest arrow feathers, but I assume geese are included here.) 

            These conservation stories were often dramatized in the spectacular winter dance ceremonies.  In 2010 I was privileged (greatly) to see the ?Atla’gimma dance-drama, a forest spirit ceremony owned by four Kwakwaka’wakw families from the Rivers Inlet area.  It was performed at the 33rd annual conference of the Society of Ethnobiology, by kind courtesy of Kwaxsistalla (Adam Dick) and his family.  It is a spectacular performance, involving some twenty dancers masked and costumed as fantastical spirit-beings of the forest.  The story is the standard one known from the Arctic to the Maya of Quintana Roo, Mexico, where my friend Don Jacinto told it to me from his own experience:  a young man goes hunting, takes more than he needs, and is caught by the spirits and warned never to do that again.  The spirits instruct him in how to act properly and respectfully toward the forest and its living beings.  A number of minor points of ecology appear incidentally; a young tree growing from a stump (a universal sight in the Northwest Coast) shows continuity and rebirth.  The full performance is long and extremely dramatic, and is accompanied by many long speeches that thank, bless, and instruct all those present. 

            Plants too can be over-collected.  From Columbia River people comes a story of a mouse who stole too many roots, which loaded her down so much she drowned crossing a creek; mice have been thieves since (Ackerman 1996:21-22).

            In the mid-19th century, Chief Seattle (Sealth, Siatl) gave a famous speech defending his people’s land and land rights.  This speech was, unfortunately, heavily “edited” by a Baptist group in the 20th century; much of the militant defense of land was taken out, and some syrupy Christian-sounding rhetoric substituted.  Alas, the syrupy additions tend to be the parts most often quoted.  This has given rise to a myth that the speech is purely fraudulent.  This is not the case; Seattle’s famous and passionate defense of Indian rights and of the hunting-gathering way of life against White theft and ruin was real.  However, no full version of it appeared for about 30 years, so the one that finally emerged is rather suspect.  Yet, shorn of the purple English added in late versions, it rings true to the general spirit of northwestern American rhetoric of the time.  The whole story has been told by Albert Furtwangler (1997), and by Rudolf Kaiser (1987), who salvaged what can be found of the original.

11. The Visual Art

            In this section I will confine myself to the coast from northwest Washington to Alaska.  The interior and southerly groups have their own art forms.  These are not only very different from the classic “Northwest Coast” art; they are also less directly concerned with animals and the spirit world.  They are usually geometric and ornamental, rather than visual statements of a whole philosophy.  (On Northwest Coast art, see esp. the superb and encyclopedic collection Native Art of the Northwest Coast, edited by Charlotte Townsend-Gault et al.; for the interior, Ackerman 1996.)

This contrasts with ideology and verbal art, where the commonalities overwhelmingly outweigh the differences.    The obvious practical reason for the difference is the more stable, settled life on the coast and the consequent greater opportunity to amass whole arrays of tools as well as gigantic works of art.  The Plateau tribes and the Oregon and California coastal ones had large permanent houses and sophisticated tool arrays.  However, there is more to it than that.  There are clearly some aesthetic and philosophical differences that so far defy analysis but that have an important effect.

It was briefly thought in the early 20th century that the spectacular art of the Northwest was largely a post-contact phenomenon, but archaeology has found plenty of examples of fine art going back more than 2000 years (Duff 1975).  The climate is not kind to wood or even to soft stone, so little remains except hard-stone work.  However, that is revealing.  Also, we can compare the ancient ivories from Alaska (Wardwell 1986), dating back as far as 2000 years, which reflect a style rather close to Northwest Coast art—considerably closer to it than are contemporary Yupik and Inupiak art.  (Compare the plates in Wardwell 1986:71-91 with the stonework in Duff 1975 and with the earliest historic northern Northwest Coast art.)  The sheer volume of art certainly increased after contact, but the style and content were developed before.

            Sheer aesthetic wonder at the bounty of fish and other resources must lie behind the Northwest Coast attitude to nature and art (as noted by Lam and Gonzalez-Plaza 2007).  It is, however, not the major drive.  The main focus is on spirits, and the unity of cosmos and local community that exists on the spiritual level and that is maintained by spiritual exchanges, gifts, and actions. 

            The highest purpose of this art is to display kinship affiliations and stories and associated hereditary privileges within the kinship groups.  Dance costumes including huge masks, blankets, frontlets, and other goods are for displaying in ritual dances—usually kingroup-owned—at potlatches and cemeteries. 

            “Totem poles” have nothing to do with totemism; they display important events in the ancestry of the chiefly descent group that set them up.  The great ones are usually house poles; smaller ones are memorial poles, so similar to gravestones in concept that many groups have switched to the latter without changing the associated ceremonies.  Still others are for art’s sake, or for museums, or parks.  Whatever the purpose, the poles always commemorate the chiefly ancestry of the carvers or their people (see Garfield and Forrest 1961; Halpin 1981b). 

            Aesthetic power shows spiritual power.  An artist whose work has a powerful emotional effect on the viewer has received power from the appropriate spirit.  The Haida have a Master Carpenter (or Carver) as one of their most important supernaturals.  The evocative quality of the art is greatly enhanced for its intended audience by the social connections, family histories, and personal connections. 

            Indigenous lawyer and leader Douglas White, with his sister, visited the American Museum of Natural History.  They came upon a screen that had belonged to their Nuu-chah-nulth great-grandfather.  “ My sister and I were stunned and deeply moved.  After standing in front of the screen for five minutes…we realized we had to do something.  I told my sister that we should go back to the screen, and I would sing one of our family’s potlatch songs, and she should dance.”  Which they did, “for a full five minutes—tears streaming down our faces at the emotional and spiritual impact of an unexpected reconnection with such a critical part of our family’s existence…. No one disturbed us, not even the security guard, who came close but did not intervene…my sister and I were transformed that day by the experience of singing and dancing in front of our screen” (White 2013:642). 

            Thus, gifts of carved, painted, or woven art works are the highest of gifts, and are appropriate prestations to new title-holders at the most important events.  The best Northwest Coast art still usually stays in this highly-charged, emotional world, and rarely gets out to the museums, at least until everyone has seen it and viewed it appropriately.  Exceptions occur when a museum or public body can directly commission a work of art for an appropriate public ceremonial purpose.  It is within this personal universe that craftsmanship becomes both a social and a spiritual thing.  “As the late Haida artist Bill Reid never tired of pointing out, the highest morality is craftsmanship.  One can give nothing more precious of oneself than something well-designed and well-crafted” (Bill Reid, personal communication to Richard Daly, in Daly 2005:45; Reid said more or less the same to the present author).  This obviously takes art far beyond the decorative (or merely shocking or titillating) function(s) it serves in the modern western world.  Northwest Coast art is much more comparable to art in Europe in the medieval age of cathedrals and altarpieces.

            It therefore makes sense that carving was considered a powerful spiritual gift—from the Master Carver himself, in Haida thinking—and that many carvers were of high rank.  Tsimshian artmakers were gitsontk, “people of the hidden studios”—they were highly respected people who worked in chambers or studios taboo to ordinary people and used for formal meetings as well as art (Garfield 1939; Halpin 1981a:274).  This sense that artists are specially gifted, and the corollary that high-born persons are drawn to that trade, is very much alive today.  Studios are still power places for many, all up and down the coast.

            Totem poles and other outdoor art weather away quickly in the Northwest, even if made of cedar.  (They almost always are, because it is easy to work but relatively slow to weather away.)  This disappearance is regretted, but seen as the natural process.  New poles are carved at need.  Again one recalls medieval European attitudes toward art:  wooden sculptures in the open, or days of work on exquisite detail far up in the church roof where no human eyes would ever see it.  The art was for audiences more than human.

            Daly (2005:68) notes:  “The art-appreciating public….forgets that its perceptions are informed by its own literate, written-down tradition….  This public does not see past the rotting artifact to a culture alive and confident of its roots and its pedigree.”  He is thus not in favor of specially preserving the poles.  The public could answer that culture is all very well, but there is also all humanity to consider.  The species at large may have some moral claim on a truly beautiful object made for public display, and this is a moral claim recognized by all nations today (via UNESCO among other vehicles).  Today the rule is still for the best poles to be in the open, to pass away with time, but also to carve replica poles for museums, if so desired.

            Body, house, and cosmos are often equated.  For the Puget Sound Salish, a house is a kneeling body, the house front being the face (Miller 1999:36).  The hearth in the house could be the sun, the ridgepole a backbone, river, and Milky Way all at once, and the four main supporting posts then become human limbs as well as the pillars that hold up the sky.  Canoes were similarly represented.  “In consequence, curing, bailing, and cleaning were all reflexes of a renewal of the world” (Miller 1999:36).

The Tsimshian, and Haida (Duff 1981:215), however, saw the house front as the whole front-facing side of an animal sitting on its haunches, with the result that the door is often the entrance to the womb.  One housefront represented a female bear.  The humans entered and exited through its vagina, thus either being born or returning to the womb whenever they passed.  There is even a small face above the door where a clitoris should be.

(Jonaitis 1981, 1986, 1988, 1991, 1999, 2008)  MacDonald (1983) Vancouver Art Gallery (2006)

            Ronald Hawker (2003) has chronicled the “dark ages” of coast art, from 1921 to 1961.  The first date was that of the arrest of dozens of people and the confiscation of potlatch goods, including fine art objects, at the Cranmer potlatch.  This marked the beginning of really condign and general enforcement of the anti-potlatch law, previously rather less than seriously enforced in remote areas.  The second date is, of course, the granting of citizen rights (including freedom of religion and thus of ceremonies) on the Canadian side.  Hawker points out that art survived, but he has to admit it was down to a slender thread //n//.  //Footnote/ Hawken (2003, esp. p. 8) has some rather unfortunate  things to say about those who speak of a “renaissance” after 1961.  He was evidently not on the coast before 1961.  If I may be permitted a bit of reminiscence, it was indeed possible, though difficult, to find good art then—but it was considered “mere craft” and a fine carving or basket would cost $10 or $20.  Fine large pieces were virtually impossible to find.  Having watched from a distance and later studied close-hand the renaissance, from 1960 through the 1980s, and interviewed many of the participants, I can testify that there was a quite incredible explosion of quantity and quality—and of price, as people of all “races” came to appreciate the work.  Sordid lucre may be the worst way to evaluate such things, but it does give some measure of how much people care.// 

Few artists continued.  Charlie James in Alert Bay continued to carve “Kwakiutl” poles, with some government and business patronage, and taught his stepson Mungo Martin.  The latter, who organized that first potlatch at the British Columbia Museum, was a genuinely great artist by any standards, European or Native.  He was also a fine and patient teacher of art, culture, and ceremony.  (My introduction to Northwest Coast art in its native home was watching him carve at the Royal British Columbia Museum in 1960.)  He taught a whole new generation, including the art historian Bill Holm, long curator at the Burke Museum at the University of Washington.  Holm’s classic analysis of Northwest Coast art as serious art rather than craft (Holm 1965) was the opening fire of the revolution in publc appraisal of and attention of the art.  It remains a standard textbook, found in countless art studios throughout the coast.  Holm, a highly capable artist himself, also knew the other traditional forms. He was, for a while, the only person to know several classic Kwakwaka’wakw dances, and generously taught many young First Nations people.  For this he eventually received a Kwakwala name.  

Meanwhile, art revived among the more northern tribes.  Of course the Tlingit and Alaskan Haida benefited from the fact that potlatches and ceremonies had never been banned in Alaska (thanks to the First Amendment), though the missionaries tried their hardest to discourage them.  So art had not shrunk so much there. 

In any case, a huge explosion of art followed from legalization of the potlatch, local White interest, and patronage by the University of British Columbia as well as the two museums and their local urban counterparts.  Bill Reid became a leader of the Haida art renaissance, along with Robert Davidson and several others.  Like Martin, Reid and Davidson went far beyond mere copying of old forms, and were genuinely great creative artists by any standards.  Reid was also an excellent writer and speaker (De Menil and Reid 1971; Reid 2000); he had a career in radio before turning to art.  Reid’s dialogue on classic art pieces with Bill Holm (Holm and Reid 1975) was a landmark in understanding the art as form and message.

Another pioneer of the renaissance was Wilson Duff, longtime curator of art at the Royal British Columbia Museum in Victoria, later professor at the University of British Columbia.  He analyzed the art in depth and with sensitivity and theoretical interest, trying to understand the mindsets behind it.  His work was cut short by early and tragic death, but stimulated serious thought as well as public interest (Abbott1981; Duff 1975, 1981, 1996). 

Wilson Duff, Bill Holm and Bill Reid (1967) worked together on the famous “Legacy” exhibit at the Vancouver Art Gallery (Vancouver’s city art museum, not a private gallery).  The combination of anthropological theorist, structural analyst, and leading artist was perfect.  A major stated purpose of this exhibit was to get Native art taken seriously as fine art, rather than dismissed as “craft” and consigned to museums of natural history.  At this the show succeeded brilliantly.  Native art prices shot out of sight, and many a career was launched.  Also, the show more or less explicitly gave Native people the right to explore, expand on, and develop their traditions any way they saw fit, without being attacked for “unauthenticity” whenever they got beyond the pre-1921 forms.  We now have Native video, glassmaking art, mixed media, everything, and the art keeps getting better all the time—but this is beyond my subject matter here. 

A later Legacy show organized by Peter MacNair (MacNair et al. 1984) highlighted new creations since the 1960s revival.  The catalogue contains particularly fine photos and biographies.  Great art continues, increasing every day, as more and more of the younger generation find emotional satisfaction as well as economic prospects in the art.  The spiritual knowledge that drives it remains active and vibrant.  It has reacted to Christianity and secular modernity, but those settler intrusions have strengthened the old concepts as often as they have weakened them.  (This point derives largely from my own field work and interviews, but see e.g. G. Wyatt 1994, 1999.)

The art is highly relevant to environmental ideology and practice.  Above all, it encodes the spirit beliefs recorded above, putting them in dramatic visual form for all to see.  (Among major collections, see e.g. Musée de l’Homme Paris 1970;  MAYBE THIS IN FN?)  Stonework was particularly difficult to make under aboriginal conditions, and thus particularly revealing, and it preserves for thousands of years, allowing us to see that Northwest Coast art developed slowly and steadily.  A thorough collection of stone art, with all too brief introduction (the author died about the time the book was published), was provided by Wilson Duff (1975). 

Masks are particularly important, because anyone wearing and dancing with a mask becomes the being or animal portrayed, or at least is inspired by its spirit.  In the spectacular performances of the central and northern coast, huge masks were created, many of which could be changed during performances by strings attached to moving parts.  Raven could open and close his beak, cranes could flap their wings, supernaturals could open and close their eyes.  Among the Tsimshian, fast shifting of masks was also practiced; men could shift from male to female and back by shifting masks, often along with women doing the same (Halpin 1981a).  This partially explains one of the most striking works of Northwest Coast art: a set of two neatly-fitting masks carved in hard stone by an unknown Tsimshian artist in the mid-19th century (one was collected in 1879; Duff 1975:164).  Apparently, metal tools were used.  The inner mask has eyes wide open, with an alert look; the outer mask has its eyes closed and appears peaceful and at rest.  Duff (1975) and Marjorie Halpin (1981a) analyzed this pair, noting that they could be changed rapidly.  In the flickering firelight of a winter ceremony, it would seem that a stone-headed being was opening and closing his eyes.  Open eyes stand for alertness and perception.  Halpin quotes a Tsimshian writer in 1863 describing relgious conversion as having his eyes bored (Halpin 1981a:286).  Tsimshian masks and other visual privileges are naxnox (see above), and often accompany societies of initiated persons of noble lineages, such as the Dog Eaters and Cannibals. 

The Kwakwaka’wakw also have hereditary mask privileges that go with secret societies, including a supposedly cannibal society whose members can theoretically take bites out of people (but in practice usually or always fake it).  The most famous cluster of initiate-related masks and dances concerns the monstrous man-eating birds known as the Hohokw, the Baqbaqwalanukhsiwe, the Crooked Beak of Heaven, and others.  Masks of these beings are so large that only a very muscular person can dance with them; they can weigh 30 kg.  Other classic masks include Moon, Sun, wolf, raven in various incarnations, bukwus (Wild Man of the Woods), nułmał (a sinister “fool,” an ominous clown), grizzly bear, sea creatures, and many more.  Many of these are significantly ambigous figures, like the terrifying but helpful monster-birds and the humorous but dangerous nułmał.  The mix of danger with humor or help is an expression of strong spirit power, and the three together make up a basic underpinning of Kwakwaka’wakw philosophy, an armature on which to base ontological and moral thinking.

12.  Conclusions

            NancyTurner, leading authority on human ecology on the Northwest Coast, has compiled a list of lessons she wants the world to learn.  She advocates “connecting with communities and places,” celebrating generations and elders, recognizing relationships, being grateful and responsible while maintaining accountability, “valuing and supporting diversity,” using different teaching styles, and using all these to re-create healthy, sustainably managed ecosystems (Turner 2014-2:403, 404, 405-411). 

            More specific recommendations and more radical views come from the Indigenous authors already cited. 

Appendix 1.  A Note on Languages

            The Northwest Coast is famous, or infamous, for the variety and difficulty of its languages.  Many, especially in the core area from Washington to southern Alaska, are full of guttural sounds and have a huge range of phonemes.  They actually sound better than they look on paper.  The off-putting symbols of the International Phonetic Alphabet make transcriptions look positively unearthly, but the reality is usually a fair-spoken and pleasant-sounding tongue.  Oratory and rhetoric were, and sometimes still are, developed as truly great arts.  I have been moved to tears by Nuu-chah-nulth speeches even though I could get almost none of the words.

Taking the whole stretch from Alaska to northern California, we have the following:

Eskimo-Aleut:  Unrelated to any other languages, and to each other only about as closely as English and Greek.  Several “Eskimo” languages exist in Alaska, including Inuvialut, Yupik, and Chugach; they are about as close as the Romance languages.  Yupik is spoken on both sides of Bering Strait. 

            Na-Dene (pronounced “nah-daynay”):  A vast, continguous sweep of languages, centering on and originating from south-central Alaska.  The “Na” branch includes only one language, Tlingit; “na” is their word for “people” (presumably cognate with the “ne” of “Dene,” which is in fact pronounced “dena” in several areas).  The Dene branch includes the Athapaskan languages, among which some variant of “Dene” means “people.”  Most of the Athapaskans are interior peoples in the frigid spruce forests of Alaska and western Canada, but small groups split off early and drifted as far as southern Washington, coastal Oregon, and northwestern California.  The Navaho and Apache of the Southwest are also Athapaskan, but they came down from Canada much later, possibly while the Spanish were invading from the other end of the continent.  I have met British Columbia Athapaskans who had encountered Navaho at intertribal meetings and could actually talk with them, more than trivially, in their respective Athapaskan languages. 

Na-Dene is probably distantly related to the Ket language of Siberia (Edward Vajda, mss.)—the only other cross-Bering relationship among American languages.  (The occasionally-alleged link of Athapaskan with Chinese is spurious.)

The Na-Dene have the distinction of being powerfully matrilineal, and indeed are one of the biggest chunks of matrilineal people on earth.  So are all their neighbors in northwest British Columbia; one wonders who influenced whom.

            Haida:  A very old linguistic isolate, apparently on the islands of Haida Gwaii since they were first settled over 10,000 years ago.  Possibly distantly related to Na-Dene, but on bad evidence.  Swanton collected a word list of words similar in Haida and Tlingit, but most are obviously recent loans, and the rest could be due to chance.  Some linguists claim they have better evidence, but if they have adequately published it, I cannot find it.  The languages are very different.  I have some experience with Haida and have examined Swanton’s list; I find the linkage unconvincing. 

            Tsimshian:  Three closely related languages spoken in the lower Skeena and Nass River areas.  Possibly distantly related to the Penutian languages farther south (q.v.).

            Wakashan:  The Heiltsuk, Haisla, and Kwakala languages, which form a tight group (Northern Wakashan), and the slightly more distant Nootkan languages: Nuu-chah-nulth of west Vancouver Island, and the Nitinat-Makah language of southern Vancouver Island and neighboring northwest Washington.  “The Haisla are said to have spoken a Tsimshianic language until some date in the late-precontact period” (Roth 2008:17).

            Salishan:  A vast variety of highly diverse langauges, stretching from central British Columbia inland to western Montana and south to northwest Oregon.  They have the dubious distinction of being the most guttural, glottal-stopped, and consonant-dominated languages in the world, making them difficult for an outsider to learn.  Still, many non-native-speakers have done it.

            Chemakuan:  A tiny language isolate with only two languages:  Chemakum (extinct) and Quileute (dying fast, unfortunately).

            Algonkian:   the great family that dominates the northeastern continent; it extends west to extreme eastern British Columbia (Cree) and to northwestern California.  The relevant languages of the latter area are so distinct it is often separated as a coordinate branch, Ritwan, of a wider grouping (Algonkian-Ritwan).  Kutenai  (spoken at the BC-Idaho-Montana tripoint) may be related; if so, the relationship is distant indeed.

            Penutian:  This family includes the Sahaptin languages of central Washington and neighboring Oregon; and most of the languages of central Oregon and central California, as far south as the Tehachapi.  These languages are far apart.  The most geographically separate are as linguistically different as English is from Armenian or Hittite—so the relationships are tenuous.  The Tsimshian family is even more distant, and its alleged relationship to Penutian requires restudy.  Interestingly, the Mayan language family of Mexico and Guatemala is probably related to Penutian.  Edward Sapir first proposed this; Cecil Brown and I have collected a good deal of supporting evidence, but can’t quite clinch the case, due to lamentable loss of the languages in California, making comparative material wholly inadequate.

            Karok and Shastan:  Northwest Californian outliers of the “Hokan phylum,” so ancient and diverse that many linguists question its existence.  If it is real, these languages have relations all over California and Baja California.

            Yukian:  A tiny family with only three or four languages, all extinct, that once flourished in northwestern California.  It may be distantly related to the isolated languages of south Louisiana (Greenberg 1987) but no one has proved this.

            So we have eleven or more totally distinct groupings, as different from each other as English is from any one of them—or from Bantu or Arabic.  This makes the Northwest Coast and California one of the most diverse areas on earth, linguistically.  Joseph Greenberg (1987) grouped all these except Eskimo-Aleut and Na-Dene into one great Amerindian phylum, which would also include the other languages of the Americas, but he did not live to prove its reality and no one now accepts it on faith.  Conversely, Joanna Nichols (   ) finds these languages so different that she believes they must represent different migrations from Siberia—there has not been enough time for them to differentiate in the Americas!  With America now thought to have been settled at least 15,000 years ago, there is actually time.  But the languages certainly are different. 

            Experience has taught me to question any link that is not well established.  There are Russian linguists who postulate a vast “Nostratic” superphylum including all the major languages of the northern Old World, and there are even linguists who postulate a single “Proto-World” language.  I find the evidence for Nostratic (the most modest, limited form of it) very slightly convincing, but Proto-World strikes me as well within the realm of fantasy, along with extraterrestrial contacts.  That said, I do not know any Northwest Coast languages, so I cannot speak with authority on issues concerning them.  I have looked extensively through materials—mainly collections of texts—in all the languages, however, so at least I know something of the words and sounds.

            Since the Americas were probably settled from the Northwest, we would expect to find maximal linguistic diversity there, and to find the great language phyla stretching out from there, getting less diverse as they go.  This, indeed, we often do find.  Na-Dene, Algonkian, and Penutian are most diverse in the Northwest and get less so as one moves away from it.  Salishan is most diverse along the coast (Nuxalk being the most distinctive), less so inland.

            In the old days, most adults had enough contact with other languages to learn at least one other, and some people knew several—especially at places like the mouth of the Columbia, where many small groups existed and traded widely.  I have heard at least semi-believable stories of areas where people had no idea of “a native language”—everyone spoke at least two from birth!  One such that I know from some experience was the Port Alberni area of Vancouver Island, where Nuu-chah-nulth were moving in on Salish territory when the white settlers came.  Most people seems to have known both languages.

Appendix 2.  The Old Northern Worldview

The Northwest Coast worldviews are special instantiations of a more general worldview that I refer to as “Old Northern” (Anderson 2014).  This general type of ontology probably had no single place of origin; it developed through constant feedback, over thousands of years, between the many societies that share it.  Thanks to continued contact, migration, and information flow around the circumpolar land masses, it has remained rather uniform (at least in some aspects).  A steady diffusion of beliefs and practices has tended to homogenize beliefs about subsistence and environment.  I am not claiming some sort of deep spiritual identity; I am claiming only a broad similarity, created (at least in part) through cultural transmission, of ontology and of environmental management ideas.

It sees humans and animals, and often plants, mountains, and streams, as spiritual beings, linked by spirit contacts and interactions.  It is an instantiation of the “animistic” type of ontology as defined by Philippe Descola (2013).   This is a hunters’ world (Descola 2013), and humans depend on animals; they must show respect, care for the animals’ souls, hunt carefully, and communicate with animals via rituals and visions. 

The Old Northern worldview, as I see it, was shared across the Old World and New World arctic and subarctic zones, and down throughout the hunting-gathering societies of North America and the hunters and pastoralists of northeast Asia and high central Asia.  It seems to become progressively diluted as it enters agricultural societies.  It slowly erodes with the coming of cities, mass trade, and industrial production.  It eventually disappears as an identifiable worldview, but survives in such things as the nature consciousness of the Celtic peoples, the animistic beliefs about tree spirits in Chinese folk culture, and the survival of beliefs in animal companion spirits (naguales) in modern Mexico.  It thus has no definable boundaries in space or time; it is a fuzzy set.

South America’s indigenous cultures often show Old Northern origin or influence, but they vary greatly (see above; also Balee 1994; Lentz 2000; and Sullivan’s great synthesis of South American native religions, 1989).  Some have something close to the North American sense of interpenetration with the natural (Reed 1995, 1997; Reichel-Dolmatoff 1968, 1971, 1976, 1996; Sullivan 1989; Ventocilla et al. 1995).  One group, for instance, believes that humans are reborn as peccaries and vice versa, leading to an alternation of generations.  The peccary you kill is your relative sacrificing himself, or herself, to feed you (Blaser 2009; Descola 2013).  This clearly resonates with Old Northern reincarnation concepts.

Of major concern to our purposes here is the universal conservation ideology of the Old Northern view, especially in regard to animals.  Major gods or goddesses protect them:  Artemis/Diana in Europe, Cybele in Asia Minor, Prajapati in India, and spirits of each animal species in much of the New World.  Trees, or at least some of them, are sacred everywhere, and one must ask permission for taking bark or wood, and must be respectful of them.  Water is widely regarded as sacred, and rules against polluting it are correspondingly widespread among cultures that have some shortage of it, especially in Siberia and Mongolia (see my posting “Water” on my website, www.krazykioti.com).  Mountains are sacred (at least some of them), and often the sacred mountains are taboo for hunting and getting resources, or at least are taboo for all but the lowest-impact uses. 

As we have seen in the main text of this book, this was a hunters’ world, in which human and other-than-human persons are intertwined and can change into one another.  Healers and religious officiants can go into trance, visit the spirit lands, and find out how to deal with human problems ranging from sickness to bad hunting luck.  Typically, the underworld, this world, and the upper world are linked by a sacred tree.  This became the ash Yggdrasil in Scandinavia, the birch in the northern Uralic cultures, and so on, and has gone as far as Yucatan, where the Maya still revere the ceiba as the world-pole tree.  The world tree is known beyond the Old Northern area, and may be almost humanity-wide (Cook 1974).

The spectacular cave art of Europe, which goes back some 35,000 years (Clottes 2008), implies reasonably strongly that this world-view existed at that time.  Beautifully drawn animals, with human-animal hybrid figures, were drawn in remote, dark caves (not in the inhabited, lit caves beloved of cartoonists). 

Some aspects of the Old Northern view may be survivals of the original worldview of humans from our earliest origins.  Joseph Campbell traced many similarities between the most remote and distinctive surviving humans, the San of South Africa, and hunter-gatherers elsewhere.  He inferred a basic worldview, the “way of the animal powers” (Campbell 1983).  Most scholars would probably caution that he overstated the case, but he appears to have had a case, especially as evidence accumulates that most of the world’s languages are related and that all existing humans are genetically close enough to be cousins.  Modern humans originated in northeast Africa a mere 150,000 years or so ago, and probably did not get far from home until less than 100,000 years ago.  They have been in Australia for 50-60,000 years, in Europe 40,000 years, in northeast Siberia a mere 20,000 or less, in the Americas somewhat over 15,000.  In more recent millennia, there has been constant migration, exchange, and mutual learning, leading to such widespread homologies as the animal-soul beliefs of the Old Northern system.

Campbell points not only to animal spirits but to trance-healing, pictograph art showing animals, the ritual power of song and dance, and the belief in a skyworld for spirits and an underworld for the dead, as well as the mythic importance of hunters (cf. Fontenrose 1981) and their association with transformers. 

Campbell based some of his thinking on Carl Jung’s concept of archetypes—symbols that appear over and over in myth, and clearly have some resonance with the human mind.  Animals, the world-tree, waterfalls, snakes, and sacred mountains occur in religious symbolism everywhere (as of course do images of mother, father, and child), and qualify as archetypes.  Unfortunately, Jung’s concept is too vague and general for my purposes here.  These images may be, in part, genetically imprinted on us; all primates are scared of snakes.  They may be derived from a common source (if Campbell’s animal-powers religion has any reality).  They are most certainly subject to independent invention everywhere humans have gone.  Nobody could miss the centrality of parent-child bonds, the salience of mountains, the awesome power of water rushing over a waterfall, or the lifesaving value of water welling up in a spring.  Thus we cannot say much about what “archetypes” really are, or were.

Belief in, and reverence for, the spirits and deities in all things is more or less what E. B. Tylor (1871) caled “animism.”  Tylor viewed it as “primitive,” which led to the term “animism” being shunned for a while, but it is now being rehabilitated by scholars who realize it is not some sort of primitive holdover.  It is as developed and sophisticated a religious view as any other (Descola 2013; Harvey 2006; Hunn 1990).  Animism is based on the tendency to assign spirits or personhood to living things, or sometimes to everything.  Chinese folktales assign wilful, agentive spirits of rags, discarded bits of paper, and old roof tiles. 

Humans in animism are clearly different from animals and other nonhuman beings.  Each can transform into the other, under some conditions, but the very fact that this is a subject for myth shows that it is not expected to be routine.  Similarly, culture is different from nature.  Claude Lévi-Strauss (1962, 1963, 1964-1971) was right: most groups (but perhaps not all) seem to make a distinction between culture and nature.  Every human group known to me has a belief in “natural humans” like Bigfoot—hairy “savages” (Latin homo sylvaticus “forest person”), people in their “natural state,” lacking culture. 

One widespread idea within the Old Northern cluster is a belief in the Master (or Mistress) of Animals.  Others include the universality of animal souls, the full personhood of animals, the need to respect them, the idea that they sacrifice themselves to the hunter, many ideas of “power animals” and plants and places, and other details (Hayden 2013).  Such beliefs are lacking in the southern hemisphere, except where Native Americans have carried them to South America over time.  They are vestigial in the warmer parts of the Old World.  Of course, not everyone shares all these beliefs.  Paul Radin (1927 , 1957) early documented the striking range of difference in belief that existed within one small Native American group. Indeed, Brian Hayden notes that, in traditional hunter societies, typically 10-20% of individuals do not believe in spirits at all (Hayden 2013:495; cf. Hayden 2003).  Every society has its nonbelievers. I thus treat here of widely, but not universally, shared ideas.

The Old Northern complex is associated with shamanism, but many of the relevant groups have ancestor cults and other religious manifestations outside of the shamanistic system.  True shamanism is characterized by rather specific ideas of the cosmos.  The shaman goes into trance and goes through a long dark passage, or climbs the world tree, or otherwise takes a long and arduous “shamanic journey” to reach the lands of spirits above or below.  (The best account I have seen is in Caroline Humphrey’s superb book Shamans and Elders, 1996, written with the Mongol shaman Urgunge Onon.  Eliade’s classic Shamanism, 1965, is seriously dated, though still useful for an overview.)  Aids to trance such as flashing lights, hypnotic drumming, dancing, and hyperventilation are used.  The shaman is an individual performer, but socially recognized, and shamans may share secrets quite widely, so there is something like an organized religion here in spite of the lack of a “church.”  In fact, today, Siberian shamanism is well organized and becoming a major religion.

This sort of shamanism is confined to the Tungus and their neighbors, especially the Mongols, eastern Turkic peoples, and the peoples of central Siberia.  It grades into the “Tengrism” (worship of Heaven, Mongol tengri) in Mongol and Turkic cultures and in early China (where Heaven was tian, a possibly related word).  In these societies Heaven was an abstract, non-humanoid high God. 

Within the Old Northern universe are many religions similar to shamanism.  Very similar views extend widely in east Asia, subarctic Eurasia and Native North America, but they are different from true shamanism.  Particularly in northern Siberia and interior North America, they are more ad hoc, less formalized, less detailed, and thus appear to represent a broader and probably older spectrum of belief.  (I say “probably older” not because of long-discredited ideas of “cultural evolution,” but because classic Mongol-Tungus shamanism seems to me to have been influenced by high civilizations; these shamans use mirrors and metal swords.)   Alternatively, many Native American religions are as complex, elaborated, and self-conscious as the Asian ones, but involve a more complex vision questing in which all individuals seek spirit power and are expected to get it, but only some go on to higher or more specialized powers that are comparable to the shamanic ones of Asia (Benedict 1923 and many subsequent works). 

The tendency to use “shamanism” for all Native American (let alone all “noncivilized”!) spiritual beliefs seems to me too sloppy and vague to be desirable.  There is a huge debate on this issue in the literature (Humphrey [1996]; Kenin-Lopsan [1997]; Nowak and Durrant [1977]; for critiques, see summaries of critical opinions in Harvey 2006 and Willerslev 2007).  Even Northwest Coast healers are shamans only by wide extension of the term.

Shamanism is clearly one modern derivative of the Old Northern view.  The latter has evolved into, or contributed at some level to, many other local forms.  These include East Asian nature mysticism (as in Daoism, Zen, and Shinto), Native North American religions, and early Celtic visionary traditions.  Some or all of these (especially Zen) obviously have other roots as well.  Shamanism (in the narrow sense) has also graded into or blended with quite different worldviews in Korea and China, as historical studies show.  There is every reason to believe that spirit mediumship developed from shamanic religion in China, Japan (Blacker 1986), and Korea (Kendall 1985, 1988).  Similarly, ancient Greek religion is clearly a solidly Old Northern religion, influenced—more and more heavily over time—by Mesopotamian, Levantine, and Egyptian religions (cf. Dodds 1951; Fontenrose 1959, 1981).

            As so often, insightful comparisons with medieval Ireland can be made.  The unique, fascinating, and complex story of “mad Sweeney” (Heaney 1984) gets into realms of shamanic soul-travel.  It is a Christian epic; Sweeney offends an early missionary, who curses him by making him go “mad” and flee from a battle—an unbearable shame for an Irish chief.  Sweeney wanders through Ireland, finally finding peace in his last days in a Christian community.  It is quite obvious that Sweeney is not so much “mad” as engaging in ancient shaman-like practices, though the anonymous author also describes strikingly well the effects of war-induced terror.  Sweeney was evidently a practitioner of a shamanic spiritual discipline that is downvalued by Christianity.  He flies, takes great leaps, shifts shape, foretells the future, talks with wolves, diagnoses mental states, and otherwise acts like a classic northeast Asian shaman.  The anonymous author the work, though Christian, has an obvious sympathy with Sweeney and his “madness.”  The result is one of the most amazing “inside” accounts of soul travels in all world literature, and it is very well worth comparing with Jay Miller’s and others’ Northwest Coast “shamanic odysseys.”  We have this work in a rather late and somewhat corrupt version, but the language is medieval Irish Gaelic, and includes a great deal of extremely beautiful poetry; readers of Irish can consult J. G. O’Keeffe’s excellent bilingual edition (1913).

            Another Irish mythic figure, King Conare, was part bird in origin and was protected by birds who could shed their feather mantles and appear as humans.  From them he got power but had to observe certain rules (geasas) to keep it.  He was constantly being put in positions of having to break these rules, and thus eventually died (Gantz 1981:60-106).  The shape-shifter spirits granting power, the rules attending that, and the myth turning on loss of power through having to break the rules are exactly the same in Northwest Coast mythology.  The similarity seems too close for independent invention.

Throughout the Old North, souls are highly mobile—they can and often do leave the body.  They can inhabit other venues in the process.  This implies that soul travel, soul exchange, dream journeys, and ghosts are all regular features of life.  A given soul can inhabit animal or human bodies, and shape-shifting is common.

Trees and mountains are people and have their own spirits.  High regard for trees and their spirits is one of the main beliefs binding the Old Northern world into a single worldview.  Shutova (2006) reports for the Siberian Udmurt, and Wiget and Balalaeva (2011) for the Khanty, rather similar regard for trees to that reported for Northwest Coast peoples (Turner 2005).  Rivers are important, and dramatic water features such as waterfalls and sinkholes are revered—again all the way from the Khanty (Wiget and Balalaeva 2011:114) to the Maya.  Dramatic rocks and prominences are too, but this is so universally true of humanity that it hardly marks an Old Northern trait.  Trees, waters, and mountains are sacred or highly revered.  Tibet’s Pure Crystal Mountain, for one, maintains its forests (Huber 1999).

When animals are not interacting with people, they often live in villages, look like humans, and see their world in humanlike terms.  This view is universally attested in the literature from ancient Scandinavian and Celtic culture right across Siberia and throughout Native North America.  It is also very widespread in South America (see e.g. Descola 2013; Lloyd 2007:145).  American Native views probably developed from Old Northern views brought across the Bering Strait as long ago as 15,000 years.

But animal people are not quite the same as human people, even when in their humanoid forms.  They still act like themselves.  Thus Descola (2013) sees “animism” as postulating similarity in material form but not in essence.  Yukaghir reindeer people in their humanoid form grunt instead of talking and eat lichen instead of meat (Willerslev 2007:89-90; at least one Siberian Yukaghir hunter told Rane Willerslav of an actual visit to a village of wild reindeer in their human form [Willerslev 2007:89-90].  The hunter admitted he might have dreamed it all, but was fairly convinced it had been real).

In many societies, stretching across the whole Old Northern world, the Masters of the Game are exceedingly important.  These are gods, spirits, or sometimes giant or superior animals, that are the leaders or divine protectors of their species.  This belief system stretches from the Khanty of far northwest Siberia (Wiget and Balalaeva  2011:106-107) to the Maya of Mexico (Llanes Pasos 1993) and on into South America.  It is thus one of the most strikingly uniform and specific traits of the Old Northern worldview.

In Georgia (Caucasus), the worship of pre-Christian deities who served as Masters of the Game persisted into the twentieth century.  The Georgians proper revere Ochopintra in this role (Tuite 1994:73, 134).  The closely related Svan people worshiped the goddess Dael or Dali (Tuite 1994:18, 45-47, 126, 141-3), equivalent to the Roman Diana.  She protected game, and punished those who hunted improperly, wastefully, and destructively. Significantly, these deities, and many related beliefs associated with plants and animals, survived 1700 years of Christianity.  On the other hand, the European separation of nature from culture is present—though not extreme—in Georgia, and very possibly goes back to ancient times (as it does among the Greeks).

The associated reverence for animal persons is perhaps most famously shown in an old ballad about a woman whose son died killing a leopard (or tiger; Tuite 1994:37-41).  The woman sings to the leopard’s mother: 

“I will go, yes I will see her,

And bring her words of compassion.

She will tell her son’s story

And I will tell her of mine.

For he too is to be mourned

Cut down by a merciless sword.”

The werewolf is a common type, but the “bear doctor” is far commoner.  “Bear doctor” is a Californian term, used by Native Californians speaking English (see Blackburn 1975).  But the idea stretches from America to Scandinavia, where the berserkers are the same type of were-being; berserk means “bear shirt.”  In historic times, berserkers were ordinary humans who fell into a battle-frenzy, but they had been bear transformers in the mythic past.  The Celtic battle-frenzy (made famous by Caesar’s accounts of the Gauls) must have been originally the same or related, though no bear stories survive about it.

Common, if not universal, are myths in which a trickster-transformer god or chief spirit makes things what they are today.  The head transformer is Coyote in most of western North America, Raven in the northwest and in northeast Siberia, and various humanoid or composite beings in most of the rest of the western hemisphere.  The cognate European and Chinese figure is the fox, but he has degraded to a mere folklore character.  So has the Japanese trickster, the raccoon-dog or tanuki (generally mistranslated “badger” in English, thanks to some early translator now remembered only for his zoological incompetence).

Tricksters are sometimes female, but the dominant Trickster-Transformer deity is always male.  He is powerful and well-meaning, but often foolish, and easily seduced by women or by greed.  From the Finnish Väinamöinen to the Japanese raccoon dog to the  Raven and Coyote, he does the same general sorts of things:  changing his own shape, changing supernaturals into harmless forms, turning animals from humanoid to animal form, providing light and water and song, and meanwhile having a wonderful run of salacious adventures.  Even the long-Christianized Irish retain many Transformer stories, often—ironically—told of St. Patrick (see e.g. Dooley and Roe 1999).  He did not transform himself, but he transformed the giants of old into ordinary men, drove the snakes out of Ireland, and so on.

Widespread or universal Old Northern stories draw on this belief system.  Naturally, given the hunting-dominated lifestyle of most ancient Old Northern societies, the hero and/or heroine are very often hunters.  This is one of the proofs that ancient Greece was solidly Old Northern.

These stories extend all the way from Ireland and Greece to North America.  One is the swan maiden story (Snyder 1979).  Another is the Orpheus myth (widespread in North America, e.g. Seaburg 2007:221-227; often with Coyote as the Orpheus figure; see Archie Phinney in Ramsey 1981; also Blackburn 1975:172-175, and indeed almost any collection of American myths).  The Orpheus myth, in the ancient world as in Native America and in the beautiful ballad version from the Shetland Islands, often had a successful ending.  The tragic ending we know today was set firmly in place by Virgil in the Georgics (Fantham 2006:xxx).  But some Native American versions, including Archie Phinney’s text collected from his Nez Perce grandmother, are as tragic as Virgil’s.  One proof that Northern minds run in the same channels is the astonishing similarity not only in plot but in emotional portrayals and character development between Phinney’s shattering and heartbreaking text and Rainer Maria Rilke’s incomparable retelling of Virgil’s story (Rilke 1964:142-151). 

Another is the transformation of animals into stars.  The Great Bear was a literal bear in stories told throughout the region (Schaefer 2006).  The resemblance of the constellation to a bear is far from obvious; this implies that the story actually spread from one source, rather than being independently invented.  Also widespread are a tale of two sisters who married stars (Thompson 1955-1958), tales of persons transformed into animals by witchcraft (as in the story of the princess kissing the frog), and countless stories of animal creators.  The earth-diver myth, in which the land is created from a bit of mud retrieved by a diving animal from the bottom of the cosmic waters is closely linked with this northern worldview, but is found far outside its borders and may be human-wide.

In this worldview, people are not subsumed into nature or mere pawns of the environment.  Quite the reverse; rugged, dramatic individualism is characteristic.  It is especially visible in Celtic epics and ballads, but also in Northwest Coast hero tales, Korean and Finnish epics, and other traditional vocal forms.  There is an emphasis on the value of individuals, even ordinary ones, as in the Scottish ballads with their everyday heroes and heroines.  This theme also appears in the many tales of the lone shaman battling dark forces in an alien world (e.g. Nowak and Durrant 1977).  I believe the Old Northern view, with its tales of heroic ordinary people, is a major source of Greek individualism.  The writings of Homer and the myths retold by Aeschylus show that it comes from the earliest stratum of Greek thought.  The ancient Greeks invented the “individual” as we now use that word, and also invented tragedy, through the dramas of Aeschylus and Sophocles; they made heroes of ordinary men and women standing tall in the face of terrible fates and disasters.  The idea of the ordinary person dauntlessly facing fate, though alone and beset on every side, appears here for the first time in history; earlier heroes like Gilgamesh had been semi-divine.  It appears that the Old Northern worldview lies behind all this.

Many of the beliefs make most sense in relation to hunting.  Hunters have to stay pure and avoid smelling like humans, since game animals are acutely aware of such things.  Apparently universal in the Old Northern world is a prohibition against sex before hunting, especially with a menstruating woman; the smell is too human (see e.g. Willerslev 2007:84).  This may be purely psychological, but it may have roots in actual game-animal alertness.  Hunting is often sexualized (Willerslev 2007:110, who notes worldwide comparisons).

A minor but interestingly widespread aspect of this is the avoidance of talking about one’s hunting, or naming animals hunted; they might hear and be offended.  This is bad enough if one might lose game, but worse if one calls up a predator such as a bear.  Bears are thus referred to by various euphemisms; in fact the English word “bear” goes back to a Germanic root cognate with “brown,” apparently used because the Indo-European root was to be avoided.  (And cf. “bruin.”  Incidentally, the Indo-European root is itself interesting.  A philologist working from such forms as Latin ursus and Greek arctos reconstructed it as, approximately, *ughrtko—close enough to grrhaahr! to suggest where that root came from!)  Rane Willerslev (2007:100) reports a Yukaghir hunter talking about having seen the tracks of a Russian in felt boots.  Another commented, “We’ll pay him a visit tomorrow.”  Of course the felt boots—no doubt mentioned in a significant tone of voice—were the giveaway here.  At other ends of the Northern world, the Maya often refer to a jaguar as “red paw” (chak mool) instead of by its right name (balam), and tigers are referred to by a whole flock of euphemisms all over east and south Asia.

All the participants in this worldview have strong indigenous traditions of conservation, or at least of sustainable resource management.  A particularly noteworthy account of a Siberian shamanistic society and its conservation practices is provided by the Tuvan writer Mongush Kenin-Lopsan (1997).  Hundreds of sources deal with indigenous management in northwestern and western North America (Anderson 1996). 

Native American cosmologies demand a much wider respect—nothing less than kinship, sociability, responsibility, and care toward all beings.  Raymond Pierotti has written:  “A common general philosphy and concept of community appears to be shared by all of the Indigenous peoples of North America, which includes:  1) respect for nonhuman entities as persons, 2) the existence of bonds between humans and nonhumans, including incorporation of nonhumans into ethical codes of behvior, and 3) the recognition of humans as part of the ecological system” (Pierotti 2011:198-199).  These indeed fully apply on the Northwest Coast, where they are considerably elaborated.

It should not surprise us if reality is often short of this.  Traditional people, like all people, frequently fail to live by their ecological morals.  (For Native American society, see Kay and Simmons 2002; for other areas of the world, Kirch 1994, 1997, 2007; cf. comparable problems in the Mediterranean world described by McNeill 1992 and Ponting 1991).  Plains Indians, when they got horses and guns and moved from older homelands to the high plains, lost a good deal of their resource management practice.  (See Krech 1999, but he exaggerates, and there are useful correctives in Native accounts, e.g. Black Elk [DeMaillie 1984] and Lame Deer and Erdoes 1972). 

However, throughout North America, the strong conservation ethic had its effect.  It was based on the idea that the spirits will punish anyone who takes more than he or she needs for immediate use by self and personal social group. Native American views, at least in North America, stem from this worldview and carry forward its close relations with nature.  (See e.g. Bernard and Salinas Pedraza 1989; Davis 2000; Haly 1992; Jenness 1951; Menzies 2006; Neihardt 1934; Nelson 1983; D. Smith 1999; Tanner 1979.  Further documentation includes Alberta Society of Professional Biologists 1986; Callicott 1989, 1996; Lopez 1992; Nelson 1973; Scott 1996.)

The locus classicus may be the American Northwest. Less dense populations generally did much less managing, because they had much less need for it.  Thus, many North American groups were decidedly weak on conservation (Hames 2007; Kay and Simmons 2002), though others were exemplary.  The North American system is so universally supported by tales of overuse leading to disaster that there is really no question that people learned the hard way.  The reputed share that Native Americans had in exterminating the Pleistocene megafauna would have taught them common sense, in so far as they were responsible (there is no real evidence that they were).  Siberia and neighboring areas were comparable, often having superb conservation ideology.

In some areas they persist with enthusiastic support, and contribute to modern political debate (see e.g. Kendall 1985 for Korea; Metzo 2005 for Mongolia).  In others, including Japan and most of Europe, they are largely displaced by later-coming belief systems, but they are still there (for Japan, see esp. Blacker 1986; for Scotland, Carmichael 1992). 

Working people close to the land in modern societies may often be closer to Native Americans than to academics.  Kimberly Hedrick’s brilliant study of ranching in California (Hedrick 2007) showed that some individuals combine both.  Her ranchers were often college-educated, and could talk learnedly of range ecology, global marketing, and amino acid constituents of feeds, but when they were out riding the range, they slipped into a totally different worldview.  The concern with abstractions shifted to a very much more pressing and specific concern with caring for cattle and rangeland. They shifted from abstract concepts to personal stories; every creek, hill, and cabin had its story, just as in Native American society.  They also shifted—consciously or unconsciously—from elite American English to cowboy dialect. 

In the Old Northern worldview and its descendents and relatives, we are people-in-nature, not people separate from nature, and certainly not people opposed to nature or (as Marxian communism puts it) “struggling against nature.”  This has ethical implications, many of which are stressed in recent scholarship.

For the Great Lakes area, we have a considerable literature; notable is American Indian Environmental Ethics by Baird Callicott and Michael Nelson (2004), because it is a rigorous and excellent study by two ethical philosophers and also because it is based on actual Native American texts recorded by a traditional Native American ethnographer, William Jones of the Sauk and Fox.  There are also many short accounts; particularly good collections include Snodgrass and Tiedje (2008) and Tucker and Grim (1994). One could point to many other works (e.g. Davis 2000; Medin et al 2006).

Native California has been less well served, probably because the cultures were severely impacted by foreign settlers before anthropologists went among them, but there are several important texts available (Anderson 2011).  I am less familiar with other parts of the continent, but to the classics of Black Elk (de Maillie 1984; Neihard 1932) and Lame Deer (1972) we can now add Ray Pierotti’s wonderful review (2011).

One problem common to most sources is a lack of grounding in thorough study of the ethical systems of the traditional and local cultures under study.  There are, in fact, only two thorough and detailed studies of traditional Native American ethical systems.  Unfortunately, they do not deal with classic Old Northern societies, but with societies influenced by town and city traditions from pre-Columbian Mexico.  Richard Brandt’s Hopi Ethics (1954) and John Ladd’s The Structure of a Moral Code (1957).  Both are by ethical philosophers rather than anthropologists.  Both were stimulated by anthropological work, at Chicago and Harvard respectively.

Richard Brandt, a young man starting his career at that time, went on to become the leading utilitarian ethicist in the United States (see Brandt 1979, 1992, 1996).  It is fairly clear that his Hopi experiences influenced him (compare pp. 319-336 of Brandt 1954 with his later three books).  His work is noteworthy for following the grand utilitarian tradition of Mill and Sidgwick in using clear, readable English, as opposed to the incomprehensible philosophy-jargon found in many philosophic writings.

Brandt’s account of the Hopi begins with the moral terms (Brandt 1954:91).  He stresses the basic importance of hopi—properly human, “the Hopi way”—versus kahopi (we would now spell it qahopi), “not Hopi.”  However, Brandt notes that the moral implications of this term are not simply that custom or tradition is ideal (Brandt 1954:94).  Most social customs are mere conventions, not especially moral.  Conversely, individualist behavior can be very moral.  (Ladd notes the same for the Navaho and for morals in general.)  Commoner but less revealing are oppositions of anta “good, morally right” and ka-anta “bad,and loloma “good, good-looking, nice” and kaloloma.  The equation of the good and the beautiful in that last word is also found in Navaho, and, of course, it was much discussed and debated in ancient Greece too.

The problems of studying traditional ethics were beautifully summed up by Clyde Kluckhohn in his foreword to Ladd’s book (Kluckhohn 1957:xiv).  As he reports it, he asked their mutual friend and frequent consultant Bidaga (a.k.a. Son of Many Beads) why he—Kluckhohn—had never gotten such ethical details.  Bidaga gave him “a long lecture which culminated with the sentence:  ‘I have been trying to explain these things to you for thirty years, but you never asked me the right questions.’” 

In Ladd’s work, the famous Navaho word hozhon (we would now spell it hozhǫǫ) “good, beautiful, harmonious, proper” and its opposite hochoon (hochǫǫ)“bad” are discussed; subsequent discussions by writers like John Farella (1984) and Gary Witherspoon (1977) are better.  From these later accounts we realize that the Navaho are much more self-consciously and socially moral than Ladd thought, and that their concepts of hozhon and hochon refer to the whole universe—divinities, humans, nature.  The universe is a fundamentally moral place; the Navaho would reject, at least in detail, Hume’s claim that one cannot deduce an ought from an is.  This also goes a long way toward adding a more Kantian side to the utilitarian and Aristotelian threads that Ladd notes. 

Hozhon is a concept that environmentalists should adopt.  The idea is that beauty, goodness, harmony, health, peace, and smooth function are aspects of one general reality.  The Navaho, significantly, also realize that ugliness, disharmony, death, and other bad things have a necessary place in the world.  As Ladd notes, the monster-slaying hero-twins were persuaded to leave four monsters—hunger, violence, old age, and death—so that the world would not become static and overpopulated.  If there were always harmony, there would be no change, progress, innovation, or valuable conflict (Farella 1984; Witherspoon 1977).  The world must maintain a dynamic tension between peaceful harmony and dynamic destruction.  Coyote, the source of evil in Navaho cosmology, is a necessary and even a revered animal.

Related is a high order of social and personal morality, enforced by spiritual agents in the natural world.  A Navaho ritual singer told the great pioneer ethnographer Washington Matthews:  “Why should I lie to you? I am ashamed before the earth; I am ashamed before the heavens; I am ashamed before the blue sky; I am ashamed before the darkness; I am ashamed before the sun; I am ashamed before that standing within me which speaks with me.  Some of these things are always looking at me, I am never out of sight.  Therefore I must tell the truth.  That is why I always tell the truth.  I hold my word tight to my breast.”  The Navaho are rather Aristotelian in their morality based on cultivating individual virtues to avoid troubles as well as social sanctions and shame or guilt before the world (Ladd 1957).

      Traditional Native American worldviews typically go with a particular educational strategy (see e.g. Cajete 1994; Gardner 2003; Goulet 1998; Sharp 2001).  Children learn by doing, with almost no verbal instruction.  They copy what their elders do, without much correction, and learn by their mistakes as they try to imitate.  Verbal teaching, if any, is done by personal stories.  What little correcting of the young is done verbally is done by telling stories on oneself:  “When I was young, I…” is a typical formula starting off a story of obvious—but completely tacit—application to the younger hearers present.  (See also Greenfield 2004 on such learning among the Tzotzil Maya and Hunn 2008 on early learning among the Zapotec.)  Once again, rural Anglo-Americans, including Hedrick’s ranchers, converge on Native Americans in these matters.  They teach by the book in schoolhouses and churches, but in the field or on the job they teach by example and personal story, as I know from my own rural-American background as well as from Hedrick’s research.

Appendix 3.  The “Wasteful” Native Debunked

            At some point it is necessary to deal with two old chestnuts that are always raised when anyone speaks of Native American conservation practices.

            First, buffalo jumps.  Native Americans on the plains stampeded bison over cliffs, thus killing a number at a time.  This has been condemned as “wasteful” by generations of white writers (the same people that shot tens of millions of bison for the hides and tongues or solely to starve the Indians out).  The idea seems to be that the Indians drove a million buffalo over a cliff every time they wanted a light lunch (Krech 1999, who should know better, still spins this story). 

            In fact, the vast majority of buffalo jumps were used only once, and the rest rather rarely; there were not very many sites in all, considering the enormous amount of space and time involved (Bamforth 2011).  The busiest, the Head-Smashed-In Jump in Alberta, was used only once a generation during its peak years (according to displays at the site, now a World Heritage Site).  The total number of bison killed in all the jumps in the plains, through the 12,000 or so years of human occupancy, was probably in the low millions.

There was, however, undeniably some waste—too many buffalo killed for the population to use.  The problem is that bison, unlike cattle, are not domesticated to the point of stupid obedience.  You can’t pick out one.  If you start a herd, you can’t stop them, and they may—but, in fact, rarely did—all go over the edge.  Moreover, the extremely high numbers killed at places like Head-Smashed-In were apparently not killed just for the local population.  Grease and dried meat were prepared in quantity, apparently for extensive trade (Bamforth 2011).

Getting them to go at all is the hard part.  Bison do not herd easily, and they are too intelligent to go stampeding over a cliff.  Arranging a jump involved months of planning—watching the bison routes, building cairns that looked like warriors posted along the path to the cliff, organizing the work force, and so on.  Then when the time came, the bison had to be stampeded such that the ones in back forced the ones in front over the cliff; otherwise the ones in front would simply stop and not go over.  This all involved serious danger, since the bison would naturally tend to turn when they got to the cliff, and run back the other way—right over the waiting Indians.  This had to be discouraged by such measures as lighting smoky fires.  If the bison did fall over the cliff, they could fall on other people waiting to dispatch them.  According to one story, that is how Head-Smashed-In got its name; one foolhardy soul got too close to the jumpoff place.

The other chestnut is the reputed Native American extermination of the Pleistocene megafauna.  This was originally claimed by Paul S. Martin in the 1960s (Martin 1967, 1984, 2002, 2005; Martin and Klein 1984).  His only evidence was that the Native Americans appeared in North America about the same time that several large species—including all the largest ones—became extinct. 

At least the buffalo jumps were real, and a lot of buffalo died that way.  But the extinction of the megafauna has not been connected with Native Americans by much direct evidence.  There are a few mammoth and mastodon kill sites from early millennia, but only very few.  Reputed kill sites for horses and other extinct creatures do not hold up well on analysis.

Martin’s original position was that humans entered North America about 12,000 years ago, moved very fast and increased their numbers very fast (3% per annum), and wiped out the megafauna in a sudden “blitzkrieg.”  This is not credible—such increases would have been impossible in a difficult environment filled with predators, new diseases, and such.  But it now appears that people were in the Americas much earlier (probably from 15,000-17,000 years ago).  Also, at least the mastodons lasted longer than was once thought.  All this makes a slower and more believable process possible.  (John Alroy [2001a, 2001b] has created a simulation showing that people could indeed cause the extinction under such circumstances.  Fair enough, but one might add that it would be even easier to construct a simulation showing that little green men from Mars did it, or, for that matter, that it never happened and there are mammoths around us now.  Simulations are wonderful things.  See Brook and Bowman 2002.)  

On the other hand, the deadly Clovis points that are actually found in mammoth and bison carcasses did not develop till many of the megafaunal species were already extinct (or at least are no longer found in the paleontological record; Wolverton et al. 2009).  Clovis flourished around 11,000 years ago (Waters and Stafford 2007), while most of the megafauna disappear around 12,000-14,000 years back.  The main collapse of the megafauna in what is now Indiana was between 14,800 and 13,700 years ago, long before Clovis (Gill et al. 2009).  Indeed, there is no evidence for humans in Indiana at that time.  If there were any, they were exceedingly few.  Extinction in California came later, mainly around 12,000 years ago, when more people were present but when climate was also dramatically changing.

The only real evidence for Martin’s position is that not only in North America, but also in Australia, New Zealand (Worthy and Holdaway 2002), and countless smaller islands, the coming of modern humans coincided with the extinction of the larger and slower species of wildlife, and usually with most of the ground-nesting birds.  This is indeed very good circumstantial evidence.  It also suggest some other possibilities beyond hunting.  All scholars now seem to agree that the very widespread use of fire to manage the landscape is the main thing driving extinctions in Australia.  Rats eating eggs apparently drove most of the extinctions of birds.  People hunted moas in New Zealand, but otherwise most of the species are tiny, obscure, and rare, not the sort of thing people would hunt.  Disease has certainly wiped out much island life.  Fire, other newcoming animal species, and diseases could all have had a hand in the American extinctions; I personally would be very surprised if fire was not involved, given both the Australian case and our current knowledge of the universality of fire in Native American management.

One may also note that the phenomenon of pioneering peoples sweeping through a continuent without thought for the morrow is apparently universal among humans.  We have seen it in the colonial histories of the Americas, Australia, and other areas.  Indeed, nonhuman species can explode when they enter a new area, only to stabilize later as they eat themselves out of a home and as diseases and parasites build up.  The earliest Native Americans thus may be expected to have hunted with no thought of the morrow until game grew scarce enough to force them to change.

On the other hand, island life forms generally have few or no predators of any kind, and are thus not adapted to predation.  America’s megafauna included lions, wolves, sabertooths, giant bears, and other carnivores.  Martin argued that humans are somehow different, but any experience with game animals shows that this is not the case.  Animals exposed to other predators quickly learn to be wary of humans too. 

Similar areas in the Old World—Europe, China, southeast Asia, and so on—did not see their megafauna disappear when modern humans came.  In fact, China still has a few elephants, rhinos, tigers, pandas, and so on, and maintained a quite rich megafauna until the rise of the Chinese empire. 

The other main candidate for causing the megafaunal extinctions is climate change.  We know that much earlier glaciations ended with comparably huge extinction events, although no humans were around to affect this (Finnegan et al. 2011).  The cold peak 18,000 years ago was extreme—more severe than any other well-known ice age in the last several million years—and the warm-up after that was rapid.  By 14,800 years ago, when Indiana began to lose megafauna, the climate was still very cold; changes in vegetation, and the coming of frequent fire, were far in the future (Gill et al. 2009).  However, by 12,000 years ago, times were warm and dry.  Then a sudden, dramatic reversal (the Younger Dryas event) froze the continent again around 11,000 years ago.  Cooling took perhaps only a few centuries.  It was followed by an extremely rapid shift to hot, dry conditions.  It is difficult to imagine large, slow-breeding animals tracking all this, and indeed much less dramatic swings in earlier millennia all led to massive extinction events (late Eocene, late Miocene, early Pleistocene, etc.). 

The rapid drying and heating, especially, is significant.  In 2001-2 and 2005-6, essentially no rain fell throughout the entire southwestern quarter of North America.  A two- or three-year period like that would have exterminated the megafauna.  Such a period is quite likely for the Altithermal, the hot dry period that peaked around 7000-8000 years ago.  The lack of major change in Indiana at the early dates of decline makes human hunting more imaginable as an explanation (Johnson 2009), but there were few (if any) humans there to hunt, and no evidence of a deadly hunting technology till much later.  So a major mystery remains.

            Further proof is the extinction of several large waterbirds, such as the La Brea stork (Grayson 1977).  This is clearly climate; these birds did not depend on the megafauna, but rather on wet Pleistocene conditions. 

            In summary, it seems not only possible but probable that humans contributed to the extinction of the mammoths and mastodons, and perhaps also did in the giant ground sloths.  These were sluggish, and unable to defend themselves against missiles.  The other extinct megafauna includes a number of horse species, a huge camel, a llama, southerly species of ox and mountain-goat, and several smaller forms.  These seem to have disappeared before the rise of human hunters, or at least there is no credible association of them with humans.  They are the sort that would not make it through rapid climate change.  Relatives of two of them—the llama and a flat-headed peccary—not only survived in South America but survive there yet, in spite of extremely heavy hunting pressure. 

            Many carnivorous mammals and birds died off, including all the largest, but almost everyone agrees these went because their large-herbivore prey disappeared.

            Humans might well have finished off the last few of these, especially if they were concentrated around water holes by a drought like that of 2005-6.  I thus find myself with Barnofsky et al. (2004), arguing that the situation is unclear, but it seems hard to question “the intersection of human impacts with pronounced climatic change” (2004:70.  For more pro-Martin, but still reasonable, positions, see several articles in Kay and Simmons 2002).

            In spite of this common-sense middle ground. the argument has remained polarized, with True Believers and total skeptics.  The True Believers are often biologists who have no faith in or sympathy with humans or with human hunting (e.g. Ward 1997).  Many are mere popularizers who have no scholarly competence in this regard, and at least a few are outright racists who simply hate Native Americans.  On the other hand, Raymond Hames (2007) has recently provided a well-argued, well-reasoned defense of the overkill hypothesis.  Martin maintains his extreme position, which has become increasingly indefensible, and has resorted some very bizarre arguments.  He dismisses Grayson’s birds as “cowbirds” that depended on the megafauna, in spite of the fact that close relatives elsewhere are the antithesis of that.  He also argues, repeatedly (see all cited sources), that the lack of evidence proves his point, since the wipeout happened so fast!  This brings us close to the conspiracy theorists of the popular press, who prove their theories by arguing that the absence of evidence shows how successful “the government” or “the Trilateral Commission” has been in hiding it.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about all this is a point made by Deloria:  any overhunting by people 12,000 years ago has very little to do with anything Native Americans may be doing now.  Pioneers everywhere are notorious for overrunning their newly settled lands and wasting resources lavishly; they learn better soon.  The Anglo-American settlement of North America, with its wave of deforestation followed by a wave of reforestation, shows this clearly enough.  In any case, 12,000 years is a long time!  Cultures do change, and archaeology shows that the old story of the changeless, timeless Indian was preposterous (see e.g. Pryce 1999).  A mere 2,000 years ago, my Celtic ancestors were fighting dressed only in blue paint, and taking the heads of conquered enemies.   

The sociology of the controversy is possibly more interesting than the fate of the megafauna.  All the believers appear to be biologists, many of whom clearly have a very sour view of humans in general, at least as managers of nature, and some of whom (as I know from experience) are frankly racist toward Native Americans.

Skeptics include Vine Deloria Jr. (1988); Donald Grayson (1977, 1991, 2001; Grayson and Meltzer 2003); Shepard Krech (1999), in spite of his exaggeration of the buffalo jumps; and many others (Wolverton et al. 2009 provides the latest and most sophisticated review of the skeptical position).  Skeptics seem usually to be either Native Americans or anthropologists. 

The present chapter should be enough to point out that (1) Native Americans have a very lively sense of conservation, and observe it in practice, but (2) they teach it through highly circumstantial stories of overhunting that led to starvation.  This should more or less settle the case.  Yes, Native American conservation is real, but, no, Native Americans are no different from anyone else; they learn through experience, and some of the experience is hard-won.  They probably did contribute somewhat (we will never know how much) to the extinctions, and they surely learned from that.   

References

Abbott, Donald (ed.).  1981.  The World Is as Sharp as a Knife:  An Anthology in Honour of Wilson Duff.  Victoria: British Columbia Provincial Museum.

Acheson, Steven.  2003.  “The Thin Edge:  Evidence for Precontact Use and Aworking of Metal on the Northwest Coast.”  In Emerging from the Mist:  Studies in Northwest Coast Culture History, R. G. Matson, Gary Coupland and Quentin Mackie, eds.  Vancouver:  University of British Columbia Press.  Pp. 213-229.

Ackerman, Lillian A.  2005.  “Residential Mobility among Indians of the Colville Reservation.”  Journal of Northwest Anthropology 39:21-31.

Ackerman, Lillian A. (ed.).  1996.  A Song to the Creator: Traditional Arts of Native American Women of the Plateau.  Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Adams, John W.  1973.  The Gitksan Potlatch: Population Flux, Resource Ownership and Reciprocity.  New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 

Adamson, Thelma.  2009.  Folk-Tales of the Coast Salish.  (New edn. With introduction by Willilam R. Seaburg and Laurel Sercombe; original, New York: American Folklore Society, Memoir 27,  1934).   Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Agee, James K.  1993.  Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests.  Washington, DC: Island Press.

Alberta Society of Professional Biologists.  1986.  Native People and Renewable Resource Management.  Edmonton:  Author.

Alfred, Agnes.  2004.  Paddling to Where I Stand:  Agnes Alfred, Qwiqwasutinuxw Noblewoman.  Tr. Daisy Sewid-Smith, ed. Martine Reid.  Seattle:  University of Washington Press.

Alroy, John.  2001a.  “A Multispecies Overkill Simulation of the End-Pleistocene Megafaunal Mass Extinction.”  Science 294:1893-1895.

— 2001 b.  “Response.”  Science 294:1459-1460.

Ames, Kenneth. 2005.  “Intensification of Food Production on the Northwest Coast and Elsewhere.”  In Keeping It Living:  Traditions of Plant Use and Cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North America, Douglas Deur and Nancy Turner (eds.).   Seattle:  University of Washington Press; Vancouver:  University of British Columbia Press.  Pp. 67-100.

Ames, Kenneth M., and Elizabeth A. Sobel.  2013.  “Houses and Households.”  In Chinookan Peoples of the Lower Columbia, Robert T. Boyd, Kenneth M. Ames, and Tony A. Johnson, eds.  Seattle: University of Washington Press. Pp. 125-`45.

Amoss, Pamela.  1978.  Coast Salish Spirit Dancing: The Survival of an Ancestral Religion.  Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Amoss, Pamela.  1984.  “A Little More than Kin, and Less than Kind: The Ambiguous Northwest Coast Dog.”  In The Tsimshian and Their Neighbors, Jay Miller and Carol M. Eastman, eds.  Seattle: University of Washington Press.  Pp. 292-305.

Anastasio, Angelo.  1972.  “The Southern Plateau; An Ecological Analysis of Intergroup Relations.”  Norhwest Anthropological Research Notes 6:109-229.

Anderson, E. N.  1992.  “A Healing Place: Ethnographic Notes on a Treatment Center.”  Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 9:3/4:1-21. 

— 1996.  Ecologies of the Heart.  New York:  Oxford University Press.

—  2011a.  “California.”  Paper, California Indian Conference, 2010, Irvine, CA; revised 2011.

—  2011b.  “Yucatec Maya Botany and the ‘Nature’ of Science.”  Journal of Ecological Anthropology 14:67-73.

—  2014.  Caring for Place.  Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Anderson, E. N., and Evelyn Pinkerton.  1987.  “The Kakawis Experience.”  Tofino, BC: Kakawis Family Development Centre.  68 pp. + appendices. 

Anderson, M. Kat.  2005.  Tending the Wild:  Native American Knowledge and the Management of California’s Natural Resources.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Anderson, Margaret, and Marjorie Halpin.  2000.  “Introduction.”  In Potlatch at Gitsegukla: William Beynon’s 1945 Field Notebooks.  Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Andrade, Manuel.  1969.  Quileute Texts.  (Orig. 1931, Columbia University Press.)  New York: AMS Press.

Armstrong, Chelsey Geralda; Wal’ceckwu Marion Dixon; Nancy J. Turner.  2018.  “Management and Traditional Production of Beaked Hazelnut (k’áp’xw-az’, Corylus cornuta, Betulaceae) in British Columbia.”  Human Ecology 46:547-559.

Armstrong, Jeannette. 2005. En’owkin: Decision-making as if sustainability mattered. In Ecological literacy: Educating our children for a sustainable world, Michael K. Stone and Zenobia Barlow, eds.  Pp. 11-17. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

—  2005.  Okanagan Education for Sustainable Living: As Natural As Learning to Walk or Talk. In Ecological literacy: Educating our children for a sustainable world, Michael K. Stone and Zenobia Barlow, eds.  Pp. 80-84. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

Arnold, David F.  2008.  The Fisherman’s Frontier:  People and Salmon in Southeast Alaska.  Seattle:  University of Washington Press.

Arseniev, V. K.  1996.  Dersu the Trapper (Dersu Uzala).  Tr. Malcolm Burr.  (Russian original, early 20th century.)  Kingston, New York: McPherson and Co. 

Atleo, E. Richard (Umeek).  2004.  Tsawalk:  A Nuu-chah-nulth Worldview.  Vancouver:  University of British Columbia Press.

—  2011.  Principles of Tsawalk: An Indigenous Approach to Global Crisis.  Vancouver:  University of British Columbia Press.

Augustine, Skye; Dana Lepofsky; Nicole Smith; Nathan Cardinal.  2016.  The Clam Garden Network: Linking Ancient Mariculture to Modern Shellfish Management and Cultural Reconnections.  Paper, Society for Applied Anthropology, annual conference, Vancouver, BC.

Balée, William.  1994.  Footprints of the Forest.  New York: Columbia University Press.

Ballard, Arthur C.   1929. Mythology of Southern Puget Sound.  University of Washington Publications in Anthropology 3:1:31-250.

Bamforth, Douglas.  2011.  “Origin Stories, Archaeological Evidence, and Postclovis Paleoindian Bison Hunting on the Great Plains.”  American Antiquity 76:24-40. 

Barbeau, Marius.  1929.  Totem Poles of the Gitksan, Upper Skeena River, British Columbia.  National Museum of Canada, Bulletin 61.  Ottawa: National Museums of Canada.

Barbeau, Marius.  1950.  Totem Poles.  Ottawa: National Museum of Canada.

Barnosky, Anthony D.; Paul L. Koch; Robert S. Feranec; Scott L. Wing; Alan B. Shabel. 2004.  “Assessing the Causes of Late Pleistocene Extinctions on the Continents.”  Science 306:70-75. 

Beckerman, Stephen; Paul Valentine; Elise Eller.  2002.  “Conservation and Native Amazonians:  Why Some Do and Some Don’t.”  Antropologica 96:31-51.

Beckham, Stephen Dow.  1996.  Requiem for a People.  (Orig. publ. 1971.)  Corvallis, OR:  Oregon State University Press.

Benedict, Ruth Fulton.  1923.  The Concept of the Guardian Spirit in North Ameica.  Menasha, WI:  American Anthropological Association.  Memoir 29.

Bernard, H. Russell, and Jesús Salinas Pedraza.  1989.  Native Ethnography.  A Mexican Indian Describes His Culture.  Newbury Park, CA:  Sage.

Bernick, Kathryn.  2003.  “A Stitch in Time:  Recovering the Antiquity of a Coast Salish basket Type.”  In Emerging from the Mist:  Studies in Northwest Coast Culture History, R. G. Matson, Gary Coupland and Quentin Mackie, eds.  Vancouver:  University of British Columbia Press.  Pp. 230-243.

Beynon, William.  2000.   Potlatch at Gitsegukla: William Beynon’s 1945 Field Notebooks.  Ed. Margaret Anderson and Marjorie Halpin.  Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Bierwert, Crisca.  1999.  Brushed by Cedar, Living by the River:  Coast Salish Figures of Power.  Tucson:  University of Arizona Press.

Bierwert, Crisca (ed.).  1996.  Lushootseed Texts: An Introduction to Pugeet Salish Narrative Aesthetics.  Lincoln, NE:  University of Nebraska Press.

Blackburn, Thomas.  1975.  December’s Child:  A Book of Chumash Oral Narratives.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Blacker, Carmen.  1986.  The Catalpa Bow:  A Study of Shamanism in Japan.  2nd edn.  London:  George Allen & Unwin.

Blackman, Margaret.  1982. During My Time:  Florence Edenshaw Davidson, a Haida Woman.  Seattle:  University of Washington Press.

Bland, Richard L.  2012.  “Bernard Fillip Jacobsen and Three Nuxalk Legends.”  Journal of Northwest Anthropology 46:143-166. 

Blaser, Mario.  2009.  “The Threat of the Yrmo:  The Political Ontology of a Sustainable Hunting Program.”  American Anthropologist 111:10-20.

Blukis Onat, Astrida R.  2002.  “Resource Cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North America.”  Journal of Northwest Anthropology 36:125-144.

Boas, Franz.  1918.  Kutenai Tales.  Washington, DC:  United States Government, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 59.

—  1921.  Ethnology of the Kwakiutl.  2 v.  Washington, DC:  United States Government, Bureau of American Ethnology, annual report for 1913-1914. 

—  2006.  Indian Myths and Legends from the North Pacific Coast of America.  [German original 1895.]  Tr. Dietrich Bertz.  Ed. Randy Bouchard and Dorothy Kennedy.  Vancouver:  Talon. 

Boelscher, Marianne.  1988.  The Curtain Within:  Haida Social and Mythical Discourse.  Vancouver:  Unversity of British Columbia Press.

Boyd, Robert T.  1999.  The Coming of the Spirit of Pestilence:  Introduced Infections Diseases and Population Decline Among Northwest Coast Indians,m 1774-1874.  Seattle:  University of Washington Press.

—  2013a.  “Lower Chinookan Disease and Demography.”  In Chinookan Peoples of the Lower Columbia, Robert T. Boyd, Kenneth M. Ames, and Tony A. Johnson, eds.  Seattle: University of Washington Press. Pp. 229-249.

—  2013.  “Lower Columbia Chinookan Ceremonialism.”  In Chinookan Peoples of the Lower Columbia, Robert T. Boyd, Kenneth M. Ames, and Tony A. Johnson, eds.  Seattle: University of Washington Press. Pp. 181-198.

Boyd, Robert T.; Kenneth M. Ames; Tony A. Johnson (eds.).  2013.  Chinookan Peoples of the Lower Columbia.  Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Boyd, Robert, and Cecilia D. Gregory.  2007.  “Disease and Demography in the Plateau.”  Journal of Northwest Anthropology 41:37-70. 

Brandt, Richard B.  1954.  Hopi Ethics:  A Theoretical Analysis.  Chicago:  University of Chicago Press.

Brightman, Robert.  1993.  Grateful Prey:  Rock Cree Human-Animal Relationships.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Brook, Barry W., and David M. J. S. Bowman.  2002.  ‘Explaining the Pleistocene Megafaunal Extinctions:  Models, Chronologies, and Assumptions.”  PNAS 99:14624-14627. 

Brown, Frank, and Y. Kathy Brown.  2009.  Staying the Course, Staying Alive.  (CD and folder.)  Vancouver, BC:  Biodiversity BC.

Butler, Virginia L.  2005.  “Sustainable Use of Animal Resources on the Northwest Coast?”  Presentation, American Anthropological Association, annual conference, Washington, DC. 

Butler, Virginia L., and Sarah K. Campbell.  2004. “Resource Intensification and Resource Depression in the Pacific Northwest of North America:  A Zooarcheological Review.”  Journal of World Prehistory 18:4:327-405.

Butler, Virginia L., and Michael A. Martin.  2013.  “Aboriginal Fisheries of the Lower Columbia River.”  In Chinookan Peoples of the Lower Columbia, Robert T. Boyd, Kenneth M. Ames, and Tony A. Johnson, eds.  Seattle: University of Washington Press. Pp. 80-105.

Cajete, Gregory.  1994.  Look to the Mountain:  An Ecology of Indigenous Education.  Skyland, NC:  Kivaki Press.

Callicott, J. Baird.  1994.  Earth’s Insights:  A Multicultural Survey of Ecological Ethics from the Mediterranean Basin to the Australian Outback.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Callicott, J. Baird, and Michael P. Nelson.  2004.  American Indian Environmental Ethics:  An Ojibwa Case Study.  Upper Saddle River, NJ:  Pearson Prentice Hall.

Cameron, Catherine M.; Paul Kelton; Alan C. Swedlund (eds.).  2015.  Beyond Germs: Native Depopulation in North America.  Tucson: University of Arizona Press. 

Campbell, Joseph.  1983.  The Way of the Animal Powers.  New York:  A. van der Marck Editions.

Cannon, Aubrey, and Banya Y. Yang.  2006.  “Early Storage and Sendentism on the Pacific Northwest Coast:  Ancient DNA Analysis of Salmon Remains from Namu, British Columbia.”  American Antiquity 71:123-140.

Capuder, Karen.  2012.  Forked Tongues at sveGalivu/Sequalitchew: A Critical Indigenist Anthropology of Place in sAalifabs/Nisqually Territory. Thesis, Dept. of Anthropology, University of Washington.

Carlson, Keith Thor, et al.  2001.  A Stó:lō-Coast Salish Historical Atlas.  Vancouver:  Douglas and MacIntyre; Seattle:  University of Washington Press; Chilliwack: Stó:lō Heritage Trust.

Carolan, Michael.  2004.  “Ontological Politics:  Mapping a Complex Environmental Problem.” 

Environmental Values 13:497-522.

Carothers, Courtney. 2012.  “Enduring Ties: Salmon and the Alutiiq/Sugpiaq Peoples of the Kodiak Archipelago, Alaska.”  In Keystone Nations: Indigenous Peoples and Salmon across the North Pacific, Benedict J. and James F. Brooks, eds.  Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.  Pp. 133-160.

Carstens, Peter.  1991.  The Queen’s People:  A Study of Hegemony, Coercion, and Accommodation among the Okanagan of Canada.  Toronto:  University of Toronto Press.

Clark, Peter U.; Arthur S. Dyke; Jeremy D. Shakun; Anders E. Carlson; Jorie Clark; Barbara Wohlfarth; Jerry X. Mitrovica; Steven W. Hostetler; A. Marshall McCabe.  2009.  “The Last Glacial Maximum.”  Science 325:710-714. 

Clottes, Jean.  2008.  Cave Art.  London:  Phaidon.

Codere, Helen.  1950.  Fighting with Property.  New York:  J. J. Augustin.

Collins, June M.  1974.  Valley of the Spirits:  The Upper Skagit Indians of Western Washington.  Seattle:  University of British Columbia Press.

Colson, Elizabeth.  1953.  The Makah Indians:  A Study of an Indian Tribe in Modern American Society.  Minneapolis, MN:  University of Minnesota Press.

Colville, Frederick Vernon.  1902.  Wokas, a Primitive Food of the Klamath Indians.  United States National Museum, Report, 1902, pp. 725-739.

Cooper, H. Kory; Kenneth M. Ames; Loren G. Davis.  2015.  “Metal and Prestige in the Greater Lower Columbia River Region, Northwestern North America.”  Journal of Northwest Anthropology 49:143-166.

Coté, Charlotte.  2010.  Spirits of Our Whaling Ancestors:  Revitalizing Makah and Nuu-chah-nulth Traditions.  Seattle:  University of Washington Press.

Coupland, Gary; Terence Clark; Amanda Palmer.  2009.  “Hierarchy, Communalism, and the Spatial Order of Northwest Coast Plank Houses:  A Comparataive Study.”  American Antiquity 74:77-106.

Croes, Dale.  2003.  “Northwest Coast Wet-Site Artifacts:  A Key to Understanding Resource Procurement, Storage, Management, and Exchange.”  In Emerging from the Mist:  Studies in Northwest Coast Culture History, R. G. Matson, Gary Coupland and Quentin Mackie, eds.  Vancouver:  University of British Columbia Press.  Pp. 51-75.

Croes, Dale R.  2015.  “The Undervalued Black Katy Chitons (Katharina tunicata) as a Shellfish Resource on the Northwest Coast of North America.”  Journal of Northwest Anthropology 49:13-26.

Cruikshank, Julie.  1998.  The Social Life of Stories:  Narrative and Knowledge in the Yukon Territory.  Lincoln:  University of Nebraska Press.

Cruikshank, Julie.  2005.  Do Glaciers Listen?  Local Knowledge, Colonial Encouinters, and Social Imagination.  Vancouver:  University of British Columbia Press.

Daly, Richard.  2005.  Our Box Was Full:  An Ethnography for the Delgamuukw Plaintiffs.  Vancouver:  University of British Columbia Press.

Dauenhauer, Nora Marks, and Richard Dauenhauer.  1987.  Haa Shuká, Our Ancestors:  Tlingit Oral Narratives.  UW and Sealaska Heritage Foundation, Juneau.

—  1990.  Haa Tuwunáagu Yís, for Healing Our Spirit:  Tlingit Oratory.  University of Washington and Sealaska Heritage Foundation, Juneau.

De Laguna, Frederica.  1972.  Under Mount Saint Elias:  The History and Culture of the Yakutat Tlingit.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution.  Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 7.

Deloria, Vine, Jr.  1988.  Custer Died for Your Sins:  An Indian Manifesto.  Norman, OK:  University of Oklahoma Press.

DeMaillie, Raymond J. 1984.  The Sixth Grandfather:  Black Elk’s Teachings Given to John G. Neihardt.  Lincoln:  University of Nebraska.

De Menil, Audrey, and Bill Reid.  1971.  Out of the Silence.  New York: Harper and Row for the Amon Dcarter Museum, Fort Worth. 

Descola, Philippe.  2013.  Beyond Nature and Culture.  Tr. Janet Lloyd (French original 2005).  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Deur, Douglas, and Nancy Turner.  2005.  “Introduction:  Reassessing Indigenous Resoufce Management, Reassessing the History of an Idea.”  In Keeping It Living:  Traditions of Plant Use and Cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North America, Douglas Deur and Nancy Turner (eds.).   Seattle:  University of Washington Press; Vancouver:  University of British Columbia Press.  Pp. 3-36.

Deur, Douglas, and M. Terry Thompson.  2008.  “South Wind’s Journeys:  A Tyillamook Epic Reconstructed from Sevearl Sources.”    In Salish Myths and Legends:  One People’s Stories, M. Terry Thompson and Steven Egesdal, eds.  Lincoln:  University of Nebraska Press.  Pp. 2-59.

Deur, Douglas, and Nancy Turner (eds.).  2005.  Keeping It Living:  Traditions of Plant Use and Cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North America.   Seattle:  University of Washington Press; Vancouver:  University of British Columbia Press.

Diamond, Jared.  1997.  Guns, Germs and Steel.  New York:  W. W. Norton.

Diver, Sibyl.  2012.  “Columbia River Tribal Fisheries: Life History Stages of a Co-Management Institution.”  In Keystone Nations: Indigenous Peoples and Salmon across the North Pacific, Benedict J. Colombi and James F. Brooks, eds.  Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. Pp. 207-235.

Dodds, E. R.  1951.  The Greeks and the Irrational.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Dooley, Ann, and Harry Roe.  1999.  Tales of the Elders of Ireland:  A New Translation of Acallam na Senórach.  Oxford:  Oxford University Press.

Drucker, Philip.  1951.  The Northern and Central Nootkan Tribes.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology.  Bulletin 144.

Drucker, Philip, and Robert Heizer.  1967.  To Make My Name Good:  A Re-examination of the Southern Kwakiutl Potlatch.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Duff, Wilson.  1996.  Bird of Paradox.  Ed. E. N. Anderson.  Surrey, BC: Hancock House.

Duff, Wilson.  1975.  Images: Stone: BC:  Thirty Centuries of Northwest Coast Indian Sculpture. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Duff, Wilson; Bill Holm; Bill Reid.  1967.  Arts of the Raven.  Vancouver: Vancouver Art Gallery.

Dupris, Joseph; Kathleen Hill; William Rodgers Jr.  2006.  The Si’lailo way:  Indians, Salmon and Dams on the Columbia River.  Foreword by Vine Deloria, Jr.  Durham, NC:  Carolina Academic Press.

Egesdal, Steven.  2008.  Introduction to “Coyotes and Buffalo: a Tradtional Spoken Story.”  In Salish Myths and Legends:  One People’s Stories, M. Terry Thompson and Steven Egesdal, eds.  Lincoln:  University of Nebraska Press.  Pp. 139-146.

Eliade, Mircea.  1964.  Shamanism:  Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy.  London:  Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Ellingson, Ter.   2001.  The Myth of the Noble Savage.  Berkeley:  University of California Press. 

Elmendorf, W. W.  1960.  The structure of Twana Culture.  Pullman, WA: Research Studies, Washington State University, Monographic Suppplement 2, part 1.

Enrico, John.  1995.  Skidegate Haida Myuths and Histories.  Skidegate:  Queen Charlotte Islands Museum.

Fantham, Elaine.  2006.  Introduction.  In Georgics, by Virgil.  Tr. Peter Fallon, intro. Elaine Fantham (Latin orig. ca. 38 BC).  Oxford:  Oxford University Press.  Pp. xi-xxxiii.

Farella, John.  1984.  The Main Stalk:  A Synthesis of Navaho Philosophy.  Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Felger, Richard, and Mary Beth Moser.  1985.  People of the Desert and Sea:  Ethnobotany of the Seri Indians.  Tucson:  University of Arizona Press.

Fienup-Riordan, Ann.  1994.  Boundaries and Passages:  Rule and Ritual in Yup’ik Eskimo Oral Tradition.  Norman, OK:  University of Oklahoma Press.

—  2005.  Wise Words of theYup’ik People:  We Talk to You because We Love You.  Lincoln, NE:  University of Nebraska Press.

Feit, Harvey.  2006.  “The Animals are Still There, They Just Do Not Want to be Caught”:  Exploring Nonmodern Conservation and Caring in James Bay Cree Spirituality and Hunting.  Paper, American Anthropological Association, annual conference, San Jose. 

Finnegan, Seth; Kristin Bergmann; John M. Eiler; David S. Jones; David A. Fike; Ian Eisenman; Nigel C. Hughes; Aradhna K. Tripati; Woodward W. Fischer.  2011.  “The Magnitude and Duration of Late Ordovician-arliy Silurian Glaciation.”  Science 331:903-906.

Fisher, Andrew H.  2010.  Shadow Tribe: The Making of Columbia River Indian Identity.  Seattle:  University of Washington Press.

Fiske, Jo-Anne, and Betty Patrick.  2000.  Cis Dideen Kat:  When the Plumes Rise.  Vancouver:  University of British Columbia Press.

Fitzhugh, William W., and Aron Crowell.  1988.  Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska.  Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Ford, Clellan S.  1941.  Smoke from Their Fires:  The Life of a Kwakiutl Chief. 

Foster, George.  1945.  Sierra Popoluca Folklore and Beliefs.  Berkeley: University of California Press.

Frey, Rodney.  1995.  Stories That Make the World:  Oral Literature of the Indian Peoples of the Inland Northwest.  Norman, OK:  University of Oklahoma Press.

—  2001.  Landscape Traveled by Coyote and Crane:  The World of the Schitsu’umsh (Coeur d’Alene) Indians.  Seattle:  University of Washington Press.

Frey, Rodney, and Dell Hymes.  1998.  “Mythology.”  In Handbook of North American Indians.  Vol. 12, Plateau, Deward E. Walker, Jr., ed.  Washington:  Smithsonian Institution.  Pp. 584-599.

Frison, George.  2004.  Survival by Hunting:  Prehistoric Human Hunters and Animal Prey.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Furtwangler, Albert.  1997.  Answering Chief Seattle.  Seattle:  University of Washington Press.

Gahr, D. Ann Trieu.  2013.  “Ethnobiology: Nonfishing Subsistence and Production.”  In Chinookan Peoples of the Lower Columbia, Robert T. Boyd, Kenneth M. Ames, and Tony A. Johnson, eds.  Seattle: University of Washington Press. Pp. 63-79.

Gantz, Jeffrey.  1981.  Early Irish Myths and Sagas.  New York:  Dorset.

Garfield, Viola.  1939.  Tsimshian Clan and Society.  University of Washington Publications in Anthropology, 7:167-340.  Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Garfield, Viola E.; Paul S. Wingert; Marius Barbeau.  1950.  The Tsimshian: Their Arts and Music.  Publications of the American Ethnological Society XVIII.  New York: J. J. Augustin.

Garfield, Viola E., and Linn A. Forrest.  1961.  The Wolf and the Raven: Totem Poles of Souitheastern Alaska.  Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Gende, Scott M., and Thomas P. Quinn.  2006.  “The Fish and the Forest.”  Scientific American, Aug., pp. 84-89.

George, Earl Maquinna.  2003.  Living On the Edge:  Nuu-Chah-Nulth History from an Ahousaht Chief’s Perspective.  Winlaw, BC:  Sono Nis Press.

George, Mary, and Honoré Watanabe.  2008.  “The Seal, a Traditional Sliammon-Comox Story.”  In Salish Myths and Legends:  One People’s Stories, M. Terry Thompson and Steven Egesdal, eds.  Lincoln:  University of Nebraska Press.  Pp. 121-129.

Gill, Ian.  2009.  All That We Say Is Ours:  Guujaaw and the Reawakening of the Haida Nation.  Vancouver: Douglas & MacIntyre.

Gill, Jacquelyn L.; John W. Williams; Stephen T. Jackson; Katherine B. Lininger; Guy S. Robinson.  2009.  “Pleistocene Megafaunal Collapse, Novel Plant Communities, and Enhanced Fire Regimes in North America.”  Science 326:1100-1103.

Gleason, Susan Marie.  2001.  In Search of the Intangible:  Geophyte Use and Management along the Upper Klamath River Canyon.  Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.

Goddard, Pliny Earle.  1934.  Indians of the Northwest Coast.  New York:  American Museum of Natural History.

Goetze, Tara.  2006.  “Empowered Co-Management:  Towards Power-Sharing and Indigenous Rights in Clayoquot Sound, BC.” Anthropologica 47:2:247-266.

Gottesfeld, Leslie M. Johnson.  1994a.  “Conservation, Territory, and Traditional Beliefs:  An Analysis of Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en Subsistence, Northwest British Columbia, Canada.”  Human Ecology 22:443-465.

—1994b.  “Wet’suwet’en Ethnobotany: Traditional Plant Uses.”  Journal of Ethnobiology 14:185-210.

Goulet, Jean-Guy A.  1998.  Ways of Knowing:  Experience, Knowledge, and Power among the Dene Tha.  Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Grabowski, Stephen.  2015.  “Structure of a Resource: Biology and Ecology of Pacific Salmon in the Columbia River Basin.”  In Rivers, Fish, and the People: Tradition, Science, and Historical Ecology of Fisheries in the American West, Pei-lin Yu,

 ed.  Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.  Pp. 12-41.

Grayson, Donald K.  1977.  “Pleistocene Avifaunas and the Overkill Hypothesis.”  Science 195:691-693.

—  1991.  “Late Pleistocene Mammalian Extinctions in North America:  Taxonomy, Chronology, and Explanations.”  Journal of World Prehistory 5:193-231.

— 2001.  “Did Human Hunting Cause Mass Extinction?”  Science 294:1459.

Grayson, Donald K., and David J. Meltzer.  2003.  “A Requiem for North American Overkill.”  Journal of Archaeological Science, 2003, 1-9.

Greenberg, Joseph H.  1987.  Language in the Americas.  Stanford, CA:  Stanford University Press.

Greenfield, Patricia Marks.  2004.  Weaving Generations Together:  Evolving Creativity in the Maya of Chiapas. Santa Fe, NM:  School of American Research Press.

Grijalva, James M.  2008.  Closing the Cirlce:  Environmental Justice in Indian Country.  Durham, NC:  Carolina Academic Press.

Goulet, Jean-Guy A.  1998.  Ways of Knowing:  Experience, Knowledge, and Power among the Dene Tha.  Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Halffman, Carrin; Ben A. Potter; Holly J. McKinney; Bruce P. Finney; Antonia T. Rodrigues; Dongya Yang; Brian M. Kemp.  2015.  “Early Human Use of Anadromous Salmon in North America at 11,500 Years Ago.”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112:12344-12348.

Hallowell, A. Irving.  1955.  Culture and Experience.  Philadelphia:  University of Pennsylvania Press.

—  1960.  “Ojibwa Ontology, Behavior, and World-View.”  In Culture in History:  Essays in Honor of Paul Radin, Stanley Diamond, ed.  New York:  Columbia University Press.  Pp. 19-52.

Halpin, Marjorie. 1978.  “William Beynon, Ethnographer, Tsimshian, 1888-1958.”  In American Indian Intellectuals, Margot Liberty, ed.  St. Paul:  West Publishing Co.  Pp. 140-156.

—  1981a.  “’Seeing’ in Stone: Tsimshian Masking and the Twin Stone Masks.”  In The World is as Sharp as a Knife: An Anthology in Honour of Wilson Duff, Donald Abbott, ed.  Victoria: British Columbia Provincial Museum.  Pp. 2269-288.

Halpin, Marjorie.  1981b.  Totem Poles: An Illustrated Guide.  Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Haly, Richard.  1992.  “On Becoming a Mountain:  Or Why Native Americans Have Animals for Souls.”  Paper, American Anthropological Association, Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA.

Hames, Raymond.  2007.  “The Ecologically Noble Savage Debate.”  Annual Review of Anthropology 36:177-190.

Hanna, Darwin, and Mamie Henry.  1995.  Our Tellings.  Vancouver:  University of British Columbia Press.

Harmon, Alexandra.  1999.  Indians in the Making:  Ethnic Relations and Indian Identities around Puget Sound.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Harris, Douglas.  2008.  Landing Native Fisheries:  Indian Reserves and Fishing Rights in British Columbia, 1849-1925.  Vancouver:  University of British Columbia Press.

Hart, J. L.  1973.  Pacific Fishes of Canada.  Ottawa: Fisheries Research Board of Canada.

Harvey, Graham.  2006.  Animism:  Respecting the Living World.  New York:  Columbia University Press.

Hawker, Ronald W.  2003.  Tales of Ghosts:  First Nations Art in British Columbia, 1922-1961.  Vancouver:  University of British Columbia Press.

Hayden, Brian.  2003.  Shamans, Sorcerers and Saints: A Prehistory of Religion.  Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books.

—  “Hunting on Heaven and Earth.”  Current Anthropology 54:495-496.

Here, and citing to book above:

Heaney, Seamus.  1984.  Sweeney Astray.  London:  Faber and Faber.

Hedrick, Kimberly.  2007.  Our Way of Life: Identity, Landscape, and Conflict.  Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.

Heizer, Robert (ed.).  1978.  California.  Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8.   Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Helm, June.  2000.  The People of Denendeh: Ethnohistory of the Indians of Canada’s Mnorthwest Territories.  Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa Press. 

Helm, June (ed.).  1981.  Subarctic.  Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 6.   Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Holm, Bill.  1965.  Northwest Coast Indian Art: An Anlsysi of Form.  Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Holm, Bill, and William Reid.  1975.  Form and Freedom: A Dialogue on Northwest Coast Indian Art.  Houston, TX: Rice University Press. 

Humphrey, Caroline.  1995.  “Chiefly and Shamanist Landscapes in Mongolia.”  In

The Anthropology of Landscape: Perspectives on Space and Place, Eric Hirsch and Michael O’Hanlon, eds.  New York: Oxford University Press.  Pp. 135-162.

Humphrey, Caroline, with Urgunge Onon.  1996.  Shamans and Elders:  Experience, Knowledge, and Power among the Daur Mongols.  Oxford:  Oxford University Press.

Hunn, Eugene.  1990.  Nch’i-Wana, the Big River.  Seattle:  University of Washington Press.

Hunn, Eugene.  2008.  A Zapotec Natural History:  Trees, Herbs, and Flowers, Birds, Beasts and Bugs in the Life of San Juan Gbëë.  Tucson:  University of Arizona Press.

Hunn, Eugene S., and David French.  1998.  “Western Columbia River Sahaptins.”  In Handbook of North American Indians.  Vol. 12, Plateau, Deward E. Walker, Jr., ed.  Washington:  Smithsonian Institution.  Pp. 378-394.

Hunn, Eugene; Darryll R. Johnson; Priscilla N. Russell; Thomas F. Thornton.  2003.  “Huna Tlingit Traditional Environmental Knowledge, Conservatgion, and the Management of a “Wilderness” Park.”  Current Anthropology 44 Supplement: S79-S104. 

Hymes, Dell, and William Seaburg.  2013.  “Chinookan Oral Literature.”  In Keystone Nations: Indigenous Peoples and Salmon across the North Pacific, Benedict J. Colombi and James F. Brooks, eds.  Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. Pp. 163-180.

Ignace, Marianne Boelscher.  1998.  “Shuswap.”  In Plateau (Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 12), Deward Walker, ed.  Washington:  Smithsonian Institution.  Pp. 203-219.

Ignace, Marianne, and Ronald Ignace. 2017.  Secwépemc People, Land and Laws.  Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Jacobs, Melville.  1940.  Coos Myth Texts.  University of Washington, Publications in Anthropology, 8:127-260. 

Jenness, Diamond.  1955.  The Faith of a Coast Salish Indian.  Victoria, BC:  British Columbia Provincial Museum [now Royal British Columbia Museum], Memoir 3.

Jilek, Wolfgang.  1972?  Indian Healing.  Surrey, BC:  Hancock House.

Johnsen, D. Bruce.  2009.  “Salmon, Science, and Reciprocity on the Northwest Coast.”  Ecology and Society 14:2:43. 

Johnson, Christopher.  2009.  “Megafaunal Decline and Fall.”  Science 326:1072-1073.

Johnson, Leslie Main.  2010.  Trail of Story, Traveller’s Path:  Reflections on Ethnoecology and Landscape.  Edmonton, AB:  AU Press (Athabaska University).

Jolles, Carol Zane.  2002.  Faith, Food and Family in a Yupik Whaling Community. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Jonaitis, Aldona.  1981.  Tlingit Halibut Hooks:  An Analysis of the Visual Symbols of a Rite of Passage.  New York:  American Museum of Natural History.  Vol. 57, part. 1.

—  1986.  Art of the Northern Tlingit.  Seattle:  University of Washington Press.

—  1988.  From the Land of the Totem Poles.  New York:  American Museum of Natural History.

— (ed.).  1991.  Chiefly Feasts:  The Enduring Kwakiutl Potlatch.  New York:  American Museum of Natural History; Seattle:  University of Washington Press.

—  1999.  The Yuquot Whalers’ Shrine.  Seattle:  University of Washington Press.

—  2008.  “A Generation of Innovators in Southeast Alaska.”  American Indian Art, autumn, 56-67. 

Jones, Jason M.  2015.  “Intensification of Secondary Resources along the Lower Spokane River and the Role ofMargaritifera falcata, the Western Pearlshell.”  In Rivers, Fish, and the People: Tradition, Science, and Historical Ecology of Fisheries in the American West, Pei-lin Yu, ed.  Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.  Pp. 127-154.

Kaiser, Rudolf.  1987.  “Chief Seattle’s Speech(es):  American Origins and European Reception.”  In:  Swann, Brian, and Arnold Krupat (eds.).  1987.  Recovering the Word; Essays on Native American Literature.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Kasten, Erich.  2012.  “Koryak Salmon Fishery: Remembrances of the Past, Perspetives for the Future.”  In Keystone Nations: Indigenous Peoples and Salmon across the North Pacific, Benedict J. Colombi and James F. Brooks, eds.  Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.

Kay, Charles E., and Randy T. Simmons (eds.).  2002.  Wilderness and Political Ecology: Aboriginal Influences and the Original State of Nature.  Salt Lake City:  University of Utah Press.

Kenin-Lopsan, Mongush B.  1997.  Shamanic Songs and Myths of Tuva.  Ed./tr. Mihály Hoppál.  Budapest:  Akadémiai Kiadó.

Kendall, Laurel.  1985.  Shamans, Housewives, and Other Restless Spirits:  Women in Korean Ritual Life.  Honolulu:  University of Hawaii Press.

—  1988.  The Life and Hard Times of a Korean Shaman.  Honolulu:  University of Hawaii Press.

Kenin-Lopsan, Mongush B.  1997.  Shamanic Songs and Myths of Tuva.  Ed./tr. Mihály Hoppál.  Budapest:  Akadémiai Kiadó.

Kennedy, Dorothy, and Randall Bouchard.  1998a.  “Lillooet.”  In Plateau (Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 12), Deward Walker, ed.  Washington:  Smithsonian Institution.  Pp. 174-190.

— —  1998b.  “Northern Okanagan, Lakes, and Colville.”  In Plateau (Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 12), Deward Walker, ed.  Washington:  Smithsonian Institution.  Pp. 238-252.

Kerttula, Anna M.  2000.  Antler on the Sea: Yup’ik and Chukchi of the Russian Far East.  Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Ḳi-ḳe-in (Ron Hamilton).  2013.  Hilth Hiitinkis—From the Beach.  In Native Art of the Northwest Coast; A History of Changing Ideas, Charlotte Townsend-Gault, Jennifer Kramer, and Ḳi-ḳe-in, eds.  Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.  Pp. 26-30.

Kinsella, Thomas.  1969.  The Tain.  Oxford:  Oxford University Press.

Kirch, Patrick V.  1994.  The Wet and the Dry: Irrigation and Agricultural Intensification in Polynesia.  Chicago:  University of Chicago Press.

— 1997.  Microcosmic Histories.  American Anthropologist 99:31-42.

—  2007.  “Hawaii as a Model System for Human Ecodynamics.”  American Anthropologist 109:8-26. 

Kirk, Ruth.  1986.  Wisdom of the Elders.  Vancouver:  Douglas and MacIntyre.

Kluckhohn, Clyde.  1957.  “Foreword.”  In The Structure of a Moral Code, by John Ladd.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  Pp. i-xiv.

Koester, David.  2012.  “Shades of Deep Slamon: Fish, Fishing, and Itelmen Cultural History.” In Keystone Nations: Indigenous Peoples and Salmon across the North Pacific, Benedict J. and James F. Brooks, eds.  Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.  Pp. 47-64.

Krajick, Kevin.  2005.  “Tracking Myth to Geological Reality.”  Science 310:762-4. 

Kramer, Jennifer.  2013.  “’Fighting with Property’: The Double-edged Character of Ownership.”  In Native Art of the Northwest Coast: A History of Changing Ideas. Townsend-Gault, Charlotte; Jennifer Kramer; Ḳi-ḳe-in, eds.  Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.  Pp. 720-756.

Krech, Shepard, III.  1999.  The Ecological Indian:  Myth and Reality.  New York:  W. W. Norton.

Krohn, Elise, and Valerie Segrest.  2010.  Feeding the People:  Revitalizing Northwest Coastal Indian Food Culture.  Bellingham:  Northwest Indian College.

Kropotkin, P.  2004.  Mutual Aid, a Factor of Evolution.  London: Wm. Heinemann.

Lacourse, Terri; Rolf W. Mathewes; Richard J. Hebda.  2007.  “Paleoecological Analyses of Lake Sediments Reveal Prehistoric Human Impact on Forests at Anthony Island UNESCO World Heritage Site, Queen Charlotte Islands (Haida Gwaii), Canada.”  Quarternary Research 68:177-183.

Ladd, John.  1957.  The Structure of a Moral Code.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lam, Mimi, and Roberto Gonzalez-Plaza.  2007.  “Evolutionary Universal Aesthetics in Ecological Rationality.”  Journal of Ecological Anthropology 10:66-71.

Lamb, Andy, and Bernard P. Hanby.  2005.  Marine Life of the Pacific Northwest.  Madeira Park, BC: Harbour Press.

Lame Deer, John Fire, and Richard Erdoes.  1972.  Lame Deer, Seeker of Visions.  Simon and Schuster.

Lang, George.  2008.  Making Waw: The Genesis of Chinook Jargon.  Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Langdon, Steve.  2016.  Tlingit Relations with Salmon in Southeast Alaska:  Concepts, Innovations and Interventions.  Paper, Society for Applied Anthropology, annual conference, Vancouver, BC.

Lawrence, Elizabeth Attwood.  1997.  Hunting the Wren:  Transformation of Bird to Symbol.  Knoxville:  University of Tennessee Press.   

Legat, Allice.  2012.  Walking the Land, Feeding the Fire: Knowledge and Stewardshoip among the Tłįchǫ Dene.  Tucson:  University of Arizona Press.

Lentz, David L. (ed.).  2000.  Imperfect Balance:  Landscape Transformations in the Precolumbian Americas.  New York:  Columbia University Press.

Lepofsky, Dana; Douglas Hallett; Ken Lertzman; Rolf Mathewes; Albert (Sonny) McHalsie; Kevin Washbrook.  2005.  “Documenting Precontact Plant Management on the Northwest Coast:  An Example of Prescribed Burning in the Central and Upper Fraser Valley, British Columbia.” In Keeping It Living:  Traditions of Plant Use and Cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North America, Douglas Deur and Nancy Turner (eds.).   Seattle:  University of Washington Press; Vancouver:  University of British Columbia Press.  Pp. 218-239.

Lepofsky, Dana; Ken Lertzman; Douglas Hallett; Rolf Mathewes.  2005.  “Climate Change and Culture Change on the Southern Coast of British Columbia 2400-1200 Cal. B. P.:  A Hypothesis.  American Antiquity 70:267-293.

Lepofsky, Dana; Nicole F. Smith; Nathan Cardinal; John Harper; Mary Morris; Gitla (Elroy White); Randy Bouchard; Dorothy I. D. Kennedy; Anne K. Salomon; Michelle Puckett; Kirsten Rowell.  2015.  “Ancient Shellfish Mariculture n the Northwest Coast of North America.”  American Antiquity 80:236-259.

Lévi-Strauss, Claude.   1958.  Anthropologie structurale.  Paris:  Plon.

—  1963.  Structural Anthropology.  New York:  Basic Books. 

—  1962.  La pensée sauvage.   Paris:  Plon. 

—  1964-1971.  Mythologiques.  4 v.  Paris:  Plon. 

—  1982.  The Way of the Masks.  Tr. Sylvia Modelski (Fr. orig. 1979).  Seattle:  University of Washington Press.

—  1995.  The Story of Lynx.  Tr. Catherine Tihanyi.  Chicago:  University of Chicago Press.

Ling, Johan; Timothy Earle; Kristian Kristiansen.  2018.  “Maritime Mode of Produdtion: Raiding and Trading in Seafaring Chiefdoms.”  Current Anthropology 59:488-524.

Llanes Pasos, Eleuterio.  1993.  Cuentos de cazadores.  Chetumal:  Govt. of Quintana Roo.

Lloyd, Geoffrey.  2007.  Cognitive Variations:  Reflections on the Unity and Diversity of the Human Mind.  Oxford:  Oxford University Press.

Locke, John.  1924 [1690].  Two Treatises on Government.  New York:  Everyman.

Loeb, Barbara, and Maynard White Owl Lavadour.  1998.  “Transmontane Beading: A Statement of Respect.”  In Native Arts of the Columbia Plateau: The Doris Swayze Bounds Collection, Susan E. Harless, ed.  Bend, OR, and Seattle, WA: High Desert Museum and University of Washington Press.  Pp. 71-86.

Lopez, Kevin Lee.  1992.  “Returning to Fields.”  American Indian Culture and Research Journal 16:165-174.

Lowie, Robert.  1924.  Primitive Religion.  New York:  Boni and Liveright.

Lutz, John.  2008.  Makúk:  A New History of Aboriginal-White Relations.  Vancouver:  University of British Columbia Press.

Lyons, Kevin.  2015.  “Recognizing the Archaeological Signatures of Resident Fisheries.”  In Rivers, Fish, and the People: Tradition, Science, and Historical Ecology of Fisheries in the American West, Pei-lin Yu, ed.  Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.  Pp. 96-126.

Lyons, Natasha, and Morgan Ritchie.  2017.  “The Archaeology of Camas Production and Exchange on the Northwest Coast: ith Evidence from a Sts’ailes (Chehalis) Village on the Harrison River, British Columbia.” Journal of Ethnobiology 37:346-367.

MacDonald, George F.  1983.  Haida Monumental Art.  Vancouver:  University of British Columbia Press.

MacDonald, George F., and John Cove (eds.).  1987.  Tsimshian Narratives.  2 vols.  Ottawa:  Canadian Museum of Civilization.  Directorate Paper 3.

MacDonald, James.  2005.  “Cultivating in the Northwest:  Early Accounts of Tsimshian Horticulture.”  In Keeping It Living:  Traditions of Plant Use and Cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North America, Douglas Deur and Nancy Turner (eds.).   Seattle:  University of Washington Press; Vancouver:  University of British Columbia Press.  Pp. 240-273.

MacMillan, Alan D.  1999.  Since the Time of the Transformers: The Ancient Heritage of the Nuu-chah-nulth, Ditidaht, and Makah.  Vancouver:  University of British Columbia Press.

Mandeville, François.  2009.  This Is what They Say.  Translated by Ron Scollon.  Foreword by Robert Bringhurst.  Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Manson, Johnnie.  2016.  Place, Indigeneity, and the Social World: Lessons from the Land, Lsessons from the Bread-line.  Paper, Society for Applied Anthropology, annual conference, Vancouver, Canada.

Martin, Calvin.  1978.  Keepers of the Game. Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Martin, Paul S.  1967.  “Pleistocene Overkill.”  Natural History 76:32-38.

— 1984.  “Prehistoric Overkill:  The Global Model.”  In Martin, Paul S., and Richard Klein (eds.).  Quarternary Extinctions:  A Prehistoric Revolution.  Tucson:  University of Arizona ress.  Pp. 354-405.

— 2002.  “Prehistoric Extinctions:  In the Shadow of Man.”  In Kay, Charles E., and Randy T. Simmons (eds.). Wilderness and Political Ecology: Aboriginal Influences and the Original State of Nature.  Salt Lake City:  University of Utah Press.   Pp. 1-27.

—  2005.  Twilight of the Mammoths:  Ice Age Extinctions and the Rewilding of America.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Martin, Paul S., and Richard Klein (eds.).  1984.  Quarternary Extinctions:  A Prehistoric Revolution.  Tucson:  University of Arizona Press.

Martin, Paul S., and Christine R. Szuter.  1999.  War Zones and Game Sinks in Lewis and Clark’s West.  Conservation Biology 13:36-45.

—2002  Game Parks before and after Lewis and Clark: Reply to Lyman and Wolverton.  Conservation Biology 16:244-247.

Matson, R. G.; Gary Coupland; Quentin Mackie (eds.).  2003.  Emerging from the Mist:  Studies in Northwest Coast Culture History.  Vancouver:  University of British Columbia Press.

Mauss, Marcel.  1990.  The Gift.  Tr. W. D. Halls. (Fr. orig. 1925.)  London:  Routledge.

McIlwraith, Thomas F.  2012.  “We Are Still Didene:” Stories of Hunting and History from Northern British Columbia.  Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

MacNair, Peter L.; Alan L. Hoover; Kevin Neary.  1984.  The Legacy: Traditional and Innovation in Northwest Coast Indian Art.  Vancouver: Douglas and MacIntyre; Seattle: University of Washington Press.

McNeill, J. R.  1992.  Mountains of the Mediterranean World.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press.

McPhail, J. D.  2007.  The Freshwater Fishes of British Columbia.  Edmonton: University of Alberta Press.

Medin, Douglas; Norbert O. Ross; Douglas G. Cox.  2006.  Culture and Resource Conflict:  Why Meanings Matter.  New York:  Russell Sage Foundation.

Meek, Barbra.  2010.  We Are Our Language: An Ethnography of Language Revitalization in a Northern Athabaskan Community.  Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Menzies, Charles R.  2010.  “Dm sibilaa’nm da laxyuubm Gitxaala:  Picking Abalone in Gitxaala Territory.”  Human Organization 69:213-220

Menzies, Charles R.  2012.  “The Disturbed Environment: The Indigenous Cultivation of Salmon.”  In Keystone Nations: Indigenous Peoples and Salmon across the North Pacific, Benedict J. Colombi and James F. Brooks, eds.  Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. Pp. 161-182.

Menzies, Charles R.  2016.  People of the Saltwater: An Ethnography of Git lax m’oon.  Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Menzies, Charles (ed.).  2006.  Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Natural Resource Management.  Lincoln:  University of Nebraska Press.

Metzo, Katherine R.  2005.  “Articulating a Baikal Environmental Ethic.”  Anthropology and Humanism 30:39-54.

Miller, Jay.  1982. “Tsimshian Moieties and Other Clarifications.”  Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 16:148-164.

—  1988.  Shamanic Odyssey:  The Lushootseed Salish Journey to the Land of the Dead in Terms of Death, Potency, and Cooperating Shamans in North America.  Menlo Park, CA:  Ballena Press.

—  1998.  “Middle Columbia River Salishans.”  In Plateau (Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 12), Deward Walker, ed.  Washington:  Smithsonian Institution.  Pp. 253-270.

—  1999.  Lushootseed Culture and the Shamanic Odyssey:  An Anchored Radiance.  Lincoln, NE:  University of Nebraska Press.

—  2010.  “Jesus Versus Sweatlodge:  Corpus Christi among the Interior Salish on the Colville Reservation of Washington State.”  Journal of Northwest Anthropology 44:45-51. 

—  2012.  “Lamprey ‘Eels’ in the Greater Northwest: A Survey of Tribal Souirces, Experiences, and Sciences.”  Journal of Norhwest Anthroplogy 46:65-84. 

—  2014.  Rescues, Rants, and Researches: A Re-View of Jay Miller’s Writings on Northwest Indien Cultures.  Darby C. Stapp and Kara N. Powers, editors.  Richland, WA: Northwest Anthropology, Memoir 9.

Miller, Jay, and Carol Eastman (eds.).  1984.  The Tsimshian and Their Neighbors of the North Pacific Coast.  Seattle: University of Washington Press. 

Morrell, Mike.  l985.  The Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en Fishery in the Skeena River  System.  Hazelton, B.C., Canada: Gitksan-Wet’suwet’en Tribal Council.

Moss, Madonna L.  2005.  “Tlingit Horticulture:  An Indigenous or Introduced Development?” In Keeping It Living:  Traditions of Plant Use and Cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North America, Douglas Deur and Nancy Turner (eds.).   Seattle:  University of Washington Press; Vancouver:  University of British Columbia Press.  Pp. 274-295.

—  2007.  “Haida and Tlingit Use of Seabirds from the Forrester Islands, Southeast Alaska.”  Journal of Ethnobiology 27:28-45.

—  2011.  Northwest Coast: Archaeology as Deep History.  Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology.

Musée de l’Homme Paris.  1970.  Chefs-d’oeuvre des art indiens et esquimaux du Canada.  Paris:  Société des amis du Musée de l’Homme Paris.

Nadasdy, Paul.  2004.  Hunters and Bureaucrats.  Vancouver:  University of British Columbia Press.

Nadasdy, Paul.  2007.  “The Gift of the Animals:  The Ontology of Hunting and Human-Animal Sociality.”  American Ethnologist 34:25-47.

Natcher, David C.; Susan Davis; Clifford G. Hickey.  2005.  “Co-Management:  Managing Relationships, Not Resources.”  Human Organization 64:240-250. 

Neihardt, John.  l932.  Black Elk Speaks. New York:  William Morrow.

Nelson, Richard K.  1973.  Hunters of the Northern Forest.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

—  l983.  Make Prayers to the Raven. Chicago:  University of Chicago Press.

Nowak, Margaret, and Stephen Durrant.  1977.  The Tale of the Nišan Shamaness:  A Manchu Folk Epic.  Seattle:  University of Washington Press.

O’Keeffe, J. G.  1913.  Buile Suibne (the Frenzy of Suibhne), being the Adventures of Suibhne Geilt: A Middle-Irish Romance.  London: Irish Texts Society.

Palmer, Andie Diane.  2005.  Maps of Experience:  The Anchoring of Land to Story inSecwepemc Discourse.  Toronto:  University of Toronto Press.

Pentikäinen, Juha; Toimi Jaatinen; Ildiko Lehtinen; Marja-Riitta Saloniemi (eds.). 1999.,  Shamans.  Tampere, Finland: Tampere Museum, Publication 45.

Piddocke, Stuart.  1965.  “The Potlatch System of the Southern Kwakiutl:  A New Perspective.”  Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 21:244-264.

Pierotti, Raymond.  2011.  Indigenous Knowledge, Ecology, and Evolutionary Biology.  New York:  Routledge.

Pierotti, Raymond, and Daniel R. Wildcat.  1999.  “Traditional Knowledge, Culturally-based World-views and Western Science.”  In  Posey, Darrell (ed.).  1999.  Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity.  London and Nairobi:  UN Environment Programme.

 Pp. 192-199.

Pinkerton, Evelyn (ed.).  1989.  Cooperative Management of Local Fisheries:  New Directions for Improved Management and Community Development.  Vancouver:  University of British Columbia.

Pinkerton, Evelyn, and Martyn Weinstein.  1995.  Fisheries That Work:  Sustainability through Community-Based Management.  Vancouver: David Suzuki Foundation.

Ponting, Clive.  1991.  A Green History of the World:  The Environment and the Collapse of Great Civilizations.  Penguin.  2nd edn

Prentiss, Anna Marie; Guy Cross; Thomas A. Foor; Mathew Hogan; Dirk Markle; David S. Clarke.  208.  “Evolution of a Late Prehistoric Winter Village on the Interior Plateau of British Columbia:  Geophysical Investigations, Radiocarbon Dating, and Spatial Analysis of the Bridge River Site.”  American Antiquity 73:59-82.

Prentiss, Anna Marie; Thomas A. Foor; Guy Cross; Lucille E. Harris; Michael Wanzenried.  2012.  “The Cultural Evolution of Material Wealth-Based Inequaloity at Bridge River, British Columbia.”  American Antiquity 77:542-564.

Prentiss, Anna Marie; Thomas A. Foor; Ashley Hampton; Ethan Ryan; Matthew J. Walsh.  2018.  “The Evolution of Material Wealth-based Inequality: The Record of Housepit 54, Bridge River, British Columbia.”  American Antiquity 83:598-618.

Prentiss, William; James C. Chatters; Michael Lemert; David S. Clarke; Robert I. O’Boyle.  2005.  “The Archaeology of the Plateau of Northwestern North America during the Late Prehistoric Period, 3500-200 BC.”  Journal of World Prehistory 19:47-118.

Pryce, Paula. 1999.  Keeping the Lakes’ Way.  Toronto:  University of Toronto Press.

Quinn, Thomas.  2017.  The Behavior and Ecology of Pacific Saalmon and Trout.  2nd edn.  Seattle: University of Washington Press in association with American Fisheries Society.

Radin, Paul.  1927.  Primitive Man as Philosopher.  New York:  Appleton.

—  1957.  Primitive Religion.  New York:  Dover.  (Orig 1937; this has a new preface.)

Raghavan, Maanasa, et al.  2015.  “Genomic Evidence for the Pleistocene and Recent Population History of Native Americans.”  Science 349:841.

Raghavan, Maanasa; Pontus Skoglund; Kelly E. Graf; Mait Metspalu; Anders Albrechtsen; Ida Moltke; Simon Rasmussen; Thomas W. Stafford jr.; Ludovic Orlando; Ene Metspalu; Monika Karmin; Kristiina Tambets; Siiri Rootsi; Reedik Mägi; Paula F. Campos; Elena Balanoxvska; Oleg Balanovsky; Elza Khusnutdinova; Sergey Litvinov; Ludmila P. Osipova; Sardana A. Fedorova; Mikhail I. Voevoda; Michael DeGiorgio; Thomas Sicheritz-Ponten; Søren; Brunak; Svetlana Demeshchenko; Toomas Kivisild; Richard Villems; Rasmus Nielsen; Mattias Jakobsson; Eske Willerslev.  2014.  “Upper Palaeolithic Siberian Genome Reveals Dual Ancestry of Native Americans.”  Nature 505:87-91.

Ramsey, Jerold.  1981.  “From ‘Mythic’ to ‘Fictive’ in a Nez Perce Orpheus Myth.”  In: 

Traditional Literatures of the American Indian:  Texts and Interpretations, ed. by Karl Kroeber.  Lincoln:  University of Nebraska Press.  Pp. 25-44. 

Rasmussen, Knud.  1931.  The Netsilik Eskimos.  Copenhagen:  Gyldendal Boghandel, Nordisk Forlag.  Reports of the Fifth Thule Expedition, vol. 8.  542 p.

—  1932.  Intellectual Culture of the Copper Eskimos.  Copenhagen: Gyldendal Boghandel, Nordisk Forlag.  Reports of the Fifth Thule Expedition, vol. 9.

Ray, Verne.  1933.  The Sanpoil and Nespelem, Salishan Peolples of Northeastern Washington.  Seattle:  University of Washington, Publications in Anthropology, V.

Reed, Richard K.  1997.  Forest Dwellers, Forest Protectors:  Indigenous Models for International Development.  Boston:  Allyn and Bacon.

—  1995.  Prophets of Agroforestry:  Guaraní Communities and Commercial Gathering.  Austin:  University of Texas Press.

Reichel-Dolmatoff, G.  1971.  Amazonian Cosmos:  The Sexual and Religious Symbolism of the Tukano Indians.  Chicago:  University of Chicago Press.

—  1976.  “Cosmology as Ecological Analysis:  A View from the Rain Forest.”  Man 11:307-316.

—  1996.  The Forest Within:  The World-View of the Tukano Amazonian Indians.  Themis, imprint of Green Books, Foxhole, Dartington, Totnes, Devon.

Reid, Bill.  2000.  Solitary Raven: Selected Writings of Bill Reid.  Ed. by Robert Bringhurst.  Vancouver: Douglas and MacIntyre; Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Reid, Joshua L.  2015.  The Sea Is My Country: The Maritime World of the Makah.  New Haven: Yale University Press.

Reid, Susan.  1981.  “Four Kwakiutl Themes on Isolation.”  In The World is as Sharp as a Knife: An Anthology in Honour of Wilson Duff, Donald Abbott, ed.  Victoria: British Columbia Provincial Museum.  Pp. 249-256.

Reimer, Rudy.  2018.,  :”The Social Importance of Volcanic peaks for the Indigenous Peoples of British Columbia.”  Journal of Northwest Anthropology 52:4-35.

Reyes, Lawney L.  2002.  White Grizzly Bear’s Legacy:  Learning to be Indian.  Seattle:  University of Washington Press.

Reynolds, Nathaniel D., and Christine Dupres.  2018.  “The Pacific Crabapple  (Malus fusca) and Cowlitz Cultural Resurgence.”  Journal of Northwest Anthropology 52:36-62.

Reynolds, Nathaniel D., and Marc D. Romano.  2013.  “Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Reconstructikng Historical Run Timing and Spawning Distribution of Eulachon through Tribal Oral History.”  Journal of Northwest Anthropology 47:47-70. 

Rick, Torben C., and Jon M. Erlandson (eds.).  2008.  Human Impacts on Ancient Marine Ecosystems:  A Global Perspective.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

— — 2009.  “Coastal Exploitation.”  Science 325:952-953.

Ridington, Robin.  l98la.  “Technology, World View, and Adaptive Strategy in a  Northern Hunting Society.”  Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology,  l9:4:469-48l.

—  1981b.  “Trails of Meaning.”  In The World is as Sharp as a Knife: An Anthology in Honour of Wilson Duff, Donald Abbott, ed.  Victoria: British Columbia Provincial Museum.  Pp. 289-247.

—  1988.  Trail to Heaven:  Knowledge and Narrative in a Northern Native Community.  Iowa City:  University of Iowa Press.

—  1990. Little Bit Know Something, Stories in a Language of Anthropology. Vancouver/Toronto: Douglas & McIntyre.

Rilke, Rainer Maria.  1964.  “Orpheus.  Eurydice.  Hermes.”  In New Poems.  Translated by J. B. Leishman.  Pp. 142-147.

Robertson, George Scott.  1896.  The Kafirs of the Hindu-Kush.  London:  Lawrence and Bullen.

Ross, John Alan.  1998.  “Spokane.”  In Plateau (Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 12), Deward Walker, ed.  Washington:  Smithsonian Institution.  Pp. 271-282.

—  2011.  The Spokan Indians.  Spokane: Michael J. Ross.

Roth, Christopher F.  2008.  Becoming Tsimshian:  The Social Life of Names.  Seattle:  University of Washington Press.

Roux, Jean-Paul.  1984.  Religion des Turcs et des Mongoles.  Paris: Payot.

Ruiz de Alarcón, Hernando.  1982.  Aztec Sorcerers in Seventeenth Century Mexico:  The Treatise on Superstititions by Hernando Ruiz de Alarcón.  Tr./ed. Michael Coe and Gordon Whittaker.  Albany:  State University of New York, Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, Publication 7.

Ryan, Joan, Sm’ooygit Hannamauxw.  2000.  “Preface.”  In Potlatch at Gitskegukla: William Beynon’s 1945 Field Notebooks, Margaret Anderson and Marjorie Halpin, eds.  Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.  Pp. ix-x. 

Sapir, Edward.  1922.  “Sayach’apis, a Nootka Trader.”  In American Indian Life, Elsie Clews Parsons, ed.  Lincoln:  University of Nebraska Press.  Pp. 297-323.

Sapir, Edward.  1990.  The Collected Works of Edward Sapir.  VII.  Wishram Texts and Ethnography.  Ed. William Bright.  Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 

Sapir, Edward, etc.; ed. Eugene Arima, Terry Klokeid, Katherine Robinson.  2004.  The Whaling Indians:  West Coast Legends and Stories, Legendary Hunters.  Ottawa:  Canadian Museum of Civilization.

Satterfield, Terre.  2003.  Anatomy of a Conflict:  Identity, Knowledge, and Emotion in Old-Growth Forests.  New edn.  Vancouver, BC:  University of British Columbia.

Schaefer, Bradley E.  2006.  “The Origin of the Greek Constellations.”  Scientific American, Nov, 96-101.

Schaeper, David M.  2006.  “Rock Fortifications:  Archaeological Insights into Pre-Contact Warfare and Sociopolitical Organization among the Stó:lō of the Lower Fraser River Canyon, BC.”  American Antiquity 71:671-705.

Schlick, Mary Dodds.  “Handsome Things: Basketry Arts of the Plateau.”    In Native Arts of the Columbia Plateau: The Doris Swayze Bounds Collection, Susan E. Harless, ed.  Bend, OR, and Seattle, WA: High Desert Museum and University of Washington Press.  Pp. 57-70.

Schreiber, Dorothee.  2002.  “’Our Food Sits on the Table’:  Wealth, Resistance and Salmon Farming in Two First Nations Communities.”  American Indian Quarterly 26:360-377.

—  2008.  “’A Liberal and Paternal Spirit’:  Indian Agents and Native Fisheries in Canada.”  Ethnohistory 55:87-118.

—  and Dianne Newell.  2006.  “Negotiating TEK in BC Salmon Farming:  Learning from Each Other or Managing Tradition and Eliminating Contention?”  BC Studies 150:79-102.

Scott, Colin.  1996.  “Science for the West, Myth for the Rest?  The Case of James Bay Cree Knowledge Construction.”  In Naked Science: Anthropological Inquiry into Boundaries, Power, and Knowledge, Laura Nader, ed.  New York: Routledge.  Pp. 69-86. 

Scott, James C.  2009.  The Art of Not Being Governed:  An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia.  New Haven:  Yale University Press.

Seaburg, William R.  (ed.).  2007.  Pitch Woman and Other Stories:  The Oral Traditions of Coquelle Thompson, Upper Coquille Athabaskan Indian.  Lincoln:  University of Nebraska Press.

Searcy, Michael T. 2011.  The Life-Giving Stone:  Ethnoarchaeology of Maya Metates.  Tucson:  University of Arizona Press.

Sepez, Jennifer.  2008.  “Historical Ecology of Makah Subsistence Foraging Patterns.”  Journal of Ethnobiology 28:110-133.

Service, Robert.  2003.  “’Combat Biology’ on the Klamath.”  Science 300:36-39.

Sewid, James.  1969.  Guests Never Leave Hungry:  The Autobiography of James Sewid, a Kwakiutl Indian.  Ed. James Spradley.  New Haven:  Yale University Press.

Sharp, Henry.  1987.  “Giant Fish, Giant Otters, and Dinosaurs:  ‘Apparently Irrational Beliefs’ in a Chipewyan Community.”  American Ethnologist 14:226-235.

—  2001.  Loon:  Memory, Meaning and Reality in a Northern Dene Community.  Lincoln:  University of Nebraska Press.

Shutova, Nadezhda. 2006.  “Trees in Udmurt Religion.”  Antiquity 80:318-327.

Smith, David M.  1999.  “An Athapaskan Way of Knowing:  Chipewyan Ontology.”  American Ethnologist 25:412-432.

Snodgrass, Jeffrey, and Kristina Tiedje (eds.).  2008. Special issue, “Indigenous Religions and Environments: Intersections of Animism and Nature Conservation.”  (see their “Introduction:  Indigenous Nature Reverence and Conservation—Seven Ways of Transcending an Unnecessary Dichotomy.”)  Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture 2:6-29.

Snyder, Gary.  1979.  He Who Hunted Birds in His Father’s Village:  The Dimensions of a Haida Myth.  Bolinas, CA:  Grey Fox Press.

Sobel, Elizabeth A.; Kenneth M. Ames; Robert J. Losey.  2013.  “Environment and Archaeology of the Lower Columbia.”  In Chinookan Peoples of the Lower Columbia, Robert T. Boyd, Kenneth M. Ames, and Tony A. Johnson, eds.  Seattle: University of Washington Press. Pp. 23-41.

Spradley, James.  1969.  Guests Never Leave Hungry:  The Autobiography of James Sewid, a Kwakiutl Indian.  New Haven:  Yale University Press.

Sproat, Gilbert Malcolm.  1987.  The Nootka:  Scenes and Studies of Savage Life.  Ed. Charles Lillard.  (Orig. edn. 1868.)  Victoria:  Sono Nis Press.

Steller, Georg.  2002.  Steller’s History of Kamchatka.  Tr. Margritt Engel and Karen Willmore.  Fairbanks:  University of Alaska Press.

Stépanoff, Charles; Charlotte Marchina; Camille Fossier; Nicolas Bureau.  2017.  “Animal Autonomy and Intermittent Coexistences: North Asian Modes of Herding.”  Current Anthropology 58:57-81.

Stern, Theodore.  1966.  The Klamath Tribe:  A People and Their Reservation.  Seattle:  University of Washington Press.

—  1998.  “Cayuse, Umatilla, and Walla Walla.” In Handbook of North American Indians.  Vol. 12, Plateau, Deward E. Walker, Jr., ed.  Washington:  Smithsonian Institution.  Pp. 395-419.

Stewart, Omer C.; Henry Lewis; Kat Anderson.  2002.  Forgotten Fires:  Native Americans and the Transient Wilderness.  Norman, OK:  University of Oklahoma Press.

Sullivan, Lawrence.  1988.  Icanchu’s Drum:  An Orientation to Meaning in South American Religions.  New York:  MacMillan.

Suttles, Wayne.  1987.  Coast Salish Essays.  Seattle: University of Washington Press.                                       

Suttles, Wayne.  2005.  “Coast Salish Resource Managmgement:  Incipient Agriculture?”  In Keeping It Living:  Traditions of Plant Use and Cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North America, Douglas Deur and Nancy Turner (eds.).   Seattle:  University of Washington Press; Vancouver:  University of British Columbia Press.  Pp. 181-193.

Suttles, Wayne (ed.).  1990.  Northwest Coast.  Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 7.  Washington:  Smithsonian Institution.

Swezey, Sean L., and Robert F. Heizer.  l977.  “Ritual Management of Salmonid  Fish Resources in California.”  Journal of California Anthropology 4:6-29. 

Tanner, Adrian.  1979.  Bringing Home Animals.  New York:  St. Martin’s Press.

Teit, James.  1912.  Mythology of the Thompson Indians.  New York:  American Museum of Natural History, Memoir 12.

—  1919.  “Tahltan Tales.”  Journal of American Folk-Lore 32:198-250.

Thompson, Judy.  2007.  Recording Their Story: James Teit and the Tahltan.  Vancouver: Douglas and MacIntyre, Canadian Museum of Civilization, and University of Washington Press.

Thompson, M. Terry, and Steven M. Egesdal.  2008.  Salish Myths and Legends:  One People’s Stories.  Lincoln:  University of Nebraska Press.

Thompson, Stith.  1955-1958.  Motif-Index of Folk-Literature.  Bloomington:  Indiana University Press. 

Thornton, Thomas F.  2008.  Being and Place among the Tlingit.  Seattle: U niversity of Washington Press.

Townsend-Gault, Charlotte; Jennifer Kramer; Ḳi-ḳe-in.  2013.  Native Art of the Northwest Coast; A History of Changing Ideas.  Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Trafzer, Clifford E.  1997.  Death Stalks the Yakama.  East Lansing, MI:  Michigan State University Press.

Tucker, Mary Evelyn, and John A. Grim (eds.).  1994.  Worldviews and Ecology:  Religion, Philosophy, and the Environment.  Maryknoll, NY:  Orbis Books.

Tuite, Kevin.  1994.  An Anthology of Georgian Folk Poetry.  Cranbury, NJ:  Associated University Presses.

Turner, Nancy J.  2005.  The Earth’s Blanket.  Vancouver:  Douglas and MacIntyre; Seattle:  University of Washington Press.

—  2014.  Ancient Pathways, Ancestral Knowledge:  Ethnobotany and Ecological Wisdom of Indigenous Peoples of Northwestern North America.  Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.  2v.

Turner, Nancy J., and Richard J. Hebda.  2012.  Saanich Ethnobotany: Culturally Important Plants of the WSÁNEĆ People.  Victoria: Royal BC Museum Publishing.

Turner, Nancy, and Sandra Peacock.  2005.  “Solving the Perennial Paradox:  Ethnobotanical Evidence for plant Resource Management on the Northwest Coast.”  In Keeping It Living:  Traditions of Plant Use and Cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North America, Douglas Deur and Nancy Turner (eds.).   Seattle:  University of Washington Press; Vancouver:  University of British Columbia Press.  Pp. 101-150.

Turner, Nancy; Robin Smith; James T. Jones.  2005.  “’A Fine Line Between Two Nations’:  Ownership Patterns for Plant Resources among Northwest Coast Indigenouis Peoples.”  In Keeping It Living:  Traditions of Plant Use and Cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North America, Douglas Deur and Nancy Turner (eds.).   Seattle:  University of Washington Press; Vancouver:  University of British Columbia Press.  Pp. 151-179.

Tylor, Edward.  1871.  Primitive Culture.  London: John Murray.

Ulrich, Roberta.  Empty Nets:  Indians, Dams and the Columbia River.  Corvallis:  Oregon State University  Press.

Vaillant, John.  2005.  Golden Spruce:  A True Story of Myth, Madness, and Greed.  New York:  W. W. Norton. 

Vajda, Edward.  2004.  “Ket.” (Languages of the World/Materials, Vol. 204.)  Munich: Lincom Europa.

Vancouver Art Gallery (Daina Augaitis et al…).  2006.  Raven Travelling:  Two Centuries of Haida Art.  Vancouver Art Gallery with Douglas and MacIntyre.  

Ventocilla, Jorge; Heraclio Herrera; Valerio Nuñez.  Editorial assistance of Hans Roeder.  1995.  Plants and Animals in the Life of the Kuna.  Tr Elisabeth King.  Austin:  University of Texas Press.

Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo.  2015.  The Relative Native: Essays on Indegenous Conceptual Worlds.”  Chicago: HAU Books.

Walker, Deward E., Jr. (ed.).  1998.  Plateau.  Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 12.  Washington:  Smithsonian Institution.

Walsh, Megan K.; Cathy Whitlock; Patrick J. Bartlein.  2008.  “A 14,300-year-long Record of Fire-Vegetation-Climate Linkage at Battle Ground Lake, Southwestern Washington.”  Quarternary Research 70:251-264. 

Wang, Jianhua “Ayoe.”  2013.  Sacred and Contested Landscapes.  Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.

Ward, Peter.  1997.  The Call of Distant Mammoths:  Why the Ice Age Mammals Disappeared.  New York:  Springer-Verlag.

Wardwell, Allen.  1986.  Ancient Eskimo Ivories of the Bering Strait.  New York: Hudson Hills Press for American Federation of Arts.

Waters, Michael R., and Thomas W. Stafford Jr.  2007.  “Redefining the Age of Clovis:  Implications for the Peopling of the Americas.” Science 315:1122-1126. 

White, Douglas.  2013.  “’Where Mere Words Failed’: Northwest Coast Art and Law.” In Native Art of the Northwest Coast: A History of Changing Ideas. Townsend-Gault, Charlotte; Jennifer Kramer; Ḳi-ḳe-in, eds.  Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.  Pp. 633-676.

Wiget, Andrew, and Olga Balalaeva.  2011.  Khanty:  People of the Taiga.  Fairbanks:  University of Alaska Press.

Wilke, Philip.  1988.  “Bow Staves Harvested from Juniper Trees by Indians of Nevada.”  Journal of California and Great Basin anthropology 10:3-31.

Wilkinson, Charles.  2010.  The People Are Dancing Again: The History of the Siletz Tribe of Western Oregon.  Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Willerslev, Rane.  2007.  Soul Hunters:  Hunting, Animism, and Personhood among the Siberian Yukaghirs.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Williams, Ted.  2003.  “Salmon Stakes.”  Audubon, March, 42-52. 

Wilson, Emma.  2012.  “The Oil Company, the Fish, and the Nivkhi: The Cultural Value of Skhalin Salmon.  In Keystone Nations: Indigenous Peoples and Salmon across the North Pacific, Benedict J. and James F. Brooks, eds.  Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.  Pp. 25-46.

Witherspoon, Gary.  1977.  Language and Art in the Navajo Universe.  Ann Arbor:  University of Michigan Press.

Wolfe, Robert.  2006.  Playing with Fish and Other Lessons from the North.  Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Wolverton, Steve; R. Lee Lyman; James H. Kennedy; Thomas W. La Point.  2009.  “The Terminal Pleistocene Extinctions in North America, Hypermorphic Evolution, and the Dynamic Equilibrium Model.”  Journal of Ethnobiology 29:28-63.

Worthy, Trevor, and Richard N. Holdaway.  2002.  The Lost World of the Moa:  Prehistoric Life of New Zealand.  Bloomington: University of Indiana Press.

Wyatt, Gary.  1994.  Spirit Faces: Contedmporary Masks of the Northwest Coast.  Vancouver: Douglas and MacIntyre; Seattle: University of Washington Press.

—  1999.  Mythic Beings: Spirit Art of the Northwest Coast.  Vancouver: Douglas and MacIntyre; Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Wyatt, Victoria.  1989.  Images from the Inside Passage.  Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Wydoski, Richard S., and Richard R. Whitney.  2003.  Inland Fishes of Washington.  2nd edn.  Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Youst, Lionel.  1997.  She’s Tricky Like Coyote: Annie Miner Peterson, an Oregon Coast Indian Woman.  Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

California: Traditional Indigenous Relationships with Plants and Animals

Sunday, March 10th, 2019

California:  Traditional Indigenous Relationships with Plants an

California:  Traditional Indigenous Relationships with Plants and Animals

Work in progress; please do not cite without permission.

This is intended to be one part of a book that will also include a section on the Pacific Northwest, thus covering the Pacific coast of North America from the Mexican border (or just south of it) to southern Alaska.  The book is on traditional plant and animal management and ideology.  It draws heavily on myths and texts, especially early recordings from the days when texts were important to anthropology (sadly no longer true—though some stalwart souls are still recording them).  I am interfacing biology with culture, using phenomenology and ethnobiology as the main ways into the latter. 

Unfortunately, events are making it impossible to work on the book.  The California section is substantially finished, though I am updating it as new materials appear.  These now are largely supportive of the basic points, so the time has come to post this work on my website for anyone to use. 

“…we are constantly walking on herbs, the virtues of which no one knows.”  -Pastor, Chujmas elder, as quoted by Fernando Librado Kitsepawit, Ventureño Chumash (Librado 1979:56; cf. Blackburn 1975:258)

Californian Environments

            The Pacific Coast of North America, in pre-European times, had the distinction of supporting large, populous, highly complex societies that lived by hunting and gathering and that almost totally lacked agriculture.  Many groups along the immediate coast and major rivers were not only larger and more differentiated than most hunter-gatherer cultures, but more so than many horticultural societies around the world.  (On California Native environments, see Jones and Klar 2007; Lightfoot and Parrish 2009.)

            The reason has traditionally been considered “the rich environment,” but actually the environment is not incredibly rich.  The Northwest Coast has huge salmon resources, but to balance this out it has millions of acres of dense evergreen forest with almost nothing for humans to eat.  California and the interior regions have rich seed resources and appreciable game, but are dry at best, and are subject to frequent prolonged droughts that make finding food a desperate proposition.  Irrigated agriculture on a large scale has made these dry areas productive, but without that they can be quite barren.

            It is not surprising, then, to learn from archaeology that complex societies did not exist until around 3,000 years ago (give or take a millennium).  What is surprising is the rise of such societies—a phenomenon still unexplained.  Before even attempting explanation, we need to understand the complexity.

            Let us, then, look at how such societies maintained themselves. 

            For convenience, I will make the arbitrary decision to divide these two regions by the California state line.  Groups split by the line will be considered to lie in the state where their major population once dwelt (except for the Modoc, who belong properly to the Plateau region, and are poorly known because of the genocidal “Modoc War”).  The decision is slightly less arbitrary than it looks.  In spite of often being classified as “Northwest Coast,” the Karok, Yurok, and Athapaskan groups of northwest California are politically, mythologically, and socially rather typical Californians, and lived by a Californian economy depending heavily on acorns. 

            This distinction gives us a Californian region whose economy was based on management of varied seed and nut resouces.  The northwest part of the state depended largely on fish, with seed and root foods important.  The Central Valley and other regions living near rivers and lakes had a similar economy, with perhaps relatively more seeds and nuts.  The Plateau region of traditional anthropology begins from the Cascade Range crest and extends eastward to the Rockies, and is defined in terms of human ecology by the intensive focus on wild root, corm and bulb foods, which are cultivated and stored(see e.g. Hunn 1991; Turner et al 1990).  The Plateau economy grades into the Californian economy in the northeast corner of the state, where the Achomawi and Atsugewi lived on fish, acorns, seeds, and root crops (Garth 1978; Olmsted and Stewart 1978).  Most of the rest of California depended largely on acorns, and to a lesser extent other nuts, with seed and root crops important.  The thinly-occupied deserts had few acorns, and life here depended on a wide range of plant foods; pinyon nuts were locally common and important.  I will not be dealing with the Great Basin or Baja California, except that far northern Baja California is linguistically and culturally a part of Native California by all standards, and will be included. 

            I shall, however, include the southeastern groups in California, which depended to a great extent on agriculture rather than, or along with, wild seed management.  As usual, culture areas grade into each other; agriculture supplied about half or less of the food of the Mohave and Quechan along the Colorado on the state line, and only a small percentage of the food of the Kumeyaay and Cahuilla.  Montane and coastal Kumeyaay probably did not practice it at all.  By contrast, agriculture supplied most of the food of the Akimel O’odham (Pima) in south Arizona, and most other culturally Southwestern groups.

            Classic ethnographic California thus focuses on the Mediterranean and montane parts of the state.  Most of the large, complex cultures developed in the former.  In spite of being called “Mediterranean,” California is not much like the Mediterranean Sea region.  The Mediterranean is landlocked and sun-warmed—a downright hot-tub.  This keeps its bordering countries warm in winter, and hot and often rainy in summer.  California’s coast is chilled by the California Current, a vast river of ocean water flowing down from Vancouver Island at a temperature around 55 F.  This creates such extreme conditions that the diving seabirds of Baja California are arctic forms (auklets, murrelets, and subarctic cormorants), while the soaring ones are tropical (terns, frigatebirds).  Thus coastal California is always cool and pleasant, but is quite dry.  More important to Native peoples, the California current and related upwelling produces fantastic biological productivity in coastal waters, and keeps the land cool and moist, permitting great productivity there too.  (Morocco’s Atlantic coast is similar, but the Mediterranean Sea shores are not.)

            This cold ocean keeps even southern California’s mountains pleasant and forested.  At elevations equivalent to California’s giant sequoia belt, Turkey’s mountains have thin woods, and reach a timberline around 8000 feet.  This low line is set not by cold but by drought due to Saharan and Arabian winds. 

            Conversely, much of the Mediterranean is exposed to winter storms and summer rains from farther north.  I have been caught in a major winter snowstorm on the Riviera (but, then, I have seen snow down to 1000’ in southern California) and subjected to days of rain in August in Rome.  California is walled off by mountains from the full force of northern and eastern winds.  The exception is southern California, where major passes allow such winds to roar down as the dreaded “santanas,” named because they pour down the Santa Ana River and other canyonways.  A desert wind, it combines the violence of the mistral with the heat of the scirocco.

            California ranges from warm to hot in summer, cool to cold in winter.  Rains varied (before recent climate change) from 130” a year in the far northwest mountains to 2” or less in the lowest valleys of the eastern deserts.   Such “average” figures mask incredible variation.  El Centro, on the Mexican border in southeastern California, averages 2” a year.  In the middle 1970s it made its average perfectly:  there was essentially no rain for six years, and then in August of 1976 a west Mexican chubasco (hurricane) dropped 12” in one day. 

Northern California has its own variety.  In February 1964, I saw the Sacramento River running more than ten miles wide.  A bridge about 100’ above the normal level of the Eel River was washed out.  Yet in summer 2009 the Sacramento was far below its usual banks and the Eel was almost totally dry, and in 2015 the rivers were still lower.  Within my years in Riverside, yearly rainfall has fluctuated by an order of magnitude (2” to over 20”), and the deserts eastward varied even more than that.  Such conditions would stress anyone, and they certainly proved difficult for hunting-gathering peoples.

Throughout California there is an alternation of El Niño conditions with drier years.  El Niño is caused by warm water in the east Pacific, and brings heavy winter rains.  They start just after the winter solstice, and thus around Christmas—hence the name (originated in Peru), which refers to the baby Jesus.  El Niños came every 5-7 years in the late 20th century, but before and since that time they were less frequent.  They provide about twice as much rain as normal years.  In the normal years, the warm-water pool of the Pacific is around Indonesia, bringing the rain to that country and to Australia instead of to the American coasts.  Recently, a tendency has arisen to refer to particularly cool and dry conditions in California as “La Niña” years, as if Jesus had a long-lost sister!  All, in turn, is part of the vast global El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) system.

            Globally warm periods, like the Medieval Warm Period and the present, are hot and dry in California.  Globally cool periods like the Pleistocene and the Little Ice Age are generally wet, but California suffered some searing droughts at the height of the Little Ice Age, which was globally dry (Gamble 2008).

            Today, global warming, partly natural and partly due to human release of greenhouse gases, is drying and heating California.  Vegetation is dying, and animal life with it.  Drastic reduction of both natural vegetation and agriculture is now in progress, and the future is bleak.  California has taken a world lead in combatting global warming, but without national and world support, all efforts will have little effect.  Political activity funded and driven by oil and coal companies have checkmated all attempts to slow—let alone stop—the warming process.  Unless greenhouse gas release is controlled, California could easily become a lifeless desert, like the central Sahara, within a few centuries. 

The Chumash saw it all as a gambling game.  All year, Coyote (with his allies) gambles with the Sun (with his).  On the winter solstice, the Moon judges the game.  If Coyote has won, the winter will be rainy and there will be much food.  If the Sun wins, winter conditions all too familiar to southern Californians will ensue:  the sun will beat down, day after day, from a brazen sky, and no food will grow (Blackburn 1975).  In the Santa Barbara County mountains, there is a cave where the Chumash bored a hole through solid rock.  The rising sun on the winter solstice morning strikes straight through the hole and illuminates a painting of a coyote on the cave wall.  One can easily guess what magic was tried there.  Alas, modern science cannot do much better than the ancient Chumash at predicting, and no better at controlling.

Biotic California

            The Californian region of the biologists is Mediterranean California.  It includes several formations:  chaparral (dense brushlands), scrub formations of many types, montane and lowland forests, Mediterranean steppe and grassland, winter-rain deserts, and the rainy, wooded northwest part of the state (Barbour et al. 2007).   Over 8000 native species of plants occur.  In spite of claims for extreme diversity (e.g. Lightfoot and Parrish 2009), this is less than comparable Mediterranean-climate zones of the world in Turkey and South Africa, and far less than many dry-tropical areas.  Still, it is diverse enough to provide tremendous variety and opportunity for hunters and gatherers. 

            Any account of the state will describe these plant associations.  However, earlier accounts exaggerate the extent of grassland.  Contrary to earlier assessments, it is now clear that the vast flat lowland valleys of California were usually covered by sparse scrub and annual wildflowers, not bunchgrass (Minnich 2008).  One can still see this in the few areas of the Central Valley that are not cultivated.  The wildflowers were thick and tall near the coast, but inland they would wither away to very little, leaving the ground sparsely covered, or, in such desert plains as the Antelope Valley and southern Central Valley, absolutely bare.  This was especially true where salt was concentrated by deposition in closed drainage basins (as can be seen in several areas today, e.g. the salt lake in Carrizo Plain).   

Anna Gayton (1948) was perceptive enough to notice these facts in early accounts, and realize what it meant for the Yokuts who lived there:  they could not find game, or even water, in the vast burning flats, and had to live near rivers and lakes.  These, at contact (following the wet centuries of the Little Ice Age), were very extensive; there was a vast chain of marshy lakes in the San Joaquin Valley that supported enormous fish and water plant resources (Latta 1977).  I can barely imagine this, being able to recall the last bits of marsh and lake, still visible in the 1950s.  Today, it is difficult to imagine the drought-starved plowed fields having been, only recently, huge marshy lakes teeming with fish, ducks, geese, turtles, frogs, tule elk, and every sort of water plant and insect.

The deserts also were covered with scattered bushes and, in wet springs, annual wildflowers.  The current cover of grass that dominates most of lowland California is made up of introduced Mediterranean weeds, which have outcompeted native plants (Minnich 2008), even replacing chaparral and woodland after hot fires.  The state looks very different today from its aboriginal appearance.  Even in the wildest parts of the western United States, enormous deterioration in the environment was occurring by the 1870s.  One of J. W. Powell’s workmen—a semiliterate frontiersman who cannot be accused of romantic environmentalism—wrote to Powell in 1880, describing southern Utah: “The foothills that yielded hundreds of acres of sunflowers which produced quantities of rich seed, the grass also that grew so luxuriantly when you were here, the seed of which was gathered with little labor, and many other plants that produced food for the natives is all eat out [sic] by stock” (Powell 1971:47). 

Animal life was equally rich.  The vast herds of deer and elk reported by explorers probably involved recovery from heavy hunting by Native Californians and heavy predation by bears, but there were evidently always many cervids.  Moutain sheep, including the desert bighorn, were evidently abundant before diseeases introduced by domestic sheep virtually exterminated them (they survive today partly because Fish and Game workers patiently catch and inocuate them).  Fish choked the rivers.  Salmon and steelhead were particularly prominent. Fall, winter, and spring runs of salmon stayed in the rivers for months until spawning time; they had to run when the streams had enough cool water, making summer runs impossible.  Steelhead (sea-running rainbow trout) still occur in many rivers, but in small numbers.  The salmon runs are disappearing fast, except in the Klamath, where Native Californians have fought desperately to keep the runs alive.  Even there, the outlook is cloudy.  Trout have done much better, thanks in large measure to stocking, and to vigilant monitoring by fishers.   Other fish, including the native warm-water fish of the Sacramento, Colorado, and elsewhere, are extinct or nearly so. 

The end is near; the usual combination of global warming, suburbanization, agribusiness, waste of water, and pollution are closing in fast on what is left of Californian nature, and all will be gone within a few decades unless desperate measures are taken.  (For a good, and depressing, summary see Allen et al. 2014).

Cultural Contours

            Humans have been in California for a long time.  The oldest date so far is 13,000 years ago (give or take a bit; see Erlandson 2015 for this and following dates) from Santa Rosa Island, but to get down the coast and out to a rather remote island would have taken some time.  Just north of California, at Paisley Cave in Oregon, there are dates as far back as 14,800 years ago.  People had reached Monteverde in southern Chile by 13,000 years ago.  So California was almost surely settled by 15,000 years ago.  Settlers probably came down the coast at first, but Paisley Cave is far inland.

            The initial population was small, and increased only slowly.  A few fluted points show that California was not entirely untouched by the Clovis style of spearpoint around 12,000 years ago, but points are few and scattered.  More local and more numerous points follow.  Then a very long period coinciding with the hot, dry Altithermal demonstrates that California was thinly populated by atlatl-wielding hunters from 8000 to 5000 years ago.  Conditions during the Altithermal were like those of the “new normal” developing after 2014, with extreme heat and dryness, though the southeast had higher rain than now, due to expansion of the summer monsoon from Arizona.  Ancient pack rat middens made of local twigs reveal that mountains now bare had juniper and other bushes.

            Climate ameliorated after 5000 years ago, and people responded by becoming more numerous and sedentary.  They began a shift to acorns, small seeds, and geophyte (root, bulb and corm foods; see Pierce and Scholtze 2016; Reddy 2016).

Increase was faster from about 3000 years ago, and in fact seems to have increased exponentially after that.  Hunting was still with the atlatl, but more attention was paid to plants and fish than to land game.  Robert Bettinger (2015:34) points out how this tracked improvements in plant use technology.  The importance of better acorn processing has long been well known, and seeds became so important that there was even local domestication (see below).  There was evidently a positive feedback: the improvements allowed more population growth, which in turn made people want more improvements. 

We must avoid recourse to explanation through “population pressure,” however, since groups evidently differed in their responses to the rising population.  They could innovate, borrow, migrate, fight, starve, or otherwise deal.  Migration, especially, is well attested by linguistic and archaeological data.   Humans love sociability above all other things, and want to live together, share, intermarry, dance, and generally have fun in groups.  They also like good food better than bad food—however their culture defines those.  Thus, wanting to procure more and better animal and plant resources is not a mindless reflex of “population pressure.”  It is a way to cope with scarcity, but also a way to support larger, livelier setttlements with a higher quality of life, however defined by the people in question.  Also, humans do not always love the neighbors, as shown inter alia by the number of skeletons with projectile points in their bones in California cemeteries, and large settlements afford protection.  Pierce and Scholtze (2016) echo Bruce Smith’s call to look at cultural niche construction.  People increasingly create their own environments (not just niches!).  In California, burning and other management techniques clearly increased along with acorn and small seed reliance.

            The bow and arrow probably caused a minor revolution (Bettinger 2015:44-48).  Bows and arrows are better for getting game, especially small game, than the previous technology based on spears, spear-throwers (atlatls), nets, and traps.  An increase in animal bones appears at the time the bow and arrow reached California, around 400-500 CE.  This allowed people to capitalize on the improved plant management, because it provided enough protein to allow more sedentization in remote back-country areas rich in plant resources.  (Less remote areas had access to fish, shellfish, and nuts, and were not limited by quality protein availability.)  It allowed more sedentary lifestyles and more dispersal into small groups (especially in summer), for the same reason.  The land was used more efficiently.  Cultivation and, in the southeast, true agriculture expanded and flourished.  In the pinyon areas, for instance, pinyon exploitation greatly increased, because it was possible to spend extended time in the dry, otherwise-resource-poor areas where pinyons grow.  Vessels for carrying water must have had a lot to do with that.  Bettinger stresses the importance of stored food (largely nuts), which were family property rather than shared by all.

            Along the coast, things were very different.  The bow and arrow had much less effect, since the staples were fish, shellfish, and sea mammals (speared at landings or from boats).  What mattered most was sea temperature, especially in southern California, where warm currents from far south often intrude on the more usual cool water.  Warm currents brought fewer fish, and those larger, faster, and harder to catch.  Thus they were lean times for local people.  This affected demographics over time.  Yet, here too, there was a sharp inflection in the population growth curve around 4000-3000 years ago.  In this case, it seems to result from better marine technology, ranging from the Chumash plank canoe (dating to perhaps 2000-2500 years ago; Gamble 2002) to superior fishhook and net designs.  Again this went in tandem with social structure. Villages got large, with notable differentiation in burials.  The bow and arrow came even later on the coast, in some places as late as 1250 in some areas (Bettinger 2015:100).  It reached the Chumash around 500 CE, following which there was a rise in violence, and presumptively war, that cooled slowly as people adjusted to the new weapon (Bettinger 2015:109). 

This has recently had fateful effects, as southern California has been one of the poster children for the frequency and violence of war among hunter-gatherers alleged by Steven  Pinker (2011) and others.  If the violence-ridden cemeteries sample only a brief and atypical time, Pinker’s ideas need adjusting (as pointed out in detail from much other evidence in Fry 2013).  

Complexity, and probably language distributions, reached something like contact-period levels around 400-600 CE.  By this time, bow hunting, mortars to grind acorns and other large seeds, sophisticated metate production for small seeds, and agriculture in the far south were established.  Corn-bean-squash agriculture spread in from the southwest at some quite early stage, and was probably still spreading when the Spanish came; it was long-established by then in the Colorado River and Imperial valleys.  Local cultivation and possibly domestication of wild seeds—barley and, in the south, maygrass (Reddy 2016:237)—is implied by the seed record. 

            The weather turned hot and dry again after 900, reaching a climax in the late 1200s, which were apparently as hot and dry as the mid-2010’s.  Californians endured, turning to more intensive use of still-available resources, especially marine ones where available.  Shifts away from the formerly vast marshes of the interior are noteworthy.  California’s eastern neighbors crashed.  The Four Corners and Utah were about 90% depopulated.  Incipient civilization crashed into small village societies in the southern southwest.  People migrated, dispersed, set up villages wherever water was still available. The effect on California’s rather extensive trade with Arizona and points east must have been substantial. “[P]rehistoric interaction between the two regions was regular and sustained and…economic or political developments in one area are likely to have hadhad important implications in the other” (Smith and Fauvelle 2015:710), as shown by the very extensive and long-lasting trade that brought shells, asphaltum, and the like from the coast, turquoise from the California desert, and pottery and stone goods (and probably cloth) from the Southwest.  The trade dropped off sharply after the 1200s, but California kept growing in population and social complexity.

            Cooler, wetter times followed, and the Little Ice Age from 1400 to 1700-1750 restored glaciers to California’s highest peaks.  Plant resources exploded, and human populations grew accordingly.

There were only 250,000-300,000 Native Californians as of 1700 (Cook 1976).  This means fewer than two persons per square mile (California’s area is 158,633 sq. mi.).  This population likely represents a reduction from peak, however, because Spanish diseases had already ravaged the state (Preston 1996), having been introduced when Spanish first touched on what is now California—1540 along the lower Colorado, 1542 on the coast. 

Languages and Society

California is famous for the diversity of its indigenous languages (Golla 2011 provides an encyclopedic survey).  At least 64, possibly 80, languages were spoken (Shipley 1978; Golla treats 78), including two whole language families—Yukian and Chumashan—that are completely confined to the state.  Many people were multilingual, and in some areas it seems that the very concept of a single “native language” did not exist (Dixon 1907—if I read him aright; cf. Golla 2011)—a worthy example for us today.  (For background on California Native peoples, the classic account by Kroeber, 1925, is dated and now sometimes sounds patronizing, but is still a superb summary; more up-to-date and sensitive are the great Handbooks of the Smithsonian Institution, but one must not only read the huge California volume [1978] but also relevant parts of the Plateau volume [Walker 1998] and the Southwest volumes, since the state was divided among these various cultural regions.  For prehistoric times, see Jones and Klar 2007, especially Victor Golla’s excellent article on languages and language prehistory, which is summarized and updated in Golla 2011.)

Relationships of California languages with languages elsewhere are usually so remote as to be unclear.  Chumashan was once tentatively linked with several other Californian and Southwestern languages in the “Hokan phylum,” but Chumashan is in fact very distant from other “Hokan” languages.  Edward Sapir, and later in more detail Joseph Greenberg (1987), provided intriguing evidence for linking Yuki with the languages of southern Louisiana, and this appears to be a good likelihood (Golla 1911; it may also be very distantly related to Siouan). 

Edward Sapir and Morris Swadesh thought the Penutian family of languages of central California were related to the Mayan languages of Mesoamerica, and Greenberg (1987) accepted this.  There is much evidence, most obviously the win- root for “person,” as in Wintu wintu and Maya winik, and the tendency to count using base 20, which in Mayan is also “winik”—because the number is derived from counting on fingers and toes, so 20 is a whole “person.”  The Mayanist Cecil Brown and I investigated this idea some years ago, and found dozens of intriguiging pairs like that, but unfortunately the Penutian languages are so poorly attested in the record that we could not come to any definite conclusions and did not publish our work.  I remain convinced, however.  Penutian is generally thought to be related to most of the Plateau languages in a Penutian phylum.  Sapir and some followers considered it to be related to the Tsimshian languages of British Columbia, but that link is, at best, controversial.

One very important problem in understanding Californian, and other Native American, languages is that much was lost by the time that even the earliest ethnographers spread out to study the cultures.  In particular, all these languages had the same sorts of style registers that English or any other world language has.  There were styles appropriate to chiefly speeches, styles appropriate to medicine formulas, styles peculiar to particular animal characters in myths, and so on.  Particularly important was the division into high style, such as a chief would use in a formal speech, and ordinary daily style.  Victor Golla (2011:226-227) discusses what little is known, from the very few languages that survived long enough for such refinements to be noted. 

There was another, intermediate, register, such as a chief might use in his daily directives to the people (recall Garth’s observations cited above).  There were also special modes of speech used by shamans, and still others for myth-telling.  There were evidently some lower registers too, the equivalent of rustic dialect or slang.  We have no idea of most of these.  On the whole, all that was recorded was the ordinary register, the others having been forgotten (as noted by e.g. Laird 1976 for the Chemehuevi).  A. L. Kroeber did hear some formal speaking from Yurok and Mohave consultants, and gives tantalizingly short transcriptions of the Mohave (Kroeber 1972:81-83).

Hokan, Chumashan, and Yukian languages have been spoken in California for many thousands of years and presumably originated there.  Penutian languages are thought to have intruded from the north several millennia ago.  The Algonkian-related Yurok and Wiyot came later, and the Athapaskan and Uto-Aztekan languages later still, probably in the last 2000-3000 years.  Intrusion of the Shoshonean languages into the coastal areas happened about 1500 years ago, give or take a few centuries.  Dissimilar song and vocal styles (Keeling 1992a, 1992b) and vocabularies (O’Neill 2009) fit with other cultural differences, separating e.g. the otherwise culturally close Karuk and Yurok.  Both, for instance, indicate direction upriver/downriver/away from river, rather than by compass points, for reasons that will be obvious if you look at a map or satellite photograph, but Karuk—longer established—has a more complex and intricate system for marking it (O’Neill 2008).

Dramatic shifts in languages probably track changes in resource procurement.  The spectacular radiation of the Shoshonean groups from the southern Sierra into southern California (Takic) and across the Great Basin (Numic) coincides with the coming of the bow and arrow and probably has something to do with it—not only because of fighting and hunting power, but also because of better plant resource procurement (Bettinger 2015:48-49)

The state is traditionally divided into subcultural areas.  We may ignore these; they are rather debatable.  There are, expectably, cultural gradations at the margins into the neighboring culture areas. 

            More interesting to us here is the question of social complexity.  In general, Californian peoples lived in small village communities (“tribelets”; Kroeber 1925) of about 200-1000 people.  They centered around a single winter village or a very small group of such.  People dispersed in the spring and summer to forage and amass storable foods.  Some of these village communities were notably self-sufficient.  A. L. Kroeber interviewed one old man who had never been more than a day’s walk from his home in the remote northern California coast ranges (Kroeber 1925:145).   Bettinger (2015) takes limited mobility as usual.  Archaeology, however, shows substantial trade, and it appears more likely that this old man and others like him were limited in their travels by post-Anglo-settlement conditions.

            The smallest communities were apparently those in the Mohave Desert and Great Basin.  Even along the Colorado River and in the densely populated northwest, the operational unit was often the family; tribal consciousness existed but there was no real tribal government.  People lived in what Robert Bettinger calls “orderly anarchy” (Bettinger 2015).  He traces it to the effects of the bow and arrow on settlement (see above). 

William Kelly reported “anarchy” for the Cocopa (Kelly 1977, esp. p. 78).  For them, the word for “leader” literally meant “mad dog, crazy person” (Frank Blue, quoted Kelly 1977:80).  So much for leaders!  The Cocopa, like other groups, had orators, who performed the hard-work harangues noted above (Kelly 1977:80), but had no real designated authority. 

Even so, riverine communities on the Klamath, Sacramento, and (probably) other major rivers, and the coastal communities of the Santa Barbara Channel, were large.  Many of these in the latter two areas seem to have gone on to become chiefly villages ruling over whole polities, with small tributary villages in the hinterland.  This is believably, but not certainly, attested for the Chumash and Tongva (Gabrielino) of southern California.  It is a more than reasonable inference for the Patwin and neighboring groups of central California (cf. Kroeber 1932).  Chumash polities of up to 2500 square miles are possible.  (See Bean and Blackburn 1976 for several articles on California politics and group sizes.  Bettinger 2015 clearly underestimates the level of chieftainship and chiefdom organization.)  Unfortunately, we shall never know the truth, for these groups were shattered by conquest and disease in the early historic period.  The Patwin and several Chumash groups narrowly avoided total extinction.

            In terms of Julian Steward’s useful if imperfectly defined “levels of sociocultural integration” (Steward 1955), these were simple chiefdoms.  This means that they were organized into ranked descent groups, with chiefly lineages ruling over commoner lineages.  One village would be the chiefly seat; other, smaller settlements would be tributary.  Some Californian societies got substantially more complex, as will appear (see Arnold 2004; Bean and Blackburn 1976; Gamble 2008).  These groups thus not only had dense populations; they had complex societies with chiefs who evidently practiced redistribution economies.  Early accounts (Crespí 2001; Gamble 2008; Kitsepawit 1981) show that Chumash chiefs gathered fish and seed resources and lavished them on guests and others.  Their society was not much less complex that of the Iron Age Irish that we will consider anon, though the latter had sophisticated metallurgy, the wheel, writing, beer, wine, and other trappings of civilization. 

            On the other hand, we are not to see these societies as necessarily very similar to chiefdoms elsewhere, especially agricultural ones.  California’s societies were very different.  Kent Lightfoot and coworkers (1911) have pointed out that the vast shellmounds and earthmounds of central California, some of which contained hundreds or thousands of burials, are a unique feature that indicates a very different society, one about which we know little (most of the mounds are very old, up to 3000 years or more).  Villages of that time were large, but not of the size one would normally associate with huge earthworks.  This and other complex early manifestations indicate a society apparently rather different from any now known.

            They also warred, as chiefdoms do.  As in other chiefdoms from the Northwest to Ancient Ireland, chiefs held feasting and dancing parties that had a competitive edge.  To refuse an invitation to a chief’s fiesta could be cause for war, at least among the Chumash (Gamble 2008:194).  Wars over slights of this kind occurred also in northwestern California.  As is chiefdoms everywhere, feasts were important (Gamble 2008:224-227).  One reason was recruiting fighting men.  Another was cementing alliances with rivals would would otherwise have become enemies.  Cemeteries in the relevant parts of the state show high levels of violent death (Lightfoot and Parrish 2009:85-89), as is true in chiefdoms everywhere.  The Yurok writer Lucy Thompson stresses the enormous value of the huge Klamath River dance ceremonies in reducing conflict. All local groups were invited and had to settle disputes before participating.  Apparently this worked well, since no one wanted to miss these events (Thompson 1991:145-146 and elsewhere).  Presumably, large ceremonies in other parts of the state had somewhat similar effects.

Steward’s other levels of integration were tribes, bands, and states.  (Note, incidentally, that these are not “evolutionary stages” and were never intended to be taken as such [Steward 1955].  They are all the end products of very long and intricate developmental sequences.  Some of his students confused the issue by hanging an evolutionary scheme on them.)  The smaller village communities would be “tribes” in his sense (though not as organized as his general characterization implies).  Steward’s “band level” of integration was modeled on what he thought was characteristic of the Shoshonean groups of the Great Basin, but they have turned out to be much more organized and sizable, definitely “tribes” in his sense.  Steward mischaracterized them for several reasons, but the main one was that he studied them in their late historic condition, devastated by disease, massacre, oppression, and forced acculturation (Clemmer 2009b.)  States did not exist in California, or anywhere else north of central Mexico, until European colonization.

All the above typology crosscuts what is probably a more important truth:  All the California groups were organized into village-level or village-cluster-level societies, led by a not-very-powerful chief or a patrilineal chiefly group, and showing some occupational specialization.  All else was elaboration on this basic pattern.  The central village was not only the winter residence, but was the ceremonial center, where rituals and fiestas were held (Bean and Blackburn 1976).  It was the meeting ground not only for the community but for visitors and traders.  It was often regarded as the center of the world, or at least the center of the little world of its community members.  The situation of the typical village society was dynamic, with back and forth changes in complexity over time (Bettinger 2015), but it was oscillation around the village level of organization.

These groups managed to stay together and maintain their ceremonies and organization with minimal government, apparently through simple sociability and shared culture.  Even if the sources have exaggerated the “anarchy” of California, it was a world held together by norms, which in turn had their force because people needed each other and thus needed shared rules to live by.  Neither organized religion nor organized government were necessary.  Thomas Hobbes was exactly wrong; monarchy was not only unnecessary, it was downright undesirable.  Grassroots self-organization literally beat it out of the field.  There is, obviously, a lesson here.  California was no dream of peace.  There were countless feuds and small wars.  Steven Pinker (2011) exaggerates its violence, but probablly not by much.  Yet California was no “savage state” either; the life of Californians was the antithesis of being “nasty, poore, solitary, brutish and short” (Hobbes 1950 [1657]).  And the dramatically more hierarchic and class-ridden Northwest Coast had at least as much violence.

In the larger groups, the chief had an assistant or cochief who did the orating and much organizing (see e.g. Goldschmidt 1951; Librado 1977).  This dual leadership is probably related to the “peace chief/war chief” team found eastward throughout the continent.

 In general, the larger and more dense the population, the larger the elite group, and the more different it was from the commoners.  Also, the larger and denser the population, the more specializations could exist.  The deep interior groups had chiefs and shamans and little (if anything) more.  Leaders for irrigation, rabbit hunting, and other collective activities were selected ad hoc or were chosen for long periods by the tribe; they were known to the Anglo settlers as “water bosses,” “rabbit bosses,” and so on.  At the other extreme stood the Chumash, with specialized priests, healers, canoe makers, canoe owners and operators, and other formally recognized and named occupational specialties (Gamble 2008). 

Chumash elites formed a group known (in at least one Chumash area) as the ‘antap.  Data are not clear as to whether it was a hereditary class-like formation, a hereditary council of lineage elders, or a sodality like the Plains Indians warrior societies.  Perhaps it was somewhere in between all these.  We cannot tell from the late accounts that survive.  Similar groups of elites or ceremonial leaders are known for other chiefdoms in the state.  The Chumash also had a “Brotherhood of the Canoe” (Kitsepawit 1977), made up of canoe owners and makers; it was an elite, specialized society. 

My impression is that trade was more important than population size or density in driving these distinctions of rank and specialty.  Groups central to great trade routes, and especially the groups that lived where land trade had to shift to the water, were the most chiefdom-like.  This meant especially the great villages of the Chumash and Tongva, gathered around lagoons that made good harbors; the large Patwin and Nisenan settlements on the lower Sacramento and the Sacramento delta; the towns near the junction of the Klamath and Trinity Rivers; and the towns at good harbors on San Francisco Bay and Clear Lake.  I believe that organization for trade was more important than population in driving social complexity.  On the other hand, areas central to trade but low in population density, like the obsidian quarry areas of the East Sierra and elsewhere, were not socially complex, so a fair density of population is evidently a sine qua non for complexity. 

In spite of the well-known fondness of California groups for staying at home and never straying far, trade was important, and trading went on (see below).  People’s unwillingness to travel meant that many intermediaries might be involved, but contact was real, and small “world-systems” developed.  Christopher Chase-Dunn and Kelly Mann (1998) have described the world-system of the Wintu (see Goldschmidt 1951, one of the sources they used, for a notable account).  The Wintu was probably a subsystem of the great Sacramento drainage network focused on the Patwin.  Similar very small world-systems centered on the Yurok, the Chumash and Tongva, and the Lower Colorado River, and rather predict or map out Kroeber’s cultural subareas within the wider California system.  A world-system assumes a core group or groups; a semi-periphery; and a periphery.  For the Chumash-Tongva, the semiperiphery might be seen as including the interior Chumashan groups, the Salinan, Juaneno, Luiseno and Cahuilla; the periphery the Serrano, Vanyume and Alliklik.  The Chumash and Tongva were richer and more populous.  Unlike modern core nations, did not have a stable advantage in trade over these groups, but did have some advantage, and could defeat them in conflict.

The desert and Colorado River tribes had to travel much farther to stay alive, and thus came to love traveling, and to make long journeys fairly often.  In a striking passage, James O. Pattie (1962 [1831]), a fur trapper, tells of walking from the Colorado to the mountains of far northern Baja California in the 1820s.  He and his band of hardened mountain men barely made it—they crawled the last miles on hands and knees.  Their Indian guides not only ran on ahead to check the route, and ran back to the men, but when they all made it to water Pattie and his company collapsed while the Indians had a dance!   His group and other trappers took over a million beaver from the lower Colorado in those decades, eliminating the beaver and permanently changing and degrading the hydrology of the whole region.

California’s indigenous groups were shattered beyond all measure by European contact (Castillo 1978).  Diseases no doubt came with the first Spanish contacts in Baja California, the Lower Colorado (1540), and Cabrillo’s coastal voyage (1542).  Disease surely ran far ahead of Europeans thereafter, as it did elsewhere in the continent (Hull 2009, 2015; Preston 1996, but, as Hull points out, Preston goes far beyond the evidence).  Actual Spanish settlement in 1769—much earlier in Baja California—brought much more disease, as well as military action.  Indigenous peoples were gathered into the missions, which supplied little food, oppressed the Native peoples without providing rights or protection, and stopped much of the burning, hunting, and gathering (K. Anderson 2005; Timbrook 2007).  However, Native Californians could maintain some of their lifestyle, gathering wild seeds and hunting, since the missions could not feed them.  Virginia Popper (2016), analyzing plant remains from colonial sites, found several local adaptations, from Spanish continuing their Mexican lifestyles to Native people living quite traditionally.

Anglo contact was even more traumatic.  Diseases swept through the population.  A malaria epidemic in 1833 killed 1/3 of the population of the north-central part of the state (Cook 1955), and went on to ravage Oregon, where Robert Boyd’s study is exemplary (1999).  Smallpox epidemics were frequent, and endemic disease also occurred.  The relative role of disease in depopulation has been exaggerated (Cameron et al. 2015; Hull 2015).  Its absolute role was horrific, but genocide, virtual enslavement in the missions, poor nutrition, disruption of Indigenous lifeways, and other causes were probably as important in the declines of the Californian nations.

In the 1850s, northern California became one of the areas of the United States subjected to outright genocide:  state-backed, official or quasi-official campaigns of extermination (Madley 2012, 2016; Trafzer and Hyer 1999).  Most of this took place under the brief reign in the 1850s of the Know-Nothing party, which was pro-slavery and openly genocidal toward Native Americans.  The Yahi were eliminated except for a few survivors, notably the famous “Ishi” (R. Heizer and T. Kroeber 1979; T. Kroeber 1961).  The Yuki and their neighbors were almost wiped out (Miller 1979), as were several small groups.  The Wiyot of the Eureka area were subjected to massacre and were almost all killed (Elsasser 1978).  The Tolowa were decimated, as a spillover of the Rogue River War (Madley 2012).  This at least had the effect of showing the three connected tribes of Yurok, Karok and Hupa what was in store for them.  The Karok, and to some extent the other two with them, holed up in the fantastically rugged and inaccessible mountains of their homelands and fought back, in one of the very few genuinely successful resistance movements in the United States.  After decades of sporadic warfare, they received treaties and reservations, and are still among the most numerous and culturally intact groups in the western United States.  This is a story that, amazingly, has never been told, and it deserves a major historical study.  Heroic but ultimately futile resistance by the Cahuilla (Phillips 1975) and the Central Valley tribes (Phillips 1993) has received more and better historical attention.  So have the resistance campaigns of the relatively nearby Seri, Yaqui and Apache in Mexico and along the border, but, in general, successful resistance to genocide has not been much studied—a surprising and deplorable omission.

Elsewhere, Madley documents the murder of 1,340 Native people by California militias, 1680 by the U.S. Army, and 6,460 by settlers and vigilantes.  These are reasonable figures, but one suspects that many a murder is lost in the records.  Madley’s work has brought the California genocide from one of the least-known in history (my use of the term has been questioned in the past) to perhaps the best-documented genocide of an Indigenous population, with the possible exception of parts of Australia.  The sheer death figures do not even begin to describe the cultural effects, however.  Cultural repression in day schools and boarding schools, segregation, prejudice, deliberate breaking up of populations, scattering of groups between reservations that opened and closed with dizzying speed in the 19th century, and other methods calculated to destroy California cultures persisted for decades.  It is testimony to incredible resistance, resilience, and sheer toughness that some cultural groups survived as identifiable “tribes.”  More than a few white settlers, also, rallied to the cause, including such early “Indian lovers” as Helen Hunt Jackson and George Wharton James.  They could be unenlightened by modern standards, but they saved many people.

The Modoc War is perhaps the best known of the sad stories (Dillon 1973).  The Modoc were forced onto a reservation established for their traditional enemies the Klamath.  They were there subjected to harassment by both Klamaths and whites.  A small band left the reservation, holed up in the horribly rough and inaccessible lava beds of Modoc County, and held off the United States Army for six months, only to be ultimately starved out and sent to die in a prison camp in Oklahoma. 

The struggle still needs full treatment; it has always seemed to me to be the archetypal story of the conquest of the Americas.  We have the story in many versions.  In addition to the historical and anthropological accounts, we have contemporary accounts from several different points of view.  The settlers spewed out racist hate via local newspapers.  The army’s deep concerns and tactical debates are available in full (Cozzens 2002:98-298).  The Indian agent for Oregon desperately tried to prevent the war, but was overwhelmed, and we have his heartbroken story (Meacham 1875).  Most interesting, perhaps, is the narrative of the incredibly heroic Native interpreter Winona, transmitted through her son Jeff Riddle (1974).  Winona shuttled back and forth, at constant risk of her life, interpreting and mediating for both sides.  With this Rashomon-like kaleidoscope of views, and with the story’s location in the black and starkly beautiful lava beds, the tale would make a stunning film, but a tragic one, not a Hollywood show.

Throughout California and the west, even after pacification and treaties, food supplies were stolen by corrupt officials (Jackson1885; Phillips 1997), and educational institutions did more sexual abuse and labor exploitation than teaching.  Before 1863 Native people could be enslaved, and conditions after Emancipation were not always much better.  They could still be thrown off their lands illegally, as at Cupa in San Diego County (Castillo 1978).  Many groups had their reservations “terminated” in the late 19th and again in the mid-20th centuries; this involved giving them individual allotments, which they usually soon lost to sharp dealers or outright illegal squatters.  A thorough history of the Wintu (Hoveman 2002) provides documentation of one of the more fortunate groups; the Wintu, in the upper Sacramento drainage, survive, but were almost exterminated and lost almost all their land.

The last termination in the area was the Klamath Reservation termination in southern Oregon in 1954 (Stern 1966), the effects of which were so horrific that terminations were virtually ended nationwide.  Local entrepreneurs even resorted to the classic 19th-century trick of giving men bottles of whiskey in exchange for signing their names on blank sheets of paper—the paper later being filled in with a deed of sale of allotted land.

The sordid record of murder and destruction has been often told, and would not be worth raising yet again if it were not for the fact that, today, denial or partial denial of it has become commonplace.  Not only do the Euro-Americans gloss over it; the surviving Native groups often do.  This is an understandable but sadly misdirected reaction to their being called “extinct” or “culturally extinct,” for decades.  They naturally want to assert their survival. 

Indeed, they survived, and by truly heroic efforts—especially their own, but also the efforts of a few Anglos, such as Helen Hunt Jackson and George Wharton James.  But it was a near thing.  In 1900 there were only about 15,000 identifiable California Indians.  This fits perfectly with Henry Dobyns’ “95% rule” (Dobyns 1983)—the average Native American group was reduced 95% from settlement to lowest point.  There were actually many more individuals, mostly of mixed ancestry, hiding out or calling themselves “Mexicans,” but the total number was still tiny.  Only around 1900 did the precipitous decline from disease and cruel treatment begin to reverse itself.  In the 19th century, there was every reason to assume the California Indians would be gone in a few years, at least as identifiable ethnic groups. 

As it was, though population has fortunately rebounded, most of the languages are now lost, and the last few are kept alive by diligent efforts of a handful of Native people and cooperating linguists (see Leanne Hinton 1994, whose work has been outstanding). 

I would thus urge modern people, including Native people, to be understanding of the “vanishing Indian” attitude of 1900.  We should pay more attention than we have done to the level of loss through disease, oppression, and outright genocide.  We should pay far more attention to the relatively few people—including those forgotten Yurok and Karok fighters—who prevented the vanishing from being total. 

Native Californian Uses of Biota

Major resources are listed in Kent Lightfoot and Otis Parrish’s recent book, California Indians and Their Environment (2009).  The most useful plant resources were divided into two types:  nuts and seeds.  Nuts grew on trees.  Acorns were by far the most important.  The classic account is E. W. Gifford’s “California Balanophagy” (1957), “balanophagy” being a delightful coinage for “acorn eating.”  They could produce around 70,000 kg/sq km in prime habitat (Bettinger 2015:110, citing Martin Baumhoff), enough to feed far more people than California ever had.  There were many species, cropping on different cycles, so nuts were always plentiful.

Pine nuts, walnuts, buckeyes, laurel nuts, wild cherry kernels, and many other nuts were also important, more so than the literature generally suggests.  Resources such as pine nuts from gray and Coulter pines, for instance, were surely more important than the literature suggests.  Seeds came from a vast range of annual and small-sized perennial plants.  Some major ones were sage species, notably chia (Salvia columbariae), tansy-mustard (Descurania pinnata), redmaids (Calandrinia ciliata), tarweeds (Madia and Hemizonia spp.), sunflowers of several genera, and a great profusion of grass species.  Loss of people, especially from remote and mountainous areas, came early after Spanish settlement, losing us knowledge of much resource use.

Berries, fruits, shoots, sap, roots, bulbs, corms, cambium, and every other plant part short of hard wood were eaten.  Berries were particularly rich and prone to follow fires.  An odd line in Pedro Fages’ accounts of Spanish conquest mentions wine from elderberry fruits; he may have meant “juice,” but the Paiute made real wine from cactus fruits (Powell 1971:50), presumably having learned it from the Oodham, and the Opata of Sonora did indeed make elderberry wine—a lot of it—and it was apparently strong and good (Yetman 2010:38-39).  (The Fages entry spawned an odd story about wine from willow fruit, because someone misread saucos “elderberries” as sauces “willows.”)

            California ethnobotany has been richly explored over several generations, but we have probably lost most of the old knowledge.  Even so, what remains is stunning.  Most of the southern California tribes have produced full ethnobotanical books (for the Cahuilla, Bean and Saubel 1972; Chumash, Timbrook 2007; Kawaiisu, Zigmond 1981; Santa Ysabel Kumeyaay, Hedges and Beresford 1986; Baja California Kumeyaay, Wilken-Robertson 2018; Serrano, Lerch 1981; others in manuscript) and northern California has not been neglected (e.g. Welch 2013; for Northern Paiute, just across the line in Nevada, Fowler 1991; reviews, K. Anderson 2005; Mead 1986).  Ethnozoology is less well covered (but see Timbrook and Johnson’s Chumash ethnoornithology, 2013).

Old records remain important.  J. P. Harrington’s are the richest (see Timbrook 2007).  Powers’ Tribes of California (1877) preserved much.  Records are still being discovered and made available.  A recent publication by James Welch (2013) makes available the enormous wealth of information collected by John and Grace Hudson from the Northern Pomo in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  By the time that professional ethnographers reached the Pomo, the genocidal effects of white settlement (well summarized by Welch) had led to much loss, and the Hudson material is invaluable (e.g. noting 12 more basket materials than previously known).  Fortunately, a good deal of Pomo knowledge did survive, and does so still (Goodrich et al. 1980). 

Plants provided a rich source of effective medicines.  Among those proved by chemical analysis to “work” are willows and several other species (salicylic acid—the source of aspirin), many mints (menthol and similar oils), sagebrush (thujone, which is vermifugal and in high doses abortifacient), many tannin-rich barks, and a whole range of mild but useful antibacterial and antifungal compounds.  Mineral medications include naturally occurring salts, antibacterial compounds, absorbent clays, and many more.  Hundreds of plants used medicinally have not yet been fully analyzed.  The Native Californians were also eclectic; modern healers freely use not only Native remedies from all over North America, but even Chinese herbal medicine, as well as drug store cures (see e.g. Peters and Ortiz 2010).  Medical knowledge was highly prized, healers were enormously valued, and traditional medicine by both herbal and religious methods was very widely known and practiced—and to a striking extent still is.

            Animal foods included deer, elk, pronghorn, rabbits, gophers, squirrels and ground squirrels, and hundreds of bird species (Kay and Simmons 2002).  Countless insects were used (Sutton 1988).  Even the bones were ground up.  Small animals could be mashed whole, bones and all, into “gopher-burger.”  Larger animal bones were mashed and boiled to extract bone grease, an important food elsewhere in North America and probably locally in California (Sunseri 2015).

Hundreds of species of fish and shellfish were used. Sea mammals were important, perhaps more so than fish for the Chumash (Gamble 2008), such that some rookeries on shore were depleted (see below).  Areas along major rivers, and along parts of the coast with good harbors for canoes, could rely on extremely rich and reliable fish resources.  Shells were valuable for beads and tools after the animals within had been eaten.  The great salmon fisheries of the major rivers stretch the imagination.  Where there were no salmon, there were river-running trout; the huge rainbow trout of the Pyramid Lake drainage ran upriver to Truckee Lake to spawn, and at such times the river was described as more fish than water (LaRivers 1994, noting this is an exaggeration but that the runs were incredible; he notes that the Basin lakes are extremely nutrition-rich).  Ocean fisheries were important too, with vast runs of smelt of many species, sardines, anchovies, and herring, as well as plenty of larger fish.  A smelt run in 1857 left fish piled “a foot deep” on the beaches of northwestern California (Tushingham and Christiansen 2015:192).  Specialized fishing, with large seagoing canoes and huge riverine weirs and fish dams, developed after 1000 BCE, much of it within the last 1500-2000 years.  Intensive fishing and shellfishing in the south, however, came earlier, and indeed there were extensive shell middens dating to many thousand years ago.  (“Were,” because development has destroyed them on the mainland—within my memory, in Baja California and on Point Sal.  Research is now more or less confined to the islands.) 

Otherwise, animals could be very thin on the ground.  Ethnographic accounts suggest that rabbits (including jackrabbits, which are technically hares) were the most widespread and reliable land animal resource base.  Reptiles and predatory mammals were widely avoided as food. 

Mark Raab (1996), among others, has demolished the idea that Californians were rolling in food.  Most of the state is, after all, desert or barren mountain.  But some areas were indeed quite lush.  These were especially the interfaces between water and land, and most especially the high-energy ones: river deltas, current-swept channels, lakes with large feeder streams.  Populations were dense in the favored areas; numbers of people rose in feedback with elaborate technological and social systems.  In less favored areas, drought years or local disasters could produce real want.  Either way, population often pressed on resources.  Even so, with only some 250,000-300,000 people in a very rich landscape, California hardly suffered from serious long-term pressure on major resources.  Work-horse trees like oak and buckeye, and productive, management-responsive annuals like chia sage (Salvia columbariae), would support large populations in normal years.  Human populations would be trimmed back in years of extreme drought or flood.  Still, it is doubtful if the population figures represent a population at “carrying capacity.”  One suspects that they could have worked harder, stored more, fought less, and supported several times their contact-era population.

Storage was necessary, and many methods developed.  Meat and fish were dried or smoked.  Seeds were kept in baskets.  Acorns were stored in large raised granaries made of basketry, withes, or brush.  The Western Mono serve as a good example:  Christopher Morgan (2012) found that they lived in small communities (about 13 being typical but some reaching as many as 75) which had three or more granaries, but also had dispersed caches around the countryside, so that one was never far from stored acorns.  A granary held about 725 kg of acorns; about seven of these would support a community of 13, providing about 4 million calories (Morgan 2012:724-725).  Granaries were lined with pine needles—other groups sometimes used sagebrush, which is insecticidal—to discourage pests and keep the acorns dry.  Stored food had to sustain the groups during the long and harsh winter of their mountain habitat.  The far larger towns in lowland California had much less severe winters to contend with, but needed more food, and must have stored enormous quantities.  Bears raided caches, making extra storage necessary.

Bettinger (2015:90) has pointed out that meat, fish and the like are front-loaded: they are edible immediately and usually are so eaten, and if they are processed it has to be done immediately.  In California, that was largely an issue with fish, which had to be split and dried or smoked as soon as caught.  Nuts, especially acorns, are back-loaded: they are easy to gather and store, but take enormous amounts of processing.  So they are normally harvested in vast quantities in a brief harvest period, then stored to be processed and used at need.  This had social effects.  At one extreme, great assemblages of people were necessary to catch and dry salmon, but these assemblages would later disperse.  At the other, seed and nut dependence led to smaller but more stable, permanent groups.

Mineral resources were generally concentrated in a few spots, making widespread trade necessary.  Salt was required for survival and was sometimes hard to get.  Even more concentrated in source were obsidian and other silicates that would take a sharp edge; they were essential for points, knives, and the like.  At particularly good obsidian sources, I have seen the ground literally paved with flakes over many acres.  Good-quality grinding stone for mortars and metates could be surprisingly rare and valuable.  It is hard to imagine people carrying huge metates all over the desert, but they did, finding the labor worthwhile to get metates from superior quarries (Schneider 1993).  Soft chlorite schist, as on Santa Catalina Island, was mined for making bowls.   Marcasite became beads used as money in north-central California. 

The extent and importance of trade in California has sometimes been stressed (Lightfoot and Parrish 2009), but on the whole it has been underestimated.  Some communities, especially on the rather impoverished Channel Islands of the south, may have actually depended on trade for food, at least in some seasons (Arnold 1987, 2004).  If true—and it is highly controversial—this would be a very rare case worldwide of a hunting-gathering population depending on trade in staples.  Inland, California shell beads got as far afield as Arizona and northern Mexico.  Dentalium shell beads from Vancouver Island got to northern California.

The degree to which all these items truly constituted money is not clear.  They could be used for buying food, so they were not merely ceremonial (Bettinger 2015:184).  They were certainly monetized in early Spanish times, in areas of dense population, but the Spanish may have had much to do with this.  Clearly the shell items represented a kind of money, but only a special purpose currency, used in specific contexts, perhaps largely ceremonial ones in many or most cases.  Dentalium shells were used as money in the northwest of the state (and further north), but the fact that they were adorned and decorated so they would be happy and would lure more money to the owner (Bettinger 2015:182) shows how different the concept of money was there from what we now experience.

Indigenous Management

            The Californian peoples generally lacked agriculture, but there were significant exceptions, proving that they knew full well how to grow crops and could have done so if they had found it worth while.  Tobacco was grown very widely over the state.  The Karok, otherwise nonagricultural, knew enough about farming it to fill an entire book (Harrington 1932).  The neighboring Yurok believed that wild tobacco was dangerous, only cultivated tobacco being safe to use (Heizer 1978:650).

The southeast part of the state was firmly agricultural, growing the famous trinity of maize, beans, and squash, as well as several minor crops.  They also sowed wild grass, including the possibly domesticated local millet Panicum sonorum.  They may have cultivated amaranth species (Castetter and Bell 1951; Forde 1931:107-109; Nabhan 1982, 1985). 

The Owens Valley Paiute irrigated wild plants (Lawton et al. 1993).  This was presumably derived from true agricultural practices their ancestors carried out further south, since it is now beyond reasonable doubt that the proto-Uto-Aztecans were farmers, and the loss of farming in the Great Basin is a recent and derived condition (Hill 2001).  The Southern Paiutes of Nevada had agriculture from ancient times.  Sowing of wild seed crops is attested for a few groups (Lightfoot and Parrish 2009:127), and there were surely more groups who sowed.  Transplantation is also well attested, but especially for groups that had agriculture, notably the Kumeyaay (Shipek 1993).

Finally, increase in native barley (Hordeum sp.) seed size, to far beyond anything natural, took place in central California (Wohlgemuth 1996, 2004).  Similar seed dynamics are reported from the Los Angeles River area (Reddy 2016:237).  This implies either true domestication or at least intensive manipulation of stocks.  But the experiment ended:  the central Californians came to focus more and more on oaks and other tree crops, and the barley seeds shrank again, at least in central California.

In such a climatically fluctuating place as California, agriculture is difficult.  One need only read accounts by early European settlers trying to predict year by year, in the days before statewide irrigation systems.  Hunting and gathering must have seemed more reasonable.  But it too necessitated some higher organization if people were to manage the environment, store food, and accumulate fixed productive capital in the form of nets, weirs, canoes, and so on.  Hence the benefit of complex societies.  In an environment that is sometimes exceedingly rich but sometimes—and unpredictably—exceedingly poor, they make sense.

Also, the development of agriculture, throughout the world, took place in areas central to vast trade and communication routes.  Presumably the exchanges of goods and ideas were crucial.  Coastal California is a cul-de-sac.  Morever, the Californian biotic and cultural region has no single center; it is polycentric.  Even today, the Anglo-Americans of the Bay Area, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, and other cities all have their own subcultures and hinterlands.  There was no one confined lush area, like the Jordan Valley, Mesopotamia, or the Nile Valley in the Old World or like the Valley of Mexico in the New, to bring people together.   

The earliest agriculture in the world, that of the Near East, arose in a rather similar environment, but at oases within dry and desert-like parts of it.  Significantly, oases within California’s driest deserts are precisely the areas where agriculture waspracticed in the state.  Such lush pockets in an otherwise very challenging environment evidently make agriculture more appealing.  Near Eastern agriculture arose just after the Younger Dryas event, when environmental stresses and opportunities were high.  California had extremely few people at the time, and never had such climatic traumas afterward (cf. McCorriston 2000).

            Far more prevalent was intensive manipulation of wild plants (K. Anderson 2005; K. Anderson and Lake 2013, 2017; K. Anderson and Rosenthal 2015; Blackburn and K. Anderson 1993).  Native Californians pruned, trimmed, cultivated, selectively harvested, and in short did everything that a modern gardener does for her plants—but without domestication.  At the edge of the region, the level of cultivation of camas (Camassia spp.) and wokas (yellow waterlily seeds; Colville 1902; Deur 2009) reported for the Klamath and Modoc amounts to nearly or fully agricultural-level manipulation.  They also managed fish, and manipulated huckleberry intensively, as well as wild carrot and other root crops (Deur 2009).  So did their neighbors the Shasta, who also managed oaks for acorns (Gleason 2001).  Unfortunately, recording data on management was much less commonly done than recording ethnobotanical uses, and we are left in ignorance of most of it (see e.g. Welch 2013 on this issue).

            Geophytes—root, bulb and corm crops—were particularly subject to manipulation.  Corms of Brodiaea, Dichelostemma, and other plants (Anderson 2017; Gill 2017; Gill and Hoppa 2016; Wohlgemuth 2017) were particularly widespread and important.  Tubers of Cyperus esculentus, Eleocharis, and other plants (Lawton et al. 1976; Pierce and Scholtze 2016) were cultivated in the Owens Valley.

This level of management was a quite different startegy from agriculture.  It was, instead, whole-landscape cultivation, maximizing production across a huge range of resources.  By contrast, the Near Eastern Neolithic peoples in similar environments focused on two or three to cultivate intensively, thus inventing agriculture. 

The large bulbs and flowers of camas (specifically C. quamash  and—if it is a separate species–C. leichtlinii), the response of these plants to cultivation, and their striking failure to thrive and compete after the Native population was exiled from the meadows, all imply true domestication.  My impression from observing camas in the wild and growing it in my garden is that if it were grown by a “truly agricultural” people it would unhesitatingly be called a domesticate.

            Indeed, throughout California the level of management was impressive.  The area covered by camas and wokas was enormous.  Not far away, within California proper, the Shasta (Gleason 2001), Achomawi, and Atsugewi (T. Garth 1978) cultivated bulb- and root-rich meadows extensively.  Wild crops included monocots of many families—true lilies, Mariposa lilies, camas, and so on—as well as roots, mostly of the carrot family, such as wild carrots (Perideridea) and Lomatium.  Root-digging seems very generally to have involved careful cultivating:  small roots were left to regrow or were even planted; competing plants were removed; the soil was loosened; parts that could regrow roots were returned to the ground; and so on. 

Root-digging involved a veritable Protestant ethic of hard work and diligent, responsible effort.  Among the Atsugewi, men tried to marry the girls who brought in the most roots, and myths told of heroic diggers who married well (Garth 1978:237-238).  This was part of a more general ethic of hard work in all spheres of life, best studied by Garth among the Atsugewi, but generally found in California (see e.g. Spott and Kroeber 1942 on the Yurok).  Garth reports chiefs calling everyone up at dawn with harangues such as: “Get up and do something for your living.  Be on your guard.  Be on the lookout for Paiute [raiders].  You have to work hard for your living.  There may be a long winter so put away all the food you can” (Garth 1978:237). 

Probably no bulb-rich meadow in the state was left alone, and apparently all that were even remotely close to a settlement were cultivated quite intensively (judging from K. Anderson 2005, 2017, and Gleason 2001).  Even the Paiute and Shoshone, in some of the most merciless deserts on earth, enormously modified their habitats.  They have been involved in management efforts recently.  Many desert habitats were improved for wildlife and biodiversity by their care, as shown by Catherine Fowler (1992, 2013).  They conserved waterfowl—a staple food—by leaving eggs if there were hatchlings in the nest (Fowler 2013:165-167; taking all eggs from a recently-laid clutch does no harm, since ducks and coots simply lay more).  They also had cautionary tales to keep children from stealing too many bird eggs.

With Fowler we move partly beyond state boundaries into neighboring Nevada.  This allows us to include also the careful review by Richard Clemmer (2009a) of “conservation” among the Western Shoshone.  These groups did not preserve pristine wilderness.  They burned carefully and according to plans, sowed grass seeds, and managed vegetation.  They hunted pronghorn sustainably, planning hunts only when pronghorn populations had built up.  It is absurdly easy to overhunt pronghorn, because they are easy to lure and are slow reproducers.  An estimated 30-40 million pronghorn were reduced to 13,000 around 1900 by settler hunting.  Before that, large communal drives, under some sort of direction but probably not a specialized shaman, took place, especially around the time and place of pinyon harvesting (Wilke 2013).  Charms were used but there is some indication that some pronhorn were allowed to escape.  Certainly the areas were allowed to recover before another hunt.

They may have managed rabbits and beaver locally; evidence is unclear.  I suspect they did.  Clemmer notes that there were many beaver in the tiny Great Basin rivers when Anglo-American trappers got there.  This suggests either management or great difficulty in hunting the beaver.  Since the Shoshone were expert hunters, the latter is unlikely, so good management is implied.  Historic fur trappers had no difficulty in trapping beavers from these small, accessible streams.  Clemmer finds no evidence for management of pine nuts or similar resources.  Pine nuts crop in only some years, and when they do they crop heavily, so there is no real way to manage them.  However, the Timbisha Shoshone of California most certainly do manage pine nuts, by cleaning up the groves to prevent wildfires, brush competition, and the like from damaging the pinyon pine trees (Catherine Fowler, pers. comm.).  It should be noted that pinyons are notoriously erratic croppers—a strategy to foil seed-eating insects—and crop only every few years (Bettinger 2015:68).  People had to scout the neighborhood to find groves that were productive—an easy task, fortunately, since one can monitor the developing cones over a year or so.  Wandering hunters would report back, and the group would know exactly when and where to go when the cones were pickable—just before maturity, since at maturity they open and the seeds scatter or are devoured by a host of animals. 

Clemmer also found no evidence for intensive fishing or management of fish, but data rapidly caught up with him here.  Just outside our area, a major study by Deward Walker and collaborators turned up evidence for fishing on an enormous scale, with a huge range of sophisticated technology, by the northern Shoshone and their neighbors, who lived in the fish-rich Snake River drainage (Walker 2010).  This information presumably applies to the Humboldt River too, and one can be fairly sure that all Great Basin rivers were heavily fished.  Significantly, Walker found it “necessary to conduct research interviews in either the Paiute/Bannock or Shoshone language” (Walker 2010:55)—in the 21st century!  This is real tribute to cultural survival, and one that reminds us that lack of linguistic skills must have caused early investigators to miss a great deal.  Since the Shoshone (and closely related Paiute/Bannock) lived at the rivers’ headwaters, where streams are tiny, narrow, and often rather thin in fish, they could easily have wiped out the salmon and other large river-running fish.  The fact that salmon continued to abound proves some considerable degree of management.

Further, and much more thorough, work on plant and animal management in Nevada results from the comprehensive and thorough work of Jeremy Spoon and his many Southern Paiute coworkers in the White/Muddy river drainage of southern Nevada (Spoon and Arnold 2014; Spoon, Armold, and Newe/Nuwuvi Working Group 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Spoon, Arnold, Lefler and Milton 2015; Spoon, Arnold, Lefler, Wendel, and Nuwuvi Working Group 2013, 2014a, 2014b; these reports are quite repetitious but each has its own findings also).  Among newly reported information are care about pruning mistletoe from pinyon pines, and a great deal about managing water—desperately scarce in their area.  One elder observed:  “Science is a tool to measure stuff.  Culture is a tool to maintain what you have.  That’s what I believe” (Spoon et al. 2013:56).  These elders contrasted interaction with “management,” the latter seen as a not-so-good idea from the white settlers.  They noted a high respect for rocks, which remember whether they were moved for good or bad reasons—a belief I have encountered in Mongolia. One of Spoon’s reports is in fact titled The Voices of the Rocks Sing Through Us (Spoon et al. 2014b).  They also discuss talking with trees.  This makes solid sense when one is used to the significant silences—often filled with nonverbal communication—that mark and enhance Native American conversations.  Fire management is as among California groups described below; pruning, small patch burns in the right season, some clearing of brush beforehand, and general careful preparation and timing (Spoon, Arnold, Lefler and Milton 2015).

The level of personal restraint and responsibility involved could reach quite incredible proportions.  Philip Wilke (1988) found that desert junipers cropped for bow staves were carefully conserved.  A juniper with a straight branch was a rare commodity.  About one bow stave per twenty years could be taken from such a branch, preferably from the compression wood on the under side; then the juniper had to be left to recover.  Yet there are such trees all over the range of the juniper.  Bowyers had to be on their own recognizance—no one was out there patrolling.  Individual conscience restrained them from taking too much.  This self-policing went on for countless centuries over millions of square miles.  I have observed the same for yews in the Pacific Northwest; any venerable yew with straight branches shows the long, straight scars.  Such “culturally managed trees” are often well known locally, to the point that “CMT” has become a normal word in modern archaeology and land management.

California’s and Nevada’s indigenous people normally engaged in long migrations between winter villages and spring and summer harvesting grounds.  These migrations took them through successive habitats, usually on the route from lowlands to highlands and back.  Presumably the routes would change to avoid places heavily harvested in immediately previous years.  No meadow in the state, except extremely remote and high-altitude ones, would have been long ignored.  Archaeology shows this clearly.  Look around any meadow anywhere in the state, and (unless settlement or flooding have destroyed the record) you will find tiny scatters of flakes where someone sharpened a knife, broke an arrow point, or quickly flaked out a skinning tool.

            On the other hand, recent writers have been too quick to maintain that all California was highly managed, with wilderness a meaningless concept.  The Native Californians did not greatly affect the rough, infertile parts of the state, or the high mountains.  This was not purely because of indifference.   More significant was the use of remote mountaintops and high-mountain environments for vision quests and meditation, with the goal of gaining spiritual insights, knowledge, and ability.  Anthropologists generally refer to this as “power,” but, significantly, Native people speaking English usually call it “knowledge.”  It refers to a comprehensive spiritual vision that gives the visionary enough self-efficacy to accomplish important matters; the highest knowledge is generally considered to be that of healing.  In any case, all western North American peoples sought this, and depended on mountain wilderness for it.  All groups knew certain spots, called “power places” in the literature, that were particularly good for vision questing; mountaintops were particularly favored, but remotes lakes, waterfalls, and springs were important.  Of this more anon; at present we need note only that wilderness was required for a specific important use.

Most important of all was burning, but readers should remember that all those other techniques were important as well.  This was not simply “firestick farming.” 

            Fire was the chief way of managing the environment, and here the record is somewhat confusing.  There is no question that California Native peoples set fires everywhere that would burn, and that these very substantially altered the vegetation over vast areas of the state (K. Anderson 1999, 2005; K. Anderson and Rosenthal 2015; Lewis 1973; Lightfoot and Parrish 2009, with major review of literature; Pyne 2004; Timbrook 2007).  This was to be expected, for all Native American peoples except those in non-combustible environments (basically, Arctic and high-alpine areas and sand deserts) burned regularly (Pyne 2004; Stewart et al. 2002), and the effects on the vegetation were considerable; it is possible that the entire Eastern North American forest was deliberately maintained as an oak-chestnut-hickory community by burning (Delcourt and Delcourt 2004).

Juan Crespí’s diary from 1769 (Brown 2001; see Gamble 2008) is particularly revealing.  He noted not only widespread deliberate burning, but also that the vegetation in many areas was short annual pasture rather than the chaparral and coastal sage scrub that are now, or recently were, found in those locations.  The reviews by K. Anderson and by Lightfoot and Parrish list hundreds of sources covering dozens of groups. 

            On the other hand, a few doubters have raised their voices, and one of them is a formidable authority: Richard Minnich (1983, 1987, 2001a, 2001b, 2008), one of the two or three leading experts on California fire ecology.  He points out at length that much of the state is affected by dry lightning, which in the mountains can be an almost daily phenomenon in late summer, and that other sources of ignition exist.  (These might range from volcanism to spontaneous combustion in animal nests.)   California’s bone-dry summers and highly inflammable vegetation combine to guarantee natural fires on a cyclic basis.  California would burn sooner or later, indigenous people or no (see also Sugihara et al. 2006). 

Chaparral and some California forest formations are characterized by large numbers of species that seem actually designed to burn:  they dry out in summer and contain resins, waxes, and other compounds that are highly inflammable.  These species all either stump-sprout aggressively after fire, have fruits that need fire to open them, or have seeds that need fire to germinate.  Some authorities think that these plants evolved to eliminate competition and maximize their own dominance by this aggressive route. 

For instance, California’s most distinctive pine groups, the closed-cone and knobcone pines, have cones that normally do not open unless burned.  They live in chaparral, grow and fruit rapidly, and are designed to burn on 20-to-50-year cycles.  I have lived to see the knobcone pine forest on the San Bernardino Mountains go through two cycles and get well into a third.  Obviously they did not evolve in the last few centuries, and thus it is clear that California has burned since long before the Native Americans perfected their management systems.

Be that as it may, Native Californians burned chaparral regularly, to increase edible plant, mammal, and even insect resources.  Kat Anderson and Jeffrey Rosenthal (2015) report, for instance, that caterpillars, as well as grasshoppers, were managed by fire, which causes rapid regrowth of the tender new shoots on which they feed.   These authors describe the values of each stage of regrowth after fire.  Burning also opened the brush, making travel possible; a stand of mature chaparral is impenetrable, or at best very slow going.  Annual plants often produce more seeds (they need heavy seeding to survive) and greens than perennials do. 

Even fish could be helped.  Michelle Stevens and Emilie Zelazo (2015) point out that burning in summer opened up floodplains that flooded in fall, winter and spring.  Fish that spawned in those areas, including many important ones endemic to the central part of the state, were increased.  Another benefit was increase in number and quality of stems of plants used to make fishnets, such as Indian hemp (Apocynum cannabinum) and milkweed.  These plants grow in moist areas and produce longer, straighter stems after burning.

            A contrarian work is a volume edited by Thomas Vale (2002), which contains some articles on California.  Vale took a considerably more extreme position than Minnich, and argued that Native Americans did little managing by fire (or, for that matter, anything else).  Vale’s work might have had more impact if it had not been almost immediately buried under the enormous floods of counter-evidence in Stewart et al. (2002), Pyne (2004) and K. Anderson (2005).  Vale’s book was effectively answered, and refuted, by in a review by Henry Lewis (2003), the pioneer investigator of fire in Native North America.

            Vale, like Minnich, emphasized the probability that remote and mountainous parts of the state would be more influenced by lightning than by Native burning.  Lightning strikes were and are so much commoner that Native burning would not have affected the cycle.  Fire scars on trees have been used to assess the frequency of fires, but the vast majority of lightning strikes burn one tree (and perhaps its immediate neighbors) without starting a serious fire.

However, in California, the areas near dense Indigenous settlement are also the areas with the least lightning.  Dry lightning is almost nonexistent in coastal California.  Rivers and barren areas prevent the spread of fire from distant mountains, though it certainly does spread from nearby ranges (especially in the Santa Barbara area).  Fire return intervals in all these areas, even redwood forest, are so extremely frequent that lightning is highly unlikely to be the major cause (Kat Anderson, pers. comm, Feb. 4, 2014).

            Moreover, the testimonies of Crespí and others make it clear that the vegetation was burned far more frequently than even frequent lightning strikes would do.  Taken together, they describe millions of acres of annual pasturage.  Yet, in early historic times, these areas were brushlands. 

Minnich (2008) has established that the bunchgrass prairies of California’s interior valleys were nonnatural, and indeed many of them were purely mythical—early mappers’ overgeneralizations.  The potential vegetation of most of the valleys is saltbush and other brush.   Minnich has qualified his stand on the inexorable nature of burning cycles (Minnich 2008 and pers. comm, 2009-2010; Minnich and Franco-Vizcaino 2002).  It appears that chaparral and even desert vegetation can be burned much more often than it would naturally do.  This has made him more open to Native American burning as a landscape shaper.

            Californians were careful fire managers; they made very small fires for their own use.  J. W. Powell, writing on the Paiute, says: “…an Indian never builds a large fire…and expresses great contempt for the white man who builds his fire so large that the blaze and smoke keep him back in the cold” (Powell 1971:53; this confirms a very widespread American folk observation that I have heard since my childhood). 

            In short, the evidence is unequivocal.  They certainly managed well-populated parts of the state by burning.  On the other hand, their ability to reshape the vast lightning-prone mountains of the state seems limited.  K. Anderson (2005, and pers. comm, Feb. 4, 2014) finds that they maintained and expanded the mountain meadows and coastal prairies of the state.  These are now rapidly growing up to forest, in spite of lightning strikes; but deliberate fire suppression and the current years of drought (which favor trees over meadow grass) are involved in this. 

Another equivocal case is oak woodlands.  Oak seedlings die when burned.  Frequent burning of oak groves would eliminate them.  On the other hand, oaks survive burning when they grow large enough to have thick bark.  I have seen coast liveoaks sprout rapidly back from the very hottest fires.  It takes about ten years for a live oak to reach fire-withstanding age.  Thus, rarer burning—once a new generation of oaks had grown up—would eliminate fungal and insect pests, thin out the competition, and maintain the groves. 

A problem for everyone trying to reconstruct Californian vegetation as of 1700 is that Europeans replaced deliberate burning with deliberate fire suppression.  The Chumash were already seeing this as a major hardship, and complaining about it, by 1800 (Gamble 2008; Timbrook 2007).  The Achomawi, later, complained and regretted the ruin of the forests (Rhoades 2013:112).

The only possible conclusion is that human-set fire profoundly affected areas near large population centers, minimally affected remote mountain and desert areas, and affected to an unknown and probably unknowable degree the vast in-between zone.

            The situation in regard to animals is even less clear.  California Native peoples overharvested the choicest shellfish, such as abalone, which are delectable and easy to over-collect (Jones, Porcasi, Gaeta and Codding 2008; Kennett 2005; Lightfoot and Parrish 2009, summarizing a very large and contentious literature; Rick et al. 2008).  It seems clear that depletion was very slow and gradual, and frequently reversed (Rick et al. 2008).  People were fairly careful stewards.  They may have overharvested fish, but the wild swings in fish populations caused by ocean dynamics make this impossible to judge.  Fish have to accommodate to the sudden alternations of El Niño’s warm water and La Niña’s cold, both unpredictable in extent and reach.  Anyone familiar with fishing in California (especially the south) knows that species of fish, sometimes in enormous numbers, suddenly appear and as suddenly disappear when such events occur (cf. Gamble 2015; Jones et al. 2016). 

Chumash fishing pressure in the Santa Barbara Channel, however, was enormous, and declines of easily overharvested species like sheepshead in the archaeological record are therefore significant.  The Chumash had several named types of net.  A 20-foot gill net required 12,500 stems of Indian hemp (Apocynum cannabinum), which would have to be prepared, retted, and spun.  A 40-foot seine required 35,000 stems.  With these nets they took great quantities of small fish (Johnson 2015).  With these, they could easily fish out streams and bays.  Indian hemp was carefully managed—pruned, selectively harvested (K. Anderson 2005).  Its sporadic occurrence, especially in places where it does not normally grow (such as dry lowlands) and which are not very near other stands, strongly suggests deliberate planting.  Apocynum androsaemifolium was an inferior substitute in dry mountain areas, and nettles were also widely used for cordage; both were managed.

Recent research on the Channel Islands shows a tendency for popular resources to decline in hard times, but the staple shellfish—mussels—was about equally common through time (Lapeña et al. 2015; cf. Joslin 2015).  Mussels still abound on the islands.  The highly favored abalones were sharply reduced during hungry times, but were still abundant till modern settler societies got at them and destroyed the resource—a fate conspicuously absent from the closely corresponding Isla Cedros in Mexico, where local conservation is still the rule (Des Lauriers 2010).  The Channel Islands were settled by 13,000 years ago, and quite densely populated for most of the time since.  In spite of epidemics, they remained densely populated till the people were forcibly removed to the mainland in the Spanish colonial period.  These islands are small and absurdly easy to overexploit, so the fact that they were still resource-rich through the 18th and 19th centuries implies extremely careful and thorough resource management.

Seabirds were little disturbed, but a flightless duck (Chendytes lawi) became extinct, through human hunting and probably also through predation by human-introduced animals including foxes (Jones et al. 2008; Rick et al. 2008; Rick et al. 2009; Whisler et al. 2015; there was also a puffin, Fratercula dowi, but it was so rare that no one knows what happened to it).  The duck lasted for some 8,000 years after human contact, however (Jones et al. 2008; Jones and Codding 2010), which indicates human restraint.  Indeed, one wonders why the Chumash allowed it to die out; it could easily have been quasi-domesticated.  They may have hunted it for prestige (Hildebrandt et al. 2010) but probably did not (Jones and Codding 2010; I agree with them that hunting a smallish bird that could not escape would not give anyone much prestige).  I suspect that period of unfavorable climate may have led to both natural decline and desperation-caused overhunting.  The case seems to me more interesting than the insignificance of the bird would warrant, since we have here a prey that could very easily be exterminated, yet was not for many millennia.   

            A classic study of indigenous conservation was Sean Swezey and Robert Heizer’s study of salmon management on the Klamath River (Swezey and Heizer1977; see also Kroeber and Barrett 1960, Tushingham and Christiansen 2015).  The tribes there allowed escapement of salmon to preserve the stocks.  This was ritually represented; first-salmon rites, weir inauguration rites, and other ceremonies provided a cycle that regulated take and escapement.  Prayers to the salmon to return in abundance were part of the maintenance; the Karuk prayed with the wonderful word ?imshírihraavish, “you will shine upriver quickly” (O’Neill 2008:101).

However, this was not all; any temptation to cheat was reduced by the fact that the tribes upstream would protest, often violently, if escapements were inadequate.  People kept each other honest.  Everyone wanted an equal chance at the fish, and would enforce it through warfare if necessary. 

Rules on fishing were tight.  Robert Spott reported that his people, in the first half of the year (by their reckoning), could not take or eat salmon below Cannery Creek; if a salmon was caught right at the point where the creek entered the Klamath River, only the part that had passed the creek mouth border could be eaten (Spott and Kroeber 1942:172; a great deal more about salmon rituals follows).  Weirs that could take 50 days to build were demolished after 10 days of fishing, to allow escapement.  This emphasizes how strict the conservation rules were on the Klamath.

            Recall that the Native people of California’s northwest were blissfully lacking in formal government, so, as with Great Basin bow stave trees, this management was entirely based on people’s individual consciences reinforced by public opinion. 

            It seems highly likely, and locally certain, that similar fishing regulations held throughout the state.  At contact, most of southern California’s small streams had steelhead runs.  A run even survives, or did until very recently, in tiny San Mateo Creek in Orange County, and, again until recently, in Malibu Creek in Los Angeles County.  All the streams in the region are so small that a single determined fisherman could wipe out a run.  The San Mateo Creek run was down to one female at one point.  These runs could not have survived without deliberate restraint, given the high aboriginal hunter-gatherer populations.  Similarly, the dense population of Pomo around Clear Lake could not possibly have subsisted on its fish resources (as they did:  McLendon and Lowy 1978) unless they practiced careful conservation.  There were just too few fish, and these few have to run up the creeks or concentrate in shallows to spawn, making them utterly vulnerable.  Even the simplest aboriginal fishery could have wiped out the runs within a year or two.  But we have no documentation on this; apparently nobody thought to ask.

Another case in point is the abundance of enormous trout and suckers, and the lack of decline in their numbers, in the Lost and upper Klamath Rivers of the California-Oregon border country (Stevenson and Butler 2015).  The Lost River in particular is a tiny stream that almost dries up in drought years (hence its name—it tends to disappear in, or even before reaching, the vast Tule Lake sink), and only careful management could have preserved large fish in it.  Mismanagement since contact almost wiped out the Lost River sucker, but it is recovering under intensive management.  Suckers were also important on the upper Pit River, where the Achomawi not only still fish for them but still carefully manage them, watching and protecting their spawning areas and not taking too many (Floyd Buckskin, pers. comm.). 

Native Californians probably overharvested mainland colonies of seals and sea lions (Broughton 1994, 2002; Jones et al. 2004), but probably not as much as sometimes alleged (Jones et al 2004 pull back from their own earlier estimates; and see Rick et al. 2008).  Remember that grizzly bears and gray wolves entered the state at the same time humans did, and would have made mainland pinniped colonies nonviable, humans or no.  Native hunters probably kept numbers of elk and deer well below potential (Kay and Simmons 2002; compare the much better evidence for the Columbia River area, in Martin and Szuter 1999).  They tried their best to keep the numbers of grizzly bears down, but probably with limited success.  How much they could affect these animals, and how much they tried, remains unclear.  Extermination of the megafauna no doubt allowed deer and elk to expand their populations enormously, because of competitive release.  I suspect the Native peoples came into some degree of conscious equilibrium with them.  Elk, deer and mountain sheep all tame themselves if given any chance, and herds habituated to human presence might have been cropped almost like livestock.  Indeed, red deer are farmed today in Europe and New Zealand; red deer are basically the same as Californian “elk.”  They are tamed, but not domesticated; true domestication involves a genetic change to a new and artificially selected strain, but red deer remain genetically wild. 

William Hildebrandt (e.g. Hildebrandt et al. 2010) has long argued that much hunting was done for prestige rather than for economic return; very likely true, but I doubt whether this was significant.  The Native peoples had too little margin.  They had to hunt rationally for food.  Prestige would naturally accrue to anyone bringing in a huge amount of meat, but I believe people forewent rabbits to hunt deer because they knew the deer would provide more meat rather than because it would provide more prestige.  After all, a good-sized deer, around 180 lb., would dress out around 100 lb meat, and thus provide as much meat as 100-150 cottontails or 1600 sizable shellfish.  Even a fair chance at a deer would thus beat all but the biggest rabbit hunt or shellfish expedition in economic terms.

California’s sparse population was really not enough to do much damage to fleet, widely-dispersed game like deer and pronghorn, though the effect on more concentrated stocks like sea lions and tule elk, to say nothing of abalone, could be severe.  Burning would be likely to lead to increases in deer and elk.  Slow-moving animals like porcupines would be caught in the fires.  Many species would be indirectly affected by opening up the landscape. 

California’s population was not evenly distributed.  Along the Santa Barbara Channel and the lower Sacramento, and around San Francisco Bay, there were at least ten persons per square mile (judging especially from Chumash population estimates, the best we have for a densely-populated part of the state; see Gamble 2008, Kennett 2005).  Conversely, the higher mountains and the Mohave Desert had a tiny fraction of a person per mile (I would estimate one person per ten square miles for the Mohave).  Intensity of management and of hunting obviously varied proportionately.

However, the Mohave Desert people managed to overhunt the bighorn sheep seriously.  They were bighorn specialists, and when the bow and arrow came in, a fatal temptation presented itself.  Sites show rapid decrease of bighorns; the rock art showing thousands of bighorns in that area may have been made in an increasingly desperate attempt to call the sheep back spiritually (Garfinkel et al. 2010).  It stopped short around 1300, probably because Numic speakers with a different lifestyle replaced whoever was there before.  Possibly the latter were dying out from the consequences of their folly.  One assumes that this was not the only overhunting story in ancient California.

An  insight into Californian hunting is found in Frank Latta’s work on the Yokuts (Latta 1977).  Asking Yokuts hunters how far their bows would shoot, he was told that no one knew.  No one would waste an arrow and its valuable stone point by shooting it at a distant target.  Hunters disguised themselves in deerskins and sneaked up on deer and other animals, finally shooting from 10-20 yard range.  John Wesley Powell noted the same thing among the Paiute (Powell 1971:49), and, indeed, traditional hunters worldwide did the same.  This indicates an appreciable tameness on the part of the deer.  Deer are not stupid, and are notoriously hard to sneak up on.  The author recalls a story from many years ago:  just before hunting season, a couple of California wildlife trackers painted a buck deer bright orange, fitted him with a radio tracker, and followed him for a day through the brush of the Shasta County back-country.  They knew exactly where he was at all times, thanks to the radio, but they saw nothing of him except a flash of orange for a few minutes. In Michigan, a herd of deer in a 50-acre fenced enclosure were intensively studied and censused year after year, but the lead buck was never seen.  He avoided all contact even in that tiny space, being known only from his tracks and shed antlers (Pierotti 2011:87).

Wanton, uncontrolled hunting would make close-hunting tactics impossible.  Early explorers were told similar things by coastal peoples.  The exceptionally powerful Hupa bows could shoot a deer at 50 to 75 yards off, and the Hupa could shoot clear through the soft parts of an animal (Goddard 1903:33).  But the Hupa preferred to get close, and disguised themselves as deer so well that they had to take pains to avoid mountain lion attacks (Goddard 1903:21).  So did the Maidu—one hunter was attacked within living memory (Jewell 1987:125). 

Deer were occasionally driven over cliffs, at least by the Wintu (Lapena 1978:336), but this must have been an exceedingly rare event.  To anyone who wants to drive deer over a cliff, all I can say is Good luck!  I’d rather try to push water uphill with a rake.  Deer jumps are known for the Spokan (Ross 2011:304), but required extensive and careful planning, as well as rituals.  The gullibility of city anthropologists on the subject of “jumps” and “cliff drives” never ceases to amaze those of us who have some field experience.  Game animals are not stupid, and know a cliff when they see one.  Cliff drives required very careful preparation, with many people organized to panic the animals and keep them stampeded in the right direction, and if possible with fires.  People must line the intended drive path, yelling and waving blankets.  If possible, fences or barriers will be set.  This works for buffalo and sometimes with elk, but was evidently an uncommon way to get deer.

Pomo hunters supposedly knew, individually, every deer in their hunting radius, and indeed it is fairly easy to learn to recognize individual deer and know their peculiarities.  My Maya friends in Yucatan know their local deer that way, and, for comparison, early Irish hunters did too, as shown by the individually named stags in Irish epics.  This allowed the Pomo to manage the deer (Blackburn and Anderson 1993:20, citing Burt Aginsky).  Indeed, traditional Native American hunters are apt to know individually every large animal in their regular hunting areas—at least that is my experience in the Northwest, Mexico, and the western United States.

            The much-debated “Pleistocene overkill” need not concern us very long here, since we are dealing with recent management systems.  Still, it requires a note.  Paul S. Martin inferred long ago that Native American hunting was the sole factor in the disappearance of most of the large mammal species in the Americas around 12,000-14,000 years ago (Martin and Klein 1984).  In its original form—involving a sudden enormous expansion of human populations and hunting—this thesis is not credible.  It assumes a population growth rate of 3% over a vast area and a long time; nothing remotely like this has ever been observed in premodern populations.  It assumes people spread with lightning speed throughout the Americas.  And it assumes that people killed wantonly, since even a high population would not have needed more than a tiny fraction of the meat supposedly taken.  Surely, even without any conservation ideology, hunters would have thought twice about going after mammoths and mastodons simply to destroy them.  The danger would have been daunting.

            Moreover, mass kill sites are singularly absent.  We have a few scattered mammoth and mastodon kills, but not much else.  This is in stark contrast to the huge bison kills, involving thousands of animals, that happened later, without exterminating the bison.  Contrasting, also, are the massive boneyards on Sicily and Cyprus, where humans unquestionably exterminated the local dwarf elephants and hippos (Simmons 2007; displays in Sicily’s historical museum at Syracuse, studied Jan. 1, 2009).  On Cyprus, one site alone has the bones of over 500 pigmy hippos (Simmons 2007:231)—couple that with post-Pleistocene drying and heating, and there is no question why that species went extinct!  This is exactly what we do not find anywhere in early North America.  It is simply not credible that the there was better preservation on a couple of Mediterranean islands than in the whole North American continent.  There is also the fact that the vast terminal-Pleistocene boneyards we do have, such as the La Brea tar pits, contain few or no human kills.

            Thus, many authorities, notably archaeozoologists such as Donald Grayson (over many years—e.g. 1977, 1991, 2001), and Steve Wolverton (Wolverton et al 2009 and references therein) have given no credence to this hypothesis.  Neither have Native American authorities like Raymond Pierotti (2011).  Grayson pointed out long ago that many bird species, and several small hard-to-catch animals such as rabbits and dwarf pronghorns, went extinct.  The birds were mostly carrion-eaters that died out when their food did, but some were large water birds such as storks, and only climate change can explain their demise.

            On the other hand, it is hard to deny some role for human hunting (see, once again, Kay and Simmons 2002; also Krech 1999 for a relatively balanced review).  This is especially true since we now know that people were in North America earlier than Martin thought, and that some of the megafauna—notably the mastodons—persisted much longer than he thought.  Spreading out the time frame makes the levels of population growth and hunting much more believable.

People are highly efficient hunters.  Animals like giant ground sloths would have seemed like walking free-lunch counters.  The native mammals had no evolved or learned knowledge of humans and no defenses against group hunting with spears.  On the other hand, they would have learned it fast—certainly the mastodons had plenty of time.  It is not credible that animals used to avoiding sabretooths, lions, dire wolves, short-faced bears and the like would not soon figure out that humans were dangerous (veteran field biologist Raymond Pierotti 2011 makes this point).

The most convincing argument for overkill is indirect:  everywhere that Homo sapiens has gone, large animals have immediately begun to disappear.  This effect has been observed, archaeologically, from Australia, Madagascar, Indonesia, east Asia, and indeed everywhere carefully studied on the globe.  Some scholars have made far too much of this, though, by blaming even the extermination of tiny flightless island birds on humans; in this case the damage was surely done by the rats, dogs and pigs that people generally bring with them.  In New Zealand, for instance, rats came with the Maori, and probably did more than humans did to exterminate the moas.  The latter were ground-nesters with eminently edible eggs, and rats love nothing better than bird eggs.

In the Americas, the extinction pattern fits climate, not hunting.  The uncommon meso-size fauna went first, not last.  If humans had hunted everything out, the biggest, slowest, meatiest animals like ground sloths and mastodons would have gone first, the mesoprey later, according to all tenets of optimal foraging theory and common sense.  The truth was exactly the reverse.

I believe that, in the Americas, human-set fires were surely far more important than hunting.  (This is based partly on my observations of, and my reading of scholarly research on, burning in Australia and Madagascar.  It seems to be now generally accepted that fire, not hunting, was the human factor in extinctions in Australia around 50,000 years ago.  Both humans and climate change are implicated in the rise of fire.) Slow-moving species like the giant ground sloths could hardly have withstood frequent burning. 

Also, humans and other invading species after the peak of the last glaciation probably introduced diseases, and epidemic disease could well have had a role in wiping out the big game.  Within historic times, diseases have decimated North American trees such as the chestnut, white pines, and California oaks, and have wiped out Hawaiian native birds. 

Last and most serious, climate change after the glaciation was extremely rapid and disruptive.  Similar rapid and dramatic extinction events occurred at the ends of previous glaciaations, such as the Ordovician-Silurian event (Finnegan et al. 2011).  Humans were, obviously, not involved in those events.

North America 18,000-20,000 years ago was probably the coldest it has ever been.  It was hot and dry by 12,000, but then the Younger Dryas event dropped temperatures back to Ice Age levels around 11,000 years ago.  This in turn reversed, and an extremely hot and dry period set in by about 6-7,000 BCE.  (On ancient California, see Jones and Klar 2007.)  The changes were extremely rapid.

It would take only a few successive years like the horrific droughts of 2001-2002 and 2011-2015 to exterminate all lowland big game in California.  There would simply not be enough water for them.  Alternatively, and more probably, a couple of very dry years would so concentrate the megafauna, and so reduce human hunters to starvation, that any notions of conservation would go by the board, and desperate humans would indeed kill the last few mammoths.  I expect that climate change (basically drought), fire, disease, and hunting, in that order of importance, were all factors.

            The whole controversy has been greatly exacerbated by personal feelings.  The overkill hypothesis has proved popular with those who have an exceedingly limited faith in humanity’s ability to manage anything, especially biologists.  Some of these are frankly anti-Native American.  However, also among these ranks are more pro-human and pro-Indigenous anthropologists and other social scientists who dislike the “ecologically noble savage” stereotype (Kay and Simmons 2002).  Some of these scholars, like Raymond Hames (2007; his experience is in South America), have worked with Indigenous groups that lack any conservation ideology and hunt without restraint.  Others, including Kay and Simmons (and the present writer), see the “ecologically noble savage” stereotype as patronizing, and prefer to contemplate efficient if merciless hunters rather than meek and inept ones. 

Skeptics who doubt that humans exterminated the megafauna have included not only Indigenous writers like Vine Deloria, but also those who have little vested interest one way or another (such as Grayson and Wolverton), and even those who stalwartly reject the “ecologically noble savage” concept but are even more skeptical about Martin’s hypothesis (e.g. Krech 1999). 

            As with fire, we are left in some doubt.  California’s indigenous people certainly hunted hard and cropped the more vulnerable fish and shellfish as close as they could.  On the other hand, there were no extinctions after the end of the Pleistocene, and archaeology shows only rather minor declines in game populations over time.  Apparently people and wildlife reached a loose equilibrium. 

Ownership

            Ownership is critical to management.  Since John Locke, conventional wisdom has it that private ownership is best, but modern experience suggests that ownership at appropriate levels of management is better.  The California peoples already knew this.  Resources were owned or held at various levels (Bettinger 2015).  Individuals owned their own tools and implements.  Large productive capital goods like canoes could be owned by rich individuals, families, or associations.  Houses were owned by the families that lived in them.  Generally, but not everywhere, families or lineages owned particular patches of food-producing plants, or individual oak trees, or other productive land resources.  More remote areas of the state, however, tended to have community ownership of land, at least of remote lands.  Families or village communities owned good fishing spots.  The village community owned ceremonial structures and grounds, and held control with varying degrees of formality over resources.  As usual, there was variation in different parts of the state, from the far northwest where everything was owned by individuals or families to the much more collectivist northeast and south. 

The Luiseño, for instance, had four levels of ownership.  Individuals owned their portable goods.  Kingroups or groups of related people owned tungva “gardens,” understood to be oak groves, productive berry patches, and the like.  Village communities owned tchon tcho’mi, specific areas for collective exploitation. Larger tracts of relatively useless land were held as territory of particular village communities, but were not subject to specific management by socially constituted groups (White 1963).  The Achomawi maintained rights to hunt and gather on land, owned by kingroups or possibly local groups (Rhoades 2013:68). 

Fighting was generally about revenge, sometimes women, rarely property.  Still, land and resource conflicts were numerous and important enough to define groups and color lifestyles.  Access to resources was generally restricted to the owners, especially relative to other North American peoples (Bettinger 2015:132-134).  We read of people fighting over berries, oak trees, and productive areas of land (e.g. Gamble 2008:258; Rhoades 2013; White 1963).  Like many other people, they exaggerated their grievances; Walter Goldschmidt, George Foster, and Frank Essene, comparing notes in the 1930s, found that the groups they were studying described the same war, but each claimed it was the aggrieved one, and that it held on though badly outnumbered (Goldschmidt et al. 1939).  Raymond White (1963) recorded in detail the wars between Luiseño villages over resource encroachments.

The Yurok had an exceedingly complex ownership system.  Some things were owned in common (“’everybody’ ownership”), others by the village or group of houses, others by the house (which usually contained an extended family), others by individuals (note that this is very similar to Luiseño ownership).  At least after white settlement, individual land ownership existed.  Individuals might hold fractional shares of an item.  Songs and ceremonies as well as resources and wealth goods were named (Pilling 1978:146-147).  For the neighboring Hupa, Goddard (1903:26) notes extended-family ownership of acorn groves and of fishing sites and stretches of fishing streams.  Bettinger (2015:168-70) sees this as the limiting case of his “orderly anarchy.”  He clearly underestimates the role of community and elders, since the large towns of the northwest did function smoothly and coordinate everything from weir-building to the yearly ceremonial round, but certainly ownership tended to be at a grassroots level.

The Nomlaki occupy an intermediate position, with individual ownership of personal goods and also certain trees and the like; otherwise they preferred community ownership—villages headed by chiefs who administered (Goldschmidt 1951:340).

For the Cahuilla, Lowell Bean and Katherine Saubel (1972) describes family ownership of small plant resources, lineage ownership of individual oaks, and village community ownership of land and major resource clusters. For the Chemehuevi, descent groups owned territories.  These groups owned songs—notably the Mountain Sheep, Deer, and Salt songs—by hereditary right, and sang them to assert ownership and to show and teach knowledge of the ground.  Large, vague divisions of the Chemehuevi owned the songs.  Families owned specific versions of them, and these went with territory they owned, controlled, or habitually visited.  Such song groups were exogamous (Laird 1976:21).  The songs described the country, often in the form of travels through it; the Salt Song, for instance, traced a circle from the Bill Williams River (in southwest Arizona) through southern Nevada, eastern California, and back.  In striking parallel to the Australian Aborigines, these ownership songs recounted travel over the country, with human reactions, sacred places, waterholes, and other important matters incorporated (Laird 1976:6-18).

Since we are not talking about formal states, land was not formally owned, surveyed, and measured; vast remote tracts were open for anyone (though loosely held by the nearest village), and large shadow-zones existed between village holdings in such resource-poor areas.  Conversely, rich lands were grounds for major and serious conflict. 

            All this was less complicated than it looks.  The basic principle is that everything was owned at the level at which ownership was most efficient.  It would hardly be sensible for the whole community to own a bow and arrow set.  Conversely, an individual could not possibly hold (even if he or she owned) a large oak woodland.  The size of a particular resource item or patch seems to have determined the size of group owning it.  My sense is that a group owned a patch it could easily crop, manage, and defend (cf. K. Anderson 2005; also the studies in Bean and Blackburn 1976).

            Population density must have affected this.  It certainly seems, from the rather thin evidence, as if ownership was a more serious matter among the Chumash than among the desert Shoshoneans (Clemmer 2009a, 2009b), and more serious among the Yurok and Karok than among the tribes inland of them.  Evidence is thin (though see Bettinger 2015), and some of it goes against this generalization; ownership of choice fishing spots by lineages is still very much alive among the Achomawi (inland from the Karok), even after 200 years of oppressive contact with Euro-Americans.  Good fishing spots are highly concentrated there, and it could well be that there—and elsewhere—concentration of resources was more crucial than density of people.  Similarly, the Timbisha Shoshone of Death Valley, though they had the sparsest population of any California group, still maintain ideas of ownership of mesquite trees and pinyon groves.

Representations:  Sources

            The early and devastating decline of the Native Californians has left us quite poorly informed about them.   

Fortunately, a few exceptional collaborations between particular researchers and consultants have produced comprehensive and sensitively recorded bodies of data.  We can be enormously grateful that California was blessed with ethnographers who, whatever their faults may have been, actually cared about traditional people and cultures, and wanted to learn all they could.  Even today, when many ethnographers are interested only in high theory or in playing political games, California remains blessed with a stunning array of people who care—including Native ethnographers like Julian Lang and Katherine Saubel, as well as people like Thomas Blackburn, Lowell Bean, and others cited in the present work. 

  Particularly notable are certain cases of longstanding cooperation between an ethnographer and a Native Californian individual.  A. L. Kroeber’s work with the traditional Yurok elder Robert Spott is outstanding (e.g. Spott and Kroeber 1942).  Roland Dixon evidently managed exceptional rapport with the Maidu mythographer Hanc’ibyjim (Shipley 1991).  John Harrington’s work with the Chumash, especially Fernando Librado Kitsepawit (1981), is famous.  Harrington’s former wife, Carobeth Laird, cemented a particularly close collaboration by marrying her main consultant, George Laird; she produced a trio of books (Laird  1975, 1976, 1984) that are California literary classics in their own right—possibly the most sensitive, well-written, and moving collections of lore and texts from the state.  They have languished in some obscurity, ironically because they were published by a Native Californian organization (Malki Museum) rather than an academic press! 

Finally, special mention goes to the incredible efforts of the few Native Californians who have studied and recorded their own cultural traditions.  Julian Lang has done yeoman service on the Karuk and their neighbors (Lang 1994).  Native Californian elder, ethnographer, and writer Katherine Siva Saubel has for several decades been the unofficial dean of Native California studies (Bean and Saubel 1976; Saubel 2004).  Self-taught and with no “position” other than head of Malki Museum for most of its career, she compiled a record of publication, research, public service, and collaboration with international experts that is matched by few if any “formal” academics in the field. 

Susan Suntree (2010) has integrated many southern California Native origin stories and environmental teachings into a beautiful, poetic volume that catches much of the essence of the land.

            Unfortunately, all the above, together with the enormous mass of other ethnographic work, still fails to give a complete picture of the life and culture of any group.  Often, our knowledge of a whole group depends on one individual who did not actually grow up in traditional times.  George Laird had forgotten much of Chemehuevi lore, and we have essentially no other source.  Fernando Librado and Candelaria Valenzuela, our sources on the Ventureno Chumash, were raised long after the missions had changed Chumash life.  Our knowledge of the Kiliwa (just across the line into Baja California) derives from one man, Rufino Ochurte.  At least, he remembered quite traditional times and did find an exceptional ethnographer in Mauricio Mixco (1983), so when he does not mention conservation beliefs we can probably take it that there were no important ones.  (The Kiliwa maintained a very sparse, highly migratory population in a harsh desert, and probably had no need of them.)  Otherwise, however, a lack of reports of conservation myths and injunctions means nothing; “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

We are best informed for the Yurok and Karok, who (with the Hupa) have been most successful at maintaining their culture till now, so that information derives from their own highly educated scholars such as Julian Lang as well as from many consultants interviewed over many years by many investigators.  Many other cultural groups were contacted too late, and often by “green hands” doing practice field work.  Material culture and ordinary social life have generally been well covered, since they show up in the archaeological and historical records as well as in ordinary ethnography.  The situation for myth and religion is far less good.  These leave little mark, and require extremely sensitive ethnography over many years to document adequately.  The contrast between the myth records of Hanc’ibeyjim or the Lairds on the one hand, and the hasty recordings by less sensitive ethnographers on the other, is most striking.  It reminds one of the contrast between Homer and the children’s books summarizing his stories for the subteen trade.

            One final problem with the sources is that California ethnography suffered from a tendency to compartmentalize “religion” and “subsistence” (or “environment”) as two separate things.  “Religion” covered abstract notions of gods’ “subsistence” meant pounding acorns and hunting deer.  Ways that religion sanctioned ecological behavior fell between the chairs.  Few recorded such data.  This problem is endemic in Kroeber’s Handbook (1925) and the larger Smithsonian Institution handbook (Heizer 1978).  Kroeber’s trait-list ethnographic method did not help the situation.  (Cf. Swezey and Heizer 1977 to show what could be done when the blinders were off.)  On the other hand, ethnographers not bedeviled by artificial boundaries do not report much specifically conservationist religious teaching, either (see e.g. Laird 1976, 1984).  It would probably be more accurate to see the religion-environment-subsistence interaction as basic, with “religion” and “subsistence” as segregates imposed artificially on Californian culture by outside ethnographers.

            One recalls that it took three generations of ethnographic work to get much sense of how Australian Aboriginal religion constructed landscape.  Californian ethnographers, working with memory cultures from the beginning, had no opportunity to do likewise.

Attitudes and Representations:  Specific teachings

            As elsewhere, conservation derived from more general postulates about the world.  These have been best summarized by Thomas Blackburn in December’s Child (1975; this book refers to the Chumash but what follows applies equally well to all California groups).  He lists fourteen postulates about the world as central to Indigenous thought:

A personalized universe

Kinship of all sentient beings

Existence and potential of supernatural or nonordinary Power

Determinism (within broad limits)

Negative-positive interaction (rather than pure good separate from pure evil)

A dangerous universe (with many frightening supernatural as well as natural beings)

Unpredictability

Inevitable, inherent inequality (especially of powers)

Affectability (all can potentially affect all)

Entropy (disorder builds up unless controlled)

Mutability

Closed universe

Dynamic equilibrium of oppositions

Centricity (the Chumash at the center of a circular world, itself the middle plane in a multiplanar cosmos) (Blackburn 1975:65, with my explanatory extensions)

            Of these, the most important in general and in managing landscapes are the first three.  The others may be considered ancillary.

            Blackburn also lists thirteen things that are highly respected:

Knowledge

Age and seniority

Prudence

Self-consraint

Moderation

Reciprocity

Honesty (but also trickiness in the face of frightening beings)

Industriousness

Dependability and responsibility

Self-asertion and self-respect

Pragmatism

Etiquette (proper behavior)

Language (Blackburn 1975:65)

            Explicit conservation in California representations of nature are rare, but Kat Anderson found a great deal of conservationist ideology in her studies of Native Californian plant management.  She found two universal rules: “Leave some of what is gathered for the other animals and Do not waste what you have harvested” (K. Anderson 2005:55; her italics; see also Blackburn and Anderson 1993).  In fact, there is evidently a general rule not to waste at all.  What is not harvested is left for later, or left for the other people (the four-footed or winged ones).  Native Californians would steal stored seeds from mice and other rodents, and acorns from woodpeckers, but would always leave some for the rightful “owners.” 

People approached plants with reverence and respect.  They felt the usual Native American kinship with nature (K. Anderson 2005:57-59).  Their ceremonies for first fruits and seasonal foods bonded people to the resource base.  People were close to the land.  Kat Anderson recorded a revealing comment from a Chukchansi Yokuts elder:  “I’ve alwas wondered why people call plants ‘wild.’  We don’t think of them that way.  They just come up wherever they are, and like us, they are at home in that place” (K. Anderson 2007:41).  She and Thomas Blackburn note:  “Today, native peoples still retain a deep respect for the natural world, and retell stories that remind them of the absolute necessity for judicious harvesting.  Elders are quick to tell younger gatherers, ‘Do not take all—and leave the small ones behind’” (Blackburn and Anderson 1993:20).

Kat Anderson found that a general sense of kinship with nature, or at least consociality with it, and a more specific sense of genuine deeply-felt responsibility for conserving resources for the wider good, were the basic attitudes of management.  Yet—whether because it is really lacking or because ethnography is so thin—there is little record of its being verbalized explicitly in a philosophic ideology, as it is on the Northwest Coast (Atleo 2004). 

An important exception is the Klamath River region, where traditional culture continues to an appreciable degree.  For that area we have not only a great deal of good ethnography, but a unique source in the form of an early book by a Native Californian woman—Lucy Thompson’s To the American Indian (1991, orig. 1916).  In it, she points out that the Yurok carefully protected sugar pines, source of nuts and sugary sap (Thompson 1991:28ff).  They conserved fish (Thompson 1991:178-179) and burned carefully and systematically (Thompson 1991:31-33).  In general, she stands in striking contrast to ethnographies by outsiders—she stresses the religious interaction with nature and its function in maintaining conservation.  It seems highly likely that this was universal, and that it was missed by early ethnographers for the reasons above noted. 

Confirmation for the Yurok case comes from more recent work.  The Yurok spiritual teacher Harry Williams (on whom see Buckley 2002) tells:  “I was with my grandfather, Charley Williams.  We were walking on a dirt path down to the ocean.  There was a bug crossing our path, and my grandfather told me, ‘Reach down and help that bug on its way.’  So I did.  I reached down and helped the bug on the path to where it was going.  ‘Now, do you know what you have done?’ Grandfather continued.  ‘You won’t feel badly now, for perhaps a bird will someday eat the bug.  But you must remember that the Creator created the bug for birds to eat.  He didn’t create them to get stepped on’” (Burrill 1993:43; presumably the Creator is Wohpekumeu, the Yurok trickster-transformer; strictly speaking there is no Yurok Creator, since the Yurok teach that the universe has always existed).  Lest anyone think this is an exaggeration, I can testify that the Yucatec Maya routinely do things of this sort, with similar teachings.  Maya who picked up a bug to show me would always put it back on the path, unharmed, and headed the way it had been going (Anderson and Medina Tzuc 2005).  Williams’ grandfather also said that rocks are living things, and that “the white man is like the wind.  Nobody knows where he comes from.”  Williams also tells of a line he heard at a Native American conference:  “Creator gave man two ears, and two eyes, but only one mouth.  But the white man thinks he has five mouths, no ears, and no eyes.  That must be why he talks so much” (Burrill 1993:106). 

For the Karok, the “Ikxareyavs were old-time people, who turned into animals, plants, rocks, mountains, plots of ground, and even parts of the house, dances, and abstractions when the Karuk came to the country” (Harrington 1932:8).   Many of the most feared of these prior beings turned into large and spectacular rocks, a story which the Karok supposedly proved to Harrington by pointing out that you can still see the rocks.  The Ikxareyavs who turned into abstractions remind us yet again of classical Greece, with its goddesses such as Sophia and Nike, as well as the ancient Hindus, who visualized Time (kali) as a goddess.

The Hupa, culturally very close to the Karok though linguistically unrelated, held that one Yinukatsisdai “made all the trees and plants which furnish food for men….  If he sees food being wasted he withholds the supply and produces a famine.”  If pleaded with, he may relent, and “then gives the food…in such bountiful quantities that acorns are found even under the pines” (Goddard 1903:77).  The puritanical and religious Hupa shared the Northwest Coast view of punishment for waste, but added a fascinating touch in the mercy of the creator.  The corresponding masters of deer are the Tans, who withhold deer from hunters if deer are not treated with respect.  As elsewhere in the wider Northwest and California (e.g. Rhoades 2013:81), respect means not only treating the dead deer respectfully but also totally refraining from waste, overhunting, and hunting without serious need for food.  Yet other deities care for fish in similar ways (Goddard 1903:77-78).  The fish, like the deer and other food animals, had been kept by the supernaturals, and had to be liberated by culture-heroes; there are many stories of these events, and the stories are used in ceremonies to maintain the stock (Goddard 1904).  Less effective, but not unrelated, were prayers that birds and squirrels might not desire to eat the acorn crop (in competition with the Hupa) (Goddard 1903:81).  The Hupa regarded trails as sacred persons. 

The Yurok, Karok and Hupa joined in enormous ceremonies that were intended to preserve and renew the world and its resources.  These ceremonies almost died out, but managed to survive, and are now once again celebrated regularly.  The belief in the need of humans to hold elaborate and active rituals to keep the game, fish, and plant foods productive has itself been preserved and renewed, especially since these groups have seen the result of modern Californian indifference to conservation.  Many myths detail the origin of these ceremonies and the need for them, but specific teachings of directly conservationist behavior are rather limited.  However, it seems clear that a general reverence and spiritual concern for the landscape has a preservationist effect.  People will not thoughtlessly waste resources that are personally and spiritually important.

Among the Lake Miwok, as in several other parts of North America, “game animals were believed to be immortal and under spirit control, and it was believed that animals sometimes transformed themselves into other species” (Callahan 1978:272).  The Yuki held that deer are immotal, their souls living in a mountain under care of a Deer Guardian who is second only to the Creator and who controls obsidian as well as deer.  This belief in animal souls within a mountain occurs widely in North America, as far as Huitepec, the sacred mountain near San Cristobal in Chiapas. It is more than likely that the immortality and protectedness of spirits of game was universal. 

The Northern Pomo had a concept of “xa, manifestations of the supernatural spirits…left on earth from the beginnings and investing certain peculiar objects with supernatural attributes….  Xa  is the genius of procreation, acquisition, alien to human activities…but a spiritual concomity of men whose aid may be engaged through prayer and possession of its symbols….   Xa is summoned by sexual contact, is the mystery of conception and gestation, leaves its stamp on the buttocks of new born till erased by cognoscence; places an indelible mark on the skin of a favored mortal…. Xa is the inspiration of song…, the rhythmic impulse of song-dance ceremonies, the buoyancy of regalia…and the stimulus of fingers tapping upon the flute. It is the celestial, beneficent influence as opposed to the terrestrial demon of diaster…”  (notes of John Hudson, ca. 1900, from Welch 2013:169).  Xa resides in hawk and falcon and eagle feathers, in crests and red tails of birds such as woodpeckers, and in omens and apparitions.  Five plants have it: trail plant (Adenocaulon bicolor), angelica, sweet cicely (Osmorhiza sp.), Fendler’s meadowrue (Thalictrum fendleri), and leather root (Welch 2013:169).  As elsewhere in California, tobacco and Jimson weed (Datura wrightii) were sacred in a different way: they gave direct visions and healings.  All this must have fed back on resource management, but no early record of this seems to have survived.

Equally revealing is a story related by Fernando Librado (1979:113):  A man was trapping rats in a pitfall trap, and an old Santa Rosa Chumash told him:  “’You are polluting our mother, Xutash!  [The Chumash earth goddess.]  Remove this at once, If you defile our Mother, she will give us nothing.’”

The Cocopa, who lived in a landscape of abundance in the fertile Colorado River delta, lived simply and never worried much about food—though famine threatened if a drought led to the river being very low.  William Kelly made careful enquiries about religious beliefs connected with fertility, harvest, wild foods, agriculture, and the whole suite, and found:  “Harvest festivals…were…religious in nature; yet their function, explicit and implicit, was in connection with group life and social organization, and they were neither related to the harvest as such nor a mechanism aimed at increasing effort or diligence in farming” (Kelly 1977:44).  This seems general throughout California (the Cocopa live in Baja California).  The only rule related to such issues that is even remotely ecological in function was the universal Native American rule that a boy could not eat his own first kills (Kelly 1977:45).  This has no conservation function in itself, but in most of North America is part of teaching the boy respect for both the game and the human social group that shares the kill.  The Cocopa tabooed doves but apparently for totemic, not environmental, reasons.  As agricultural people, they probably had a different take on myth, with Coyote a creator of good crops and transformer of insulted ones into bitter wild foods, rather than a producer of good wild foods for people to gather (see Nabhan 2013 for a brilliant, incisive analysis of this contrast in southwestern mythology).

We are, however, surely missing a great deal.  The Northern Paiute, whose territory included the northeast corner of California, offered prayers to slain game animals.  They left the tail tip of a hunted deer under a rock with the prayer “’Deer, thank you, and come again.’  A similar offering was made for bighorn sheep” (Fowler 1992:181).  Note that the deer will be reincarnated, and will again offer itself to the hunter if treated well—a universal North American belief.  Even roots required an offering or prayer.  Eagle feathers were harvested without killing the eagle (ibid.).  A number of prayers, to the Sun and othe powers, were given daily or frequently.  Ceremonies insured continued production of food resources.  Yet Fowler does not record conservation myths either.

            Taboos may also have had a conservation effect.  The Yana, for instance, did not allow salmon to be eaten with deer meat, small game, or roots taken from gopher burrows (Sapir 1910:156).  The salmon would cease to come if this taboo was violated.  One assumes it was disrespectful to them.  Possibly they did not like to associate with prototypically “land” foods.  There is no evident conservation here, but at least some respect for the salmon was apparent.  The Wintu and related peoples tabooed a large number of things, including most birds of prey and predatory animals (Du Bois 1935).  The Nutuwich Yokuts even tabooed bear and deer, being thus reduced to eating rabbits for meat, a most unusual degree of forbearance (Gayton 1948:166).  Taboos this extensive would have a major ecological effect.  They preserved even the hunted species indirectly, by preserving keystone species in the ecosystem.  Heizer (1978) cites a number of taboos and rules from around the state that affect land use. 

            The Chilula (Athapaskan) culture is barely known from a very few elderly people just after 1900.  One of them “was a medicine woman for troubles caused by the deer gods” (Goddard 1914:379).  That is all we know of Chilula animal religion, outside of a few generic myths, but it implies spirit guardians of the game such as we know from most of Native America.

            Attested from one end of the state to the other are harangues by chiefs telling people to work hard and diligently at hunting, gathering, and food production in general.  (The best description is for the Atsugewi, but the custom is attested all the way to the Mohave [Kroeber 1972] and Cocopa [Kelly 1977:66].)  Many groups  had a special designated Orator as well, who could do this.  People could ignore if they chose, but they would then be subject to major criticism and coolness, and hard work was a strong value everywhere from the northwest corner (e.g. Buckley 2002, Kroeber 1972 for the Yurok) to just beyond the southeast one (Cocopa:  Kelly 1977:23).  This would rather tend toward overexploitation of the resources than conservation of them, and thus may have much to do with the archaeological evidence noted above of local over-harvest.

Attitudes and Representations:  General

Native American biologist Raymond Pierotti states:  “A common general philosphy and concept of community appears to be shared by all of the Indigenous peoples of North America, which includes:  1) respect for nonhuman entities as individuals, 2) the existence of bonds between humans and nonhumans, including incorporation of nonhumans into ethical codes of behavior, and 3) the recognition of humans as part of the ecological system” (Pierotti 2011:198-199).  This and all it implies is fully true for California.

Respect.   The full panoply of North American Native conservation attitudes is reflected in an astonishing prophecy that Cora Du Bois recorded from Kate Luckie, a Wintu shaman, in 1925:

“When the Indians all die, then God will let the water come down from the north.  Everyone will drown.  That is because the white people never cared for land or deer or bear.  When we Indians kill meat, we eat it all up.  When we dig roots, we make little holes.  When we build houses, we make little holes.  When we burn grass for grasshoppers, we don’t ruin things.  We shake down acorns and pine nuts.  We don’t chop down the trees.  We only use dead wood.  But the white people plow up the ground, pull up the trees, kill everything.  The tree says, ‘Don’t.  I am sore. Don’t hurt me.’ But they chop it down and cut it up.  The spirit of the land hates them…  The indians neverf hurt anything, but the white people destroy all.  They blast rocks and scatter them on the earth.  The rocks says, ‘Don’t!  You are hurting me.’  But the white people pay no attention.  When the Indians use rocks, they take little round ones for their cooking.  The white people dig deep long tunnels.  They make roads.  They dig as much as they wish.  They don’t care how much the ground cries out.  How can the spirit of the earth like the white man?  That is why God will upset the world—because it is sore all over” (Du Bois 1935:75-6; cf. Heizer 1978:650). 

Luckie continued to say that water could not be permanently hurt, because it eventually runs to the ocean, and that it would thus survive to destroy the current world by flood.  The Wintu share the widespread North American belief that there have been four worlds of people so far, and we are in the fifth; it is to be destroyed by flood, according to Wintu tradition.  Another Wintu shaman commented that “the gold feels sorry” for the Indian people because they were driven from their homes by men seeking that metal (Du Bois 1935:76).  (It is worth noting that Du Bois had no special interest in ecology or environment, but was meticulous about documenting shamans and all they said; hence these unique recordings.)

The California Native peoples shared the widespread Native American belief that disrespect of powerful animals brought danger.   A story has made it from the Chumash consultant Juan Justo to early ethnographer John Peabody Harrington, thence to Chumash expert John Johnson, and then into Lynn Gamble’s book on the Chumash—a typically indirect route: 

            “…Juan’s uncle began to laugh and shout and make fun of [a rattlesnake]…. The other man advised Juan’s uncle to be quiet,…but Juan’s uncle made all the more noise….whereupon the other man left him and went on alone.  When he was alone, Juan’s uncle looked around a saw a whole pile of guicos [alligator lizards] with their mouths open towards him and their tongues out….he…shut his eyes and went jumping and climbing to break through the lizards, and when he opened his eyes there was nothing there” (Gamble 2008:216, quoting John Johnson’s edited version of a Harrington text). 

I have heard very similar stories on the Northwest Coast and among the Maya.  If the parallels hold—and I am sure they do—the lizards were warning Juan’s uncle that if he teased a snake again he would suffer, probably through a bite from the snake. 

General respect for plants and animals and their spirits and spirit guardians existed.  Respect guided conservation generally.  “One took what he needed and expressed appreciation…. Without these attitudes the California Indians could have laid waste to California long before the Europeans appeared” (Heizer 1978:650).

There was a very general sense that plants needed human care, a sentiment backed up by experience, but going well beyond the facts of Native management and care.  Plants and animals need to be used, as a mark of respect.  Neglecting them wounds their spirits.  They decline and become weedy, poorly grown, and despondent-looking (K. Anderson 20005; Blackburn and Anderson 1993; McCarthy 1993:225).  I have run into the same idea among Northwest Coast peoples and something very close to it among my Maya friends.  In fact, California’s useful plants do respond to care; basketry plants put out long straight shoots, nut trees crop more, and so on (Anderson 2005). 

Such attitudes survive today in areas where something like traditional plant uses can exist.  Michael Wilken-Robertson, interviewing Kumeyaay people in Mexico just south of the California border, heard from elder Teodora Dcuero Robles:

“This I can assure you, the ancient ones never damaged a tree, no, never; they loved them as something very sacred.  They would tell us not to go breaking the branches of the pines, not to play there, nor to climb up on any small tree, they said that they were almost juist like humans; ‘They are watching us, they are taking care of us, they give us our food.  Don’t go around damaging them don’t be shouting, none of that,’ they would say, ‘take special care of them,’ for this reason we know very well that we must take care of these trees.  Also the medicinal herbs, those they especially charged us to care for, we shouldn’t just go out and cut for no reason, go out and cut them and throw them away to dry up, no.  They told us many things, that we should even care for the rocks, just imagein!  The rocks, the sand, the springs, the water flowing, all these things they said we must respect” (Wilken-Robertson 2004:49, reprinted in Wilken-Robertson 2018:231-232).  From the Paipai, a group that moved from Arizona to northern Baja California about 300 years ago, comes a story told by Eufemio Sandoval.  The Mexican government forbid them cutting juniper posts because the junipers were getting rare.  Sandoval commented “we have never cut the plant to the root, but rather it has been a form of pruning that we carry out. We just take what is useful as a post and leave the rest to keep growing and developing” (Wilken-Robertson 2004:53-54, reprinted in Wilken-Robertson 2018:236).  Sandoval held that this was better conservation than pure neglect.  Recall Wilke’s findings on Great Basin junipers. 

There is little reference to animals letting themselves be taken if they are respected, but apparently the belief existed.  One Mohave did say that the Creator gave hunting to the desert tribes but not the Mohave, so when the Chemehuevi “see game, the animals cannot run fast, or they sit down…they want to be caught.  The same with the Walapai.  But if Mohave go to hunt, the animals run swiftly away” (Kroeber 1972:84).  A Wintu hunter who failed to get deer would say “The deer don’t want to die for me any more” (Heizer 1978:651).  Many stories around the state imply that animals not respected will not let themselves be killed.  Conversely, they might go away.  Elsewhere in North America, some groups have noted that game disappears as white settlers fill up the landscape, and suspect this is because Native hunting is outlawed and the game is offended and leaves.  I am certainly aware that dramatic declines of deer have taken place since hunting has been banned in settled areas, but in fact the reasons are drought (first of all), suburbanization, and introduced diseases.  Still, the Native view has its merits; failing to keep the game alert, and failing to weed out sick and slow individuals, has its costs.

The belief that wild plants and animals, and even rocks, must be treated with respect is shared all over North America and among similar societies in Asia.  In Mongolia I learned immediately that one had to treat all these entities with respect (shuutekh, a word whose root meaning is respect for one’s elders).  All have spirits and the spirits are ever-present; they deserve respect as elders, helpers, friends, and possible sacrificers of themselves to the human hunter or forager.  Thus there are absolute rules against overhunting, overcollecting, and waste, and these are observed in the remotest areas.

The widespread North American taboo against a youth eating his first kill was probably general, and among the Chumash one report says that a hunter or fisher could never eat his own kill, on pain of never succeeding again (Grant 1978:512, citing Z. Engelhardt).  This is evidently part of the North American complex of respect for animals.  The Chumash are known to have prayed to the swordfish to drive whales on shore, and to have had a swordfish dance; they revered other powers of the sea also (Blackburn 1975; Gamble 2008). 

They also had the idea, general in western North America, that the bones of an animal should be treated carefully and respectfully, because such things as breaking a bone would mean the animal would reincarnate with a broken or missing leg; at least this is attested in myth, if not in actual practice (Blackburn 1975:131, in a myth recorded by Harrington).  Another version of the same myth has Momoy—Datura personified as an old woman—protesting against a boy (her grandson in other versions) killing unnecessarily:  “Have you no sense at all?  You are just killing for the sake of killing” (Blackburn 1975:147).  Occurrences like this, in Harrington’s very complete materials on the Chumash, make it seem very likely that California Indians did not lack the usual western North American values; ethnographers simply failed to record them.

And yet, among the Monache, careful enquiry indicated otherwise:  “No special ritual precautions accompanied the hunting of deer or bear.  Animals were not addressed before, during, or after the kill” (Spier 1978:428).  This is reported because it is in such marked contrast to the situation in the Northwest Coast and many other areas, where respectful addresses to the animals were required, and were part of a conservation-related ideology.  Generally, nothing is reported either way for California peoples; “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” but the lack is suggestive given Spier’s report.

Social Bonds with Nature.  All California groups thought of the natural world as closely allied to the human one, almost always with actual kin relations or equivalent social bonds.

Many Californian groups, especially in the center and south, had lineages and moieties with animal emblems.  Moieties named Coyote and Wildcat (Bobcat) were found widely, as among the Cahuilla and Serrano.  The Yokuts named them West and East, but divided the animals among them; “the Tachi assigned Eagle, Crow, Killdeer, Raven, Antelope, and Beaver to the…West moiety and Coyote, Prairie Falcon, Ground [Burrowing] Owl, Great Horned Owl, Skunk, Seal” and other beings to the East (Wallace 1978:453, from E. W. Gifford’s data; reference to Valley Yokuts, but all Yokuts groups apparently had more or less the same).  Anna Gayton (1976) points out that people really felt close to their lineage animals.  Eagle and Coyote were the lead animals respectively.  Within the moieties were animal-named patrilineages; the Eagle lineage supplied chiefs. The Coyote moiety had its own chiefs, however (Wallace 1978:454).  Moieties sometimes owned certain foods, and feasted each other with their respective foods (Gayton 1976:84).

The Miwok seem to have reached an extreme, extending human society to the entire cosmos by classifying everything (at least everything they noticed) into either the Land or the Water Moiety; the former included mostly up-country beings, the latter not only water but also lowland creatures (Gifford 1916, summary in Kroeber 1925:455; it is worth noting that Gifford’s rather scattered and obscure studies of Miwok society are one of the more amazing achievements in the history of kinship studies, being far ahead of their time in almost every way; Gifford had a high-school education and was a true autodidact).  These had nothing to do with individuals’ spirit power animals or other less global social symbolism.

The Monache had lineages named after birds or sometimes other animals; a lineage’s namesake was called its “dog” in the sense of  “pet animal” (Spier 1978:433).  The Eagle lineage was the chiefly one; messengers (and talking leaders?) came from Roadrunner and Dove lineages.  The Yokuts used their Dove lineages for this purpose, and Magpie lineage members as criers.

Humans as Part of the Ecological System.  This phrase understates the powerful, deep and complex emotional attachments to the land.  For every Californian group, their land is home—not just their personal home but the home of their people since the time of creation (or at least of transformation into our recognizable world).  Lynn Gamble and Michael Wilken-Robertson, in a recent, particularly sensitive account of Native Californian relationships with the land (2009), describe “…a landscape that is permeated with symbolic and ritual meanings[,] that embraces mythical histories, ancestral pasts, and moral messages that overlay a landscape where economic resources, such as foods and medicines, abound. 

Related to this ideational landscape are the themes of landscape as memory and landscape as identity.  Specific places are reminders of a social past that was filled with triumphs and disasters” and other stories.  People remember “not just a boulder, but the significant events associated with the boulder” (Gamble and Wilken-Robertson 2009:148).  Every stream and hill, as well as every sizable boulder, has its stories, and even individual trees are often important landmarks.  Often the historic associations of these landmarks blend into myths and origin stories.  Other, related groups in Baja California maintain similar ties with the land, including long-lost homes on the United States side of the border, where they have kin and other social relations (Garduño 2016).

The article refers specifically to the people of the Tijuana River basin in Baja California, but it could be said with equal truth of every group in California, or for that matter the whole of the North American Pacific coast. Every ethnographer who has written much about the ideational culture of Native Californians has emphasized their extreme attachment to and concern for the land, and I can certainly attest it from my own experience there and in the Northwest Coast.  Directions—including up toward the sky and down toward the lower world—as well as places have enormous significance ritually and culturally.

The Yumans of the Colorado River drainage—close linguistic relatives of the Tijuana River people— speak of “’Coyote Law,’…the law of the land—sometimes capricious and unreasonable like Coyote himself—but nevertheless, the way things are.  [Their] tales tell about Coyote Law” (Hinton and Watahomigie 1984:6).

This train of investigation leads to two broad conclusions.  First and most important, views of the land and its resources are impassioned.  Native people are not sizing up “resources” with the cold eye of the economic planner.  They are looking at their home.  For California’s people, the whole land is not only their family home, but the home of their entire people since the beginning of time.  We may understand the latter clause as meaning “since the beginning of the group as an identifiable cultural and social entity,” but that does not diminish its psychological force.  The land is loved, but the emotional involvement is much more than that; it is a total personal involvement, the sort of interaction that Emmanuel Levinas regarded as literally infinitely important, because it makes us who and what we are (Levinas 1969).

Second, knowledge is derived from interactive practice, not from passive book-learning.  Knowing the land comes from living on it and making a living from it.  Knowledge of plants and animals comes from working with them in the field, not from a biology text.  Rural Anglo-Americans in my youth learned the same way, and contrasted it quite sharply with “book learning.”  They knew that interactive practice is far better for learning actual life skills and work skills, whatever it may cost in knowledge of grand theory.  However, their wider knowledge of the world was book-learning (or TV-learning).  For traditional Californians, all knowledge came from interactive practice.  People grew up knowing the local ecology from personal experience; they knew what the fish ate, which plants grew together, what was needed for a healthy ecosystem.  Research comparing Native and White rural folk in the northern Midwest is relevant here; even Whites who knew the outdoors as intimately as the Natives thought very differently, seeing species as separate and relatively isolated rather than part of a great web that included humans (Medin et al. 2006).

Awareness of the possibility of overpopulation—too much population pressure—is found in the story, reported for every well-studied Californian group, of Coyote or Lizard or some similar creature bringing death because the world would become too crowded if people lived forever.  Where Coyote is the death-bringer, his own child is usually the first to die, and he regrets his choice.  The Mohave shaman Nyavarup had “the small lizard” as deathbringer; the lizard says “’I wish people to die.  If they all keep on growing, there will be no room.  There will be no place to go; if we defecate, the exrement will fall on someone’s foot’”  (Kroeber 1972:6).

Mythic Construction.  Even myths and chants came not from mindless classroom memorization but from ritualized transmission around the flickering winter-season fire.  Myths could not be lightly told.  Relating them in summer could lead to rattlesnake bite, among other things.

            Mythic animals were most conspicuously predators:  Coyote, Wolf, Fox, Eagle, Falcon, Condor, and so on.  Many game animals seem to have been merely game animals even in mythic time.  Among the Wappo, Elk was a humanoid pre-animal in mythic time, but hunted deer, which were ordinary game animals (see tales in Radin 1924).  Deer are rather rarely seen as having been humanoid in mythic time (though the Karok have several Deer stories; Kroeber and Gifford 1980).  Among the Chemehuevi, Coyote and Fox hunted rats and mice (Laird 1976).  

            Southern Californian groups had long and complex origin cycles, involving creation by heroic individuals.  In the Serrano song cycle for mourning ceremonies, the first song spoke of the earth, the second chukiam, “all growing things” (Lerch 1981:11).  This refers to plants and animals, but apparently to plants above all; it included a passage about the Datura plant, ritually used as a halluncinogen in puberty rites and in medicine.  Cognate words such as chukit are known among other southern Californian Shoshonean groups.  The Serrano creator died in Big Bear Valley, which thus has an enormous variety of plants, many of them endemic.  It is interesting that “[t]he Serrano “were not only aware of the phenomenon, they had an explanation for it in their cosmology” (Lerch 1981:14). The mourners turned to pines, which still stand in ranks around the valley (due, in modern terms, to the layered rock outcrops).  The related Cahuilla have a long cycle of creation myths centering on Mukat, a human-like figure who brought agriculture among other useful plant and animal management strategies.

            By contrast, the far northwest of the state had no origin myths; the cosmos always existed.  However, creator-like beings had altered it greatly and made it suitable for humans, who appear after the time of such beings as the Karok ikxareyavs (see below).

The Yuki and Kato had something close to monotheism; their high god (Taikomol in Yuki, Nagaitcho to the Kato; Goddard 1909) was far above Coyote and his fellow creatures, though they fine-tuned the creation.  Taikomol created the universe by song and speech.  In a beautiful Kato telling of the creation story by Bill Ray in 1906, Nagaitcho and the dog he has created end by rejoicing in their world:

“My dog, come along behind me and look.”

Vegetation had grown, fish had come into the creeks.

Rocks had become large….

“Walk fast, my dog.”

The land was good.  Valleys had appeared….

Water had begun to flow.  Springs had come….

“I made the land good, my dog,

Walk fast, my dog.”

Acorns were growing, pine cones were hanging,

Tarweed seeds were ripe, chestnuts were ripe,

Hazelnuts were good, manazanita berries were getting white,…

Buckeyes were good, peppernuts were black-ripe,

Bunch grass was ripe, grasshoppers were growing,

Clover was with seed.  Bear-clover was good.  Mountains had grown.
Rocks had grown, different foods were grown.

“My dog, we made it good.”

Fish had grown that they will eat.

“Waterhead Place we have come to now.”

Different plants were ripe.  They went back, they say,

His dog with him.

“We will go back,” he said.

(Goddard 1909:9394; slightly rewritten for comprehensibility.  Nagaitcho and his dog return to the north, whence they came, and leave us this beautiful world.)

This hymn to all the wonderful foods of the north coast ranges—and indeed they are excellent eating—is only a tiny part of a very long creation story that mentions virtually every plant, animal, fish, and geological feature in Kato habitat.  It is all very reminiscent of Psalm 104, but far more richly detailed.  It also reveals something of Bill Ray’s personal narrative style, which included long chanted lists of plants, animals, and geographic features of the environment, alternating with narrative that is largely spoken and is so telegraphic as to be dreamlike.  The combination is powerful enough to make Ray one of the more distinctive and poetically gifted California myth-tellers.  Such lists are a widespread stylistic feature in myths in many languages of north-central California and elsewhere in the world (think of Hesiod’s Theogony).

The Athapaskan original takes full advantage of the exquisite beauty and potential for sound-poetry of the Athapaskan languages.  The above is rhythmical and rhymed poetry in the original, rhyming with the repeated chorus-line word kwanang (“they say”).  Note that the mountains and rocks grow; they are living things in California belief.  Like Hanc’ibeyjim’s creation story (Appendix) Ray’s is one of the greatest religious poems in world literature, and it deserves more than languishing in a forgotten monograph.  Here are the first few lines, in Kato, simplified for easier reading from Goddard’s linguistic transcription:

“E lot, shiit la, nan dal, o dut t ge ka la e kwanang,

To nai nas de le kwanang.

Sha na ta se gun cha ge kwanang

N gun sho ne kwanang.

Kakw chqal yani kakw ko winyal, e lots ul chin yani ne n gun sho ne kwanang….”

Many other groups had Earthmaker and Coyote or Wolf and Coyote as creators.  Earthmaker or Wolf was the senior, more responsible and sober one, the stereotypic elder brother.  Coyote was young and wild, everybody’s crazy kid brother.  Of course, everyone respected Earthmaker but loved Coyote.  A particularly beautiful and moving version of this story is William Benson’s Pomo version (2002, where Coyote is called by his Pomo name or alternative incarnation Marumda).  The Pomo had a range of creation stories, often conflicting, because of their diversity and the diversity of peoples around them; they were influenced by the monotheistic Yuki to the north, the Guksu Cult of the Patwin to the east, and so on (Barrett 1933).   Other fine stories are Hancibeyjim’s Maidu one (Dixon 1912; Shipley 1991; cf. below),  Laird’s Chemehuevi stories (Laird 1976, 1984), and stories from the Kiliwa (Mixco 1983) and Kawaiisu (Zigmond 1980, 1991). 

The Yuman groups had humanlike but mystical and powerful creators.  The Yuman peoples and the culturally related Chemehuevi told of these in long song cycles, that describe the courses of the creator beings as they traveled around the world—the known habitat of the people, that is—creating, transforming, teaching, and instituting practices (see e.g. Kelly 1977; Kroeber 1972; Laird 1976, 1984).  Individuals dreamed their own versions of the song cycles. 

Some Mohave song cycles are given by Kroeber (1972; see also 1925:754-770), including a Mohave version of the Salt cycle known also by the Chemehuevi.  It contains not only the origin of salt, but of tobacco, the stars, and much else.

Kroeber found the cycles rambling and uneventful, but he recorded them in his youth from elderly individuals, and he was not fluent in the language; he seems to have gotten bland and truncated versions.  (Compare, for instance, Paul Talejie’s short but brilliant creation tale in the closely related Walapai language, in Hinton and Watahomigie 1984, and Laird’s Chemehuevi renderings.)  Even Kroeber’s recordings contain some striking poetry; one cycle begins:  “At Ha’avulypo Matavilya [the original creator] had made a house out of darkness and lived there” (Kroeber 1972:44).  The cycle continues to tell of his death and burial. In the cycle of Yellak (goose?), Yellak’s end is noted by Halykupa: “I know what made Yellak die.  He became sick from the sky, the clouds, the earth, the water, and the wind….Now cry.  Cry with the sky and with the wind…” (Kroeber 1972:63).  His skin sank into the Colorado River and turned into animals.

One reason Kroeber rather wearied of these cycles is that they detail almost all important actions as having been done and repeated facing each of the four directions in sequence, and there are other stylized repetitions as well.  Another is that some of the memorialized events, complete with long songs, are nothing more than the hero seeing a badger or catching a rat (Kroeber 1925:756).  The interest in these cycles attaches to their detailing geographical points and the creation events that took place there—of sheep, deer, grapes, salt, everything—rather than to exciting stories.  California Native people have an unexcelled sense of place, and—today as in the past—can find the simple mention of familiar spots enormously moving.

With the songs, which were repeated over and over, these cycles took anywhere from a night to several weeks of nights to perform.  Some were never performed in their entirety, because, like epics everywhere, they could be lengthened out indefinitely by adding elements and repeating songs. 

Separate (or possibly, at some level, from the Yellak bird myth cycle), but part of the same general tradition of singing to create and transform, were the bird song cycles, which survive among the Yuman and neighboring Uto-Aztecan peoples; these are not only about birds, but can be about anything, and are sung for entertainment—often with slow dancing.  Bird songs were in decline in the 1960s and 1970s, but have been enthusiastically revived, and now abound, with several good recordings commercially available. 

These spirit beings transformed the world for their own reasons, but also to make it ready for humans.  This can be compared to the Australian Aboriginal beliefs in the Dreamtime, and to the most ancient stratum of Greek myths.  These latter, at least some of which go back to a very ancient stratum of belief, lie behind the “metamorphoses” that the Roman poet Ovid turned into art long after the highly-charged shamanic power had gone out of them. 

Thus at the south end of the state, the Tipay (Diegueño) taught that Chaup, the focal deity of their religion, “named and marked all animals whereby they lost their ti.pay (‘human’) nature” (Luomala 1978:604).

Thought and song created much of the world.  The very long and circumstantial Achomawi origin tales of Istet Woiche (1992) and Maidu tales of Hanc’ibyjim 1991) seem to indicate that this belief reached a peak in the northeastern corner of the state.

Calendars everywhere recognized months, and frequently named them from the subsistence activities or seasonal nature events that went with them.

California is distinctly lacking in the specifically conservationist texts so commonly recorded from the Northwest Coast and Mexico.  There are none in the above-cited major collections.  Even Zigmond, focusing on ethnobiological research, found none.  Almost nowhere are there mythic stories about animals driven away by overhunting.  One intriguing exception concerns the Patwin Hesi cycle of the Kuksu religion.  Four songs were obtained from the deer of the Marysville Buttes, back when deer were humanoid in mythic time; enemies took advantage of the deer while the latter were ceremonially sweating, and exterminated them, which is why there are no deer on the Buttes (Kroeber 1925:385-386).  This is quite a different story from the widespread  North American motif of overhunting followed by famine, but is clearly a relative with the same general perception behind it.  The Kuksu cult is associated with morals and discipline, and this myth is surely significant.  Farther afield are various myths in which evil entities wreck the environment for no special reason, and are eventually transformed into their present animal form, as for instance in the Yurok myth of the origin of the mole and Jerusalem cricket (Kroeber 1976:47-54).  These animals, in their humanoid form of mythic time, bring death as well as widespread ecological damage.  The sense that the environment has to be orderly, constant, and well-managed to be fruitful lies behind this and similar myths, and evidently served as a general sanction against damaging the environment.

Apparently universal, however, is a myth of a time when animals and fish were held by supernatural beings who would not release them.  A culture hero such as Coyote or the Yurok Pulekukwerek outwits the keepers and releases the prey them through a mix of heroism, trickery and magic. 

Masters of the game animals—almost universally recognized in the Native Americas—seem less common in California.  Supernatural beings controlling or watching over plant and animal resources are mentioned, but without much detail.  The Southern Paiute, who range into California (where they are called Chemehuevi), had this belief:  “All the deer on Kaibab Plateau were believed to be owned by a supernatural being named Qainacav.  During the hunting season (July and June, also early fall), his name must not be mentioned, or else the luck of the whole hunting season would be spoiled.”  Hunters sometimes encountered him in human or deer form, but seeing him meant no luck that day.  Anyone who offended him would be lured off by deer tracks that eventually disappeared (Sapir 1992:829, from notes made around 1910), one way of explaining one’s inability to follow a trackway.

Few myths that I can find give specific directions or charters for the plant and animal management that we know was so universal (although some myths mention it in passing).  Quite the contrary; animals in their mythic humanoid forms go hunting and collecting quite at will, killing enormous numbers of game animals and gathering all the seeds they want.  The wishful dreams of the storytellers are evident, but conservation teachings are not evident at all.  The myths are extremely well supplied with moral teachings, but the morals are social.  Tales show the awful results of condemning ungenerousness, vindictiveness, mean-spiritedness, violence, sexual sins, ignoring good advice, and trying to imitate others mindlessly, but not the awful results of mismanaging resources.  The stories are set the times before human people, and thus I suspect they date back to a time so ancient that the people were still few, with simple technology, when they could take without a second thought.  The Northwest Coast conservation stories seem usually to concern real people, albeit in long-ago times.

One exception is in an astonishing Wappo text, “The Chicken-Hawk Cycle,” recorded by Paul Radin from Jim Tripo (Radin 1924:87-147).  This is one of the most impressive and striking mythic texts ever recorded in California, and deserves better than to languish obscure in a forgotten volume.  Tripo spins it out to 60 pages; more typical is a Karok version of the same story that manages only two pages (Kroeber and Gifford 1980:250-252.)  Much of the plot turns on the anger of Moon, a captious old man, at the Hawk chief and his son harvesting pine cones by breaking off the branches of Moon’s pine trees.  Moon is not portrayed in a sympathetic light, but it is clear that such a damaging way of getting pine nuts was genuinely bad by Wappo standards. 

            Education of the young came through these myths, through specific instruction, through reprimand, but above all through interaction with the world, guided to varying degrees by elders and peers (see Margolin 2005 for a fine summary of Native Californian education).  Autobiographies recount dramatic experiences—accidents, vision quests, special hunting accounts, personal crises—that were interpreted, usually briefly but in extremely telling words, by elders.  Apparently this was a canonical way of learning, along with myths and initiation rites.  The long and complex initiation rites of such groups as the Luiseno involved detailed explanations of cosmology and of human life, including life crisis ritualization.  Other rites of passage, such as marriages and funerals, provided opportunities for songs, stories, and speeches that provided a great deal of instruction.  Finally, chiefs at dawn often harangued their communities on the need to be up and working.  Overall, there was a great deal of education, much of it quite formalized:  winter myth cycles, sings, initiations, funeral orations, and many more occasions. 

Religion, Cosmology, and Spiritual Concerns

A whole cosmology based on interactive practice and intense emotional involvement is bound to be quite different from one based on books, deductive logic, and laboratory experiments.  For one thing, it is hard to avoid personalizing the land—seeing the rocks, plants, and animals as people.  Even modern Anglo-Americans name their cars, talk to their dogs, and cherish their plants. 

Thousands of years of such interaction, in a world without labs and mass media, will inevitably make the nonhuman world more personal.  The nonhuman beings are “other-than-human persons.”  They have will and intellect, but not like ours; they plan and communicate, but we have to know how to hear them.  They have supernatural power to transmit.  

            The Californians shared the almost universal Native American belief in a prior cosmos, ruled by animal powers, that changed dramatically to make our present cosmic order.  The earlier beings included Coyote, Quail, Wildcat, and other beings.  There seems to be a vague tendency for interior and mountain groups to have more strictly animal powers in mythic time.  At least, the mythic-time people of the Yurok and the larger southern California tribes were very often humanoid, especially the main characters.  The large, rich tribes of the Delta and Bay Area are not well enough known for many conclusions.

Widely, however, especially in central California, an apparently human-like high god or pair of gods was the chief agent.  The Wiyot were the northwest pole of this belief; the Yurok, distantly related in language, lacked it (Kroeber 1925:119).  The Maidu, Wintu and their neighbors had a high creator or Earthmaker/Earthnamer.  Some (or all) Pomo groups had a similar high god.  Everywhere, he was very often assisted by Coyote, who royally messed up the process (see e.g. Hanc’ibyjim in Shipley 1991).  Similar pairings in southern California include Wolf and Coyote or Southern Fox and Coyote (Laird 1976, 1984).

            What Walter Goldschmidt said of the Nomlaki would apply equally well to all California Native peoples:  “To the Nomlaki, the world of reality and the world of the supernatural were inseparable, so that even the most practical undertaking was circumscribed by elaborate ritual inspired by the religious ideas with which the act was invested….  The Nomlaki world was animistic.  ‘Everything in this world talks, just as we are now,’” one Nomlaki man told him (Goldschmidt 1978:345).  There was, in fact, no concept of “reality” or of “supernatural”; there was simply the cosmos, with a gradient from clearly visible and tangible beings to invisible and intangible ones, and with a gradient from animals that were just animals to the mythic human-like animals of prehuman times.

Goddard, missionary turned ethnographer, was deeply struck by the religious nature of the Hupa, and sardonically remarked that “this undercurrent of deep religious feeling makes the life and deeds of the Indian seem…strange to the white man” (Goddard 1903:88).  Similar comments (if without the depreciative aside about Anglo-Americans!) could be made about all California Native people.  Religion was deeply felt and important in all aspects of life.  This was closely connected with plant and animal interactions.  Like their neighbors, they had a first salmon ceremony in the spring and a first acorns ceremony in the fall, as well as a first-lamprey (“eel”) ceremony (Goddard 1903).  (The related Lassik had a bulbous-plant ceremony; Elsasser 1978.)  All this involved stressing the importance of maintaining the resource; the ceremony was intended to keep the salmon and acorns coming, probably by showing proper respect and entertainment.  I strongly suspect that conservation lessons were once part of the rituals. 

Thomas Buckley discusses the importance of the spirit world, of doctoring power, and of “wealth” objects (actually ritual objects), among the Yurok, as Goddard does for the Hupa.  Of the wealth objects, Buckley says that “[d]ance regalia are not objects but ‘people,’ sentient beings (like deer) that have wewecek’, ‘spirit’ or ‘life,’ and that ‘cry to dance.’  As people, their ‘prupose in life’ is to get out of the baskets and boxes in which they’re stored and dance to ‘fix the world…’ (Buckley 2002:175).  They sometimes ask their owners to be loaned out so they can be danced at a ceremony in a neighboring community. 

Buckley, like the Karok anthropologist Julian Lang (1994), faults A. L. Kroeber for holding that the Yurok were obsessed with material wealth per se.  Kroeber was not entirely unaware that wealth objects (dentalia shells, obsidian blades, white deerskins, woodpecker scalps, and so on) were spiritual things and tokens of spiritual power.  He recorded many stories in which they are personified and spiritualized (Kroeber 1976, e.g. 200-204; cf. Kroeber 1925:40-42).  However, these objects, the dentalium shells in particular, were used as regular money too, for ordinary purchases and bargains. 

Kroeber was writing at a time when materialism, Marxian and otherwise, was dominant in American social science.  Not only Kroeber himself, but his main Yurok coworker, Robert Spott, seem rather matter-of-fact and materialist in their narratives (Spott and Kroeber 1942).  Euro-American readers might recall the Renaissance associations of gold:  money and material wealth, but also a spiritual and magical substance.  Interesting is one rather barbed comment that Kroeber recorded from Dick of Wohkero.  To a myth about Earthquake, who is personified among the Yurok, Dick added that “[n]ow Earthquake is angry because the Americans have bought up Indian treasures and formulas and taken them away to San Francisco to keep.  He knew that, so he tore the ground up there (referring to the earthquake of the year before, in 1906)” (Kroeber 1976:418).

Unsurprisingly, religion was thoroughly embedded in the natural world, and ceremonies continually constructed and reinforced ties with nature.  The Chumash had a particularly complex and arcane cosmology, paralleling their complex socioreligious organization (Hudson et al. 1977).

The dances of the Kuksu religion of central California included duck, grizzly, deer, coyote, goose, grasshopper, turtle,condor, and other dances based on animals; presumably the dances invoked them and imitated their motions.  These were not mere dances, but entire ceremonies centered on dancing (Kroeber 1925:378-380).  These ceremonies were “thought to bring rains, nourish the earth, and produce a bountiful natural crop; perhaps also to ward off epidemcis, floods, earthquakes, and other disasters…” as well as producing “an abundance of bulbs and greens, and…acorns…” as well as game (Kroeber 1925:383-384).  I take it this means that the dances were essential to co-create the natural community as well as the human one; human society being extended to include wild animals and plants, it is natural that human community-building rituals would impact the other-than-human community members favorably as well. Kroeber notes the significant lack of dances for critically important animals like fish and rabbits; there was no one-to-one mapping.  Of course it is possible that such dances existed but were lost before ethnography began.

Of course the agricultural tribes of the southeast part of the state had agricultural ceremonies, like most farming peoples of the world.  Yet, as with the Cocopa (see above), these seem not to have been elaborated as fertility or harvest ceremonies. 

Girls and boys coming of age went through initiation rituals, sometimes involving hallucinogenic plants that produced visions interpreted as spirit communications.  These initiation rites seem to have been among the most important ceremonies of the Native peoples.  Many smaller groups had no other major ceremonies, leaving initiation rites as the most important part of their religion (cf. Kroeber 1925, e.g. p. 428; the Yurok, alone among major groups, had no girls’ rites and apparently no true male rites either).  This is particularly true in the south (north through the Yokuts lands), where the use of toloache (Datura spp.) as a hallucinogenic drink made another link with the plant world.  The Luiseño youths acquired animal guardian spirits while under its influence, and did not subsequently kill the animal received (Kroeber 1925:670).  Toloache was widely used medicinally as well (see e.g. Librado 1979, esp. pp. 68-72).

Widely, across the state, puberty rites were the occasion for telling the longest, most detailed, most sacred myths and group histories.  This was when people really learned their culture in its depth.  All accounts agree that detailed and extensive teachings were  part of this, but no accounts give us much detail on the contents of the teachings, primarily because the rites vanished or went underground quite early.  (Constance Du Bois found some among the Luiseño.)  One suspects that ecological and conservation teachings were a major part of this initiation, but we will never know.

At the other end of the life cycle, groups in southern and central California burned the possessions of the dead, and then in memorial ceremonies burned large quantities of their own goods.  This prevented a buildup of material wealth, and indirectly served to eliminate the possibility of accumulating wealth for status display.  This seems to have mattered little, however, since the northwestern groups that did accumulate wealth for (spiritual) status did no notable damage to the environment thereby.

            There were several major religious cults or general ceremonial complexes in the state, each one confined to a few neighboring groups, possibly because of the difficulties of translation into the many different languages of the state.  The Northwest group of Yurok, Wiyot, Karok and Hupa (and to a lesser extent their hill neighbors) shared a focus on fish ceremonials, world renewal dances and ceremonies, the white deerskin dance, and other dances displaying ancient prized items of spiritual power.  The center of the state was dominated by the Kuksu and related cults, centering on the Patwin, Wappo, and Pomo groups.  The spectacular rock art of the Chumash and Yokuts (and probably the Gabrielino and other Shoshoneans, though evidence is mostly lost) indicates another religious area.  The bird songs of the lower Colorado and the Chinigchinich cult of the Luiseno and their neighbors also involved two or three major linguistic groupings each (counting the river Yumans as basically one group).  Finally, the rock art of the inner deserts, focusing on mountain sheep in many sites, is distinctive. 

            By contrast, more general folklore, as well as material culture, spread widely; it could be shared by anyone within hundreds of miles.  Folktales gradually transform, with north and south being quite different.  Language was not much of a barrier, and of course hardly a barrier at all to the spread and copying of material items.

Central to religion was spiritual ability and efficacy.  I have noted above the tendency of anthropologists to use the word “power” for what Native people generally call “knowledge.”  One could use the phrase “power/knowledge” if it had not been preempted by Foucault for a very different idea.

A model developed especially with the Luiseño concept of ayelkwi, but valid rather widely (especially for groups in the south coast, of course), lists four characteristics:  “Power is sentient and the principal causative agent in the universe”; it is found in the upper, middle, and lower worlds and “possessed by anything having ‘life,’” which can include rocks and tools as well as biota; it is in some degree of equilibrium in the cosmos; and man is a central figure in power networks (Bean 1992:22, citing and partly following White 1963).  One might qualify this for other parts of the state primarily in regard to clause 4; in some places (including central California, if I read the myths aright), humans are definitely less central than some supernatural beings, and probably some of the larger natural ones too.  Power is totally bound up in geography, with dramatic rocks, peaks, mountains, waterfalls, and other striking landmarks being major “power places.” 

People got power from vision questing in the wilderness.  They would undergo strong physical discipline:  enduring cold and heat, bathing in freezing waters, living with little or no food and water, and so on.  (The classic account of vision questing, Ruth Benedict [1923], refers to the Plateau area just north of California; her account is broadly valid for the latter place.)  The Achomawi preserved this knowledge later than most and were more willing to share it, so the map of their power spots provided by D. L. Olmstedt and Omer Stewart (1978:226) is exceptionally valuable.  Famous rock art sites are often power places.  (Places I know personally, but that are unpublished, shall remain unidentified!)  

  Most of the spots are dramatic peaks, but some are canyons, lakes, and large springs.  Power is largely a spiritual essence that allows beings (including humans—to the degree they have learned it) to control and create.  It is typically exercised through song.  Shamans cure by singing just as the creator beings shaped the world by singing.  However, actual physical and mental ability to do things is an expression of power, so it is not entirely “supernatural” by European standards.  It is learned through conventional training as well as through visions and dreams.  Knowledge of how to manage natural resources is a key part of power.

As noted previously, California Native peoples sought visions, usually in arduous vision quests, at puberty, in the wilderness.  This was another religious mechanism binding Californians to their landscape.  Apparently some groups, at least the Coast Central Pomo (Loeb 1926:320), did not have the vision quest.  Indeed, Loeb notes that the Pomo in general lacked a belief in guardian spirits, otherwise the goal of vision quests among most California (and indeed most North American) peoples.  They did have shamans and shamanic healers, however, and must have done something to get that power.  However, the Pomo and Native people everywhere dreamed of animals, daydreamed about animals, and interpreted their dreamings as important.

 Shamans operate by controlling power; but, again, in the center and north, they operate more by controlling specific “pains” that they own.  To be shamans or other religious officiants they had to have visions giving medicine power.  (Strictly speaking, the term “shaman” applies to healers of the ancient societies of Siberia, and it might be better to call the Californian healers “medicine persons,” but “shaman” is established in the literature and fairly well justified by the similarity of beliefs and practices to Siberian ones.  See Bean [ed.] 1992.)

The culturally and technologically simpler groups had vision-questing shamans and no other religious practitioners, but the complex chiefdoms had whole ranges of religious officiants.  These including true priests: officiants of organized religious cults (as opposed to shamans, who are independent individuals with special healing and visionary powers).  The Kuksu cult complex of central California had a priesthood (Loeb 1926:320), which presumably led to the decline or disappearance of vision questing among the Coast Central Pomo.  The Chumash of southwestern California had a whole range of shamans and priests with specialized functions, ranging from weather control to fishing to canoe safety (Bean and King 1974; Gamble 2008).  

Californians feared shamans and wizards with transforming and poisoning powers.  They acquired special visions of their familiar spirits.  These were often animal powers, but could be other natural or supernatural beings.  Different animals gave different powers, often related to the animal’s traits; rattlesnake power often involved the ability to cure rattlesnake bites, for instance.  These beliefs closely resemble shamanistic beliefs elsewhere, from eastern North America to Siberia.

A particularly important problem was “bear doctors,” men who had bear power knew the magic for transforming themselves into grizzlies at will.  These were known and feared all over the state, from the Hupa to the Chemehuevi (Burrill 1993; Laird 1976:38).  Real grizzlies usually prefer to leave humans alone, but bear doctors transform themselves in order to do harm.  One remembers the bear transformation stories in the Old World, from the berserk (“bear shirt”) men of ancient Scandinavia and the Celtic Arthur (“bear man,” “were-bear”) to the Ainu bear cult with its divinization of bears.  People could sometimes transform into other kinds of animals, and animals and spirits could become or appear to be people; of course the animals in the time before people came were humanoid to varying degrees.  Related Old World figures are the werewolf, were-tiger, and leopard-man.  All come from a stratum of thought that is most famously seen in Siberian shamanism but is far more widespread.  Animal transformations are central to this cosmology. 

Other supernatural and ghostly transformations are known.  People with supernatural powers can invoke and control this shape-shifting.  So can many animals.  The raccoon dog (tanuki, often mistranslated “badger”) is a shape-shifter in Japan, and some tanuki stories are related to Californian Coyote tales.  The trickery of the fox is proverbial throughout Eurasia.  Modern Europeans have lost the transformation tales, but foxes in east Asia routinely turn into beautiful women to beguile men.

Common all over the state, but especially in the dry southeast, were weather shamans who could bring rain and snow.  Some songs for this purpose have been recorded, and a rain shaman’s bundle has been almost miraculously preserved and studied (Fenenga et al. 2012; Hopkins et al. 2012).  It came from the Tübatulabal of the Kern River valley, but incorporated many items, especially steatite smoking pipes, from the Chumash.  These are known to have been used by the coastal tribes to blow smoke clouds that invited rain clouds by a form of sympathetic magic.  Sometimes water was thrown into the air, during ceremonies, for similar reasons.  The bundle was used in ceremonies along with detailed chants that were guaranteed to bring rain (if properly carried out, of course).  Shamans had to know how to stop rain, to prevent large rains they invoked from causing floods.  There were many adept weather shamans among the Tübatulabal and their neighbors until quite recently.  The use of a magic bundle, incorporating a collection of sacred stones and other items, is very widespread in North America (see esp. Wildschut 1975 on Crow bundles; one Crow doctor, showing some small stones with some gravel near them, said—with a twinkle in his eye—that the rocks in the bundle had mated and had a litter).

Other “Indian doctors” could send pains into people.  These were often pebbles, small snakes, or other physical objects.  A “sucking doctor” would be called to suck this pain out.  He (rarely she) would suck on the belly or chest of the patient, sometimes hard enough to draw blood (assumed to be posioned).  Often he would produce the stone or small animal.  I have encountered this practice among the Maya as well; my old friend Don José Cauich Canul sucked a live scorpion from the little niece of my field assistant Don Felix Medina Tzuc.  I did not see this, but Don Felix described it.  He was duly impressed.  Don José has taught me something of his craft, including his use of sleight-of-hand, so I know where the centipede really came from.  Claude Lévi-Strauss (1963 [1958]) has pointed out that this sort of deception is typically done by doctors who believe that the old-timers really had such powers, but modern ones have less power and must imitate the old-timers as best they can.  This seems to fit California and Maya cases.

            Arts represented interaction with the nonhuman realm. Among the Yokuts, people wore crowns of flowers during spring (Gayton 1976:83).  

Much of the art were clearly associated with shamanism; more is inferentially so.  The spectacular rock art of southern and Baja California—some of the most outstanding in the world—is highly abstract, and also features strange and unearthly creatures.  Most viewers of the art, from anthropologists to artists, feel that shamanism and vision states must be involved.  (Some reviews include Campbell 2007; Grant 1965; Whitley 2000, notably speculative; and for Baja California, Crosby 1997, a more ambitious work than anything devoted to Alta California.  See also Jean Clottes’ stunning book Cave Art, 2008, which deals with the paleolithic art of Europe but presents California material for comparison on pp. 300-303.)  Other, more unassuming or crude pictographs and petroglyphs are almost certainly mere “Kilroy was here” markers, or at best markers of local descent-group territory.  Unfortunately, we do not have the keys (though see Spoon et al. 2014a, 2014b—the Nevada Paiute still know something).  The shamans are gone. 

There are a few recorded explanations, most of which refer not to shamanic visions but to puberty rites.  Often, puberty rites involved explanations of the cosmos using pictorial but abstract symbols, and sometimes the initiates were supposed to draw geometric designs of their own.  The Luiseno girls’ puberty rite, for instance, involved drawing red checkerboard, diamond, or maze patterns on rocks, and many of these survived in my younger days in the Riverside area.  Unfortunately most have faded now. 

Otherwise, outside of fairly obvious representations of animals, we have little identifiable rock art.  Earlier theories of hunting magic have gone by the wayside.  Besides the known cases just noted, other rock art sites are very often astronomically aligned—in canyons down which the equinoctial sunrise strikes, for instance—or are on remote and spectacular rock outcrops or in caves, rather than along game trails or near water holes or the like.  It is very possible that a general relationship with the cosmos was intended and good luck in hunting was one perceived consequence.  However, the focus remains on that general relationship, not on a specific pragmatic application.

An excellent analysis of a mountain sheep shrine, by Robert Yohe and Alan Garfinkel (2012), summarizes all that is known of mountain sheep ceremonies, rock art, and hunting lore from southeast California.  Clearly, mountain sheep were important game animals, and a huge and complex body of lore surrounded them.  (They were once extremely abundant; their rarity today is due to introduced sheep diseases as well as overhunting and habitat destruction.)  The content of ritual is lost to us, but at least there are still large amounts of art and religious construction to analyze.

Songs were basic to activities and teachings.  They gave and expressed power, and had power themselves.  A good explanation was given by a California basketmaker, Mrs. Mattz.  Richard West reports that she

            “…was hired to teach basket making at a local university.  After three weeks, her students complained that all they had done was sing songs…. Mrs. Mattz, taken aback, replied that the were learning to make baskets.  She explained that the process starts with songs that are sung so as not to insult the plants when the materials for the baskets are picked.  So her students learned the songs….. Upon their return to the classroom, however, the students again were dismayed when Mrs. Mattz began to teach them yet more songs.  This time she wanted them to learn the songs that must be sung as yo soften the materials in your mouth before you start to weave….  The students protested…. Mrs. Mattz…patiently explained the obvious to them: “You’re missing the point,” she said, “a basket is a song made visible.”  (Quoted Wilkinson 2010:382). 

Appendix

            To give the flavor of Californian religious narrative, let us consider the beginning of the creation myth told by Hanc’ibyjim (Tom Young) to Roland Dixon in 1902-03 (Dixon 1912).  This myth was partially retranslated and massively rewritten by William Shipley (1991).  I will do still another rewrite, though I do not know the Maidu language and have to rely on Dixon and Shipley.

            Neither of the translators refers to the incredible chantlike prosody of the narrative, which comes across even to a non-Maidu-speaker like me.  It is worth setting some of this up in poetic form.  Hanc’ibyjim uses the obligatory marker of speech, –tsoia (“it is said”), as a chorus, its sharp sound contrasting with the beautiful flow of the narrative, full of “a” and “m” sounds.  Simply enjoy the sounds before reading the meaning.  (Most letters are pronounced as in Spanish, umlaut vowels as in German.  The apostrophe marks the accented syllable [not a glottal stop].)

Kō’doyapen kan ūniñ’ ko’do momim’ opit’mőni hintsetō’yetsoiam.

Hin’tstetoyewē’bisim hōmōñ’ jidiu; dunaat yj;tun jawun;naat tsemen’tsoia.

Tsai’tsainom mai’dűm hesī’kimaat hesim’maat kai’noyemen’tsoia.

Amőn’ikan ūniñ’ ka’dom tsewu’suktipem ka’dom yőtson’otsoia.

Epin’iñkoyōdi kō’do tsehe’hetsonopem yak’hubőktsoia.

Adōñ’kan wasā’ hubőktsoia.  (Dixon 1912:4.)

Literally, the first two lines means “Earth-Maker and this world water full-when drifted about, it is said.  Kept drifting about where world-in indeed little earth indeed saw-not, it is said.”

            Translating the first part of the story (and leaving out the endless repetition of “it is said,” so effective in Maidu, so monotonous in English):

Earthmaker, when this world was covered with water, drifted.

He kept drifting; he saw nothing, not even a bit of earth.

He saw no creatures of any kind, nothing flying.

He went on and on, over the unseen earth.

The world seemed transparent, like the Valley Above in the sky.

He felt sad.

“How, I wonder—how, I wonder—where, I wonder, in what world or place, can we see the earth?”  he said.  (After Dixon 1912:4 and Shipley 1991:18.)

[Coyote then appears, and he and Earthmaker discuss creating the world.  Earthmaker sings:]

Where are you, my great mountains, my world mountains?

            [Coyote sings:]

Where are you, my foggy mountains, my world I could travel?

            [A tiny piece of land like a bird’s nest then appears, and the two succeed in stretching it to make a world.  Meadowlark joins them, and Coyote goes on:]

My world, where I can go along the edge of the meadow,

My world, where I can travel side to side, wander all ways,

My world of mountains beyond mountains,

I call, singing, to my traveling-world,

In such a world shall I wander.

            [There is some conference among the three, about how to paint the world, and Coyote continues:]

I will paint it with blood,

There will be blood in the world,

Creatures with blood will be born,

Animals with blood will be born,

Deer and other animals,

People shall be born,

Nothing will be missing, all those with blood will be born.

Red rocks will come into being,

The world will seem painted with blood,

It will be beautiful.  (After Dixon 1912:5-10 and Shipley 1991:19-22.)

Coyote…stretched out the land with his feet.

‘Pushing it out, little by little,

He stretched it out to where the usn rises—

Foirst, he stretched it out to there.

Then, to the south, and to where the sun sets,

He stretched it out, little by little.  (Shipley 1991:22.)

            Creation continues, in an epic poem filled with intense images like those above.  This story is as beautiful and powerful as Genesis and one of the great religious poems of the world, yet it remains unknown, and neither Dixon’s nor Shipley’s translations do it justice (judging from analysis of Dixon’s line-by-line translation).  We need a Maidu to do a real translation that can bring out the full meanings and keep the power of the language.

References

Allen, Michael F.; Cameron W. Barrows; Michael D. Bell; G. Darrel Jenerette; Robert F. Johnson; Edith B. Allen.  2014.  “Threats to California’s Desert Ecosystems.”  Fremontia 42:2:3-8.

Anderson, M. Kat.  1999.  “The Fire, Pruning, and Coppice Management of Temperate Ecosystems for Basketry Material by California Indian Tribes.”  Human Ecology 27:79-113. 

—  2005.  Tending the Wild:  Native American Knowledge and the Management of California’s Natural Resources.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Anderson, M. Kat (ed.).  2017.  Special Issue: California Geophytes.  Fremontia, 44:3.

Anderson, M. Kat, and Frank K. Lake.  2013.  “California Indian Ethnomycology and Associated Forest Management.”  Journal of Ethnobiology 33:33-85.

Anderson, M. Kat, and Frank K. Lake.  2017.  “Beauty, Bounty, and Biodiversity: The Story of California Indians’ Relationship with Edible Native Geophytes.”  Fremontia 44:3:44-51.

Anderson, M. Kat, and Jeffrey Rosenthal.  2015.  “An Ethnobiological Approach to Reconstructing Indigenous Fire Regimes in the Foothill Chaparral of the Western Sierra Nevada.”  Journal of Ethnobiology 35:4-36.

Arnold, Jeanne E.  1987.  Craft Specialization in the Prehistoric Channel Islands, California.  Berkeley:  University of California, Publications in Anthropology, 18.

Arnold, Jeanne E.  2004.  Foundations of Chumash Complexity.  Cotsen Inst of Archaeology, Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 7. 

Atleo, E. Richard.  2004.  Tsawalk:  A Nuu-Chah-Nulth Worldview.  Vancouver:  University of British Columbia Press. 

Barbour, Michael; Todd Keeler-Wolf; Allan A. Schoenherr (eds.).  2007.  Terrestrial Vegetation of California.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Barrett, S. A.  1933.  Pomo Myths.  Milwaukee:  Public Museum of the City of Milwaukee, Bulletin, 15:1-608.

Bean, Lowell John.  1972.  Mukat’s People:  The Cahuilla Indians of Southern California.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

—  1992.  “Power and Its Applications in Native California.”  In California Indian Shamanism, Lowell John Bean, ed.  Menlo Park:  Ballena Press.  Pp. 21-32.

Bean, Lowell John (ed.).  1972.  California Indian Shamanism.  Menlo Park:  Ballena Press.

Bean, Lowell, and Thomas C. Blackburn (eds.).  1976. Native Californians:  A Theoretical Retrospective.  Ramona, CA:  Ballena Press.

Bean, Lowell John, and Thomas F. King (eds.).  1974.  ‘Antap:  California Inidan Political and Economic Organization.  Ramona, CA:  Ballena Press.

Bean, Lowell J., and Katherine Siva Saubel.  1972.  Temalpakh:  Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of Plants.  Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press.

Benedict, Ruth Fulton.  1923.  The Concept of the Guardian Spirit in North Ameica.  Washington, DC:  American Anthropological Association, Memoir 29.

Benson, William Ralganal.  2002.  “Creation.”  Tr./ed. Jaime de Angulo.  In Surviving Through the Days:  A California Indian Reader, Herbert Luthin, ed.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.  Pp. 260-310.

Bettinger, Robert L.  2015.  Orderly Anarchy: Sociopolitical Evoluiton in Aboriginal California.  Berkeley: University of California Press.

Blackburn, Thomas.  1975.  December’s Child:  A Book of Chumash Oral Narratives.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Blackburn, Thomas, and M. Kat Anderson.  1993.  “Introduction:  Managing the Domesticated Environment.”  In Before the Wilderness:  Environmental Management by Native Californians, Thomas Blackburn and M. Kat Anderson, eds.  Menlo Park, CA:  Ballena Press.  Pp. 15-25.

Blackburn, Thomas, and M. Kat Anderson (eds.).  1993.  Before the Wilderness:  Environmental Management by Native Californians.  Menlo Park, CA:  Ballena Press.

Boyd, Robert.  1999.  The Coming of the Spirit of Pestilence:  Introduced Infections Diseases and Population Decline Among Northwest Coast Indians, 1774-1874.  Seattle:  University of Washington Press.

Broughton, Jack M.  1994.  “Declines in Mammalian Foraging Efficiency during the Late Holocene, San Francisco Bay, CA.”  Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13:371-401. 

Broughton, Jack M.  2002.  “Pre-Columbian Human Impact on California Vertebrates: Evidence from Old Bones and Implications for Wilderness Policy.”  Kay, Charles E., and Randy T. Simmons (eds.), Wilderness and Political Ecology: Aboriginal Influences and the Original State of Nature.  Salt Lake City:  University of Utah Press.  Pp. 44-71.

Burrill, Richard.  1993.  Protectors of the Land:  An Environmental Journey to Understanding the Conservation Ethic.  Sacramento:  Anthro Company.

Callahan, Catherine.  1978.  “Lake Miwok.” In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 264-273.

Campbell, Paul Douglas.  2007.  Earth Pigments and Paint of the California Indians:  Meaning and Technology.”  La Crescenta, CA:  author.

Castetter, Edward F., and Willis H. Bell.  1951.  Yuman Indian Agriculture.  Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Castillo, Edward.  1978.  “The Impact of Euro-American Exploration and Settlement.”  In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 99-127.

Chase-Dunn, Christopher, and Kelly M. Mann.  1998.  The Wintu and Their Neighbors:  A Very Small World-System in Northern California.  Tucson:  University of Arizona Press.

Clemmer, Richard O.  2009a.  “Native Americans:  The First Conservationists?  An Examination of Shepard Krech III’s Hypothesis with Respect to the Western Shoshone.”  Journal of Anthropological Research 65:555-570. 

—2009b.  “Pristine Aborigines or Victims of Progress?  The Western Shoshones in the Anthropological Imagination.”  Current Anthropology 50:849-881.

Clottes, Jean.  2008.  Cave Art.  London:  Phaidon.

Cook, Sherburne F.  1976.  The Population of the California Indians 1769-1770.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Colville, Frederick Vernon.  1902.  Wokas, a Primitive Food of the Klamath Indians.  United States National Museum, Report, 1902, pp. 725-739.

Cozzens, Peter.  2002.  Eyewitnesses to the Indian Wars, 1865-1890.  Vol. 2:  The Pacific Northwest.  Mechanicsburg, PA:  Stackpole Books.

Crespí, Juan.  2001.  A Description of Distant Roads: Original Journals of the First Expedition into California, 1769-1770.  Ed./Tr Alan K. Brown.  San Diego:  San Diego State University Press.

Crosby, Harry.  1997.  The Cave Paintings of Baja California:  Discovering the Great Murals of an Unknown People.  San Diego:  Sunbelt Publications.

Delcourt, Paul, and Hazel Delcourt.  2004.  Prehistoric Native Americans and Ecological Change:  Human Ecosystems in Native North America Since the Pleistocene.  New York:  Cambridge University Press.

Des Lauriers, Matthew Richard.  2010.  Island of Fogs: Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Investigations of Isla Cedros, Baja California.  Salt Lake City:  University of Utah Press.

Deur, Douglas.  2009.  “A Caretaker Responsibility”:  Revisiting Klamath and Modoc Traditions of Plant Community Management.” Journal of Ethnobiology 29:296-322. 

Dillon, Richard F.  1973.  Burnt-out Fires.  Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Dixon, Roland.  1907.  The Shasta.  Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 17:381-498.

—  1912.  Maidu Texts.  Leyden:  E. J. Brill.  Publications of the American Ethnological Society, Vol. 4.

Dobyns, Henry.  1983.  Their Number Became Thinned:  Native Population Dynamics in Eastern North America.  Knoxville:  University of Tennessee Press.

Du Bois, Cora.  1935.  Wintu Ethnography.  Berkeley:  University of California Publications in American Anthropology and Ethnology 336:1:1-148.

Elsasser, Albert.  1978a.  “Mattole, Nongatl, Sinkyone, Lassik, and Wailaki.”  In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 190-204.

—  1978b.  “Wiyot.”  In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 155-163.

Erlandson, Jon M.  2015.  Paleoindian Use of Shellfish on California’s Northern Channel Islands.  Paper, Society of Ethnobiology, annual meeting, Santa Barbara, May.

Fenenga, Franklin, and Francis A. Riddell.  2012.  “A Weather Shaman’s Rain-Making Bundle from the Tübatulabal and Its Relationship to the History of Weather Control in Soiuth-Central California.”  Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 32:109-126.

Finnegan, Seth; Kristin Bergmann; John M. Eiler; David S. Jones; David A. Fike; Ian Eisenman; Nigel C. Hughes; Aradhna K. Tripati; Woodward W. Fischer.  2011.  “The Magnitude and Duration of Late Ordovician-arliy Silurian Glaciation.”  Science 331:903-906.

Forde, C. Daryll.  1931.  Ethnography of the Yuma Indians.  University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 28:4:83-278.

Fowler, Catherine.  1992.  In the Shadow of Fox Peak:  An Ethnography of the Cattail-Eater Northern Paiute People of Stillwater Marsh.  U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge, Cultural Resource Series #5.

— 2013.  The Kasaga’yu: An Ethno-Ornithology of the Cattail-Eatern Northern Paiute People of Western Nevada.  In Explorations in Ethnobiology: The Legacy of Amadeo Rea, Marsha Quinlan and Dana Lepofsky, eds.  Society of Ethnobiology, Contributions in Ethnobiology, 1.  Pp. 154-178.

Fry, Douglas P. (ed.).  2013.  War, Peace, and Human Nature: The Convergence of Evolutionary and Cultural Views.  New York: Oxford University Press. 

Gamble, Lynn.  2008.  The Chumash World at European Contact.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Gamble, Lynn (ed.).  2015.  First Coastal Californians.  Santa Fe: SAR Press.

Short coll. of articles.

Garduño, Everardo.  2016. “Making the Invisible Visible: The  Yucamns of the U.S._-Mexico Transborder Region.”  Human Organization 75:118-129. 

Garfinkel, Alan, and Robert Yohe II.  2010.  “Bighorn Hunting, Resource Depression, and Rock Art in the Coso Range, Eastern California:  A Computer Simulation Model.”  Journal of Archaeological Science 37:42-51.

Garth, T. R.  1978.  “Atsugewi.”  In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 236-243

Gayton, Anna.  1948.  Northern Foothill Yokuts and Western Mono.  University of California Anthropological Records 10:143-302.

—  1976.  “Culture-Environment Integration:  External References in Yokuts Life.”  In Native Califonrians:  A Theoretical Retrospective, Lowell John Bean and Thomas C. Blackburn, eds.  Pp. 79-97.

Gifford, Edward Winslow.  1916. Miwok Moieties.  Berkeley:  Unversity of California, Publications in American Anthropology and Ethnology, 12:139-194.

—  1957 [1936].  California Balanophagy.  In The California Indians: A Source Book, R. Heizer, ed.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Gill, Kristina M. 2017.  “10,000 Years of Geophyte Use among the Island Chumansh of the Northern Channel Islands.”  Fremontia 44:3:34-38.

Gill, Kristina M., and Kiristin M. Hoppa.  2016.  “Evidence for an Island Chumash Geophyte-Based Subsistence Economy on the Northern Channel Islands.”  Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 38:51-72.

Gleason, Susan.  2001.  In Search of the Intangible:  Geophyte Use and Management along the Upper Klamath River Canyon.  Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.

Goddard, Pliny Earle.  1903.  Life and Culture of the Hupa.  Berkeley: University of California Publications in American Arcaheology and Ethnology, 1:1.

—  1904.  Hupa Texts.  Berkeley: University of California Publications in American Arcaheology and Ethnology, 1:2.

—  1909.  Kato Texts.  Berkeley:  University of California Publications in American Arcaheology and Ethnology, 5:3:65-238.

—  1914.  Chilula Texts.  Berkeley:  University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 10:7:289-379.

Goldschmidt, Walter.  1951.  Nomlaki Ethnography.  Berkeley:  University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 42:4:302-443.

— 1978.  “Nomlaki.” In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 341-349.

Golla, Victor.  2007.  “Linguistic Prehistory.”  In Calfironia Prehistory:  Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, Terry Jones and Kathryn Klar, eds.  Lanham, MD:  AltaMira, division of Rowman and Littlefield.  Pp. 71-82.

—  2011.  California Indian Languages.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Goodrich, Jennie; Claudia Lawson; Vana Parrish Lawson.  1980.  Kashaya Pomo Plants.  Berkeley:  Heyday Books.

Grant, Campbell.  1965.  The Rock Paintings of the Chumash: A Study of a California Indian Culture.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

—  1978.  “Eastern Coastal Chumash.” In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 509-519.

Grayson, Donald K.  1977.  “Pleistocene Avifaunas and the Overkill Hypothesis.”  Science 195:691-693.

—  1991.  “Late Pleistocene Mammalian Extinctions in North America:  Taxonomy, Chronology, and Explanations.”  Journal of World Prehistory 5:193-231.

— 2001.  “Did Human Hunting Cause Mass Extinction?”  Science 294:1459.

Greenberg, Joseph H.  1987.  Language in the Americas.  Stanford, CA:  Stanford University Press.

Hames, Raymond.  2007.  “The Ecologically Noble Savage Debate.”  Annual Review of Anthropology 36:177-190.

Harrington, John P.  1932.  Tobacco among the Karuk Indians of California.  United States Government, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 94.

Hedges, Ken, and Christina Beresford.  1986.  Santa Ysabel Ethnobotany.  San Diego:  San Diego Museum of Man, Ethnic Technology Notes, 20.

Heizer, Robert F.  1978.  “Natural Forces and Native World View.”  In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 649-653.

Heizer, Robert F. (ed.).  1978.  Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.

Heizer, Robert F., and Theodora Kroeber.  1979.  Ishi, the Last Yahi.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Hildebrandt, William; Kelly R. McGuire; Jeffrey S. Rosenthal.  2010.  “Human Behavioral Ecology and Historical Contingency:  A Comment on the Diablo Cnayon Archaeological Record.”  American Antiquity 75:679-688.

Hill, Jane.  2001.  “Proto-Uto-Aztecan:  A Community of Cultivators in Central Mexico?”  American Anthropologist 103:913-934.

Hinton, Leanne.  1994.  Flutes of Fire:  Essays on California Indian Languages.  Berkeley:  Heyday Books.

Hinton, Leanne, and Lucille Watahomigie.  1984.  Spirit Mountain: An Anthology of Yuman Story and Song.  Tucson:  University of Arizona Press.

Hobbes, Thomas.  1950 [1657].  Leviathan.  New York:  E. P. Dutton.

Hopkins, Jerry N.; Gerrit L. Fenenga; Alan P. Garfinkel; Samantha Riding-Red-Horse; Donna Miranda-Begay.  2012.  “Further Refledtions on California Rain-Making Shamanism: ‘The Other Half’ of the Tübatulabal Shaman’s Rain-Making Bundle.”  Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 32:127-140.

Hoveman, Alice R.  2002.  Journey to Justice: The Wintu People and the Salmon.  Redding: Turtle Bay Exploration Park. 

Hudson, Travis: Thomas Blackburn; Rosario Curletti; Jan Timbrook (eds.).  1977.  The Eye of the Flute:  Chumash Traditional History and Ritual as Told by Fernando Librado Kitsepawit to John P. Harrington.  Santa Barbara:  Santa Barbara Natural History Museum.

Hull, Kathleen L.  2009.  Pestilence and Persistence:  Yosemite Indian Demography and Culture in Colonial California.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

—  2015.  “Quality of Life: Native Communities within and beyond the Bounds of Colonial Institutions in California.”  In Beyond Germs: Native Depopulation in North America, Catherine M. Cameron, Paul Kelton, and Alan C. Swedlund, eds.  Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Pp. 222-248.

Hunn, Eugene.  1991.  N’Chi-Wana, The Big River.  Seattle:  University of Washington Press.

Jackson, Helen Hunt.  1885.  A Century of Dishonor.  Boston:  Roberts Bros.

Jewell, Donald P.  1987.  Indians of the Feather River:  Tales and Legends of Concow Maidu of California.  Menlo Park:  Ballena Press.

Johnson, John R.  2015.  The Importance of Small-Sized Fishes in Chumash Subsistence.  Paper, Society of Ethnobiology, annual meeting, Santa Barbara, May.

Jones, Terry, and Brian F. Codding.  2010.  “Historical Contingencies, Issues of Scale, and Flightless Hypotheses:  A Response to Hidlebrandt et al.”  American Antiquity 75:689-699.

Jones, Terry L. Kenneth W. Gobalet; Brian Codding.  2016.  “The Archaeology of Fish and Fishing on the Central Coast of California: The Case for an Underexploited Resource.”  Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 41:88-108.

Jones, Terry; William R. Hildebrandt; Douglas J. Kennett; Judith F. Porcasi.  2004.  “Prehistoric Marine Mammal Overkill.”  Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 24:69-80.

Jones, Terry L., and Klar, Kathryn A. (eds.).  2007.  California Prehistory:  Colonization, Culture, and Complextiy.  Lanham, MD:  AltaMira, division of Rowman and Littlefield.

Jones, Terry L.; Judith F. Porcasi; Jon M. Erlandson; H. Dallas Jr.; T. A. Wake; R. Schwaderer.  2008.  “The Protracted Holocene Extinction of California’s Flightless Sea Duck (Chendytes lawi) and Its Implications for the Pleistocene Overkill Hypothesis.”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105:4105-4108.

Jones, Terry L.; Judith F. Porcasi; Jereme Gaeta; Brian F. Codding.  2008.  “The Diablo Canyon Fauna:  A Coarse-Grained Record of Trans-Holocene Foraging from the Central California Mainland Coast.”  American Antiquity 73:289-316.

Joslin, Terry.  2015.  Fishing and Ecological Resilience on California’s Channel Islands.  2015.  Paper, Society for American Archaeology, annual conference, San Francisco.

Kay, Charles E., and Randy T. Simmons (eds.).  2002.  Wilderness and Political Ecology: Aboriginal Influences and the Original State of Nature.  Salt Lake City:  University of Utah Press.

Keeling, Richard.  1992a.  Cry for Luck:  Sacred Song and Speech among the Yurok, Hupa and Karok Indians of Northwestern California.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

—  1992b.  “Music and Culture History among the Yurok and Neighboring Tribes of Northwestern California.”  Journal of Anthropoloigical Research 48:25-48.

Kelly, William H.  1977.  Cocopa Ethnography.  Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona, 29.  Tucson:  University of Arizona Press.

Kennett, Douglas J.  2005.  The Island Chumash:  Behavioral Ecology of a Maritime Society.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Kitsepawit, Fernando Librado.  1981.  The Eye of the Flute:  Chumash Traditional History and Ritual as Told by Fernando Librado Kitsepawit to John P. Harrington. Ed. Travis Hudson, Thomas Blackburn, Rosario Curletti, and Janice Timbrook.  Santa Barbara:  Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.

Krech, Shepard, III.  1999.  The Ecological Indian:  Myth and Reality.  New York:  W. W. Norton.

Kroeber, A. L.  1925.  Handbook of the Indians of California.  U. S. Government, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78.

—  1932.  “The Patwin and Their Neighbors.”  Berkeley:
 University of California Publication in American Archaeology and Ethnology 29:4:253-423. 

—  1972.  More Mohave Myths.  University of California Anthropological Records, 27.

—  1976.  Yurok Myths.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Kroeber, A. L., and Samuel Barrett.  1960.  Fishing among the indians of Northewestern California.  University of California Anthropological Records 21:1-210.  Berkeley:  University of California, Dept. of Anthropology.

Kroeber, A. L., and E. W. Gifford.  1980.  Karok Myths.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Kroeber, Theodora.  1961.  Ishi in Two Worlds.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Laird, Carobeth. 1975.  Encounter with an Angry God:  Recollections of My Life with John Peabody Harrington.  Banning, CA:  Malki Museum Press.

—  1976.  The Chemehuevis.  Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press.

—  1984.  Mirror and Pattern.  Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press.

Lang, Julian.  1994.  Ararapikva, Creation Stories of the People:  Traditional Karok Indian Literature from Northwestern California.  Berkeley, CA:  Heyday Books.

Lapena, Frank.  1978.  “Wintu.” In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 324-340.

Lapeña, Queeny; Jessica Morales; Rene Vellanoweth.  2015.  The Distribution and Chronology of Abalone Middens on the California Channel Islands.  Paper, Society for American Archaeology, annual conference, San Francisco.

LaRivers, Ira.  1994.  Fish and Fisheries of Nevada.  Reno: University of Nevada Press.

Latta, Frank F.  1977.  Handbook of Yokuts Indians.  2nd edn.   Santa Cruz, CA:  Bear State Books.

Lawton, Hary W.; Philip J. Wilke; Mary DeDecker; William M. Mason.  1976.  “Agriculture among the Paiute of Owens Valley.”  Journal of California Anthropology 3:13-51.

Lerch, Michael.  1981. Chukiam (All Growing Things):  The Ethnobotany of the Serrano Indians.  B.A. thesis, University of California, Riverside, Dept. of Anthropology.

Levinas, Emmanuel.  1969.  Totality and Infinity.  Tr. Alphonso Lingis (Fr. orig. 1961). Duquesne University Press, Pittsburgh.

Lévi-Strauss, Claude.  1963.  “The Sorcerer and His Magic.”  In Structural Anthropology.  Tr. Claire Jacobson and Brooke Grundfest Schoepf.   New York:  Basic Books.  Chapter 9, pp. 167-185. 

Lewis, Henry.  2003.  Review of Fire, Native Peoples, and the Natural Landscape ed. by Thomas Vale.  Journal of Ethnobiology 23:161-163.

Librado, Fernando.  1979.  Breath of the Sun.  Ed. by Travis Hudson.  Banning, CA:  Malki Museum Press.

Lightfoot, Kent; Edward Luby; Lisa Pesnichak.  2011.  “Evolutionary Typologies and Hunter-Gatherer Research:  Rethinking the Mounded Landscapes of Central California.”  In Hunter-Gatherer Arhcaeology as Historical Process, Kenneth Sassaman and Donald Holly Jr., eds.  Tucson:  University of Arizona Press. Pp. 55-78.

Lightfoot, Kent G., and Otis Parrish.  2009.  California Indians and Their Environment:  An Introduction.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Loeb, Edwin M.  1926.  Pomo Folkways.  Berkeley:  University of California, Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnography 19:2:149-405.

Luomala, Katharine.  1978.  “Tipai-Ipai.”  In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 502-609.

Luthin, Herbert W.  2002.  Surviving Through the Days:  A California Indian Reader. Berkeley:  University of California Press. 

Madley, Benjamin.  2012.  “When the World Was Turned Upside Down’: California and Oregon’s Tolowa Indian Genocide, 1851-1856.” In New Directions in Genocide Research, Adam Jones, ed.  London: Routledge.  Pp. 171-197.

—  An American Genocide: The United States and the california Indian Catastrophe.  New Haven: Yale University Press.  692 pp.  Illus.

Margolin, Malcolm.  2005.  “Indian Pedagogy:  A Look at Traditional California Indian Teaching Techniques.” In Ecological literacy: Educating our children for a sustainable world, Michael K. Stone and Zenobia Barlow, eds.  Pp. 67-79.

Martin, Paul S., and Richard Klein (eds.).  1984.  Quarternay Extinctions:  A Prehistoric Revolution.  Tucson:  University of Arizona Press.

Martin, Paul S., and Christine R. Szuter.  1999.  War Zones and Game Sinks in Lewis and Clark’s West.  Conservation Biology 13:36-45.

McCarthy, Helen.  1993.  “Managing Oaks and the Acorn Crop.”  In Before the Wilderness:  Environmental Management by Native Californians, Thomas Blackburn and M. Kat Anderson, eds.  Menlo Park, CA:  Ballena Press.  Pp. 213-228.

McCorriston, Joy.  2000.  “Wheat.”  In Kenneth Kiple and B. Ornelas (eds.):  The Cambridge World History of Food.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press.  Vol. 1, pp. 158-174.

McLendon, Sally, and Michael Lowy.  1978.  “Eastern Pomo and Southeastern Pomo.” In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 306-323.

Meacham, A. W.  1875.  Wigwam and Warpath.  Boston:  John Dale.

Mead, George R.  2003.  The Ethnobotany of the California Indians.  La Grande, OR:  E-Cat Worlds.

Miller, Virginia P.  1979.  Uknomno’m:  The Yuki Indians of Northern California.  Socorro, NM:  Ballena Press.

Minnich, Richard A.  1983.  “Fire Mosaics in Southern California and Northern Baja California.”  Science 219:1287-1294.

—  1987.  “Fire Behavior in Southern California Chaparral Before Fire Control:  The Mount Wilson Burn at the Turn of the Century.”  Annals of the American Association of Geographers 77:599-618.

—  2001a.  “An Integrated Model of Two Fire Regimes.”  Conservation Biology 15:1549-1153. 

—  2001b.  “Fire and Elevational Zonation of Chaparral and Conifer Forests in the Peninsular Ranges of La Frontera.”  In:  Changing Plant Life of La Frontera:  Observations on Vegetation in the United States/Mexico Borderlands, Grady L. Webster and Conrad J. Bahre,eds.  Albuquerque:  University of New Mexico Press.  Pp. 120-142.

—  2008.  California’s Fading Wildflowers:  Lost Legacy and Biological Invasions.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Minnich, Richard A., and Ernesto Franco-Vizcaino.  2002.  “Divergence in Californian Vegetation and Fire Regimes Induced by Differences in Fire Management across the U.S. Mexico Boundary.  In Fernandez, Linda, and Richard T. Carson (eds.),  Both Sides of the Border:  Transboundary Environmental Management Issues Facing Mexico and the United States.  Dordrecht:  Kluwer.  Pp. 385-402.

Mixco, Mauricio J.  1983.  Kiliwa Texts: “When I Have Donned My Crest of Stars.”  Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Morgan, Christopher.  2012.  “Modeling Modes of Hunter-Gatherer Food Storage.”  American Antiquity 77:714-736.

Nabhan, Gary.  1982.  The Desert Smells Like Rain:  A Naturalist in Papago Indian Country.  San Francisco:  North Point Press.

—  1985.  Gathering the Desert.  Tucson:  University of Arizona Press.

—  2013.  “The Wild, the Domesticated, and the Coyote-Tainted: The Trickster and the Tricked in Hunter-Gatherer versus Farmer Folklore.”  In Explorations in Ethnobiology: The Legacy of Amadeo Rea, Marsha Quinlan and Dana Lepofsky, eds.  Society of Ethnobiology, Contributions in Ethnobiology, 1.  Pp. 129-140.

Olmsted, D. L., and Omer C. Stewart.  1978.  “Achomawi.”  In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 225-235.

O’Neill, Sean.  2008.  Cultural Contact and Linguistic Relativity among the Indians of Northwestern California.  Norman, OK:  University of Oklahoma Press.

Ortiz, Beverly R., with Julia F. Parker.  1991.  It Will Live Forever:  Traditional Yosemite Inhdian Acorn Preparation.  Berkeley:  Heyday Books.

Pattie, James O.  1962

[orig. edn. 1831]

.  The Personal Narrative of James O. Pattie.  Philadelphia:  Lippincott.

Peters, Josephine Grant, and Bev Ortiz.  2010.  After the First Full Moon in april:  A Sourcebook of Herbal Medicine from a California Indian Elder.  Walnut Creek:  Left Coast Press.

Phillips, George Harwood.  1975.  Chiefs and Challengers.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

—   1993.  Indians and Intruders in Central California, 1760-1849.  Norman, OK:  University of Oklahoma Press.

— 1997.  Indians and Indian Agents:  The Origins of the Reservation System in California, 1849-1852.  Norman, OK:  University of Oklahoma Press.

Pierce, Wendy, and Gary Scholze.  2016.  “The Macrofossil and Starch Grain Evidence for the Use of Root Crops in the Owens Valley, California,m Icuding Two Potentially Irrigated Taxa.” Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 36:205-219.

Pierotti, Raymond.  2011.  Indigenous Knowledge, Ecology, and Evolutionary Biology.  New York:  Routledge.

Pilling, Arnold.  1978.  “Yurok.”  In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 137-154.

Pinker, Steven.   2011.  The Better Angels of Our Nature:  Why Violence Has Declined.  New York:  Viking.

Popper, Virginia S.  2016.  “Change and Persistence: Mission Neophyte Foodways at Selected Colonial Alta California Institutions.”  Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 38:5-26.

Powell, John Wesley.  1971.  Anthropology of the Numa: John Wesley Powell’s Manuscripts on the Numic Peoples of western North America 1868-1880.  Don D. Fowler and Catherine S. Fowler, eds.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.

Powers, Stephen.  1877.  Tribes of California.  Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Preston, William.  1996.  “Serpent in Eden:  Dispearsal of Foreign Diseases into Pre-mission California.”  Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 18:2-37.

Pyne, Stephen J. 2004.  Tending Fire:  Coping with  America’s Wildland Fires.  Washington, DC:  Island Press (Shearwater Books).

Raab, Mark.  1996.  “Debating Prehistory in Coastal Southern California:  Resource Intensification Versus Political Economy.”  Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 18:64-80. 

Reddy, Seetha.  2016.  “Changing Palates and Resources: Reginonal and Diachronic Trends in Plant Use in Prehistoric California.”  Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 36:227-244.

Rhoades, Lela.  2013.  Lela Rhoades, Pit River Woman.  As told to Molly Curtis.  Berkeley: Heyday Books.

Rick, Torben C.; Jon M. Erlandson; Todd J. Braje; James A. Estes; Michael H. Graham; René L. Vellanoweth. 2008.  “Historical Ecology and Human Impacts on Coastal Ecosystems of the Santa Barbara Channel Region, California.”  In Human Impacts on Ancient Marine Ecosystems:  A Global Perspective, Torben C. Rick and Jon M. Erlandson (eds.).   Berkeley:  University of California Press.  Pp. 77-102.

Rick, Torben C.; Jon M. Erlandson; Rene L. Vellanoweth; Todd J. Braje; Paul W. Collins; Daniel Guthrie; Thomas W. Stafford Jr.  2009.  “Origins and Antiquity of the Island Fox (Urocyon litteralis) on California’s Channel Islands.  Quarternary Research 71:93-98.

Riddle, Jeff.  1974.  The Indian History of the Modoc War.  Urion.

Ross, John Alan.  2011.  The Spokan Indians.  Spokane: Michael J. Ross.

Santy, Jenna.  2016.  ‘The Promise of Microbotanical Research in alifornia: A Case Study from CA-SBA-53, a Middle Holocene Archaeological Site along Goleta Slough.”  Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 36:193-204.

Sapir, Edward.  1910.  Yana Texts.  Berkeley:  University of California, Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 9, pp. 1-235.

—  1992.  “Kaibab  Paiute and Northern Ute Ethnographic Field Notes.”  Catherine S. Fowler and Robert C. Euler, eds.  In The Collected Works of Edward Sapir.  Vol. X, William Bright, ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Saubel, Katherine.  2004.  Isill Hekwas Waxish:  A Dried Coyote’s Tail.  Socorro, NM:  Ballena Press.

Schneider, Joan.  1993.  Aboriginal Milling-Implement Quarries in Eastern California and Western Arizona:  A Behavioral Perspective.  Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.

Shipek, Florence.  1989.  “An Example of Intensive Plant Husbandry: The Kumeyaay of Southern California.”  In: Harris, D. R., and G. C. Hillman (eds.).  Foraging and Farming:  The Evolution of Plant Exploitation.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press.  Pp. 159-170.

Shipley, William.  1978.  “Native Languages of California.” In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 80-90.

—  1991.  The Maidu Indian Myths and Stories of Hanc’ibyjim.  Berkeley:  Heyday Books.

Simmons, Alan H.  2007.  The Neolithic Revolution in the Near East:  Transforming the Human landscape.  Tucson:  University of Arizona Press.

Smith, Erin M., and Mikael Fauvelle.  2015.  “Regional Interactions between California and the Southwest: The Western Edge of the North American Continental System.”  American Anthropologist 117:710-721.

Spier, Robert F. G.  1978.  “Monache.”  In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 426-436.

Spoon, Jeremy, and Richard Arnold.  2014.  “Collaborative Research and Co-Learning: Integrating Nuwivi (Southern Paiute) Ecological Knowledge and Spirituality to Revitalize a Fragmented Land.”  Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture 6:477-500.

Spoon, Jeremy; Richard Arnold; Newe/Nuwuvi Working Group.  2011.  Nuwu Kanee, Nuwu Tooveenup (Our Home, Our Story): Nuwuvi (Southern Paiute) and the Spring Mountains Landscape.  Portland: Portland State University and The Mountain Institute.

— 2012a.  Nuwu-Vots (Our Footprints): Nuwuvi (Southern Paiute) and the Pahranagat Valley.  Report.  Portland: Portland State University and The Mountain Institute.

—  2012b.  Our Gathering Place:  Newe (Western Shoshone), Nuwuvi (Southern Paiute), and the Ash Meadows Landscape.  Report.  Portland: Portland State University and The Mountain Institute.

Spoon, Jeremy; Richard Arnold; Brian J. Lefler; Christopher Milton.  2015.  “Nuwuvi (Southern Piaute), Shifting Fire Regimes, and the Carpenter One Fire in the Spring Mountains National Recreation Arewa, Nevada.”  Journal of Ethnobiology 35:85-110.

Spoon, Jeremy; Richard Arnold; Brian Lefler; Kendra Wendel; Nuwuvi (Southern Paiute) Working Group; U. S. Forest Service; U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  2013.  Collaborative Resource Stewardship Plan: Nuwuvi (Southern Paiute), the Sheep Mountains National Recreation Area and the Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Report.  Portland: Portland State University and The Mountain Institute.

— 2014a.  Interpretive  and Public Use Site Plan for the Black Canyon Archaeological District. Report.  Portland: Portland State University and The Mountain Institute.

—  2014b.  The Voices of the Rocks Sing Through Us:  Nuwuvi (Southern Paiute) and Black Canyon.  Report.  Portland: Portland State University and The Mountain Institute.

Spott, Robert, and A. L. Kroeber.  1942.  Yurok Narratives.  University of California, Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 35:9:143-256.

Stern, Theodore.  1966.  The Klamath Tribe:  A People and Their Reservation.  Seattle:  University of Washington Press.

Stevens, Michelle L., and Emilie M.Zelazo.  2015.  “Fire, Floodplains and Fish: The Historic Ecology of the Lower Cosumnes River Watershed.”  In Rivers, Fish, and the People: Tradition, Science, and Historical Ecology of Fisheries in the American West, Pei-lin Yu, ed.  Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.  Pp. 155-187.

Stevenson, Alexander E., and Virginia L. Butler.  2015.  “The Holocene History of Fish and Fisheries of the Upper Klamath Basin, Oregon.”    Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 35:169-188.

Steward, Julian.  1936. Myths of the Owens Valley Paiute.  Berkeley:  University of California, Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 34:5:355-440.

—  1955.  Theory of Culture Change.  Urbana:  University of Illinois Press.

Stewart, Omer C.; Henry Lewis; Kat Anderson.  2002.  Forgotten Fires:  Native Americans and the Transient Wilderness.  Norman, OK:  University of Oklahoma Press.

Sugihara, N. G.; J. W. van Wagtendonk; K. E. Shaffer; J. Fites-Kaufman; A. E. Thode (eds.).  2006.  Fires in California’s Ecosystems.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Sunseri, Charlotte K.  2015.  “Taphonomic and Metric Evidence for Marrow and Grease Production.”  Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 35:275-290.

Suntree, Susan.  2010.  Sacred Sites:  The Secret History of Southern California.  Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Sutton, Mark.  1988.  Insects as Food:  Aboriginal Entomophagy in the Great Basin.  Socorro, NM:  Ballena Press.

Swezey, Sean L., and Robert F. Heizer.  l977.  “Ritual Management of Salmonid  Fish Resources in California.”  Journal of California Anthropology 4:6-29. 

Thompson, Lucy.  1991 [orig. 1916].  To the American Indian:  Reminiscences of a Yurok Woman.  New ed., edited and with foreword by Peter Palmquist; introduction by Julian Lang.  Berkeley:  Heyday Books.

Timbrook, Jan.  2007.  Chumash Ethnobotany:  Plant Knowledge among the Chumash Peoples of Southern California.  Santa Barbara and Berkeley:  Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History and Heyday Books. 

Timbrook, Jan, and John R. Johnson.  2013.  “People of the Sky: Birds in Chumash Culture.”  In Explorations in Ethnobiology: The Legacy of Amadeo Rea, Marsha Quinlan and Dana Lepofsky, eds.  Society of Ethnobiology, Contributions in Ethnobiology, 1.  Pp. 179-218.

Trafzer, Clifford, and Jack Hyer. 1999.  “Exterminate Them!”  Written Accounts of Murders, Rapes, and Enslavement of Native Americans during the Gold Rush.  Lansing:  Michigan State University.

Turner, Nancy J.; Laurence C. Thompson; M. Terry Thompson; Annie Z. York.  1990.  Thompson Ethnobotany.  Victoria, BC: Royal British Columbia Museum.

Tushingham, Shannon, and Colin Christiansen.  2015.  “Native American Fisheries of the Northwewstern California and Southwestern Oregon Coast: A Synthesis of Fish-Bone Data and Implications for Late Holocene Storage and Socio-Economic Organization.”  Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 35:189-215.

Vale, Thomas (ed.).  2002.  Fire, Native Peoples, and the Natural Landscape.  Washington, DC:  Island Press. 

Walker, Deward E., Jr. 2010.  “Traditional Fishing Practices among the Northern Shoshone, Northern Paiute, and Bannock of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation: A  Progress Report.”  Journal of Northwest Anthropology 44:53-62.

Walker, Deward E., Jr. (ed.).  1998.  Plateau.  Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 12.  Washington:  Smithsonian Institution.

Wallace, William J.  1978.  “Southern Valley Yokuts.”  In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 448-461.

Welch, James R.  2013.  Sprouting Valley: Historical Ethnobotany of ther Northern Pomo from Potter Valley, California.  Society of Ethnobiology, Contributions in Ethnobiology, 2.

Whisler, Emily; Amira Ainis; Rene Vellanoweth.  2015.  Making Ancient Birds Sing: Avian Archaeology on the California Channel Islands.  Paper, Society for American Archaeology, annual conference, San Francisco.

White, Raymond.  1963.  Luiseño Social Oganization.  Berkeley:  University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 49:2:1-194.

Whitley, David S.  1996.  The Art of the Shaman:  Rock Art of California.  Salt Lake City:  University of Utah Press.

Wildschut, William.  1975.  Crow Indian Medicine Bundles.  New York:  Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation.

Wilke, Philip.  1988.  “Bow Staves Harvested from Juniper Trees by Indians of Nevada.”  Journal of California and Great Basin anthropology 10:3-31.

—  2013.  “The Whisky Flat Pronghorn Trap Complex, Mineral County, Nevada, United States: Preliminary Report.”  Quarternary International 297:79-92.

Wilken-Robertson, Michael.  2004.  “Indigenous Groups of Baja Canlfirnia and the Environemnt.”  In The U.S.-M<exican BorderEnvironment, Tribal Environmental Issues of the Border Region, Michael Wilken-Robertson, ed.  San Diego: San Diego State University Pres.  Pp. 31-48.

—  2018.  Kumeyaay Ethnobotany: Shared Heritage of the Californias.  San Diego: Sunbelt Publications.

Wilkinson, Charles.  2010.  The People Are Dancing Again: The History of the Siletz Tribe of Western Oregon.  Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Wohlgemuth, Eric.  1996.  “Resource Intensification in Prehistoric Central California: Evidence from Archaeobotanical Data.”  Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 18:81-103. 

Woiche, Istet.  1992.  Annikadel:  The History of the Universe as Told by the Achomawi Indians of California.  Recorded and edited by C. Hart Merriam.  Tucson:  University of Arizona Press.

Wohlgemuth, Eric.  2004.  9,000 Years of Plant Use in Native Central California:  Implications of the Archaeobotanical Record for Archaeologists, Native Peoples, and Restoration Practitioners.”  Paper, Society of Ethnobiology, annual conference, Davis, CA.

—  2016.  “Early Limits to the Central California Acorn Economy in the Lower Sacramento Valley.” Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 36:181-192.

—  2017.  “The California Archaeological Record and Brodiaea Complex Conservation.”  Fremontia 44:3:42-44

Wolverton, Steve; R. Lee Lyman; James H. Kennedy; Thomas W. La Point.  2009.  “The Terminal Pleistocene Extinctions in North America, Hypermorphic Evolution, and the Dynamic Equilibrium Model.”  Journal of Ethnobiology 29:28-63.

Yetman, David.  2010.  The Ópatas: In Search of a Sonoran People.  Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Yohe, Robert, and Alan P. Garfinkel.  2012.  “Great Basin Bighorn Ceremonialism:  Reflections on a Possible Sheep Shrine at the Rose Spring Site (CA-INY-372), Rose Valley, Alta California.”  California Archaeology 4:201-224.

Zigmond, Maurice L.  1980.  Kawaiisu Mythology.  Socorro, NM:  Ballena Press.

—  1981.  Kawaiisu Ethnobotany.  Salt Lake City:  University of Utah Press. 

—  1990.  Kawaiisu.  Berkeley:  University of California, Publications in Linguistics, 119. 

d Animals

Work in progress; please do not cite without permission.

This is intended to be one part of a book that will also include a section on the Pacific Northwest, thus covering the Pacific coast of North America from the Mexican border (or just south of it) to southern Alaska.  The book is on traditional plant and animal management and ideology.  It draws heavily on myths and texts, especially early recordings from the days when texts were important to anthropology (sadly no longer true—though some stalwart souls are still recording them).  I am interfacing biology with culture, using phenomenology and ethnobiology as the main ways into the latter. 

Unfortunately, events are making it impossible to work on the book.  The California section is substantially finished, though I am updating it as new materials appear.  These now are largely supportive of the basic points, so the time has come to post this work on my website for anyone to use. 

“…we are constantly walking on herbs, the virtues of which no one knows.”  -Pastor, Chujmas elder, as quoted by Fernando Librado Kitsepawit, Ventureño Chumash (Librado 1979:56; cf. Blackburn 1975:258)

Californian Environments

            The Pacific Coast of North America, in pre-European times, had the distinction of supporting large, populous, highly complex societies that lived by hunting and gathering and that almost totally lacked agriculture.  Many groups along the immediate coast and major rivers were not only larger and more differentiated than most hunter-gatherer cultures, but more so than many horticultural societies around the world.  (On California Native environments, see Jones and Klar 2007; Lightfoot and Parrish 2009.)

            The reason has traditionally been considered “the rich environment,” but actually the environment is not incredibly rich.  The Northwest Coast has huge salmon resources, but to balance this out it has millions of acres of dense evergreen forest with almost nothing for humans to eat.  California and the interior regions have rich seed resources and appreciable game, but are dry at best, and are subject to frequent prolonged droughts that make finding food a desperate proposition.  Irrigated agriculture on a large scale has made these dry areas productive, but without that they can be quite barren.

            It is not surprising, then, to learn from archaeology that complex societies did not exist until around 3,000 years ago (give or take a millennium).  What is surprising is the rise of such societies—a phenomenon still unexplained.  Before even attempting explanation, we need to understand the complexity.

            Let us, then, look at how such societies maintained themselves. 

            For convenience, I will make the arbitrary decision to divide these two regions by the California state line.  Groups split by the line will be considered to lie in the state where their major population once dwelt (except for the Modoc, who belong properly to the Plateau region, and are poorly known because of the genocidal “Modoc War”).  The decision is slightly less arbitrary than it looks.  In spite of often being classified as “Northwest Coast,” the Karok, Yurok, and Athapaskan groups of northwest California are politically, mythologically, and socially rather typical Californians, and lived by a Californian economy depending heavily on acorns. 

            This distinction gives us a Californian region whose economy was based on management of varied seed and nut resouces.  The northwest part of the state depended largely on fish, with seed and root foods important.  The Central Valley and other regions living near rivers and lakes had a similar economy, with perhaps relatively more seeds and nuts.  The Plateau region of traditional anthropology begins from the Cascade Range crest and extends eastward to the Rockies, and is defined in terms of human ecology by the intensive focus on wild root, corm and bulb foods, which are cultivated and stored(see e.g. Hunn 1991; Turner et al 1990).  The Plateau economy grades into the Californian economy in the northeast corner of the state, where the Achomawi and Atsugewi lived on fish, acorns, seeds, and root crops (Garth 1978; Olmsted and Stewart 1978).  Most of the rest of California depended largely on acorns, and to a lesser extent other nuts, with seed and root crops important.  The thinly-occupied deserts had few acorns, and life here depended on a wide range of plant foods; pinyon nuts were locally common and important.  I will not be dealing with the Great Basin or Baja California, except that far northern Baja California is linguistically and culturally a part of Native California by all standards, and will be included. 

            I shall, however, include the southeastern groups in California, which depended to a great extent on agriculture rather than, or along with, wild seed management.  As usual, culture areas grade into each other; agriculture supplied about half or less of the food of the Mohave and Quechan along the Colorado on the state line, and only a small percentage of the food of the Kumeyaay and Cahuilla.  Montane and coastal Kumeyaay probably did not practice it at all.  By contrast, agriculture supplied most of the food of the Akimel O’odham (Pima) in south Arizona, and most other culturally Southwestern groups.

            Classic ethnographic California thus focuses on the Mediterranean and montane parts of the state.  Most of the large, complex cultures developed in the former.  In spite of being called “Mediterranean,” California is not much like the Mediterranean Sea region.  The Mediterranean is landlocked and sun-warmed—a downright hot-tub.  This keeps its bordering countries warm in winter, and hot and often rainy in summer.  California’s coast is chilled by the California Current, a vast river of ocean water flowing down from Vancouver Island at a temperature around 55 F.  This creates such extreme conditions that the diving seabirds of Baja California are arctic forms (auklets, murrelets, and subarctic cormorants), while the soaring ones are tropical (terns, frigatebirds).  Thus coastal California is always cool and pleasant, but is quite dry.  More important to Native peoples, the California current and related upwelling produces fantastic biological productivity in coastal waters, and keeps the land cool and moist, permitting great productivity there too.  (Morocco’s Atlantic coast is similar, but the Mediterranean Sea shores are not.)

            This cold ocean keeps even southern California’s mountains pleasant and forested.  At elevations equivalent to California’s giant sequoia belt, Turkey’s mountains have thin woods, and reach a timberline around 8000 feet.  This low line is set not by cold but by drought due to Saharan and Arabian winds. 

            Conversely, much of the Mediterranean is exposed to winter storms and summer rains from farther north.  I have been caught in a major winter snowstorm on the Riviera (but, then, I have seen snow down to 1000’ in southern California) and subjected to days of rain in August in Rome.  California is walled off by mountains from the full force of northern and eastern winds.  The exception is southern California, where major passes allow such winds to roar down as the dreaded “santanas,” named because they pour down the Santa Ana River and other canyonways.  A desert wind, it combines the violence of the mistral with the heat of the scirocco.

            California ranges from warm to hot in summer, cool to cold in winter.  Rains varied (before recent climate change) from 130” a year in the far northwest mountains to 2” or less in the lowest valleys of the eastern deserts.   Such “average” figures mask incredible variation.  El Centro, on the Mexican border in southeastern California, averages 2” a year.  In the middle 1970s it made its average perfectly:  there was essentially no rain for six years, and then in August of 1976 a west Mexican chubasco (hurricane) dropped 12” in one day. 

Northern California has its own variety.  In February 1964, I saw the Sacramento River running more than ten miles wide.  A bridge about 100’ above the normal level of the Eel River was washed out.  Yet in summer 2009 the Sacramento was far below its usual banks and the Eel was almost totally dry, and in 2015 the rivers were still lower.  Within my years in Riverside, yearly rainfall has fluctuated by an order of magnitude (2” to over 20”), and the deserts eastward varied even more than that.  Such conditions would stress anyone, and they certainly proved difficult for hunting-gathering peoples.

Throughout California there is an alternation of El Niño conditions with drier years.  El Niño is caused by warm water in the east Pacific, and brings heavy winter rains.  They start just after the winter solstice, and thus around Christmas—hence the name (originated in Peru), which refers to the baby Jesus.  El Niños came every 5-7 years in the late 20th century, but before and since that time they were less frequent.  They provide about twice as much rain as normal years.  In the normal years, the warm-water pool of the Pacific is around Indonesia, bringing the rain to that country and to Australia instead of to the American coasts.  Recently, a tendency has arisen to refer to particularly cool and dry conditions in California as “La Niña” years, as if Jesus had a long-lost sister!  All, in turn, is part of the vast global El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) system.

            Globally warm periods, like the Medieval Warm Period and the present, are hot and dry in California.  Globally cool periods like the Pleistocene and the Little Ice Age are generally wet, but California suffered some searing droughts at the height of the Little Ice Age, which was globally dry (Gamble 2008).

            Today, global warming, partly natural and partly due to human release of greenhouse gases, is drying and heating California.  Vegetation is dying, and animal life with it.  Drastic reduction of both natural vegetation and agriculture is now in progress, and the future is bleak.  California has taken a world lead in combatting global warming, but without national and world support, all efforts will have little effect.  Political activity funded and driven by oil and coal companies have checkmated all attempts to slow—let alone stop—the warming process.  Unless greenhouse gas release is controlled, California could easily become a lifeless desert, like the central Sahara, within a few centuries. 

The Chumash saw it all as a gambling game.  All year, Coyote (with his allies) gambles with the Sun (with his).  On the winter solstice, the Moon judges the game.  If Coyote has won, the winter will be rainy and there will be much food.  If the Sun wins, winter conditions all too familiar to southern Californians will ensue:  the sun will beat down, day after day, from a brazen sky, and no food will grow (Blackburn 1975).  In the Santa Barbara County mountains, there is a cave where the Chumash bored a hole through solid rock.  The rising sun on the winter solstice morning strikes straight through the hole and illuminates a painting of a coyote on the cave wall.  One can easily guess what magic was tried there.  Alas, modern science cannot do much better than the ancient Chumash at predicting, and no better at controlling.

Biotic California

            The Californian region of the biologists is Mediterranean California.  It includes several formations:  chaparral (dense brushlands), scrub formations of many types, montane and lowland forests, Mediterranean steppe and grassland, winter-rain deserts, and the rainy, wooded northwest part of the state (Barbour et al. 2007).   Over 8000 native species of plants occur.  In spite of claims for extreme diversity (e.g. Lightfoot and Parrish 2009), this is less than comparable Mediterranean-climate zones of the world in Turkey and South Africa, and far less than many dry-tropical areas.  Still, it is diverse enough to provide tremendous variety and opportunity for hunters and gatherers. 

            Any account of the state will describe these plant associations.  However, earlier accounts exaggerate the extent of grassland.  Contrary to earlier assessments, it is now clear that the vast flat lowland valleys of California were usually covered by sparse scrub and annual wildflowers, not bunchgrass (Minnich 2008).  One can still see this in the few areas of the Central Valley that are not cultivated.  The wildflowers were thick and tall near the coast, but inland they would wither away to very little, leaving the ground sparsely covered, or, in such desert plains as the Antelope Valley and southern Central Valley, absolutely bare.  This was especially true where salt was concentrated by deposition in closed drainage basins (as can be seen in several areas today, e.g. the salt lake in Carrizo Plain).   

Anna Gayton (1948) was perceptive enough to notice these facts in early accounts, and realize what it meant for the Yokuts who lived there:  they could not find game, or even water, in the vast burning flats, and had to live near rivers and lakes.  These, at contact (following the wet centuries of the Little Ice Age), were very extensive; there was a vast chain of marshy lakes in the San Joaquin Valley that supported enormous fish and water plant resources (Latta 1977).  I can barely imagine this, being able to recall the last bits of marsh and lake, still visible in the 1950s.  Today, it is difficult to imagine the drought-starved plowed fields having been, only recently, huge marshy lakes teeming with fish, ducks, geese, turtles, frogs, tule elk, and every sort of water plant and insect.

The deserts also were covered with scattered bushes and, in wet springs, annual wildflowers.  The current cover of grass that dominates most of lowland California is made up of introduced Mediterranean weeds, which have outcompeted native plants (Minnich 2008), even replacing chaparral and woodland after hot fires.  The state looks very different today from its aboriginal appearance.  Even in the wildest parts of the western United States, enormous deterioration in the environment was occurring by the 1870s.  One of J. W. Powell’s workmen—a semiliterate frontiersman who cannot be accused of romantic environmentalism—wrote to Powell in 1880, describing southern Utah: “The foothills that yielded hundreds of acres of sunflowers which produced quantities of rich seed, the grass also that grew so luxuriantly when you were here, the seed of which was gathered with little labor, and many other plants that produced food for the natives is all eat out [sic] by stock” (Powell 1971:47). 

Animal life was equally rich.  The vast herds of deer and elk reported by explorers probably involved recovery from heavy hunting by Native Californians and heavy predation by bears, but there were evidently always many cervids.  Moutain sheep, including the desert bighorn, were evidently abundant before diseeases introduced by domestic sheep virtually exterminated them (they survive today partly because Fish and Game workers patiently catch and inocuate them).  Fish choked the rivers.  Salmon and steelhead were particularly prominent. Fall, winter, and spring runs of salmon stayed in the rivers for months until spawning time; they had to run when the streams had enough cool water, making summer runs impossible.  Steelhead (sea-running rainbow trout) still occur in many rivers, but in small numbers.  The salmon runs are disappearing fast, except in the Klamath, where Native Californians have fought desperately to keep the runs alive.  Even there, the outlook is cloudy.  Trout have done much better, thanks in large measure to stocking, and to vigilant monitoring by fishers.   Other fish, including the native warm-water fish of the Sacramento, Colorado, and elsewhere, are extinct or nearly so. 

The end is near; the usual combination of global warming, suburbanization, agribusiness, waste of water, and pollution are closing in fast on what is left of Californian nature, and all will be gone within a few decades unless desperate measures are taken.  (For a good, and depressing, summary see Allen et al. 2014).

Cultural Contours

            Humans have been in California for a long time.  The oldest date so far is 13,000 years ago (give or take a bit; see Erlandson 2015 for this and following dates) from Santa Rosa Island, but to get down the coast and out to a rather remote island would have taken some time.  Just north of California, at Paisley Cave in Oregon, there are dates as far back as 14,800 years ago.  People had reached Monteverde in southern Chile by 13,000 years ago.  So California was almost surely settled by 15,000 years ago.  Settlers probably came down the coast at first, but Paisley Cave is far inland.

            The initial population was small, and increased only slowly.  A few fluted points show that California was not entirely untouched by the Clovis style of spearpoint around 12,000 years ago, but points are few and scattered.  More local and more numerous points follow.  Then a very long period coinciding with the hot, dry Altithermal demonstrates that California was thinly populated by atlatl-wielding hunters from 8000 to 5000 years ago.  Conditions during the Altithermal were like those of the “new normal” developing after 2014, with extreme heat and dryness, though the southeast had higher rain than now, due to expansion of the summer monsoon from Arizona.  Ancient pack rat middens made of local twigs reveal that mountains now bare had juniper and other bushes.

            Climate ameliorated after 5000 years ago, and people responded by becoming more numerous and sedentary.  They began a shift to acorns, small seeds, and geophyte (root, bulb and corm foods; see Pierce and Scholtze 2016; Reddy 2016).

Increase was faster from about 3000 years ago, and in fact seems to have increased exponentially after that.  Hunting was still with the atlatl, but more attention was paid to plants and fish than to land game.  Robert Bettinger (2015:34) points out how this tracked improvements in plant use technology.  The importance of better acorn processing has long been well known, and seeds became so important that there was even local domestication (see below).  There was evidently a positive feedback: the improvements allowed more population growth, which in turn made people want more improvements. 

We must avoid recourse to explanation through “population pressure,” however, since groups evidently differed in their responses to the rising population.  They could innovate, borrow, migrate, fight, starve, or otherwise deal.  Migration, especially, is well attested by linguistic and archaeological data.   Humans love sociability above all other things, and want to live together, share, intermarry, dance, and generally have fun in groups.  They also like good food better than bad food—however their culture defines those.  Thus, wanting to procure more and better animal and plant resources is not a mindless reflex of “population pressure.”  It is a way to cope with scarcity, but also a way to support larger, livelier setttlements with a higher quality of life, however defined by the people in question.  Also, humans do not always love the neighbors, as shown inter alia by the number of skeletons with projectile points in their bones in California cemeteries, and large settlements afford protection.  Pierce and Scholtze (2016) echo Bruce Smith’s call to look at cultural niche construction.  People increasingly create their own environments (not just niches!).  In California, burning and other management techniques clearly increased along with acorn and small seed reliance.

            The bow and arrow probably caused a minor revolution (Bettinger 2015:44-48).  Bows and arrows are better for getting game, especially small game, than the previous technology based on spears, spear-throwers (atlatls), nets, and traps.  An increase in animal bones appears at the time the bow and arrow reached California, around 400-500 CE.  This allowed people to capitalize on the improved plant management, because it provided enough protein to allow more sedentization in remote back-country areas rich in plant resources.  (Less remote areas had access to fish, shellfish, and nuts, and were not limited by quality protein availability.)  It allowed more sedentary lifestyles and more dispersal into small groups (especially in summer), for the same reason.  The land was used more efficiently.  Cultivation and, in the southeast, true agriculture expanded and flourished.  In the pinyon areas, for instance, pinyon exploitation greatly increased, because it was possible to spend extended time in the dry, otherwise-resource-poor areas where pinyons grow.  Vessels for carrying water must have had a lot to do with that.  Bettinger stresses the importance of stored food (largely nuts), which were family property rather than shared by all.

            Along the coast, things were very different.  The bow and arrow had much less effect, since the staples were fish, shellfish, and sea mammals (speared at landings or from boats).  What mattered most was sea temperature, especially in southern California, where warm currents from far south often intrude on the more usual cool water.  Warm currents brought fewer fish, and those larger, faster, and harder to catch.  Thus they were lean times for local people.  This affected demographics over time.  Yet, here too, there was a sharp inflection in the population growth curve around 4000-3000 years ago.  In this case, it seems to result from better marine technology, ranging from the Chumash plank canoe (dating to perhaps 2000-2500 years ago; Gamble 2002) to superior fishhook and net designs.  Again this went in tandem with social structure. Villages got large, with notable differentiation in burials.  The bow and arrow came even later on the coast, in some places as late as 1250 in some areas (Bettinger 2015:100).  It reached the Chumash around 500 CE, following which there was a rise in violence, and presumptively war, that cooled slowly as people adjusted to the new weapon (Bettinger 2015:109). 

This has recently had fateful effects, as southern California has been one of the poster children for the frequency and violence of war among hunter-gatherers alleged by Steven  Pinker (2011) and others.  If the violence-ridden cemeteries sample only a brief and atypical time, Pinker’s ideas need adjusting (as pointed out in detail from much other evidence in Fry 2013).  

Complexity, and probably language distributions, reached something like contact-period levels around 400-600 CE.  By this time, bow hunting, mortars to grind acorns and other large seeds, sophisticated metate production for small seeds, and agriculture in the far south were established.  Corn-bean-squash agriculture spread in from the southwest at some quite early stage, and was probably still spreading when the Spanish came; it was long-established by then in the Colorado River and Imperial valleys.  Local cultivation and possibly domestication of wild seeds—barley and, in the south, maygrass (Reddy 2016:237)—is implied by the seed record. 

            The weather turned hot and dry again after 900, reaching a climax in the late 1200s, which were apparently as hot and dry as the mid-2010’s.  Californians endured, turning to more intensive use of still-available resources, especially marine ones where available.  Shifts away from the formerly vast marshes of the interior are noteworthy.  California’s eastern neighbors crashed.  The Four Corners and Utah were about 90% depopulated.  Incipient civilization crashed into small village societies in the southern southwest.  People migrated, dispersed, set up villages wherever water was still available. The effect on California’s rather extensive trade with Arizona and points east must have been substantial. “[P]rehistoric interaction between the two regions was regular and sustained and…economic or political developments in one area are likely to have hadhad important implications in the other” (Smith and Fauvelle 2015:710), as shown by the very extensive and long-lasting trade that brought shells, asphaltum, and the like from the coast, turquoise from the California desert, and pottery and stone goods (and probably cloth) from the Southwest.  The trade dropped off sharply after the 1200s, but California kept growing in population and social complexity.

            Cooler, wetter times followed, and the Little Ice Age from 1400 to 1700-1750 restored glaciers to California’s highest peaks.  Plant resources exploded, and human populations grew accordingly.

There were only 250,000-300,000 Native Californians as of 1700 (Cook 1976).  This means fewer than two persons per square mile (California’s area is 158,633 sq. mi.).  This population likely represents a reduction from peak, however, because Spanish diseases had already ravaged the state (Preston 1996), having been introduced when Spanish first touched on what is now California—1540 along the lower Colorado, 1542 on the coast. 

Languages and Society

California is famous for the diversity of its indigenous languages (Golla 2011 provides an encyclopedic survey).  At least 64, possibly 80, languages were spoken (Shipley 1978; Golla treats 78), including two whole language families—Yukian and Chumashan—that are completely confined to the state.  Many people were multilingual, and in some areas it seems that the very concept of a single “native language” did not exist (Dixon 1907—if I read him aright; cf. Golla 2011)—a worthy example for us today.  (For background on California Native peoples, the classic account by Kroeber, 1925, is dated and now sometimes sounds patronizing, but is still a superb summary; more up-to-date and sensitive are the great Handbooks of the Smithsonian Institution, but one must not only read the huge California volume [1978] but also relevant parts of the Plateau volume [Walker 1998] and the Southwest volumes, since the state was divided among these various cultural regions.  For prehistoric times, see Jones and Klar 2007, especially Victor Golla’s excellent article on languages and language prehistory, which is summarized and updated in Golla 2011.)

Relationships of California languages with languages elsewhere are usually so remote as to be unclear.  Chumashan was once tentatively linked with several other Californian and Southwestern languages in the “Hokan phylum,” but Chumashan is in fact very distant from other “Hokan” languages.  Edward Sapir, and later in more detail Joseph Greenberg (1987), provided intriguing evidence for linking Yuki with the languages of southern Louisiana, and this appears to be a good likelihood (Golla 1911; it may also be very distantly related to Siouan). 

Edward Sapir and Morris Swadesh thought the Penutian family of languages of central California were related to the Mayan languages of Mesoamerica, and Greenberg (1987) accepted this.  There is much evidence, most obviously the win- root for “person,” as in Wintu wintu and Maya winik, and the tendency to count using base 20, which in Mayan is also “winik”—because the number is derived from counting on fingers and toes, so 20 is a whole “person.”  The Mayanist Cecil Brown and I investigated this idea some years ago, and found dozens of intriguiging pairs like that, but unfortunately the Penutian languages are so poorly attested in the record that we could not come to any definite conclusions and did not publish our work.  I remain convinced, however.  Penutian is generally thought to be related to most of the Plateau languages in a Penutian phylum.  Sapir and some followers considered it to be related to the Tsimshian languages of British Columbia, but that link is, at best, controversial.

One very important problem in understanding Californian, and other Native American, languages is that much was lost by the time that even the earliest ethnographers spread out to study the cultures.  In particular, all these languages had the same sorts of style registers that English or any other world language has.  There were styles appropriate to chiefly speeches, styles appropriate to medicine formulas, styles peculiar to particular animal characters in myths, and so on.  Particularly important was the division into high style, such as a chief would use in a formal speech, and ordinary daily style.  Victor Golla (2011:226-227) discusses what little is known, from the very few languages that survived long enough for such refinements to be noted. 

There was another, intermediate, register, such as a chief might use in his daily directives to the people (recall Garth’s observations cited above).  There were also special modes of speech used by shamans, and still others for myth-telling.  There were evidently some lower registers too, the equivalent of rustic dialect or slang.  We have no idea of most of these.  On the whole, all that was recorded was the ordinary register, the others having been forgotten (as noted by e.g. Laird 1976 for the Chemehuevi).  A. L. Kroeber did hear some formal speaking from Yurok and Mohave consultants, and gives tantalizingly short transcriptions of the Mohave (Kroeber 1972:81-83).

Hokan, Chumashan, and Yukian languages have been spoken in California for many thousands of years and presumably originated there.  Penutian languages are thought to have intruded from the north several millennia ago.  The Algonkian-related Yurok and Wiyot came later, and the Athapaskan and Uto-Aztekan languages later still, probably in the last 2000-3000 years.  Intrusion of the Shoshonean languages into the coastal areas happened about 1500 years ago, give or take a few centuries.  Dissimilar song and vocal styles (Keeling 1992a, 1992b) and vocabularies (O’Neill 2009) fit with other cultural differences, separating e.g. the otherwise culturally close Karuk and Yurok.  Both, for instance, indicate direction upriver/downriver/away from river, rather than by compass points, for reasons that will be obvious if you look at a map or satellite photograph, but Karuk—longer established—has a more complex and intricate system for marking it (O’Neill 2008).

Dramatic shifts in languages probably track changes in resource procurement.  The spectacular radiation of the Shoshonean groups from the southern Sierra into southern California (Takic) and across the Great Basin (Numic) coincides with the coming of the bow and arrow and probably has something to do with it—not only because of fighting and hunting power, but also because of better plant resource procurement (Bettinger 2015:48-49)

The state is traditionally divided into subcultural areas.  We may ignore these; they are rather debatable.  There are, expectably, cultural gradations at the margins into the neighboring culture areas. 

            More interesting to us here is the question of social complexity.  In general, Californian peoples lived in small village communities (“tribelets”; Kroeber 1925) of about 200-1000 people.  They centered around a single winter village or a very small group of such.  People dispersed in the spring and summer to forage and amass storable foods.  Some of these village communities were notably self-sufficient.  A. L. Kroeber interviewed one old man who had never been more than a day’s walk from his home in the remote northern California coast ranges (Kroeber 1925:145).   Bettinger (2015) takes limited mobility as usual.  Archaeology, however, shows substantial trade, and it appears more likely that this old man and others like him were limited in their travels by post-Anglo-settlement conditions.

            The smallest communities were apparently those in the Mohave Desert and Great Basin.  Even along the Colorado River and in the densely populated northwest, the operational unit was often the family; tribal consciousness existed but there was no real tribal government.  People lived in what Robert Bettinger calls “orderly anarchy” (Bettinger 2015).  He traces it to the effects of the bow and arrow on settlement (see above). 

William Kelly reported “anarchy” for the Cocopa (Kelly 1977, esp. p. 78).  For them, the word for “leader” literally meant “mad dog, crazy person” (Frank Blue, quoted Kelly 1977:80).  So much for leaders!  The Cocopa, like other groups, had orators, who performed the hard-work harangues noted above (Kelly 1977:80), but had no real designated authority. 

Even so, riverine communities on the Klamath, Sacramento, and (probably) other major rivers, and the coastal communities of the Santa Barbara Channel, were large.  Many of these in the latter two areas seem to have gone on to become chiefly villages ruling over whole polities, with small tributary villages in the hinterland.  This is believably, but not certainly, attested for the Chumash and Tongva (Gabrielino) of southern California.  It is a more than reasonable inference for the Patwin and neighboring groups of central California (cf. Kroeber 1932).  Chumash polities of up to 2500 square miles are possible.  (See Bean and Blackburn 1976 for several articles on California politics and group sizes.  Bettinger 2015 clearly underestimates the level of chieftainship and chiefdom organization.)  Unfortunately, we shall never know the truth, for these groups were shattered by conquest and disease in the early historic period.  The Patwin and several Chumash groups narrowly avoided total extinction.

            In terms of Julian Steward’s useful if imperfectly defined “levels of sociocultural integration” (Steward 1955), these were simple chiefdoms.  This means that they were organized into ranked descent groups, with chiefly lineages ruling over commoner lineages.  One village would be the chiefly seat; other, smaller settlements would be tributary.  Some Californian societies got substantially more complex, as will appear (see Arnold 2004; Bean and Blackburn 1976; Gamble 2008).  These groups thus not only had dense populations; they had complex societies with chiefs who evidently practiced redistribution economies.  Early accounts (Crespí 2001; Gamble 2008; Kitsepawit 1981) show that Chumash chiefs gathered fish and seed resources and lavished them on guests and others.  Their society was not much less complex that of the Iron Age Irish that we will consider anon, though the latter had sophisticated metallurgy, the wheel, writing, beer, wine, and other trappings of civilization. 

            On the other hand, we are not to see these societies as necessarily very similar to chiefdoms elsewhere, especially agricultural ones.  California’s societies were very different.  Kent Lightfoot and coworkers (1911) have pointed out that the vast shellmounds and earthmounds of central California, some of which contained hundreds or thousands of burials, are a unique feature that indicates a very different society, one about which we know little (most of the mounds are very old, up to 3000 years or more).  Villages of that time were large, but not of the size one would normally associate with huge earthworks.  This and other complex early manifestations indicate a society apparently rather different from any now known.

            They also warred, as chiefdoms do.  As in other chiefdoms from the Northwest to Ancient Ireland, chiefs held feasting and dancing parties that had a competitive edge.  To refuse an invitation to a chief’s fiesta could be cause for war, at least among the Chumash (Gamble 2008:194).  Wars over slights of this kind occurred also in northwestern California.  As is chiefdoms everywhere, feasts were important (Gamble 2008:224-227).  One reason was recruiting fighting men.  Another was cementing alliances with rivals would would otherwise have become enemies.  Cemeteries in the relevant parts of the state show high levels of violent death (Lightfoot and Parrish 2009:85-89), as is true in chiefdoms everywhere.  The Yurok writer Lucy Thompson stresses the enormous value of the huge Klamath River dance ceremonies in reducing conflict. All local groups were invited and had to settle disputes before participating.  Apparently this worked well, since no one wanted to miss these events (Thompson 1991:145-146 and elsewhere).  Presumably, large ceremonies in other parts of the state had somewhat similar effects.

Steward’s other levels of integration were tribes, bands, and states.  (Note, incidentally, that these are not “evolutionary stages” and were never intended to be taken as such [Steward 1955].  They are all the end products of very long and intricate developmental sequences.  Some of his students confused the issue by hanging an evolutionary scheme on them.)  The smaller village communities would be “tribes” in his sense (though not as organized as his general characterization implies).  Steward’s “band level” of integration was modeled on what he thought was characteristic of the Shoshonean groups of the Great Basin, but they have turned out to be much more organized and sizable, definitely “tribes” in his sense.  Steward mischaracterized them for several reasons, but the main one was that he studied them in their late historic condition, devastated by disease, massacre, oppression, and forced acculturation (Clemmer 2009b.)  States did not exist in California, or anywhere else north of central Mexico, until European colonization.

All the above typology crosscuts what is probably a more important truth:  All the California groups were organized into village-level or village-cluster-level societies, led by a not-very-powerful chief or a patrilineal chiefly group, and showing some occupational specialization.  All else was elaboration on this basic pattern.  The central village was not only the winter residence, but was the ceremonial center, where rituals and fiestas were held (Bean and Blackburn 1976).  It was the meeting ground not only for the community but for visitors and traders.  It was often regarded as the center of the world, or at least the center of the little world of its community members.  The situation of the typical village society was dynamic, with back and forth changes in complexity over time (Bettinger 2015), but it was oscillation around the village level of organization.

These groups managed to stay together and maintain their ceremonies and organization with minimal government, apparently through simple sociability and shared culture.  Even if the sources have exaggerated the “anarchy” of California, it was a world held together by norms, which in turn had their force because people needed each other and thus needed shared rules to live by.  Neither organized religion nor organized government were necessary.  Thomas Hobbes was exactly wrong; monarchy was not only unnecessary, it was downright undesirable.  Grassroots self-organization literally beat it out of the field.  There is, obviously, a lesson here.  California was no dream of peace.  There were countless feuds and small wars.  Steven Pinker (2011) exaggerates its violence, but probablly not by much.  Yet California was no “savage state” either; the life of Californians was the antithesis of being “nasty, poore, solitary, brutish and short” (Hobbes 1950 [1657]).  And the dramatically more hierarchic and class-ridden Northwest Coast had at least as much violence.

In the larger groups, the chief had an assistant or cochief who did the orating and much organizing (see e.g. Goldschmidt 1951; Librado 1977).  This dual leadership is probably related to the “peace chief/war chief” team found eastward throughout the continent.

 In general, the larger and more dense the population, the larger the elite group, and the more different it was from the commoners.  Also, the larger and denser the population, the more specializations could exist.  The deep interior groups had chiefs and shamans and little (if anything) more.  Leaders for irrigation, rabbit hunting, and other collective activities were selected ad hoc or were chosen for long periods by the tribe; they were known to the Anglo settlers as “water bosses,” “rabbit bosses,” and so on.  At the other extreme stood the Chumash, with specialized priests, healers, canoe makers, canoe owners and operators, and other formally recognized and named occupational specialties (Gamble 2008). 

Chumash elites formed a group known (in at least one Chumash area) as the ‘antap.  Data are not clear as to whether it was a hereditary class-like formation, a hereditary council of lineage elders, or a sodality like the Plains Indians warrior societies.  Perhaps it was somewhere in between all these.  We cannot tell from the late accounts that survive.  Similar groups of elites or ceremonial leaders are known for other chiefdoms in the state.  The Chumash also had a “Brotherhood of the Canoe” (Kitsepawit 1977), made up of canoe owners and makers; it was an elite, specialized society. 

My impression is that trade was more important than population size or density in driving these distinctions of rank and specialty.  Groups central to great trade routes, and especially the groups that lived where land trade had to shift to the water, were the most chiefdom-like.  This meant especially the great villages of the Chumash and Tongva, gathered around lagoons that made good harbors; the large Patwin and Nisenan settlements on the lower Sacramento and the Sacramento delta; the towns near the junction of the Klamath and Trinity Rivers; and the towns at good harbors on San Francisco Bay and Clear Lake.  I believe that organization for trade was more important than population in driving social complexity.  On the other hand, areas central to trade but low in population density, like the obsidian quarry areas of the East Sierra and elsewhere, were not socially complex, so a fair density of population is evidently a sine qua non for complexity. 

In spite of the well-known fondness of California groups for staying at home and never straying far, trade was important, and trading went on (see below).  People’s unwillingness to travel meant that many intermediaries might be involved, but contact was real, and small “world-systems” developed.  Christopher Chase-Dunn and Kelly Mann (1998) have described the world-system of the Wintu (see Goldschmidt 1951, one of the sources they used, for a notable account).  The Wintu was probably a subsystem of the great Sacramento drainage network focused on the Patwin.  Similar very small world-systems centered on the Yurok, the Chumash and Tongva, and the Lower Colorado River, and rather predict or map out Kroeber’s cultural subareas within the wider California system.  A world-system assumes a core group or groups; a semi-periphery; and a periphery.  For the Chumash-Tongva, the semiperiphery might be seen as including the interior Chumashan groups, the Salinan, Juaneno, Luiseno and Cahuilla; the periphery the Serrano, Vanyume and Alliklik.  The Chumash and Tongva were richer and more populous.  Unlike modern core nations, did not have a stable advantage in trade over these groups, but did have some advantage, and could defeat them in conflict.

The desert and Colorado River tribes had to travel much farther to stay alive, and thus came to love traveling, and to make long journeys fairly often.  In a striking passage, James O. Pattie (1962 [1831]), a fur trapper, tells of walking from the Colorado to the mountains of far northern Baja California in the 1820s.  He and his band of hardened mountain men barely made it—they crawled the last miles on hands and knees.  Their Indian guides not only ran on ahead to check the route, and ran back to the men, but when they all made it to water Pattie and his company collapsed while the Indians had a dance!   His group and other trappers took over a million beaver from the lower Colorado in those decades, eliminating the beaver and permanently changing and degrading the hydrology of the whole region.

California’s indigenous groups were shattered beyond all measure by European contact (Castillo 1978).  Diseases no doubt came with the first Spanish contacts in Baja California, the Lower Colorado (1540), and Cabrillo’s coastal voyage (1542).  Disease surely ran far ahead of Europeans thereafter, as it did elsewhere in the continent (Hull 2009, 2015; Preston 1996, but, as Hull points out, Preston goes far beyond the evidence).  Actual Spanish settlement in 1769—much earlier in Baja California—brought much more disease, as well as military action.  Indigenous peoples were gathered into the missions, which supplied little food, oppressed the Native peoples without providing rights or protection, and stopped much of the burning, hunting, and gathering (K. Anderson 2005; Timbrook 2007).  However, Native Californians could maintain some of their lifestyle, gathering wild seeds and hunting, since the missions could not feed them.  Virginia Popper (2016), analyzing plant remains from colonial sites, found several local adaptations, from Spanish continuing their Mexican lifestyles to Native people living quite traditionally.

Anglo contact was even more traumatic.  Diseases swept through the population.  A malaria epidemic in 1833 killed 1/3 of the population of the north-central part of the state (Cook 1955), and went on to ravage Oregon, where Robert Boyd’s study is exemplary (1999).  Smallpox epidemics were frequent, and endemic disease also occurred.  The relative role of disease in depopulation has been exaggerated (Cameron et al. 2015; Hull 2015).  Its absolute role was horrific, but genocide, virtual enslavement in the missions, poor nutrition, disruption of Indigenous lifeways, and other causes were probably as important in the declines of the Californian nations.

In the 1850s, northern California became one of the areas of the United States subjected to outright genocide:  state-backed, official or quasi-official campaigns of extermination (Madley 2012, 2016; Trafzer and Hyer 1999).  Most of this took place under the brief reign in the 1850s of the Know-Nothing party, which was pro-slavery and openly genocidal toward Native Americans.  The Yahi were eliminated except for a few survivors, notably the famous “Ishi” (R. Heizer and T. Kroeber 1979; T. Kroeber 1961).  The Yuki and their neighbors were almost wiped out (Miller 1979), as were several small groups.  The Wiyot of the Eureka area were subjected to massacre and were almost all killed (Elsasser 1978).  The Tolowa were decimated, as a spillover of the Rogue River War (Madley 2012).  This at least had the effect of showing the three connected tribes of Yurok, Karok and Hupa what was in store for them.  The Karok, and to some extent the other two with them, holed up in the fantastically rugged and inaccessible mountains of their homelands and fought back, in one of the very few genuinely successful resistance movements in the United States.  After decades of sporadic warfare, they received treaties and reservations, and are still among the most numerous and culturally intact groups in the western United States.  This is a story that, amazingly, has never been told, and it deserves a major historical study.  Heroic but ultimately futile resistance by the Cahuilla (Phillips 1975) and the Central Valley tribes (Phillips 1993) has received more and better historical attention.  So have the resistance campaigns of the relatively nearby Seri, Yaqui and Apache in Mexico and along the border, but, in general, successful resistance to genocide has not been much studied—a surprising and deplorable omission.

Elsewhere, Madley documents the murder of 1,340 Native people by California militias, 1680 by the U.S. Army, and 6,460 by settlers and vigilantes.  These are reasonable figures, but one suspects that many a murder is lost in the records.  Madley’s work has brought the California genocide from one of the least-known in history (my use of the term has been questioned in the past) to perhaps the best-documented genocide of an Indigenous population, with the possible exception of parts of Australia.  The sheer death figures do not even begin to describe the cultural effects, however.  Cultural repression in day schools and boarding schools, segregation, prejudice, deliberate breaking up of populations, scattering of groups between reservations that opened and closed with dizzying speed in the 19th century, and other methods calculated to destroy California cultures persisted for decades.  It is testimony to incredible resistance, resilience, and sheer toughness that some cultural groups survived as identifiable “tribes.”  More than a few white settlers, also, rallied to the cause, including such early “Indian lovers” as Helen Hunt Jackson and George Wharton James.  They could be unenlightened by modern standards, but they saved many people.

The Modoc War is perhaps the best known of the sad stories (Dillon 1973).  The Modoc were forced onto a reservation established for their traditional enemies the Klamath.  They were there subjected to harassment by both Klamaths and whites.  A small band left the reservation, holed up in the horribly rough and inaccessible lava beds of Modoc County, and held off the United States Army for six months, only to be ultimately starved out and sent to die in a prison camp in Oklahoma. 

The struggle still needs full treatment; it has always seemed to me to be the archetypal story of the conquest of the Americas.  We have the story in many versions.  In addition to the historical and anthropological accounts, we have contemporary accounts from several different points of view.  The settlers spewed out racist hate via local newspapers.  The army’s deep concerns and tactical debates are available in full (Cozzens 2002:98-298).  The Indian agent for Oregon desperately tried to prevent the war, but was overwhelmed, and we have his heartbroken story (Meacham 1875).  Most interesting, perhaps, is the narrative of the incredibly heroic Native interpreter Winona, transmitted through her son Jeff Riddle (1974).  Winona shuttled back and forth, at constant risk of her life, interpreting and mediating for both sides.  With this Rashomon-like kaleidoscope of views, and with the story’s location in the black and starkly beautiful lava beds, the tale would make a stunning film, but a tragic one, not a Hollywood show.

Throughout California and the west, even after pacification and treaties, food supplies were stolen by corrupt officials (Jackson1885; Phillips 1997), and educational institutions did more sexual abuse and labor exploitation than teaching.  Before 1863 Native people could be enslaved, and conditions after Emancipation were not always much better.  They could still be thrown off their lands illegally, as at Cupa in San Diego County (Castillo 1978).  Many groups had their reservations “terminated” in the late 19th and again in the mid-20th centuries; this involved giving them individual allotments, which they usually soon lost to sharp dealers or outright illegal squatters.  A thorough history of the Wintu (Hoveman 2002) provides documentation of one of the more fortunate groups; the Wintu, in the upper Sacramento drainage, survive, but were almost exterminated and lost almost all their land.

The last termination in the area was the Klamath Reservation termination in southern Oregon in 1954 (Stern 1966), the effects of which were so horrific that terminations were virtually ended nationwide.  Local entrepreneurs even resorted to the classic 19th-century trick of giving men bottles of whiskey in exchange for signing their names on blank sheets of paper—the paper later being filled in with a deed of sale of allotted land.

The sordid record of murder and destruction has been often told, and would not be worth raising yet again if it were not for the fact that, today, denial or partial denial of it has become commonplace.  Not only do the Euro-Americans gloss over it; the surviving Native groups often do.  This is an understandable but sadly misdirected reaction to their being called “extinct” or “culturally extinct,” for decades.  They naturally want to assert their survival. 

Indeed, they survived, and by truly heroic efforts—especially their own, but also the efforts of a few Anglos, such as Helen Hunt Jackson and George Wharton James.  But it was a near thing.  In 1900 there were only about 15,000 identifiable California Indians.  This fits perfectly with Henry Dobyns’ “95% rule” (Dobyns 1983)—the average Native American group was reduced 95% from settlement to lowest point.  There were actually many more individuals, mostly of mixed ancestry, hiding out or calling themselves “Mexicans,” but the total number was still tiny.  Only around 1900 did the precipitous decline from disease and cruel treatment begin to reverse itself.  In the 19th century, there was every reason to assume the California Indians would be gone in a few years, at least as identifiable ethnic groups. 

As it was, though population has fortunately rebounded, most of the languages are now lost, and the last few are kept alive by diligent efforts of a handful of Native people and cooperating linguists (see Leanne Hinton 1994, whose work has been outstanding). 

I would thus urge modern people, including Native people, to be understanding of the “vanishing Indian” attitude of 1900.  We should pay more attention than we have done to the level of loss through disease, oppression, and outright genocide.  We should pay far more attention to the relatively few people—including those forgotten Yurok and Karok fighters—who prevented the vanishing from being total. 

Native Californian Uses of Biota

Major resources are listed in Kent Lightfoot and Otis Parrish’s recent book, California Indians and Their Environment (2009).  The most useful plant resources were divided into two types:  nuts and seeds.  Nuts grew on trees.  Acorns were by far the most important.  The classic account is E. W. Gifford’s “California Balanophagy” (1957), “balanophagy” being a delightful coinage for “acorn eating.”  They could produce around 70,000 kg/sq km in prime habitat (Bettinger 2015:110, citing Martin Baumhoff), enough to feed far more people than California ever had.  There were many species, cropping on different cycles, so nuts were always plentiful.

Pine nuts, walnuts, buckeyes, laurel nuts, wild cherry kernels, and many other nuts were also important, more so than the literature generally suggests.  Resources such as pine nuts from gray and Coulter pines, for instance, were surely more important than the literature suggests.  Seeds came from a vast range of annual and small-sized perennial plants.  Some major ones were sage species, notably chia (Salvia columbariae), tansy-mustard (Descurania pinnata), redmaids (Calandrinia ciliata), tarweeds (Madia and Hemizonia spp.), sunflowers of several genera, and a great profusion of grass species.  Loss of people, especially from remote and mountainous areas, came early after Spanish settlement, losing us knowledge of much resource use.

Berries, fruits, shoots, sap, roots, bulbs, corms, cambium, and every other plant part short of hard wood were eaten.  Berries were particularly rich and prone to follow fires.  An odd line in Pedro Fages’ accounts of Spanish conquest mentions wine from elderberry fruits; he may have meant “juice,” but the Paiute made real wine from cactus fruits (Powell 1971:50), presumably having learned it from the Oodham, and the Opata of Sonora did indeed make elderberry wine—a lot of it—and it was apparently strong and good (Yetman 2010:38-39).  (The Fages entry spawned an odd story about wine from willow fruit, because someone misread saucos “elderberries” as sauces “willows.”)

            California ethnobotany has been richly explored over several generations, but we have probably lost most of the old knowledge.  Even so, what remains is stunning.  Most of the southern California tribes have produced full ethnobotanical books (for the Cahuilla, Bean and Saubel 1972; Chumash, Timbrook 2007; Kawaiisu, Zigmond 1981; Santa Ysabel Kumeyaay, Hedges and Beresford 1986; Baja California Kumeyaay, Wilken-Robertson 2018; Serrano, Lerch 1981; others in manuscript) and northern California has not been neglected (e.g. Welch 2013; for Northern Paiute, just across the line in Nevada, Fowler 1991; reviews, K. Anderson 2005; Mead 1986).  Ethnozoology is less well covered (but see Timbrook and Johnson’s Chumash ethnoornithology, 2013).

Old records remain important.  J. P. Harrington’s are the richest (see Timbrook 2007).  Powers’ Tribes of California (1877) preserved much.  Records are still being discovered and made available.  A recent publication by James Welch (2013) makes available the enormous wealth of information collected by John and Grace Hudson from the Northern Pomo in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  By the time that professional ethnographers reached the Pomo, the genocidal effects of white settlement (well summarized by Welch) had led to much loss, and the Hudson material is invaluable (e.g. noting 12 more basket materials than previously known).  Fortunately, a good deal of Pomo knowledge did survive, and does so still (Goodrich et al. 1980). 

Plants provided a rich source of effective medicines.  Among those proved by chemical analysis to “work” are willows and several other species (salicylic acid—the source of aspirin), many mints (menthol and similar oils), sagebrush (thujone, which is vermifugal and in high doses abortifacient), many tannin-rich barks, and a whole range of mild but useful antibacterial and antifungal compounds.  Mineral medications include naturally occurring salts, antibacterial compounds, absorbent clays, and many more.  Hundreds of plants used medicinally have not yet been fully analyzed.  The Native Californians were also eclectic; modern healers freely use not only Native remedies from all over North America, but even Chinese herbal medicine, as well as drug store cures (see e.g. Peters and Ortiz 2010).  Medical knowledge was highly prized, healers were enormously valued, and traditional medicine by both herbal and religious methods was very widely known and practiced—and to a striking extent still is.

            Animal foods included deer, elk, pronghorn, rabbits, gophers, squirrels and ground squirrels, and hundreds of bird species (Kay and Simmons 2002).  Countless insects were used (Sutton 1988).  Even the bones were ground up.  Small animals could be mashed whole, bones and all, into “gopher-burger.”  Larger animal bones were mashed and boiled to extract bone grease, an important food elsewhere in North America and probably locally in California (Sunseri 2015).

Hundreds of species of fish and shellfish were used. Sea mammals were important, perhaps more so than fish for the Chumash (Gamble 2008), such that some rookeries on shore were depleted (see below).  Areas along major rivers, and along parts of the coast with good harbors for canoes, could rely on extremely rich and reliable fish resources.  Shells were valuable for beads and tools after the animals within had been eaten.  The great salmon fisheries of the major rivers stretch the imagination.  Where there were no salmon, there were river-running trout; the huge rainbow trout of the Pyramid Lake drainage ran upriver to Truckee Lake to spawn, and at such times the river was described as more fish than water (LaRivers 1994, noting this is an exaggeration but that the runs were incredible; he notes that the Basin lakes are extremely nutrition-rich).  Ocean fisheries were important too, with vast runs of smelt of many species, sardines, anchovies, and herring, as well as plenty of larger fish.  A smelt run in 1857 left fish piled “a foot deep” on the beaches of northwestern California (Tushingham and Christiansen 2015:192).  Specialized fishing, with large seagoing canoes and huge riverine weirs and fish dams, developed after 1000 BCE, much of it within the last 1500-2000 years.  Intensive fishing and shellfishing in the south, however, came earlier, and indeed there were extensive shell middens dating to many thousand years ago.  (“Were,” because development has destroyed them on the mainland—within my memory, in Baja California and on Point Sal.  Research is now more or less confined to the islands.) 

Otherwise, animals could be very thin on the ground.  Ethnographic accounts suggest that rabbits (including jackrabbits, which are technically hares) were the most widespread and reliable land animal resource base.  Reptiles and predatory mammals were widely avoided as food. 

Mark Raab (1996), among others, has demolished the idea that Californians were rolling in food.  Most of the state is, after all, desert or barren mountain.  But some areas were indeed quite lush.  These were especially the interfaces between water and land, and most especially the high-energy ones: river deltas, current-swept channels, lakes with large feeder streams.  Populations were dense in the favored areas; numbers of people rose in feedback with elaborate technological and social systems.  In less favored areas, drought years or local disasters could produce real want.  Either way, population often pressed on resources.  Even so, with only some 250,000-300,000 people in a very rich landscape, California hardly suffered from serious long-term pressure on major resources.  Work-horse trees like oak and buckeye, and productive, management-responsive annuals like chia sage (Salvia columbariae), would support large populations in normal years.  Human populations would be trimmed back in years of extreme drought or flood.  Still, it is doubtful if the population figures represent a population at “carrying capacity.”  One suspects that they could have worked harder, stored more, fought less, and supported several times their contact-era population.

Storage was necessary, and many methods developed.  Meat and fish were dried or smoked.  Seeds were kept in baskets.  Acorns were stored in large raised granaries made of basketry, withes, or brush.  The Western Mono serve as a good example:  Christopher Morgan (2012) found that they lived in small communities (about 13 being typical but some reaching as many as 75) which had three or more granaries, but also had dispersed caches around the countryside, so that one was never far from stored acorns.  A granary held about 725 kg of acorns; about seven of these would support a community of 13, providing about 4 million calories (Morgan 2012:724-725).  Granaries were lined with pine needles—other groups sometimes used sagebrush, which is insecticidal—to discourage pests and keep the acorns dry.  Stored food had to sustain the groups during the long and harsh winter of their mountain habitat.  The far larger towns in lowland California had much less severe winters to contend with, but needed more food, and must have stored enormous quantities.  Bears raided caches, making extra storage necessary.

Bettinger (2015:90) has pointed out that meat, fish and the like are front-loaded: they are edible immediately and usually are so eaten, and if they are processed it has to be done immediately.  In California, that was largely an issue with fish, which had to be split and dried or smoked as soon as caught.  Nuts, especially acorns, are back-loaded: they are easy to gather and store, but take enormous amounts of processing.  So they are normally harvested in vast quantities in a brief harvest period, then stored to be processed and used at need.  This had social effects.  At one extreme, great assemblages of people were necessary to catch and dry salmon, but these assemblages would later disperse.  At the other, seed and nut dependence led to smaller but more stable, permanent groups.

Mineral resources were generally concentrated in a few spots, making widespread trade necessary.  Salt was required for survival and was sometimes hard to get.  Even more concentrated in source were obsidian and other silicates that would take a sharp edge; they were essential for points, knives, and the like.  At particularly good obsidian sources, I have seen the ground literally paved with flakes over many acres.  Good-quality grinding stone for mortars and metates could be surprisingly rare and valuable.  It is hard to imagine people carrying huge metates all over the desert, but they did, finding the labor worthwhile to get metates from superior quarries (Schneider 1993).  Soft chlorite schist, as on Santa Catalina Island, was mined for making bowls.   Marcasite became beads used as money in north-central California. 

The extent and importance of trade in California has sometimes been stressed (Lightfoot and Parrish 2009), but on the whole it has been underestimated.  Some communities, especially on the rather impoverished Channel Islands of the south, may have actually depended on trade for food, at least in some seasons (Arnold 1987, 2004).  If true—and it is highly controversial—this would be a very rare case worldwide of a hunting-gathering population depending on trade in staples.  Inland, California shell beads got as far afield as Arizona and northern Mexico.  Dentalium shell beads from Vancouver Island got to northern California.

The degree to which all these items truly constituted money is not clear.  They could be used for buying food, so they were not merely ceremonial (Bettinger 2015:184).  They were certainly monetized in early Spanish times, in areas of dense population, but the Spanish may have had much to do with this.  Clearly the shell items represented a kind of money, but only a special purpose currency, used in specific contexts, perhaps largely ceremonial ones in many or most cases.  Dentalium shells were used as money in the northwest of the state (and further north), but the fact that they were adorned and decorated so they would be happy and would lure more money to the owner (Bettinger 2015:182) shows how different the concept of money was there from what we now experience.

Indigenous Management

            The Californian peoples generally lacked agriculture, but there were significant exceptions, proving that they knew full well how to grow crops and could have done so if they had found it worth while.  Tobacco was grown very widely over the state.  The Karok, otherwise nonagricultural, knew enough about farming it to fill an entire book (Harrington 1932).  The neighboring Yurok believed that wild tobacco was dangerous, only cultivated tobacco being safe to use (Heizer 1978:650).

The southeast part of the state was firmly agricultural, growing the famous trinity of maize, beans, and squash, as well as several minor crops.  They also sowed wild grass, including the possibly domesticated local millet Panicum sonorum.  They may have cultivated amaranth species (Castetter and Bell 1951; Forde 1931:107-109; Nabhan 1982, 1985). 

The Owens Valley Paiute irrigated wild plants (Lawton et al. 1993).  This was presumably derived from true agricultural practices their ancestors carried out further south, since it is now beyond reasonable doubt that the proto-Uto-Aztecans were farmers, and the loss of farming in the Great Basin is a recent and derived condition (Hill 2001).  The Southern Paiutes of Nevada had agriculture from ancient times.  Sowing of wild seed crops is attested for a few groups (Lightfoot and Parrish 2009:127), and there were surely more groups who sowed.  Transplantation is also well attested, but especially for groups that had agriculture, notably the Kumeyaay (Shipek 1993).

Finally, increase in native barley (Hordeum sp.) seed size, to far beyond anything natural, took place in central California (Wohlgemuth 1996, 2004).  Similar seed dynamics are reported from the Los Angeles River area (Reddy 2016:237).  This implies either true domestication or at least intensive manipulation of stocks.  But the experiment ended:  the central Californians came to focus more and more on oaks and other tree crops, and the barley seeds shrank again, at least in central California.

In such a climatically fluctuating place as California, agriculture is difficult.  One need only read accounts by early European settlers trying to predict year by year, in the days before statewide irrigation systems.  Hunting and gathering must have seemed more reasonable.  But it too necessitated some higher organization if people were to manage the environment, store food, and accumulate fixed productive capital in the form of nets, weirs, canoes, and so on.  Hence the benefit of complex societies.  In an environment that is sometimes exceedingly rich but sometimes—and unpredictably—exceedingly poor, they make sense.

Also, the development of agriculture, throughout the world, took place in areas central to vast trade and communication routes.  Presumably the exchanges of goods and ideas were crucial.  Coastal California is a cul-de-sac.  Morever, the Californian biotic and cultural region has no single center; it is polycentric.  Even today, the Anglo-Americans of the Bay Area, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, and other cities all have their own subcultures and hinterlands.  There was no one confined lush area, like the Jordan Valley, Mesopotamia, or the Nile Valley in the Old World or like the Valley of Mexico in the New, to bring people together.   

The earliest agriculture in the world, that of the Near East, arose in a rather similar environment, but at oases within dry and desert-like parts of it.  Significantly, oases within California’s driest deserts are precisely the areas where agriculture waspracticed in the state.  Such lush pockets in an otherwise very challenging environment evidently make agriculture more appealing.  Near Eastern agriculture arose just after the Younger Dryas event, when environmental stresses and opportunities were high.  California had extremely few people at the time, and never had such climatic traumas afterward (cf. McCorriston 2000).

            Far more prevalent was intensive manipulation of wild plants (K. Anderson 2005; K. Anderson and Lake 2013, 2017; K. Anderson and Rosenthal 2015; Blackburn and K. Anderson 1993).  Native Californians pruned, trimmed, cultivated, selectively harvested, and in short did everything that a modern gardener does for her plants—but without domestication.  At the edge of the region, the level of cultivation of camas (Camassia spp.) and wokas (yellow waterlily seeds; Colville 1902; Deur 2009) reported for the Klamath and Modoc amounts to nearly or fully agricultural-level manipulation.  They also managed fish, and manipulated huckleberry intensively, as well as wild carrot and other root crops (Deur 2009).  So did their neighbors the Shasta, who also managed oaks for acorns (Gleason 2001).  Unfortunately, recording data on management was much less commonly done than recording ethnobotanical uses, and we are left in ignorance of most of it (see e.g. Welch 2013 on this issue).

            Geophytes—root, bulb and corm crops—were particularly subject to manipulation.  Corms of Brodiaea, Dichelostemma, and other plants (Anderson 2017; Gill 2017; Gill and Hoppa 2016; Wohlgemuth 2017) were particularly widespread and important.  Tubers of Cyperus esculentus, Eleocharis, and other plants (Lawton et al. 1976; Pierce and Scholtze 2016) were cultivated in the Owens Valley.

This level of management was a quite different startegy from agriculture.  It was, instead, whole-landscape cultivation, maximizing production across a huge range of resources.  By contrast, the Near Eastern Neolithic peoples in similar environments focused on two or three to cultivate intensively, thus inventing agriculture. 

The large bulbs and flowers of camas (specifically C. quamash  and—if it is a separate species–C. leichtlinii), the response of these plants to cultivation, and their striking failure to thrive and compete after the Native population was exiled from the meadows, all imply true domestication.  My impression from observing camas in the wild and growing it in my garden is that if it were grown by a “truly agricultural” people it would unhesitatingly be called a domesticate.

            Indeed, throughout California the level of management was impressive.  The area covered by camas and wokas was enormous.  Not far away, within California proper, the Shasta (Gleason 2001), Achomawi, and Atsugewi (T. Garth 1978) cultivated bulb- and root-rich meadows extensively.  Wild crops included monocots of many families—true lilies, Mariposa lilies, camas, and so on—as well as roots, mostly of the carrot family, such as wild carrots (Perideridea) and Lomatium.  Root-digging seems very generally to have involved careful cultivating:  small roots were left to regrow or were even planted; competing plants were removed; the soil was loosened; parts that could regrow roots were returned to the ground; and so on. 

Root-digging involved a veritable Protestant ethic of hard work and diligent, responsible effort.  Among the Atsugewi, men tried to marry the girls who brought in the most roots, and myths told of heroic diggers who married well (Garth 1978:237-238).  This was part of a more general ethic of hard work in all spheres of life, best studied by Garth among the Atsugewi, but generally found in California (see e.g. Spott and Kroeber 1942 on the Yurok).  Garth reports chiefs calling everyone up at dawn with harangues such as: “Get up and do something for your living.  Be on your guard.  Be on the lookout for Paiute [raiders].  You have to work hard for your living.  There may be a long winter so put away all the food you can” (Garth 1978:237). 

Probably no bulb-rich meadow in the state was left alone, and apparently all that were even remotely close to a settlement were cultivated quite intensively (judging from K. Anderson 2005, 2017, and Gleason 2001).  Even the Paiute and Shoshone, in some of the most merciless deserts on earth, enormously modified their habitats.  They have been involved in management efforts recently.  Many desert habitats were improved for wildlife and biodiversity by their care, as shown by Catherine Fowler (1992, 2013).  They conserved waterfowl—a staple food—by leaving eggs if there were hatchlings in the nest (Fowler 2013:165-167; taking all eggs from a recently-laid clutch does no harm, since ducks and coots simply lay more).  They also had cautionary tales to keep children from stealing too many bird eggs.

With Fowler we move partly beyond state boundaries into neighboring Nevada.  This allows us to include also the careful review by Richard Clemmer (2009a) of “conservation” among the Western Shoshone.  These groups did not preserve pristine wilderness.  They burned carefully and according to plans, sowed grass seeds, and managed vegetation.  They hunted pronghorn sustainably, planning hunts only when pronghorn populations had built up.  It is absurdly easy to overhunt pronghorn, because they are easy to lure and are slow reproducers.  An estimated 30-40 million pronghorn were reduced to 13,000 around 1900 by settler hunting.  Before that, large communal drives, under some sort of direction but probably not a specialized shaman, took place, especially around the time and place of pinyon harvesting (Wilke 2013).  Charms were used but there is some indication that some pronhorn were allowed to escape.  Certainly the areas were allowed to recover before another hunt.

They may have managed rabbits and beaver locally; evidence is unclear.  I suspect they did.  Clemmer notes that there were many beaver in the tiny Great Basin rivers when Anglo-American trappers got there.  This suggests either management or great difficulty in hunting the beaver.  Since the Shoshone were expert hunters, the latter is unlikely, so good management is implied.  Historic fur trappers had no difficulty in trapping beavers from these small, accessible streams.  Clemmer finds no evidence for management of pine nuts or similar resources.  Pine nuts crop in only some years, and when they do they crop heavily, so there is no real way to manage them.  However, the Timbisha Shoshone of California most certainly do manage pine nuts, by cleaning up the groves to prevent wildfires, brush competition, and the like from damaging the pinyon pine trees (Catherine Fowler, pers. comm.).  It should be noted that pinyons are notoriously erratic croppers—a strategy to foil seed-eating insects—and crop only every few years (Bettinger 2015:68).  People had to scout the neighborhood to find groves that were productive—an easy task, fortunately, since one can monitor the developing cones over a year or so.  Wandering hunters would report back, and the group would know exactly when and where to go when the cones were pickable—just before maturity, since at maturity they open and the seeds scatter or are devoured by a host of animals. 

Clemmer also found no evidence for intensive fishing or management of fish, but data rapidly caught up with him here.  Just outside our area, a major study by Deward Walker and collaborators turned up evidence for fishing on an enormous scale, with a huge range of sophisticated technology, by the northern Shoshone and their neighbors, who lived in the fish-rich Snake River drainage (Walker 2010).  This information presumably applies to the Humboldt River too, and one can be fairly sure that all Great Basin rivers were heavily fished.  Significantly, Walker found it “necessary to conduct research interviews in either the Paiute/Bannock or Shoshone language” (Walker 2010:55)—in the 21st century!  This is real tribute to cultural survival, and one that reminds us that lack of linguistic skills must have caused early investigators to miss a great deal.  Since the Shoshone (and closely related Paiute/Bannock) lived at the rivers’ headwaters, where streams are tiny, narrow, and often rather thin in fish, they could easily have wiped out the salmon and other large river-running fish.  The fact that salmon continued to abound proves some considerable degree of management.

Further, and much more thorough, work on plant and animal management in Nevada results from the comprehensive and thorough work of Jeremy Spoon and his many Southern Paiute coworkers in the White/Muddy river drainage of southern Nevada (Spoon and Arnold 2014; Spoon, Armold, and Newe/Nuwuvi Working Group 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Spoon, Arnold, Lefler and Milton 2015; Spoon, Arnold, Lefler, Wendel, and Nuwuvi Working Group 2013, 2014a, 2014b; these reports are quite repetitious but each has its own findings also).  Among newly reported information are care about pruning mistletoe from pinyon pines, and a great deal about managing water—desperately scarce in their area.  One elder observed:  “Science is a tool to measure stuff.  Culture is a tool to maintain what you have.  That’s what I believe” (Spoon et al. 2013:56).  These elders contrasted interaction with “management,” the latter seen as a not-so-good idea from the white settlers.  They noted a high respect for rocks, which remember whether they were moved for good or bad reasons—a belief I have encountered in Mongolia. One of Spoon’s reports is in fact titled The Voices of the Rocks Sing Through Us (Spoon et al. 2014b).  They also discuss talking with trees.  This makes solid sense when one is used to the significant silences—often filled with nonverbal communication—that mark and enhance Native American conversations.  Fire management is as among California groups described below; pruning, small patch burns in the right season, some clearing of brush beforehand, and general careful preparation and timing (Spoon, Arnold, Lefler and Milton 2015).

The level of personal restraint and responsibility involved could reach quite incredible proportions.  Philip Wilke (1988) found that desert junipers cropped for bow staves were carefully conserved.  A juniper with a straight branch was a rare commodity.  About one bow stave per twenty years could be taken from such a branch, preferably from the compression wood on the under side; then the juniper had to be left to recover.  Yet there are such trees all over the range of the juniper.  Bowyers had to be on their own recognizance—no one was out there patrolling.  Individual conscience restrained them from taking too much.  This self-policing went on for countless centuries over millions of square miles.  I have observed the same for yews in the Pacific Northwest; any venerable yew with straight branches shows the long, straight scars.  Such “culturally managed trees” are often well known locally, to the point that “CMT” has become a normal word in modern archaeology and land management.

California’s and Nevada’s indigenous people normally engaged in long migrations between winter villages and spring and summer harvesting grounds.  These migrations took them through successive habitats, usually on the route from lowlands to highlands and back.  Presumably the routes would change to avoid places heavily harvested in immediately previous years.  No meadow in the state, except extremely remote and high-altitude ones, would have been long ignored.  Archaeology shows this clearly.  Look around any meadow anywhere in the state, and (unless settlement or flooding have destroyed the record) you will find tiny scatters of flakes where someone sharpened a knife, broke an arrow point, or quickly flaked out a skinning tool.

            On the other hand, recent writers have been too quick to maintain that all California was highly managed, with wilderness a meaningless concept.  The Native Californians did not greatly affect the rough, infertile parts of the state, or the high mountains.  This was not purely because of indifference.   More significant was the use of remote mountaintops and high-mountain environments for vision quests and meditation, with the goal of gaining spiritual insights, knowledge, and ability.  Anthropologists generally refer to this as “power,” but, significantly, Native people speaking English usually call it “knowledge.”  It refers to a comprehensive spiritual vision that gives the visionary enough self-efficacy to accomplish important matters; the highest knowledge is generally considered to be that of healing.  In any case, all western North American peoples sought this, and depended on mountain wilderness for it.  All groups knew certain spots, called “power places” in the literature, that were particularly good for vision questing; mountaintops were particularly favored, but remotes lakes, waterfalls, and springs were important.  Of this more anon; at present we need note only that wilderness was required for a specific important use.

Most important of all was burning, but readers should remember that all those other techniques were important as well.  This was not simply “firestick farming.” 

            Fire was the chief way of managing the environment, and here the record is somewhat confusing.  There is no question that California Native peoples set fires everywhere that would burn, and that these very substantially altered the vegetation over vast areas of the state (K. Anderson 1999, 2005; K. Anderson and Rosenthal 2015; Lewis 1973; Lightfoot and Parrish 2009, with major review of literature; Pyne 2004; Timbrook 2007).  This was to be expected, for all Native American peoples except those in non-combustible environments (basically, Arctic and high-alpine areas and sand deserts) burned regularly (Pyne 2004; Stewart et al. 2002), and the effects on the vegetation were considerable; it is possible that the entire Eastern North American forest was deliberately maintained as an oak-chestnut-hickory community by burning (Delcourt and Delcourt 2004).

Juan Crespí’s diary from 1769 (Brown 2001; see Gamble 2008) is particularly revealing.  He noted not only widespread deliberate burning, but also that the vegetation in many areas was short annual pasture rather than the chaparral and coastal sage scrub that are now, or recently were, found in those locations.  The reviews by K. Anderson and by Lightfoot and Parrish list hundreds of sources covering dozens of groups. 

            On the other hand, a few doubters have raised their voices, and one of them is a formidable authority: Richard Minnich (1983, 1987, 2001a, 2001b, 2008), one of the two or three leading experts on California fire ecology.  He points out at length that much of the state is affected by dry lightning, which in the mountains can be an almost daily phenomenon in late summer, and that other sources of ignition exist.  (These might range from volcanism to spontaneous combustion in animal nests.)   California’s bone-dry summers and highly inflammable vegetation combine to guarantee natural fires on a cyclic basis.  California would burn sooner or later, indigenous people or no (see also Sugihara et al. 2006). 

Chaparral and some California forest formations are characterized by large numbers of species that seem actually designed to burn:  they dry out in summer and contain resins, waxes, and other compounds that are highly inflammable.  These species all either stump-sprout aggressively after fire, have fruits that need fire to open them, or have seeds that need fire to germinate.  Some authorities think that these plants evolved to eliminate competition and maximize their own dominance by this aggressive route. 

For instance, California’s most distinctive pine groups, the closed-cone and knobcone pines, have cones that normally do not open unless burned.  They live in chaparral, grow and fruit rapidly, and are designed to burn on 20-to-50-year cycles.  I have lived to see the knobcone pine forest on the San Bernardino Mountains go through two cycles and get well into a third.  Obviously they did not evolve in the last few centuries, and thus it is clear that California has burned since long before the Native Americans perfected their management systems.

Be that as it may, Native Californians burned chaparral regularly, to increase edible plant, mammal, and even insect resources.  Kat Anderson and Jeffrey Rosenthal (2015) report, for instance, that caterpillars, as well as grasshoppers, were managed by fire, which causes rapid regrowth of the tender new shoots on which they feed.   These authors describe the values of each stage of regrowth after fire.  Burning also opened the brush, making travel possible; a stand of mature chaparral is impenetrable, or at best very slow going.  Annual plants often produce more seeds (they need heavy seeding to survive) and greens than perennials do. 

Even fish could be helped.  Michelle Stevens and Emilie Zelazo (2015) point out that burning in summer opened up floodplains that flooded in fall, winter and spring.  Fish that spawned in those areas, including many important ones endemic to the central part of the state, were increased.  Another benefit was increase in number and quality of stems of plants used to make fishnets, such as Indian hemp (Apocynum cannabinum) and milkweed.  These plants grow in moist areas and produce longer, straighter stems after burning.

            A contrarian work is a volume edited by Thomas Vale (2002), which contains some articles on California.  Vale took a considerably more extreme position than Minnich, and argued that Native Americans did little managing by fire (or, for that matter, anything else).  Vale’s work might have had more impact if it had not been almost immediately buried under the enormous floods of counter-evidence in Stewart et al. (2002), Pyne (2004) and K. Anderson (2005).  Vale’s book was effectively answered, and refuted, by in a review by Henry Lewis (2003), the pioneer investigator of fire in Native North America.

            Vale, like Minnich, emphasized the probability that remote and mountainous parts of the state would be more influenced by lightning than by Native burning.  Lightning strikes were and are so much commoner that Native burning would not have affected the cycle.  Fire scars on trees have been used to assess the frequency of fires, but the vast majority of lightning strikes burn one tree (and perhaps its immediate neighbors) without starting a serious fire.

However, in California, the areas near dense Indigenous settlement are also the areas with the least lightning.  Dry lightning is almost nonexistent in coastal California.  Rivers and barren areas prevent the spread of fire from distant mountains, though it certainly does spread from nearby ranges (especially in the Santa Barbara area).  Fire return intervals in all these areas, even redwood forest, are so extremely frequent that lightning is highly unlikely to be the major cause (Kat Anderson, pers. comm, Feb. 4, 2014).

            Moreover, the testimonies of Crespí and others make it clear that the vegetation was burned far more frequently than even frequent lightning strikes would do.  Taken together, they describe millions of acres of annual pasturage.  Yet, in early historic times, these areas were brushlands. 

Minnich (2008) has established that the bunchgrass prairies of California’s interior valleys were nonnatural, and indeed many of them were purely mythical—early mappers’ overgeneralizations.  The potential vegetation of most of the valleys is saltbush and other brush.   Minnich has qualified his stand on the inexorable nature of burning cycles (Minnich 2008 and pers. comm, 2009-2010; Minnich and Franco-Vizcaino 2002).  It appears that chaparral and even desert vegetation can be burned much more often than it would naturally do.  This has made him more open to Native American burning as a landscape shaper.

            Californians were careful fire managers; they made very small fires for their own use.  J. W. Powell, writing on the Paiute, says: “…an Indian never builds a large fire…and expresses great contempt for the white man who builds his fire so large that the blaze and smoke keep him back in the cold” (Powell 1971:53; this confirms a very widespread American folk observation that I have heard since my childhood). 

            In short, the evidence is unequivocal.  They certainly managed well-populated parts of the state by burning.  On the other hand, their ability to reshape the vast lightning-prone mountains of the state seems limited.  K. Anderson (2005, and pers. comm, Feb. 4, 2014) finds that they maintained and expanded the mountain meadows and coastal prairies of the state.  These are now rapidly growing up to forest, in spite of lightning strikes; but deliberate fire suppression and the current years of drought (which favor trees over meadow grass) are involved in this. 

Another equivocal case is oak woodlands.  Oak seedlings die when burned.  Frequent burning of oak groves would eliminate them.  On the other hand, oaks survive burning when they grow large enough to have thick bark.  I have seen coast liveoaks sprout rapidly back from the very hottest fires.  It takes about ten years for a live oak to reach fire-withstanding age.  Thus, rarer burning—once a new generation of oaks had grown up—would eliminate fungal and insect pests, thin out the competition, and maintain the groves. 

A problem for everyone trying to reconstruct Californian vegetation as of 1700 is that Europeans replaced deliberate burning with deliberate fire suppression.  The Chumash were already seeing this as a major hardship, and complaining about it, by 1800 (Gamble 2008; Timbrook 2007).  The Achomawi, later, complained and regretted the ruin of the forests (Rhoades 2013:112).

The only possible conclusion is that human-set fire profoundly affected areas near large population centers, minimally affected remote mountain and desert areas, and affected to an unknown and probably unknowable degree the vast in-between zone.

            The situation in regard to animals is even less clear.  California Native peoples overharvested the choicest shellfish, such as abalone, which are delectable and easy to over-collect (Jones, Porcasi, Gaeta and Codding 2008; Kennett 2005; Lightfoot and Parrish 2009, summarizing a very large and contentious literature; Rick et al. 2008).  It seems clear that depletion was very slow and gradual, and frequently reversed (Rick et al. 2008).  People were fairly careful stewards.  They may have overharvested fish, but the wild swings in fish populations caused by ocean dynamics make this impossible to judge.  Fish have to accommodate to the sudden alternations of El Niño’s warm water and La Niña’s cold, both unpredictable in extent and reach.  Anyone familiar with fishing in California (especially the south) knows that species of fish, sometimes in enormous numbers, suddenly appear and as suddenly disappear when such events occur (cf. Gamble 2015; Jones et al. 2016). 

Chumash fishing pressure in the Santa Barbara Channel, however, was enormous, and declines of easily overharvested species like sheepshead in the archaeological record are therefore significant.  The Chumash had several named types of net.  A 20-foot gill net required 12,500 stems of Indian hemp (Apocynum cannabinum), which would have to be prepared, retted, and spun.  A 40-foot seine required 35,000 stems.  With these nets they took great quantities of small fish (Johnson 2015).  With these, they could easily fish out streams and bays.  Indian hemp was carefully managed—pruned, selectively harvested (K. Anderson 2005).  Its sporadic occurrence, especially in places where it does not normally grow (such as dry lowlands) and which are not very near other stands, strongly suggests deliberate planting.  Apocynum androsaemifolium was an inferior substitute in dry mountain areas, and nettles were also widely used for cordage; both were managed.

Recent research on the Channel Islands shows a tendency for popular resources to decline in hard times, but the staple shellfish—mussels—was about equally common through time (Lapeña et al. 2015; cf. Joslin 2015).  Mussels still abound on the islands.  The highly favored abalones were sharply reduced during hungry times, but were still abundant till modern settler societies got at them and destroyed the resource—a fate conspicuously absent from the closely corresponding Isla Cedros in Mexico, where local conservation is still the rule (Des Lauriers 2010).  The Channel Islands were settled by 13,000 years ago, and quite densely populated for most of the time since.  In spite of epidemics, they remained densely populated till the people were forcibly removed to the mainland in the Spanish colonial period.  These islands are small and absurdly easy to overexploit, so the fact that they were still resource-rich through the 18th and 19th centuries implies extremely careful and thorough resource management.

Seabirds were little disturbed, but a flightless duck (Chendytes lawi) became extinct, through human hunting and probably also through predation by human-introduced animals including foxes (Jones et al. 2008; Rick et al. 2008; Rick et al. 2009; Whisler et al. 2015; there was also a puffin, Fratercula dowi, but it was so rare that no one knows what happened to it).  The duck lasted for some 8,000 years after human contact, however (Jones et al. 2008; Jones and Codding 2010), which indicates human restraint.  Indeed, one wonders why the Chumash allowed it to die out; it could easily have been quasi-domesticated.  They may have hunted it for prestige (Hildebrandt et al. 2010) but probably did not (Jones and Codding 2010; I agree with them that hunting a smallish bird that could not escape would not give anyone much prestige).  I suspect that period of unfavorable climate may have led to both natural decline and desperation-caused overhunting.  The case seems to me more interesting than the insignificance of the bird would warrant, since we have here a prey that could very easily be exterminated, yet was not for many millennia.   

            A classic study of indigenous conservation was Sean Swezey and Robert Heizer’s study of salmon management on the Klamath River (Swezey and Heizer1977; see also Kroeber and Barrett 1960, Tushingham and Christiansen 2015).  The tribes there allowed escapement of salmon to preserve the stocks.  This was ritually represented; first-salmon rites, weir inauguration rites, and other ceremonies provided a cycle that regulated take and escapement.  Prayers to the salmon to return in abundance were part of the maintenance; the Karuk prayed with the wonderful word ?imshírihraavish, “you will shine upriver quickly” (O’Neill 2008:101).

However, this was not all; any temptation to cheat was reduced by the fact that the tribes upstream would protest, often violently, if escapements were inadequate.  People kept each other honest.  Everyone wanted an equal chance at the fish, and would enforce it through warfare if necessary. 

Rules on fishing were tight.  Robert Spott reported that his people, in the first half of the year (by their reckoning), could not take or eat salmon below Cannery Creek; if a salmon was caught right at the point where the creek entered the Klamath River, only the part that had passed the creek mouth border could be eaten (Spott and Kroeber 1942:172; a great deal more about salmon rituals follows).  Weirs that could take 50 days to build were demolished after 10 days of fishing, to allow escapement.  This emphasizes how strict the conservation rules were on the Klamath.

            Recall that the Native people of California’s northwest were blissfully lacking in formal government, so, as with Great Basin bow stave trees, this management was entirely based on people’s individual consciences reinforced by public opinion. 

            It seems highly likely, and locally certain, that similar fishing regulations held throughout the state.  At contact, most of southern California’s small streams had steelhead runs.  A run even survives, or did until very recently, in tiny San Mateo Creek in Orange County, and, again until recently, in Malibu Creek in Los Angeles County.  All the streams in the region are so small that a single determined fisherman could wipe out a run.  The San Mateo Creek run was down to one female at one point.  These runs could not have survived without deliberate restraint, given the high aboriginal hunter-gatherer populations.  Similarly, the dense population of Pomo around Clear Lake could not possibly have subsisted on its fish resources (as they did:  McLendon and Lowy 1978) unless they practiced careful conservation.  There were just too few fish, and these few have to run up the creeks or concentrate in shallows to spawn, making them utterly vulnerable.  Even the simplest aboriginal fishery could have wiped out the runs within a year or two.  But we have no documentation on this; apparently nobody thought to ask.

Another case in point is the abundance of enormous trout and suckers, and the lack of decline in their numbers, in the Lost and upper Klamath Rivers of the California-Oregon border country (Stevenson and Butler 2015).  The Lost River in particular is a tiny stream that almost dries up in drought years (hence its name—it tends to disappear in, or even before reaching, the vast Tule Lake sink), and only careful management could have preserved large fish in it.  Mismanagement since contact almost wiped out the Lost River sucker, but it is recovering under intensive management.  Suckers were also important on the upper Pit River, where the Achomawi not only still fish for them but still carefully manage them, watching and protecting their spawning areas and not taking too many (Floyd Buckskin, pers. comm.). 

Native Californians probably overharvested mainland colonies of seals and sea lions (Broughton 1994, 2002; Jones et al. 2004), but probably not as much as sometimes alleged (Jones et al 2004 pull back from their own earlier estimates; and see Rick et al. 2008).  Remember that grizzly bears and gray wolves entered the state at the same time humans did, and would have made mainland pinniped colonies nonviable, humans or no.  Native hunters probably kept numbers of elk and deer well below potential (Kay and Simmons 2002; compare the much better evidence for the Columbia River area, in Martin and Szuter 1999).  They tried their best to keep the numbers of grizzly bears down, but probably with limited success.  How much they could affect these animals, and how much they tried, remains unclear.  Extermination of the megafauna no doubt allowed deer and elk to expand their populations enormously, because of competitive release.  I suspect the Native peoples came into some degree of conscious equilibrium with them.  Elk, deer and mountain sheep all tame themselves if given any chance, and herds habituated to human presence might have been cropped almost like livestock.  Indeed, red deer are farmed today in Europe and New Zealand; red deer are basically the same as Californian “elk.”  They are tamed, but not domesticated; true domestication involves a genetic change to a new and artificially selected strain, but red deer remain genetically wild. 

William Hildebrandt (e.g. Hildebrandt et al. 2010) has long argued that much hunting was done for prestige rather than for economic return; very likely true, but I doubt whether this was significant.  The Native peoples had too little margin.  They had to hunt rationally for food.  Prestige would naturally accrue to anyone bringing in a huge amount of meat, but I believe people forewent rabbits to hunt deer because they knew the deer would provide more meat rather than because it would provide more prestige.  After all, a good-sized deer, around 180 lb., would dress out around 100 lb meat, and thus provide as much meat as 100-150 cottontails or 1600 sizable shellfish.  Even a fair chance at a deer would thus beat all but the biggest rabbit hunt or shellfish expedition in economic terms.

California’s sparse population was really not enough to do much damage to fleet, widely-dispersed game like deer and pronghorn, though the effect on more concentrated stocks like sea lions and tule elk, to say nothing of abalone, could be severe.  Burning would be likely to lead to increases in deer and elk.  Slow-moving animals like porcupines would be caught in the fires.  Many species would be indirectly affected by opening up the landscape. 

California’s population was not evenly distributed.  Along the Santa Barbara Channel and the lower Sacramento, and around San Francisco Bay, there were at least ten persons per square mile (judging especially from Chumash population estimates, the best we have for a densely-populated part of the state; see Gamble 2008, Kennett 2005).  Conversely, the higher mountains and the Mohave Desert had a tiny fraction of a person per mile (I would estimate one person per ten square miles for the Mohave).  Intensity of management and of hunting obviously varied proportionately.

However, the Mohave Desert people managed to overhunt the bighorn sheep seriously.  They were bighorn specialists, and when the bow and arrow came in, a fatal temptation presented itself.  Sites show rapid decrease of bighorns; the rock art showing thousands of bighorns in that area may have been made in an increasingly desperate attempt to call the sheep back spiritually (Garfinkel et al. 2010).  It stopped short around 1300, probably because Numic speakers with a different lifestyle replaced whoever was there before.  Possibly the latter were dying out from the consequences of their folly.  One assumes that this was not the only overhunting story in ancient California.

An  insight into Californian hunting is found in Frank Latta’s work on the Yokuts (Latta 1977).  Asking Yokuts hunters how far their bows would shoot, he was told that no one knew.  No one would waste an arrow and its valuable stone point by shooting it at a distant target.  Hunters disguised themselves in deerskins and sneaked up on deer and other animals, finally shooting from 10-20 yard range.  John Wesley Powell noted the same thing among the Paiute (Powell 1971:49), and, indeed, traditional hunters worldwide did the same.  This indicates an appreciable tameness on the part of the deer.  Deer are not stupid, and are notoriously hard to sneak up on.  The author recalls a story from many years ago:  just before hunting season, a couple of California wildlife trackers painted a buck deer bright orange, fitted him with a radio tracker, and followed him for a day through the brush of the Shasta County back-country.  They knew exactly where he was at all times, thanks to the radio, but they saw nothing of him except a flash of orange for a few minutes. In Michigan, a herd of deer in a 50-acre fenced enclosure were intensively studied and censused year after year, but the lead buck was never seen.  He avoided all contact even in that tiny space, being known only from his tracks and shed antlers (Pierotti 2011:87).

Wanton, uncontrolled hunting would make close-hunting tactics impossible.  Early explorers were told similar things by coastal peoples.  The exceptionally powerful Hupa bows could shoot a deer at 50 to 75 yards off, and the Hupa could shoot clear through the soft parts of an animal (Goddard 1903:33).  But the Hupa preferred to get close, and disguised themselves as deer so well that they had to take pains to avoid mountain lion attacks (Goddard 1903:21).  So did the Maidu—one hunter was attacked within living memory (Jewell 1987:125). 

Deer were occasionally driven over cliffs, at least by the Wintu (Lapena 1978:336), but this must have been an exceedingly rare event.  To anyone who wants to drive deer over a cliff, all I can say is Good luck!  I’d rather try to push water uphill with a rake.  Deer jumps are known for the Spokan (Ross 2011:304), but required extensive and careful planning, as well as rituals.  The gullibility of city anthropologists on the subject of “jumps” and “cliff drives” never ceases to amaze those of us who have some field experience.  Game animals are not stupid, and know a cliff when they see one.  Cliff drives required very careful preparation, with many people organized to panic the animals and keep them stampeded in the right direction, and if possible with fires.  People must line the intended drive path, yelling and waving blankets.  If possible, fences or barriers will be set.  This works for buffalo and sometimes with elk, but was evidently an uncommon way to get deer.

Pomo hunters supposedly knew, individually, every deer in their hunting radius, and indeed it is fairly easy to learn to recognize individual deer and know their peculiarities.  My Maya friends in Yucatan know their local deer that way, and, for comparison, early Irish hunters did too, as shown by the individually named stags in Irish epics.  This allowed the Pomo to manage the deer (Blackburn and Anderson 1993:20, citing Burt Aginsky).  Indeed, traditional Native American hunters are apt to know individually every large animal in their regular hunting areas—at least that is my experience in the Northwest, Mexico, and the western United States.

            The much-debated “Pleistocene overkill” need not concern us very long here, since we are dealing with recent management systems.  Still, it requires a note.  Paul S. Martin inferred long ago that Native American hunting was the sole factor in the disappearance of most of the large mammal species in the Americas around 12,000-14,000 years ago (Martin and Klein 1984).  In its original form—involving a sudden enormous expansion of human populations and hunting—this thesis is not credible.  It assumes a population growth rate of 3% over a vast area and a long time; nothing remotely like this has ever been observed in premodern populations.  It assumes people spread with lightning speed throughout the Americas.  And it assumes that people killed wantonly, since even a high population would not have needed more than a tiny fraction of the meat supposedly taken.  Surely, even without any conservation ideology, hunters would have thought twice about going after mammoths and mastodons simply to destroy them.  The danger would have been daunting.

            Moreover, mass kill sites are singularly absent.  We have a few scattered mammoth and mastodon kills, but not much else.  This is in stark contrast to the huge bison kills, involving thousands of animals, that happened later, without exterminating the bison.  Contrasting, also, are the massive boneyards on Sicily and Cyprus, where humans unquestionably exterminated the local dwarf elephants and hippos (Simmons 2007; displays in Sicily’s historical museum at Syracuse, studied Jan. 1, 2009).  On Cyprus, one site alone has the bones of over 500 pigmy hippos (Simmons 2007:231)—couple that with post-Pleistocene drying and heating, and there is no question why that species went extinct!  This is exactly what we do not find anywhere in early North America.  It is simply not credible that the there was better preservation on a couple of Mediterranean islands than in the whole North American continent.  There is also the fact that the vast terminal-Pleistocene boneyards we do have, such as the La Brea tar pits, contain few or no human kills.

            Thus, many authorities, notably archaeozoologists such as Donald Grayson (over many years—e.g. 1977, 1991, 2001), and Steve Wolverton (Wolverton et al 2009 and references therein) have given no credence to this hypothesis.  Neither have Native American authorities like Raymond Pierotti (2011).  Grayson pointed out long ago that many bird species, and several small hard-to-catch animals such as rabbits and dwarf pronghorns, went extinct.  The birds were mostly carrion-eaters that died out when their food did, but some were large water birds such as storks, and only climate change can explain their demise.

            On the other hand, it is hard to deny some role for human hunting (see, once again, Kay and Simmons 2002; also Krech 1999 for a relatively balanced review).  This is especially true since we now know that people were in North America earlier than Martin thought, and that some of the megafauna—notably the mastodons—persisted much longer than he thought.  Spreading out the time frame makes the levels of population growth and hunting much more believable.

People are highly efficient hunters.  Animals like giant ground sloths would have seemed like walking free-lunch counters.  The native mammals had no evolved or learned knowledge of humans and no defenses against group hunting with spears.  On the other hand, they would have learned it fast—certainly the mastodons had plenty of time.  It is not credible that animals used to avoiding sabretooths, lions, dire wolves, short-faced bears and the like would not soon figure out that humans were dangerous (veteran field biologist Raymond Pierotti 2011 makes this point).

The most convincing argument for overkill is indirect:  everywhere that Homo sapiens has gone, large animals have immediately begun to disappear.  This effect has been observed, archaeologically, from Australia, Madagascar, Indonesia, east Asia, and indeed everywhere carefully studied on the globe.  Some scholars have made far too much of this, though, by blaming even the extermination of tiny flightless island birds on humans; in this case the damage was surely done by the rats, dogs and pigs that people generally bring with them.  In New Zealand, for instance, rats came with the Maori, and probably did more than humans did to exterminate the moas.  The latter were ground-nesters with eminently edible eggs, and rats love nothing better than bird eggs.

In the Americas, the extinction pattern fits climate, not hunting.  The uncommon meso-size fauna went first, not last.  If humans had hunted everything out, the biggest, slowest, meatiest animals like ground sloths and mastodons would have gone first, the mesoprey later, according to all tenets of optimal foraging theory and common sense.  The truth was exactly the reverse.

I believe that, in the Americas, human-set fires were surely far more important than hunting.  (This is based partly on my observations of, and my reading of scholarly research on, burning in Australia and Madagascar.  It seems to be now generally accepted that fire, not hunting, was the human factor in extinctions in Australia around 50,000 years ago.  Both humans and climate change are implicated in the rise of fire.) Slow-moving species like the giant ground sloths could hardly have withstood frequent burning. 

Also, humans and other invading species after the peak of the last glaciation probably introduced diseases, and epidemic disease could well have had a role in wiping out the big game.  Within historic times, diseases have decimated North American trees such as the chestnut, white pines, and California oaks, and have wiped out Hawaiian native birds. 

Last and most serious, climate change after the glaciation was extremely rapid and disruptive.  Similar rapid and dramatic extinction events occurred at the ends of previous glaciaations, such as the Ordovician-Silurian event (Finnegan et al. 2011).  Humans were, obviously, not involved in those events.

North America 18,000-20,000 years ago was probably the coldest it has ever been.  It was hot and dry by 12,000, but then the Younger Dryas event dropped temperatures back to Ice Age levels around 11,000 years ago.  This in turn reversed, and an extremely hot and dry period set in by about 6-7,000 BCE.  (On ancient California, see Jones and Klar 2007.)  The changes were extremely rapid.

It would take only a few successive years like the horrific droughts of 2001-2002 and 2011-2015 to exterminate all lowland big game in California.  There would simply not be enough water for them.  Alternatively, and more probably, a couple of very dry years would so concentrate the megafauna, and so reduce human hunters to starvation, that any notions of conservation would go by the board, and desperate humans would indeed kill the last few mammoths.  I expect that climate change (basically drought), fire, disease, and hunting, in that order of importance, were all factors.

            The whole controversy has been greatly exacerbated by personal feelings.  The overkill hypothesis has proved popular with those who have an exceedingly limited faith in humanity’s ability to manage anything, especially biologists.  Some of these are frankly anti-Native American.  However, also among these ranks are more pro-human and pro-Indigenous anthropologists and other social scientists who dislike the “ecologically noble savage” stereotype (Kay and Simmons 2002).  Some of these scholars, like Raymond Hames (2007; his experience is in South America), have worked with Indigenous groups that lack any conservation ideology and hunt without restraint.  Others, including Kay and Simmons (and the present writer), see the “ecologically noble savage” stereotype as patronizing, and prefer to contemplate efficient if merciless hunters rather than meek and inept ones. 

Skeptics who doubt that humans exterminated the megafauna have included not only Indigenous writers like Vine Deloria, but also those who have little vested interest one way or another (such as Grayson and Wolverton), and even those who stalwartly reject the “ecologically noble savage” concept but are even more skeptical about Martin’s hypothesis (e.g. Krech 1999). 

            As with fire, we are left in some doubt.  California’s indigenous people certainly hunted hard and cropped the more vulnerable fish and shellfish as close as they could.  On the other hand, there were no extinctions after the end of the Pleistocene, and archaeology shows only rather minor declines in game populations over time.  Apparently people and wildlife reached a loose equilibrium. 

Ownership

            Ownership is critical to management.  Since John Locke, conventional wisdom has it that private ownership is best, but modern experience suggests that ownership at appropriate levels of management is better.  The California peoples already knew this.  Resources were owned or held at various levels (Bettinger 2015).  Individuals owned their own tools and implements.  Large productive capital goods like canoes could be owned by rich individuals, families, or associations.  Houses were owned by the families that lived in them.  Generally, but not everywhere, families or lineages owned particular patches of food-producing plants, or individual oak trees, or other productive land resources.  More remote areas of the state, however, tended to have community ownership of land, at least of remote lands.  Families or village communities owned good fishing spots.  The village community owned ceremonial structures and grounds, and held control with varying degrees of formality over resources.  As usual, there was variation in different parts of the state, from the far northwest where everything was owned by individuals or families to the much more collectivist northeast and south. 

The Luiseño, for instance, had four levels of ownership.  Individuals owned their portable goods.  Kingroups or groups of related people owned tungva “gardens,” understood to be oak groves, productive berry patches, and the like.  Village communities owned tchon tcho’mi, specific areas for collective exploitation. Larger tracts of relatively useless land were held as territory of particular village communities, but were not subject to specific management by socially constituted groups (White 1963).  The Achomawi maintained rights to hunt and gather on land, owned by kingroups or possibly local groups (Rhoades 2013:68). 

Fighting was generally about revenge, sometimes women, rarely property.  Still, land and resource conflicts were numerous and important enough to define groups and color lifestyles.  Access to resources was generally restricted to the owners, especially relative to other North American peoples (Bettinger 2015:132-134).  We read of people fighting over berries, oak trees, and productive areas of land (e.g. Gamble 2008:258; Rhoades 2013; White 1963).  Like many other people, they exaggerated their grievances; Walter Goldschmidt, George Foster, and Frank Essene, comparing notes in the 1930s, found that the groups they were studying described the same war, but each claimed it was the aggrieved one, and that it held on though badly outnumbered (Goldschmidt et al. 1939).  Raymond White (1963) recorded in detail the wars between Luiseño villages over resource encroachments.

The Yurok had an exceedingly complex ownership system.  Some things were owned in common (“’everybody’ ownership”), others by the village or group of houses, others by the house (which usually contained an extended family), others by individuals (note that this is very similar to Luiseño ownership).  At least after white settlement, individual land ownership existed.  Individuals might hold fractional shares of an item.  Songs and ceremonies as well as resources and wealth goods were named (Pilling 1978:146-147).  For the neighboring Hupa, Goddard (1903:26) notes extended-family ownership of acorn groves and of fishing sites and stretches of fishing streams.  Bettinger (2015:168-70) sees this as the limiting case of his “orderly anarchy.”  He clearly underestimates the role of community and elders, since the large towns of the northwest did function smoothly and coordinate everything from weir-building to the yearly ceremonial round, but certainly ownership tended to be at a grassroots level.

The Nomlaki occupy an intermediate position, with individual ownership of personal goods and also certain trees and the like; otherwise they preferred community ownership—villages headed by chiefs who administered (Goldschmidt 1951:340).

For the Cahuilla, Lowell Bean and Katherine Saubel (1972) describes family ownership of small plant resources, lineage ownership of individual oaks, and village community ownership of land and major resource clusters. For the Chemehuevi, descent groups owned territories.  These groups owned songs—notably the Mountain Sheep, Deer, and Salt songs—by hereditary right, and sang them to assert ownership and to show and teach knowledge of the ground.  Large, vague divisions of the Chemehuevi owned the songs.  Families owned specific versions of them, and these went with territory they owned, controlled, or habitually visited.  Such song groups were exogamous (Laird 1976:21).  The songs described the country, often in the form of travels through it; the Salt Song, for instance, traced a circle from the Bill Williams River (in southwest Arizona) through southern Nevada, eastern California, and back.  In striking parallel to the Australian Aborigines, these ownership songs recounted travel over the country, with human reactions, sacred places, waterholes, and other important matters incorporated (Laird 1976:6-18).

Since we are not talking about formal states, land was not formally owned, surveyed, and measured; vast remote tracts were open for anyone (though loosely held by the nearest village), and large shadow-zones existed between village holdings in such resource-poor areas.  Conversely, rich lands were grounds for major and serious conflict. 

            All this was less complicated than it looks.  The basic principle is that everything was owned at the level at which ownership was most efficient.  It would hardly be sensible for the whole community to own a bow and arrow set.  Conversely, an individual could not possibly hold (even if he or she owned) a large oak woodland.  The size of a particular resource item or patch seems to have determined the size of group owning it.  My sense is that a group owned a patch it could easily crop, manage, and defend (cf. K. Anderson 2005; also the studies in Bean and Blackburn 1976).

            Population density must have affected this.  It certainly seems, from the rather thin evidence, as if ownership was a more serious matter among the Chumash than among the desert Shoshoneans (Clemmer 2009a, 2009b), and more serious among the Yurok and Karok than among the tribes inland of them.  Evidence is thin (though see Bettinger 2015), and some of it goes against this generalization; ownership of choice fishing spots by lineages is still very much alive among the Achomawi (inland from the Karok), even after 200 years of oppressive contact with Euro-Americans.  Good fishing spots are highly concentrated there, and it could well be that there—and elsewhere—concentration of resources was more crucial than density of people.  Similarly, the Timbisha Shoshone of Death Valley, though they had the sparsest population of any California group, still maintain ideas of ownership of mesquite trees and pinyon groves.

Representations:  Sources

            The early and devastating decline of the Native Californians has left us quite poorly informed about them.   

Fortunately, a few exceptional collaborations between particular researchers and consultants have produced comprehensive and sensitively recorded bodies of data.  We can be enormously grateful that California was blessed with ethnographers who, whatever their faults may have been, actually cared about traditional people and cultures, and wanted to learn all they could.  Even today, when many ethnographers are interested only in high theory or in playing political games, California remains blessed with a stunning array of people who care—including Native ethnographers like Julian Lang and Katherine Saubel, as well as people like Thomas Blackburn, Lowell Bean, and others cited in the present work. 

  Particularly notable are certain cases of longstanding cooperation between an ethnographer and a Native Californian individual.  A. L. Kroeber’s work with the traditional Yurok elder Robert Spott is outstanding (e.g. Spott and Kroeber 1942).  Roland Dixon evidently managed exceptional rapport with the Maidu mythographer Hanc’ibyjim (Shipley 1991).  John Harrington’s work with the Chumash, especially Fernando Librado Kitsepawit (1981), is famous.  Harrington’s former wife, Carobeth Laird, cemented a particularly close collaboration by marrying her main consultant, George Laird; she produced a trio of books (Laird  1975, 1976, 1984) that are California literary classics in their own right—possibly the most sensitive, well-written, and moving collections of lore and texts from the state.  They have languished in some obscurity, ironically because they were published by a Native Californian organization (Malki Museum) rather than an academic press! 

Finally, special mention goes to the incredible efforts of the few Native Californians who have studied and recorded their own cultural traditions.  Julian Lang has done yeoman service on the Karuk and their neighbors (Lang 1994).  Native Californian elder, ethnographer, and writer Katherine Siva Saubel has for several decades been the unofficial dean of Native California studies (Bean and Saubel 1976; Saubel 2004).  Self-taught and with no “position” other than head of Malki Museum for most of its career, she compiled a record of publication, research, public service, and collaboration with international experts that is matched by few if any “formal” academics in the field. 

Susan Suntree (2010) has integrated many southern California Native origin stories and environmental teachings into a beautiful, poetic volume that catches much of the essence of the land.

            Unfortunately, all the above, together with the enormous mass of other ethnographic work, still fails to give a complete picture of the life and culture of any group.  Often, our knowledge of a whole group depends on one individual who did not actually grow up in traditional times.  George Laird had forgotten much of Chemehuevi lore, and we have essentially no other source.  Fernando Librado and Candelaria Valenzuela, our sources on the Ventureno Chumash, were raised long after the missions had changed Chumash life.  Our knowledge of the Kiliwa (just across the line into Baja California) derives from one man, Rufino Ochurte.  At least, he remembered quite traditional times and did find an exceptional ethnographer in Mauricio Mixco (1983), so when he does not mention conservation beliefs we can probably take it that there were no important ones.  (The Kiliwa maintained a very sparse, highly migratory population in a harsh desert, and probably had no need of them.)  Otherwise, however, a lack of reports of conservation myths and injunctions means nothing; “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

We are best informed for the Yurok and Karok, who (with the Hupa) have been most successful at maintaining their culture till now, so that information derives from their own highly educated scholars such as Julian Lang as well as from many consultants interviewed over many years by many investigators.  Many other cultural groups were contacted too late, and often by “green hands” doing practice field work.  Material culture and ordinary social life have generally been well covered, since they show up in the archaeological and historical records as well as in ordinary ethnography.  The situation for myth and religion is far less good.  These leave little mark, and require extremely sensitive ethnography over many years to document adequately.  The contrast between the myth records of Hanc’ibeyjim or the Lairds on the one hand, and the hasty recordings by less sensitive ethnographers on the other, is most striking.  It reminds one of the contrast between Homer and the children’s books summarizing his stories for the subteen trade.

            One final problem with the sources is that California ethnography suffered from a tendency to compartmentalize “religion” and “subsistence” (or “environment”) as two separate things.  “Religion” covered abstract notions of gods’ “subsistence” meant pounding acorns and hunting deer.  Ways that religion sanctioned ecological behavior fell between the chairs.  Few recorded such data.  This problem is endemic in Kroeber’s Handbook (1925) and the larger Smithsonian Institution handbook (Heizer 1978).  Kroeber’s trait-list ethnographic method did not help the situation.  (Cf. Swezey and Heizer 1977 to show what could be done when the blinders were off.)  On the other hand, ethnographers not bedeviled by artificial boundaries do not report much specifically conservationist religious teaching, either (see e.g. Laird 1976, 1984).  It would probably be more accurate to see the religion-environment-subsistence interaction as basic, with “religion” and “subsistence” as segregates imposed artificially on Californian culture by outside ethnographers.

            One recalls that it took three generations of ethnographic work to get much sense of how Australian Aboriginal religion constructed landscape.  Californian ethnographers, working with memory cultures from the beginning, had no opportunity to do likewise.

Attitudes and Representations:  Specific teachings

            As elsewhere, conservation derived from more general postulates about the world.  These have been best summarized by Thomas Blackburn in December’s Child (1975; this book refers to the Chumash but what follows applies equally well to all California groups).  He lists fourteen postulates about the world as central to Indigenous thought:

A personalized universe

Kinship of all sentient beings

Existence and potential of supernatural or nonordinary Power

Determinism (within broad limits)

Negative-positive interaction (rather than pure good separate from pure evil)

A dangerous universe (with many frightening supernatural as well as natural beings)

Unpredictability

Inevitable, inherent inequality (especially of powers)

Affectability (all can potentially affect all)

Entropy (disorder builds up unless controlled)

Mutability

Closed universe

Dynamic equilibrium of oppositions

Centricity (the Chumash at the center of a circular world, itself the middle plane in a multiplanar cosmos) (Blackburn 1975:65, with my explanatory extensions)

            Of these, the most important in general and in managing landscapes are the first three.  The others may be considered ancillary.

            Blackburn also lists thirteen things that are highly respected:

Knowledge

Age and seniority

Prudence

Self-consraint

Moderation

Reciprocity

Honesty (but also trickiness in the face of frightening beings)

Industriousness

Dependability and responsibility

Self-asertion and self-respect

Pragmatism

Etiquette (proper behavior)

Language (Blackburn 1975:65)

            Explicit conservation in California representations of nature are rare, but Kat Anderson found a great deal of conservationist ideology in her studies of Native Californian plant management.  She found two universal rules: “Leave some of what is gathered for the other animals and Do not waste what you have harvested” (K. Anderson 2005:55; her italics; see also Blackburn and Anderson 1993).  In fact, there is evidently a general rule not to waste at all.  What is not harvested is left for later, or left for the other people (the four-footed or winged ones).  Native Californians would steal stored seeds from mice and other rodents, and acorns from woodpeckers, but would always leave some for the rightful “owners.” 

People approached plants with reverence and respect.  They felt the usual Native American kinship with nature (K. Anderson 2005:57-59).  Their ceremonies for first fruits and seasonal foods bonded people to the resource base.  People were close to the land.  Kat Anderson recorded a revealing comment from a Chukchansi Yokuts elder:  “I’ve alwas wondered why people call plants ‘wild.’  We don’t think of them that way.  They just come up wherever they are, and like us, they are at home in that place” (K. Anderson 2007:41).  She and Thomas Blackburn note:  “Today, native peoples still retain a deep respect for the natural world, and retell stories that remind them of the absolute necessity for judicious harvesting.  Elders are quick to tell younger gatherers, ‘Do not take all—and leave the small ones behind’” (Blackburn and Anderson 1993:20).

Kat Anderson found that a general sense of kinship with nature, or at least consociality with it, and a more specific sense of genuine deeply-felt responsibility for conserving resources for the wider good, were the basic attitudes of management.  Yet—whether because it is really lacking or because ethnography is so thin—there is little record of its being verbalized explicitly in a philosophic ideology, as it is on the Northwest Coast (Atleo 2004). 

An important exception is the Klamath River region, where traditional culture continues to an appreciable degree.  For that area we have not only a great deal of good ethnography, but a unique source in the form of an early book by a Native Californian woman—Lucy Thompson’s To the American Indian (1991, orig. 1916).  In it, she points out that the Yurok carefully protected sugar pines, source of nuts and sugary sap (Thompson 1991:28ff).  They conserved fish (Thompson 1991:178-179) and burned carefully and systematically (Thompson 1991:31-33).  In general, she stands in striking contrast to ethnographies by outsiders—she stresses the religious interaction with nature and its function in maintaining conservation.  It seems highly likely that this was universal, and that it was missed by early ethnographers for the reasons above noted. 

Confirmation for the Yurok case comes from more recent work.  The Yurok spiritual teacher Harry Williams (on whom see Buckley 2002) tells:  “I was with my grandfather, Charley Williams.  We were walking on a dirt path down to the ocean.  There was a bug crossing our path, and my grandfather told me, ‘Reach down and help that bug on its way.’  So I did.  I reached down and helped the bug on the path to where it was going.  ‘Now, do you know what you have done?’ Grandfather continued.  ‘You won’t feel badly now, for perhaps a bird will someday eat the bug.  But you must remember that the Creator created the bug for birds to eat.  He didn’t create them to get stepped on’” (Burrill 1993:43; presumably the Creator is Wohpekumeu, the Yurok trickster-transformer; strictly speaking there is no Yurok Creator, since the Yurok teach that the universe has always existed).  Lest anyone think this is an exaggeration, I can testify that the Yucatec Maya routinely do things of this sort, with similar teachings.  Maya who picked up a bug to show me would always put it back on the path, unharmed, and headed the way it had been going (Anderson and Medina Tzuc 2005).  Williams’ grandfather also said that rocks are living things, and that “the white man is like the wind.  Nobody knows where he comes from.”  Williams also tells of a line he heard at a Native American conference:  “Creator gave man two ears, and two eyes, but only one mouth.  But the white man thinks he has five mouths, no ears, and no eyes.  That must be why he talks so much” (Burrill 1993:106). 

For the Karok, the “Ikxareyavs were old-time people, who turned into animals, plants, rocks, mountains, plots of ground, and even parts of the house, dances, and abstractions when the Karuk came to the country” (Harrington 1932:8).   Many of the most feared of these prior beings turned into large and spectacular rocks, a story which the Karok supposedly proved to Harrington by pointing out that you can still see the rocks.  The Ikxareyavs who turned into abstractions remind us yet again of classical Greece, with its goddesses such as Sophia and Nike, as well as the ancient Hindus, who visualized Time (kali) as a goddess.

The Hupa, culturally very close to the Karok though linguistically unrelated, held that one Yinukatsisdai “made all the trees and plants which furnish food for men….  If he sees food being wasted he withholds the supply and produces a famine.”  If pleaded with, he may relent, and “then gives the food…in such bountiful quantities that acorns are found even under the pines” (Goddard 1903:77).  The puritanical and religious Hupa shared the Northwest Coast view of punishment for waste, but added a fascinating touch in the mercy of the creator.  The corresponding masters of deer are the Tans, who withhold deer from hunters if deer are not treated with respect.  As elsewhere in the wider Northwest and California (e.g. Rhoades 2013:81), respect means not only treating the dead deer respectfully but also totally refraining from waste, overhunting, and hunting without serious need for food.  Yet other deities care for fish in similar ways (Goddard 1903:77-78).  The fish, like the deer and other food animals, had been kept by the supernaturals, and had to be liberated by culture-heroes; there are many stories of these events, and the stories are used in ceremonies to maintain the stock (Goddard 1904).  Less effective, but not unrelated, were prayers that birds and squirrels might not desire to eat the acorn crop (in competition with the Hupa) (Goddard 1903:81).  The Hupa regarded trails as sacred persons. 

The Yurok, Karok and Hupa joined in enormous ceremonies that were intended to preserve and renew the world and its resources.  These ceremonies almost died out, but managed to survive, and are now once again celebrated regularly.  The belief in the need of humans to hold elaborate and active rituals to keep the game, fish, and plant foods productive has itself been preserved and renewed, especially since these groups have seen the result of modern Californian indifference to conservation.  Many myths detail the origin of these ceremonies and the need for them, but specific teachings of directly conservationist behavior are rather limited.  However, it seems clear that a general reverence and spiritual concern for the landscape has a preservationist effect.  People will not thoughtlessly waste resources that are personally and spiritually important.

Among the Lake Miwok, as in several other parts of North America, “game animals were believed to be immortal and under spirit control, and it was believed that animals sometimes transformed themselves into other species” (Callahan 1978:272).  The Yuki held that deer are immotal, their souls living in a mountain under care of a Deer Guardian who is second only to the Creator and who controls obsidian as well as deer.  This belief in animal souls within a mountain occurs widely in North America, as far as Huitepec, the sacred mountain near San Cristobal in Chiapas. It is more than likely that the immortality and protectedness of spirits of game was universal. 

The Northern Pomo had a concept of “xa, manifestations of the supernatural spirits…left on earth from the beginnings and investing certain peculiar objects with supernatural attributes….  Xa  is the genius of procreation, acquisition, alien to human activities…but a spiritual concomity of men whose aid may be engaged through prayer and possession of its symbols….   Xa is summoned by sexual contact, is the mystery of conception and gestation, leaves its stamp on the buttocks of new born till erased by cognoscence; places an indelible mark on the skin of a favored mortal…. Xa is the inspiration of song…, the rhythmic impulse of song-dance ceremonies, the buoyancy of regalia…and the stimulus of fingers tapping upon the flute. It is the celestial, beneficent influence as opposed to the terrestrial demon of diaster…”  (notes of John Hudson, ca. 1900, from Welch 2013:169).  Xa resides in hawk and falcon and eagle feathers, in crests and red tails of birds such as woodpeckers, and in omens and apparitions.  Five plants have it: trail plant (Adenocaulon bicolor), angelica, sweet cicely (Osmorhiza sp.), Fendler’s meadowrue (Thalictrum fendleri), and leather root (Welch 2013:169).  As elsewhere in California, tobacco and Jimson weed (Datura wrightii) were sacred in a different way: they gave direct visions and healings.  All this must have fed back on resource management, but no early record of this seems to have survived.

Equally revealing is a story related by Fernando Librado (1979:113):  A man was trapping rats in a pitfall trap, and an old Santa Rosa Chumash told him:  “’You are polluting our mother, Xutash!  [The Chumash earth goddess.]  Remove this at once, If you defile our Mother, she will give us nothing.’”

The Cocopa, who lived in a landscape of abundance in the fertile Colorado River delta, lived simply and never worried much about food—though famine threatened if a drought led to the river being very low.  William Kelly made careful enquiries about religious beliefs connected with fertility, harvest, wild foods, agriculture, and the whole suite, and found:  “Harvest festivals…were…religious in nature; yet their function, explicit and implicit, was in connection with group life and social organization, and they were neither related to the harvest as such nor a mechanism aimed at increasing effort or diligence in farming” (Kelly 1977:44).  This seems general throughout California (the Cocopa live in Baja California).  The only rule related to such issues that is even remotely ecological in function was the universal Native American rule that a boy could not eat his own first kills (Kelly 1977:45).  This has no conservation function in itself, but in most of North America is part of teaching the boy respect for both the game and the human social group that shares the kill.  The Cocopa tabooed doves but apparently for totemic, not environmental, reasons.  As agricultural people, they probably had a different take on myth, with Coyote a creator of good crops and transformer of insulted ones into bitter wild foods, rather than a producer of good wild foods for people to gather (see Nabhan 2013 for a brilliant, incisive analysis of this contrast in southwestern mythology).

We are, however, surely missing a great deal.  The Northern Paiute, whose territory included the northeast corner of California, offered prayers to slain game animals.  They left the tail tip of a hunted deer under a rock with the prayer “’Deer, thank you, and come again.’  A similar offering was made for bighorn sheep” (Fowler 1992:181).  Note that the deer will be reincarnated, and will again offer itself to the hunter if treated well—a universal North American belief.  Even roots required an offering or prayer.  Eagle feathers were harvested without killing the eagle (ibid.).  A number of prayers, to the Sun and othe powers, were given daily or frequently.  Ceremonies insured continued production of food resources.  Yet Fowler does not record conservation myths either.

            Taboos may also have had a conservation effect.  The Yana, for instance, did not allow salmon to be eaten with deer meat, small game, or roots taken from gopher burrows (Sapir 1910:156).  The salmon would cease to come if this taboo was violated.  One assumes it was disrespectful to them.  Possibly they did not like to associate with prototypically “land” foods.  There is no evident conservation here, but at least some respect for the salmon was apparent.  The Wintu and related peoples tabooed a large number of things, including most birds of prey and predatory animals (Du Bois 1935).  The Nutuwich Yokuts even tabooed bear and deer, being thus reduced to eating rabbits for meat, a most unusual degree of forbearance (Gayton 1948:166).  Taboos this extensive would have a major ecological effect.  They preserved even the hunted species indirectly, by preserving keystone species in the ecosystem.  Heizer (1978) cites a number of taboos and rules from around the state that affect land use. 

            The Chilula (Athapaskan) culture is barely known from a very few elderly people just after 1900.  One of them “was a medicine woman for troubles caused by the deer gods” (Goddard 1914:379).  That is all we know of Chilula animal religion, outside of a few generic myths, but it implies spirit guardians of the game such as we know from most of Native America.

            Attested from one end of the state to the other are harangues by chiefs telling people to work hard and diligently at hunting, gathering, and food production in general.  (The best description is for the Atsugewi, but the custom is attested all the way to the Mohave [Kroeber 1972] and Cocopa [Kelly 1977:66].)  Many groups  had a special designated Orator as well, who could do this.  People could ignore if they chose, but they would then be subject to major criticism and coolness, and hard work was a strong value everywhere from the northwest corner (e.g. Buckley 2002, Kroeber 1972 for the Yurok) to just beyond the southeast one (Cocopa:  Kelly 1977:23).  This would rather tend toward overexploitation of the resources than conservation of them, and thus may have much to do with the archaeological evidence noted above of local over-harvest.

Attitudes and Representations:  General

Native American biologist Raymond Pierotti states:  “A common general philosphy and concept of community appears to be shared by all of the Indigenous peoples of North America, which includes:  1) respect for nonhuman entities as individuals, 2) the existence of bonds between humans and nonhumans, including incorporation of nonhumans into ethical codes of behavior, and 3) the recognition of humans as part of the ecological system” (Pierotti 2011:198-199).  This and all it implies is fully true for California.

Respect.   The full panoply of North American Native conservation attitudes is reflected in an astonishing prophecy that Cora Du Bois recorded from Kate Luckie, a Wintu shaman, in 1925:

“When the Indians all die, then God will let the water come down from the north.  Everyone will drown.  That is because the white people never cared for land or deer or bear.  When we Indians kill meat, we eat it all up.  When we dig roots, we make little holes.  When we build houses, we make little holes.  When we burn grass for grasshoppers, we don’t ruin things.  We shake down acorns and pine nuts.  We don’t chop down the trees.  We only use dead wood.  But the white people plow up the ground, pull up the trees, kill everything.  The tree says, ‘Don’t.  I am sore. Don’t hurt me.’ But they chop it down and cut it up.  The spirit of the land hates them…  The indians neverf hurt anything, but the white people destroy all.  They blast rocks and scatter them on the earth.  The rocks says, ‘Don’t!  You are hurting me.’  But the white people pay no attention.  When the Indians use rocks, they take little round ones for their cooking.  The white people dig deep long tunnels.  They make roads.  They dig as much as they wish.  They don’t care how much the ground cries out.  How can the spirit of the earth like the white man?  That is why God will upset the world—because it is sore all over” (Du Bois 1935:75-6; cf. Heizer 1978:650). 

Luckie continued to say that water could not be permanently hurt, because it eventually runs to the ocean, and that it would thus survive to destroy the current world by flood.  The Wintu share the widespread North American belief that there have been four worlds of people so far, and we are in the fifth; it is to be destroyed by flood, according to Wintu tradition.  Another Wintu shaman commented that “the gold feels sorry” for the Indian people because they were driven from their homes by men seeking that metal (Du Bois 1935:76).  (It is worth noting that Du Bois had no special interest in ecology or environment, but was meticulous about documenting shamans and all they said; hence these unique recordings.)

The California Native peoples shared the widespread Native American belief that disrespect of powerful animals brought danger.   A story has made it from the Chumash consultant Juan Justo to early ethnographer John Peabody Harrington, thence to Chumash expert John Johnson, and then into Lynn Gamble’s book on the Chumash—a typically indirect route: 

            “…Juan’s uncle began to laugh and shout and make fun of [a rattlesnake]…. The other man advised Juan’s uncle to be quiet,…but Juan’s uncle made all the more noise….whereupon the other man left him and went on alone.  When he was alone, Juan’s uncle looked around a saw a whole pile of guicos [alligator lizards] with their mouths open towards him and their tongues out….he…shut his eyes and went jumping and climbing to break through the lizards, and when he opened his eyes there was nothing there” (Gamble 2008:216, quoting John Johnson’s edited version of a Harrington text). 

I have heard very similar stories on the Northwest Coast and among the Maya.  If the parallels hold—and I am sure they do—the lizards were warning Juan’s uncle that if he teased a snake again he would suffer, probably through a bite from the snake. 

General respect for plants and animals and their spirits and spirit guardians existed.  Respect guided conservation generally.  “One took what he needed and expressed appreciation…. Without these attitudes the California Indians could have laid waste to California long before the Europeans appeared” (Heizer 1978:650).

There was a very general sense that plants needed human care, a sentiment backed up by experience, but going well beyond the facts of Native management and care.  Plants and animals need to be used, as a mark of respect.  Neglecting them wounds their spirits.  They decline and become weedy, poorly grown, and despondent-looking (K. Anderson 20005; Blackburn and Anderson 1993; McCarthy 1993:225).  I have run into the same idea among Northwest Coast peoples and something very close to it among my Maya friends.  In fact, California’s useful plants do respond to care; basketry plants put out long straight shoots, nut trees crop more, and so on (Anderson 2005). 

Such attitudes survive today in areas where something like traditional plant uses can exist.  Michael Wilken-Robertson, interviewing Kumeyaay people in Mexico just south of the California border, heard from elder Teodora Dcuero Robles:

“This I can assure you, the ancient ones never damaged a tree, no, never; they loved them as something very sacred.  They would tell us not to go breaking the branches of the pines, not to play there, nor to climb up on any small tree, they said that they were almost juist like humans; ‘They are watching us, they are taking care of us, they give us our food.  Don’t go around damaging them don’t be shouting, none of that,’ they would say, ‘take special care of them,’ for this reason we know very well that we must take care of these trees.  Also the medicinal herbs, those they especially charged us to care for, we shouldn’t just go out and cut for no reason, go out and cut them and throw them away to dry up, no.  They told us many things, that we should even care for the rocks, just imagein!  The rocks, the sand, the springs, the water flowing, all these things they said we must respect” (Wilken-Robertson 2004:49, reprinted in Wilken-Robertson 2018:231-232).  From the Paipai, a group that moved from Arizona to northern Baja California about 300 years ago, comes a story told by Eufemio Sandoval.  The Mexican government forbid them cutting juniper posts because the junipers were getting rare.  Sandoval commented “we have never cut the plant to the root, but rather it has been a form of pruning that we carry out. We just take what is useful as a post and leave the rest to keep growing and developing” (Wilken-Robertson 2004:53-54, reprinted in Wilken-Robertson 2018:236).  Sandoval held that this was better conservation than pure neglect.  Recall Wilke’s findings on Great Basin junipers. 

There is little reference to animals letting themselves be taken if they are respected, but apparently the belief existed.  One Mohave did say that the Creator gave hunting to the desert tribes but not the Mohave, so when the Chemehuevi “see game, the animals cannot run fast, or they sit down…they want to be caught.  The same with the Walapai.  But if Mohave go to hunt, the animals run swiftly away” (Kroeber 1972:84).  A Wintu hunter who failed to get deer would say “The deer don’t want to die for me any more” (Heizer 1978:651).  Many stories around the state imply that animals not respected will not let themselves be killed.  Conversely, they might go away.  Elsewhere in North America, some groups have noted that game disappears as white settlers fill up the landscape, and suspect this is because Native hunting is outlawed and the game is offended and leaves.  I am certainly aware that dramatic declines of deer have taken place since hunting has been banned in settled areas, but in fact the reasons are drought (first of all), suburbanization, and introduced diseases.  Still, the Native view has its merits; failing to keep the game alert, and failing to weed out sick and slow individuals, has its costs.

The belief that wild plants and animals, and even rocks, must be treated with respect is shared all over North America and among similar societies in Asia.  In Mongolia I learned immediately that one had to treat all these entities with respect (shuutekh, a word whose root meaning is respect for one’s elders).  All have spirits and the spirits are ever-present; they deserve respect as elders, helpers, friends, and possible sacrificers of themselves to the human hunter or forager.  Thus there are absolute rules against overhunting, overcollecting, and waste, and these are observed in the remotest areas.

The widespread North American taboo against a youth eating his first kill was probably general, and among the Chumash one report says that a hunter or fisher could never eat his own kill, on pain of never succeeding again (Grant 1978:512, citing Z. Engelhardt).  This is evidently part of the North American complex of respect for animals.  The Chumash are known to have prayed to the swordfish to drive whales on shore, and to have had a swordfish dance; they revered other powers of the sea also (Blackburn 1975; Gamble 2008). 

They also had the idea, general in western North America, that the bones of an animal should be treated carefully and respectfully, because such things as breaking a bone would mean the animal would reincarnate with a broken or missing leg; at least this is attested in myth, if not in actual practice (Blackburn 1975:131, in a myth recorded by Harrington).  Another version of the same myth has Momoy—Datura personified as an old woman—protesting against a boy (her grandson in other versions) killing unnecessarily:  “Have you no sense at all?  You are just killing for the sake of killing” (Blackburn 1975:147).  Occurrences like this, in Harrington’s very complete materials on the Chumash, make it seem very likely that California Indians did not lack the usual western North American values; ethnographers simply failed to record them.

And yet, among the Monache, careful enquiry indicated otherwise:  “No special ritual precautions accompanied the hunting of deer or bear.  Animals were not addressed before, during, or after the kill” (Spier 1978:428).  This is reported because it is in such marked contrast to the situation in the Northwest Coast and many other areas, where respectful addresses to the animals were required, and were part of a conservation-related ideology.  Generally, nothing is reported either way for California peoples; “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” but the lack is suggestive given Spier’s report.

Social Bonds with Nature.  All California groups thought of the natural world as closely allied to the human one, almost always with actual kin relations or equivalent social bonds.

Many Californian groups, especially in the center and south, had lineages and moieties with animal emblems.  Moieties named Coyote and Wildcat (Bobcat) were found widely, as among the Cahuilla and Serrano.  The Yokuts named them West and East, but divided the animals among them; “the Tachi assigned Eagle, Crow, Killdeer, Raven, Antelope, and Beaver to the…West moiety and Coyote, Prairie Falcon, Ground [Burrowing] Owl, Great Horned Owl, Skunk, Seal” and other beings to the East (Wallace 1978:453, from E. W. Gifford’s data; reference to Valley Yokuts, but all Yokuts groups apparently had more or less the same).  Anna Gayton (1976) points out that people really felt close to their lineage animals.  Eagle and Coyote were the lead animals respectively.  Within the moieties were animal-named patrilineages; the Eagle lineage supplied chiefs. The Coyote moiety had its own chiefs, however (Wallace 1978:454).  Moieties sometimes owned certain foods, and feasted each other with their respective foods (Gayton 1976:84).

The Miwok seem to have reached an extreme, extending human society to the entire cosmos by classifying everything (at least everything they noticed) into either the Land or the Water Moiety; the former included mostly up-country beings, the latter not only water but also lowland creatures (Gifford 1916, summary in Kroeber 1925:455; it is worth noting that Gifford’s rather scattered and obscure studies of Miwok society are one of the more amazing achievements in the history of kinship studies, being far ahead of their time in almost every way; Gifford had a high-school education and was a true autodidact).  These had nothing to do with individuals’ spirit power animals or other less global social symbolism.

The Monache had lineages named after birds or sometimes other animals; a lineage’s namesake was called its “dog” in the sense of  “pet animal” (Spier 1978:433).  The Eagle lineage was the chiefly one; messengers (and talking leaders?) came from Roadrunner and Dove lineages.  The Yokuts used their Dove lineages for this purpose, and Magpie lineage members as criers.

Humans as Part of the Ecological System.  This phrase understates the powerful, deep and complex emotional attachments to the land.  For every Californian group, their land is home—not just their personal home but the home of their people since the time of creation (or at least of transformation into our recognizable world).  Lynn Gamble and Michael Wilken-Robertson, in a recent, particularly sensitive account of Native Californian relationships with the land (2009), describe “…a landscape that is permeated with symbolic and ritual meanings[,] that embraces mythical histories, ancestral pasts, and moral messages that overlay a landscape where economic resources, such as foods and medicines, abound. 

Related to this ideational landscape are the themes of landscape as memory and landscape as identity.  Specific places are reminders of a social past that was filled with triumphs and disasters” and other stories.  People remember “not just a boulder, but the significant events associated with the boulder” (Gamble and Wilken-Robertson 2009:148).  Every stream and hill, as well as every sizable boulder, has its stories, and even individual trees are often important landmarks.  Often the historic associations of these landmarks blend into myths and origin stories.  Other, related groups in Baja California maintain similar ties with the land, including long-lost homes on the United States side of the border, where they have kin and other social relations (Garduño 2016).

The article refers specifically to the people of the Tijuana River basin in Baja California, but it could be said with equal truth of every group in California, or for that matter the whole of the North American Pacific coast. Every ethnographer who has written much about the ideational culture of Native Californians has emphasized their extreme attachment to and concern for the land, and I can certainly attest it from my own experience there and in the Northwest Coast.  Directions—including up toward the sky and down toward the lower world—as well as places have enormous significance ritually and culturally.

The Yumans of the Colorado River drainage—close linguistic relatives of the Tijuana River people— speak of “’Coyote Law,’…the law of the land—sometimes capricious and unreasonable like Coyote himself—but nevertheless, the way things are.  [Their] tales tell about Coyote Law” (Hinton and Watahomigie 1984:6).

This train of investigation leads to two broad conclusions.  First and most important, views of the land and its resources are impassioned.  Native people are not sizing up “resources” with the cold eye of the economic planner.  They are looking at their home.  For California’s people, the whole land is not only their family home, but the home of their entire people since the beginning of time.  We may understand the latter clause as meaning “since the beginning of the group as an identifiable cultural and social entity,” but that does not diminish its psychological force.  The land is loved, but the emotional involvement is much more than that; it is a total personal involvement, the sort of interaction that Emmanuel Levinas regarded as literally infinitely important, because it makes us who and what we are (Levinas 1969).

Second, knowledge is derived from interactive practice, not from passive book-learning.  Knowing the land comes from living on it and making a living from it.  Knowledge of plants and animals comes from working with them in the field, not from a biology text.  Rural Anglo-Americans in my youth learned the same way, and contrasted it quite sharply with “book learning.”  They knew that interactive practice is far better for learning actual life skills and work skills, whatever it may cost in knowledge of grand theory.  However, their wider knowledge of the world was book-learning (or TV-learning).  For traditional Californians, all knowledge came from interactive practice.  People grew up knowing the local ecology from personal experience; they knew what the fish ate, which plants grew together, what was needed for a healthy ecosystem.  Research comparing Native and White rural folk in the northern Midwest is relevant here; even Whites who knew the outdoors as intimately as the Natives thought very differently, seeing species as separate and relatively isolated rather than part of a great web that included humans (Medin et al. 2006).

Awareness of the possibility of overpopulation—too much population pressure—is found in the story, reported for every well-studied Californian group, of Coyote or Lizard or some similar creature bringing death because the world would become too crowded if people lived forever.  Where Coyote is the death-bringer, his own child is usually the first to die, and he regrets his choice.  The Mohave shaman Nyavarup had “the small lizard” as deathbringer; the lizard says “’I wish people to die.  If they all keep on growing, there will be no room.  There will be no place to go; if we defecate, the exrement will fall on someone’s foot’”  (Kroeber 1972:6).

Mythic Construction.  Even myths and chants came not from mindless classroom memorization but from ritualized transmission around the flickering winter-season fire.  Myths could not be lightly told.  Relating them in summer could lead to rattlesnake bite, among other things.

            Mythic animals were most conspicuously predators:  Coyote, Wolf, Fox, Eagle, Falcon, Condor, and so on.  Many game animals seem to have been merely game animals even in mythic time.  Among the Wappo, Elk was a humanoid pre-animal in mythic time, but hunted deer, which were ordinary game animals (see tales in Radin 1924).  Deer are rather rarely seen as having been humanoid in mythic time (though the Karok have several Deer stories; Kroeber and Gifford 1980).  Among the Chemehuevi, Coyote and Fox hunted rats and mice (Laird 1976).  

            Southern Californian groups had long and complex origin cycles, involving creation by heroic individuals.  In the Serrano song cycle for mourning ceremonies, the first song spoke of the earth, the second chukiam, “all growing things” (Lerch 1981:11).  This refers to plants and animals, but apparently to plants above all; it included a passage about the Datura plant, ritually used as a halluncinogen in puberty rites and in medicine.  Cognate words such as chukit are known among other southern Californian Shoshonean groups.  The Serrano creator died in Big Bear Valley, which thus has an enormous variety of plants, many of them endemic.  It is interesting that “[t]he Serrano “were not only aware of the phenomenon, they had an explanation for it in their cosmology” (Lerch 1981:14). The mourners turned to pines, which still stand in ranks around the valley (due, in modern terms, to the layered rock outcrops).  The related Cahuilla have a long cycle of creation myths centering on Mukat, a human-like figure who brought agriculture among other useful plant and animal management strategies.

            By contrast, the far northwest of the state had no origin myths; the cosmos always existed.  However, creator-like beings had altered it greatly and made it suitable for humans, who appear after the time of such beings as the Karok ikxareyavs (see below).

The Yuki and Kato had something close to monotheism; their high god (Taikomol in Yuki, Nagaitcho to the Kato; Goddard 1909) was far above Coyote and his fellow creatures, though they fine-tuned the creation.  Taikomol created the universe by song and speech.  In a beautiful Kato telling of the creation story by Bill Ray in 1906, Nagaitcho and the dog he has created end by rejoicing in their world:

“My dog, come along behind me and look.”

Vegetation had grown, fish had come into the creeks.

Rocks had become large….

“Walk fast, my dog.”

The land was good.  Valleys had appeared….

Water had begun to flow.  Springs had come….

“I made the land good, my dog,

Walk fast, my dog.”

Acorns were growing, pine cones were hanging,

Tarweed seeds were ripe, chestnuts were ripe,

Hazelnuts were good, manazanita berries were getting white,…

Buckeyes were good, peppernuts were black-ripe,

Bunch grass was ripe, grasshoppers were growing,

Clover was with seed.  Bear-clover was good.  Mountains had grown.
Rocks had grown, different foods were grown.

“My dog, we made it good.”

Fish had grown that they will eat.

“Waterhead Place we have come to now.”

Different plants were ripe.  They went back, they say,

His dog with him.

“We will go back,” he said.

(Goddard 1909:9394; slightly rewritten for comprehensibility.  Nagaitcho and his dog return to the north, whence they came, and leave us this beautiful world.)

This hymn to all the wonderful foods of the north coast ranges—and indeed they are excellent eating—is only a tiny part of a very long creation story that mentions virtually every plant, animal, fish, and geological feature in Kato habitat.  It is all very reminiscent of Psalm 104, but far more richly detailed.  It also reveals something of Bill Ray’s personal narrative style, which included long chanted lists of plants, animals, and geographic features of the environment, alternating with narrative that is largely spoken and is so telegraphic as to be dreamlike.  The combination is powerful enough to make Ray one of the more distinctive and poetically gifted California myth-tellers.  Such lists are a widespread stylistic feature in myths in many languages of north-central California and elsewhere in the world (think of Hesiod’s Theogony).

The Athapaskan original takes full advantage of the exquisite beauty and potential for sound-poetry of the Athapaskan languages.  The above is rhythmical and rhymed poetry in the original, rhyming with the repeated chorus-line word kwanang (“they say”).  Note that the mountains and rocks grow; they are living things in California belief.  Like Hanc’ibeyjim’s creation story (Appendix) Ray’s is one of the greatest religious poems in world literature, and it deserves more than languishing in a forgotten monograph.  Here are the first few lines, in Kato, simplified for easier reading from Goddard’s linguistic transcription:

“E lot, shiit la, nan dal, o dut t ge ka la e kwanang,

To nai nas de le kwanang.

Sha na ta se gun cha ge kwanang

N gun sho ne kwanang.

Kakw chqal yani kakw ko winyal, e lots ul chin yani ne n gun sho ne kwanang….”

Many other groups had Earthmaker and Coyote or Wolf and Coyote as creators.  Earthmaker or Wolf was the senior, more responsible and sober one, the stereotypic elder brother.  Coyote was young and wild, everybody’s crazy kid brother.  Of course, everyone respected Earthmaker but loved Coyote.  A particularly beautiful and moving version of this story is William Benson’s Pomo version (2002, where Coyote is called by his Pomo name or alternative incarnation Marumda).  The Pomo had a range of creation stories, often conflicting, because of their diversity and the diversity of peoples around them; they were influenced by the monotheistic Yuki to the north, the Guksu Cult of the Patwin to the east, and so on (Barrett 1933).   Other fine stories are Hancibeyjim’s Maidu one (Dixon 1912; Shipley 1991; cf. below),  Laird’s Chemehuevi stories (Laird 1976, 1984), and stories from the Kiliwa (Mixco 1983) and Kawaiisu (Zigmond 1980, 1991). 

The Yuman groups had humanlike but mystical and powerful creators.  The Yuman peoples and the culturally related Chemehuevi told of these in long song cycles, that describe the courses of the creator beings as they traveled around the world—the known habitat of the people, that is—creating, transforming, teaching, and instituting practices (see e.g. Kelly 1977; Kroeber 1972; Laird 1976, 1984).  Individuals dreamed their own versions of the song cycles. 

Some Mohave song cycles are given by Kroeber (1972; see also 1925:754-770), including a Mohave version of the Salt cycle known also by the Chemehuevi.  It contains not only the origin of salt, but of tobacco, the stars, and much else.

Kroeber found the cycles rambling and uneventful, but he recorded them in his youth from elderly individuals, and he was not fluent in the language; he seems to have gotten bland and truncated versions.  (Compare, for instance, Paul Talejie’s short but brilliant creation tale in the closely related Walapai language, in Hinton and Watahomigie 1984, and Laird’s Chemehuevi renderings.)  Even Kroeber’s recordings contain some striking poetry; one cycle begins:  “At Ha’avulypo Matavilya [the original creator] had made a house out of darkness and lived there” (Kroeber 1972:44).  The cycle continues to tell of his death and burial. In the cycle of Yellak (goose?), Yellak’s end is noted by Halykupa: “I know what made Yellak die.  He became sick from the sky, the clouds, the earth, the water, and the wind….Now cry.  Cry with the sky and with the wind…” (Kroeber 1972:63).  His skin sank into the Colorado River and turned into animals.

One reason Kroeber rather wearied of these cycles is that they detail almost all important actions as having been done and repeated facing each of the four directions in sequence, and there are other stylized repetitions as well.  Another is that some of the memorialized events, complete with long songs, are nothing more than the hero seeing a badger or catching a rat (Kroeber 1925:756).  The interest in these cycles attaches to their detailing geographical points and the creation events that took place there—of sheep, deer, grapes, salt, everything—rather than to exciting stories.  California Native people have an unexcelled sense of place, and—today as in the past—can find the simple mention of familiar spots enormously moving.

With the songs, which were repeated over and over, these cycles took anywhere from a night to several weeks of nights to perform.  Some were never performed in their entirety, because, like epics everywhere, they could be lengthened out indefinitely by adding elements and repeating songs. 

Separate (or possibly, at some level, from the Yellak bird myth cycle), but part of the same general tradition of singing to create and transform, were the bird song cycles, which survive among the Yuman and neighboring Uto-Aztecan peoples; these are not only about birds, but can be about anything, and are sung for entertainment—often with slow dancing.  Bird songs were in decline in the 1960s and 1970s, but have been enthusiastically revived, and now abound, with several good recordings commercially available. 

These spirit beings transformed the world for their own reasons, but also to make it ready for humans.  This can be compared to the Australian Aboriginal beliefs in the Dreamtime, and to the most ancient stratum of Greek myths.  These latter, at least some of which go back to a very ancient stratum of belief, lie behind the “metamorphoses” that the Roman poet Ovid turned into art long after the highly-charged shamanic power had gone out of them. 

Thus at the south end of the state, the Tipay (Diegueño) taught that Chaup, the focal deity of their religion, “named and marked all animals whereby they lost their ti.pay (‘human’) nature” (Luomala 1978:604).

Thought and song created much of the world.  The very long and circumstantial Achomawi origin tales of Istet Woiche (1992) and Maidu tales of Hanc’ibyjim 1991) seem to indicate that this belief reached a peak in the northeastern corner of the state.

Calendars everywhere recognized months, and frequently named them from the subsistence activities or seasonal nature events that went with them.

California is distinctly lacking in the specifically conservationist texts so commonly recorded from the Northwest Coast and Mexico.  There are none in the above-cited major collections.  Even Zigmond, focusing on ethnobiological research, found none.  Almost nowhere are there mythic stories about animals driven away by overhunting.  One intriguing exception concerns the Patwin Hesi cycle of the Kuksu religion.  Four songs were obtained from the deer of the Marysville Buttes, back when deer were humanoid in mythic time; enemies took advantage of the deer while the latter were ceremonially sweating, and exterminated them, which is why there are no deer on the Buttes (Kroeber 1925:385-386).  This is quite a different story from the widespread  North American motif of overhunting followed by famine, but is clearly a relative with the same general perception behind it.  The Kuksu cult is associated with morals and discipline, and this myth is surely significant.  Farther afield are various myths in which evil entities wreck the environment for no special reason, and are eventually transformed into their present animal form, as for instance in the Yurok myth of the origin of the mole and Jerusalem cricket (Kroeber 1976:47-54).  These animals, in their humanoid form of mythic time, bring death as well as widespread ecological damage.  The sense that the environment has to be orderly, constant, and well-managed to be fruitful lies behind this and similar myths, and evidently served as a general sanction against damaging the environment.

Apparently universal, however, is a myth of a time when animals and fish were held by supernatural beings who would not release them.  A culture hero such as Coyote or the Yurok Pulekukwerek outwits the keepers and releases the prey them through a mix of heroism, trickery and magic. 

Masters of the game animals—almost universally recognized in the Native Americas—seem less common in California.  Supernatural beings controlling or watching over plant and animal resources are mentioned, but without much detail.  The Southern Paiute, who range into California (where they are called Chemehuevi), had this belief:  “All the deer on Kaibab Plateau were believed to be owned by a supernatural being named Qainacav.  During the hunting season (July and June, also early fall), his name must not be mentioned, or else the luck of the whole hunting season would be spoiled.”  Hunters sometimes encountered him in human or deer form, but seeing him meant no luck that day.  Anyone who offended him would be lured off by deer tracks that eventually disappeared (Sapir 1992:829, from notes made around 1910), one way of explaining one’s inability to follow a trackway.

Few myths that I can find give specific directions or charters for the plant and animal management that we know was so universal (although some myths mention it in passing).  Quite the contrary; animals in their mythic humanoid forms go hunting and collecting quite at will, killing enormous numbers of game animals and gathering all the seeds they want.  The wishful dreams of the storytellers are evident, but conservation teachings are not evident at all.  The myths are extremely well supplied with moral teachings, but the morals are social.  Tales show the awful results of condemning ungenerousness, vindictiveness, mean-spiritedness, violence, sexual sins, ignoring good advice, and trying to imitate others mindlessly, but not the awful results of mismanaging resources.  The stories are set the times before human people, and thus I suspect they date back to a time so ancient that the people were still few, with simple technology, when they could take without a second thought.  The Northwest Coast conservation stories seem usually to concern real people, albeit in long-ago times.

One exception is in an astonishing Wappo text, “The Chicken-Hawk Cycle,” recorded by Paul Radin from Jim Tripo (Radin 1924:87-147).  This is one of the most impressive and striking mythic texts ever recorded in California, and deserves better than to languish obscure in a forgotten volume.  Tripo spins it out to 60 pages; more typical is a Karok version of the same story that manages only two pages (Kroeber and Gifford 1980:250-252.)  Much of the plot turns on the anger of Moon, a captious old man, at the Hawk chief and his son harvesting pine cones by breaking off the branches of Moon’s pine trees.  Moon is not portrayed in a sympathetic light, but it is clear that such a damaging way of getting pine nuts was genuinely bad by Wappo standards. 

            Education of the young came through these myths, through specific instruction, through reprimand, but above all through interaction with the world, guided to varying degrees by elders and peers (see Margolin 2005 for a fine summary of Native Californian education).  Autobiographies recount dramatic experiences—accidents, vision quests, special hunting accounts, personal crises—that were interpreted, usually briefly but in extremely telling words, by elders.  Apparently this was a canonical way of learning, along with myths and initiation rites.  The long and complex initiation rites of such groups as the Luiseno involved detailed explanations of cosmology and of human life, including life crisis ritualization.  Other rites of passage, such as marriages and funerals, provided opportunities for songs, stories, and speeches that provided a great deal of instruction.  Finally, chiefs at dawn often harangued their communities on the need to be up and working.  Overall, there was a great deal of education, much of it quite formalized:  winter myth cycles, sings, initiations, funeral orations, and many more occasions. 

Religion, Cosmology, and Spiritual Concerns

A whole cosmology based on interactive practice and intense emotional involvement is bound to be quite different from one based on books, deductive logic, and laboratory experiments.  For one thing, it is hard to avoid personalizing the land—seeing the rocks, plants, and animals as people.  Even modern Anglo-Americans name their cars, talk to their dogs, and cherish their plants. 

Thousands of years of such interaction, in a world without labs and mass media, will inevitably make the nonhuman world more personal.  The nonhuman beings are “other-than-human persons.”  They have will and intellect, but not like ours; they plan and communicate, but we have to know how to hear them.  They have supernatural power to transmit.  

            The Californians shared the almost universal Native American belief in a prior cosmos, ruled by animal powers, that changed dramatically to make our present cosmic order.  The earlier beings included Coyote, Quail, Wildcat, and other beings.  There seems to be a vague tendency for interior and mountain groups to have more strictly animal powers in mythic time.  At least, the mythic-time people of the Yurok and the larger southern California tribes were very often humanoid, especially the main characters.  The large, rich tribes of the Delta and Bay Area are not well enough known for many conclusions.

Widely, however, especially in central California, an apparently human-like high god or pair of gods was the chief agent.  The Wiyot were the northwest pole of this belief; the Yurok, distantly related in language, lacked it (Kroeber 1925:119).  The Maidu, Wintu and their neighbors had a high creator or Earthmaker/Earthnamer.  Some (or all) Pomo groups had a similar high god.  Everywhere, he was very often assisted by Coyote, who royally messed up the process (see e.g. Hanc’ibyjim in Shipley 1991).  Similar pairings in southern California include Wolf and Coyote or Southern Fox and Coyote (Laird 1976, 1984).

            What Walter Goldschmidt said of the Nomlaki would apply equally well to all California Native peoples:  “To the Nomlaki, the world of reality and the world of the supernatural were inseparable, so that even the most practical undertaking was circumscribed by elaborate ritual inspired by the religious ideas with which the act was invested….  The Nomlaki world was animistic.  ‘Everything in this world talks, just as we are now,’” one Nomlaki man told him (Goldschmidt 1978:345).  There was, in fact, no concept of “reality” or of “supernatural”; there was simply the cosmos, with a gradient from clearly visible and tangible beings to invisible and intangible ones, and with a gradient from animals that were just animals to the mythic human-like animals of prehuman times.

Goddard, missionary turned ethnographer, was deeply struck by the religious nature of the Hupa, and sardonically remarked that “this undercurrent of deep religious feeling makes the life and deeds of the Indian seem…strange to the white man” (Goddard 1903:88).  Similar comments (if without the depreciative aside about Anglo-Americans!) could be made about all California Native people.  Religion was deeply felt and important in all aspects of life.  This was closely connected with plant and animal interactions.  Like their neighbors, they had a first salmon ceremony in the spring and a first acorns ceremony in the fall, as well as a first-lamprey (“eel”) ceremony (Goddard 1903).  (The related Lassik had a bulbous-plant ceremony; Elsasser 1978.)  All this involved stressing the importance of maintaining the resource; the ceremony was intended to keep the salmon and acorns coming, probably by showing proper respect and entertainment.  I strongly suspect that conservation lessons were once part of the rituals. 

Thomas Buckley discusses the importance of the spirit world, of doctoring power, and of “wealth” objects (actually ritual objects), among the Yurok, as Goddard does for the Hupa.  Of the wealth objects, Buckley says that “[d]ance regalia are not objects but ‘people,’ sentient beings (like deer) that have wewecek’, ‘spirit’ or ‘life,’ and that ‘cry to dance.’  As people, their ‘prupose in life’ is to get out of the baskets and boxes in which they’re stored and dance to ‘fix the world…’ (Buckley 2002:175).  They sometimes ask their owners to be loaned out so they can be danced at a ceremony in a neighboring community. 

Buckley, like the Karok anthropologist Julian Lang (1994), faults A. L. Kroeber for holding that the Yurok were obsessed with material wealth per se.  Kroeber was not entirely unaware that wealth objects (dentalia shells, obsidian blades, white deerskins, woodpecker scalps, and so on) were spiritual things and tokens of spiritual power.  He recorded many stories in which they are personified and spiritualized (Kroeber 1976, e.g. 200-204; cf. Kroeber 1925:40-42).  However, these objects, the dentalium shells in particular, were used as regular money too, for ordinary purchases and bargains. 

Kroeber was writing at a time when materialism, Marxian and otherwise, was dominant in American social science.  Not only Kroeber himself, but his main Yurok coworker, Robert Spott, seem rather matter-of-fact and materialist in their narratives (Spott and Kroeber 1942).  Euro-American readers might recall the Renaissance associations of gold:  money and material wealth, but also a spiritual and magical substance.  Interesting is one rather barbed comment that Kroeber recorded from Dick of Wohkero.  To a myth about Earthquake, who is personified among the Yurok, Dick added that “[n]ow Earthquake is angry because the Americans have bought up Indian treasures and formulas and taken them away to San Francisco to keep.  He knew that, so he tore the ground up there (referring to the earthquake of the year before, in 1906)” (Kroeber 1976:418).

Unsurprisingly, religion was thoroughly embedded in the natural world, and ceremonies continually constructed and reinforced ties with nature.  The Chumash had a particularly complex and arcane cosmology, paralleling their complex socioreligious organization (Hudson et al. 1977).

The dances of the Kuksu religion of central California included duck, grizzly, deer, coyote, goose, grasshopper, turtle,condor, and other dances based on animals; presumably the dances invoked them and imitated their motions.  These were not mere dances, but entire ceremonies centered on dancing (Kroeber 1925:378-380).  These ceremonies were “thought to bring rains, nourish the earth, and produce a bountiful natural crop; perhaps also to ward off epidemcis, floods, earthquakes, and other disasters…” as well as producing “an abundance of bulbs and greens, and…acorns…” as well as game (Kroeber 1925:383-384).  I take it this means that the dances were essential to co-create the natural community as well as the human one; human society being extended to include wild animals and plants, it is natural that human community-building rituals would impact the other-than-human community members favorably as well. Kroeber notes the significant lack of dances for critically important animals like fish and rabbits; there was no one-to-one mapping.  Of course it is possible that such dances existed but were lost before ethnography began.

Of course the agricultural tribes of the southeast part of the state had agricultural ceremonies, like most farming peoples of the world.  Yet, as with the Cocopa (see above), these seem not to have been elaborated as fertility or harvest ceremonies. 

Girls and boys coming of age went through initiation rituals, sometimes involving hallucinogenic plants that produced visions interpreted as spirit communications.  These initiation rites seem to have been among the most important ceremonies of the Native peoples.  Many smaller groups had no other major ceremonies, leaving initiation rites as the most important part of their religion (cf. Kroeber 1925, e.g. p. 428; the Yurok, alone among major groups, had no girls’ rites and apparently no true male rites either).  This is particularly true in the south (north through the Yokuts lands), where the use of toloache (Datura spp.) as a hallucinogenic drink made another link with the plant world.  The Luiseño youths acquired animal guardian spirits while under its influence, and did not subsequently kill the animal received (Kroeber 1925:670).  Toloache was widely used medicinally as well (see e.g. Librado 1979, esp. pp. 68-72).

Widely, across the state, puberty rites were the occasion for telling the longest, most detailed, most sacred myths and group histories.  This was when people really learned their culture in its depth.  All accounts agree that detailed and extensive teachings were  part of this, but no accounts give us much detail on the contents of the teachings, primarily because the rites vanished or went underground quite early.  (Constance Du Bois found some among the Luiseño.)  One suspects that ecological and conservation teachings were a major part of this initiation, but we will never know.

At the other end of the life cycle, groups in southern and central California burned the possessions of the dead, and then in memorial ceremonies burned large quantities of their own goods.  This prevented a buildup of material wealth, and indirectly served to eliminate the possibility of accumulating wealth for status display.  This seems to have mattered little, however, since the northwestern groups that did accumulate wealth for (spiritual) status did no notable damage to the environment thereby.

            There were several major religious cults or general ceremonial complexes in the state, each one confined to a few neighboring groups, possibly because of the difficulties of translation into the many different languages of the state.  The Northwest group of Yurok, Wiyot, Karok and Hupa (and to a lesser extent their hill neighbors) shared a focus on fish ceremonials, world renewal dances and ceremonies, the white deerskin dance, and other dances displaying ancient prized items of spiritual power.  The center of the state was dominated by the Kuksu and related cults, centering on the Patwin, Wappo, and Pomo groups.  The spectacular rock art of the Chumash and Yokuts (and probably the Gabrielino and other Shoshoneans, though evidence is mostly lost) indicates another religious area.  The bird songs of the lower Colorado and the Chinigchinich cult of the Luiseno and their neighbors also involved two or three major linguistic groupings each (counting the river Yumans as basically one group).  Finally, the rock art of the inner deserts, focusing on mountain sheep in many sites, is distinctive. 

            By contrast, more general folklore, as well as material culture, spread widely; it could be shared by anyone within hundreds of miles.  Folktales gradually transform, with north and south being quite different.  Language was not much of a barrier, and of course hardly a barrier at all to the spread and copying of material items.

Central to religion was spiritual ability and efficacy.  I have noted above the tendency of anthropologists to use the word “power” for what Native people generally call “knowledge.”  One could use the phrase “power/knowledge” if it had not been preempted by Foucault for a very different idea.

A model developed especially with the Luiseño concept of ayelkwi, but valid rather widely (especially for groups in the south coast, of course), lists four characteristics:  “Power is sentient and the principal causative agent in the universe”; it is found in the upper, middle, and lower worlds and “possessed by anything having ‘life,’” which can include rocks and tools as well as biota; it is in some degree of equilibrium in the cosmos; and man is a central figure in power networks (Bean 1992:22, citing and partly following White 1963).  One might qualify this for other parts of the state primarily in regard to clause 4; in some places (including central California, if I read the myths aright), humans are definitely less central than some supernatural beings, and probably some of the larger natural ones too.  Power is totally bound up in geography, with dramatic rocks, peaks, mountains, waterfalls, and other striking landmarks being major “power places.” 

People got power from vision questing in the wilderness.  They would undergo strong physical discipline:  enduring cold and heat, bathing in freezing waters, living with little or no food and water, and so on.  (The classic account of vision questing, Ruth Benedict [1923], refers to the Plateau area just north of California; her account is broadly valid for the latter place.)  The Achomawi preserved this knowledge later than most and were more willing to share it, so the map of their power spots provided by D. L. Olmstedt and Omer Stewart (1978:226) is exceptionally valuable.  Famous rock art sites are often power places.  (Places I know personally, but that are unpublished, shall remain unidentified!)  

  Most of the spots are dramatic peaks, but some are canyons, lakes, and large springs.  Power is largely a spiritual essence that allows beings (including humans—to the degree they have learned it) to control and create.  It is typically exercised through song.  Shamans cure by singing just as the creator beings shaped the world by singing.  However, actual physical and mental ability to do things is an expression of power, so it is not entirely “supernatural” by European standards.  It is learned through conventional training as well as through visions and dreams.  Knowledge of how to manage natural resources is a key part of power.

As noted previously, California Native peoples sought visions, usually in arduous vision quests, at puberty, in the wilderness.  This was another religious mechanism binding Californians to their landscape.  Apparently some groups, at least the Coast Central Pomo (Loeb 1926:320), did not have the vision quest.  Indeed, Loeb notes that the Pomo in general lacked a belief in guardian spirits, otherwise the goal of vision quests among most California (and indeed most North American) peoples.  They did have shamans and shamanic healers, however, and must have done something to get that power.  However, the Pomo and Native people everywhere dreamed of animals, daydreamed about animals, and interpreted their dreamings as important.

 Shamans operate by controlling power; but, again, in the center and north, they operate more by controlling specific “pains” that they own.  To be shamans or other religious officiants they had to have visions giving medicine power.  (Strictly speaking, the term “shaman” applies to healers of the ancient societies of Siberia, and it might be better to call the Californian healers “medicine persons,” but “shaman” is established in the literature and fairly well justified by the similarity of beliefs and practices to Siberian ones.  See Bean [ed.] 1992.)

The culturally and technologically simpler groups had vision-questing shamans and no other religious practitioners, but the complex chiefdoms had whole ranges of religious officiants.  These including true priests: officiants of organized religious cults (as opposed to shamans, who are independent individuals with special healing and visionary powers).  The Kuksu cult complex of central California had a priesthood (Loeb 1926:320), which presumably led to the decline or disappearance of vision questing among the Coast Central Pomo.  The Chumash of southwestern California had a whole range of shamans and priests with specialized functions, ranging from weather control to fishing to canoe safety (Bean and King 1974; Gamble 2008).  

Californians feared shamans and wizards with transforming and poisoning powers.  They acquired special visions of their familiar spirits.  These were often animal powers, but could be other natural or supernatural beings.  Different animals gave different powers, often related to the animal’s traits; rattlesnake power often involved the ability to cure rattlesnake bites, for instance.  These beliefs closely resemble shamanistic beliefs elsewhere, from eastern North America to Siberia.

A particularly important problem was “bear doctors,” men who had bear power knew the magic for transforming themselves into grizzlies at will.  These were known and feared all over the state, from the Hupa to the Chemehuevi (Burrill 1993; Laird 1976:38).  Real grizzlies usually prefer to leave humans alone, but bear doctors transform themselves in order to do harm.  One remembers the bear transformation stories in the Old World, from the berserk (“bear shirt”) men of ancient Scandinavia and the Celtic Arthur (“bear man,” “were-bear”) to the Ainu bear cult with its divinization of bears.  People could sometimes transform into other kinds of animals, and animals and spirits could become or appear to be people; of course the animals in the time before people came were humanoid to varying degrees.  Related Old World figures are the werewolf, were-tiger, and leopard-man.  All come from a stratum of thought that is most famously seen in Siberian shamanism but is far more widespread.  Animal transformations are central to this cosmology. 

Other supernatural and ghostly transformations are known.  People with supernatural powers can invoke and control this shape-shifting.  So can many animals.  The raccoon dog (tanuki, often mistranslated “badger”) is a shape-shifter in Japan, and some tanuki stories are related to Californian Coyote tales.  The trickery of the fox is proverbial throughout Eurasia.  Modern Europeans have lost the transformation tales, but foxes in east Asia routinely turn into beautiful women to beguile men.

Common all over the state, but especially in the dry southeast, were weather shamans who could bring rain and snow.  Some songs for this purpose have been recorded, and a rain shaman’s bundle has been almost miraculously preserved and studied (Fenenga et al. 2012; Hopkins et al. 2012).  It came from the Tübatulabal of the Kern River valley, but incorporated many items, especially steatite smoking pipes, from the Chumash.  These are known to have been used by the coastal tribes to blow smoke clouds that invited rain clouds by a form of sympathetic magic.  Sometimes water was thrown into the air, during ceremonies, for similar reasons.  The bundle was used in ceremonies along with detailed chants that were guaranteed to bring rain (if properly carried out, of course).  Shamans had to know how to stop rain, to prevent large rains they invoked from causing floods.  There were many adept weather shamans among the Tübatulabal and their neighbors until quite recently.  The use of a magic bundle, incorporating a collection of sacred stones and other items, is very widespread in North America (see esp. Wildschut 1975 on Crow bundles; one Crow doctor, showing some small stones with some gravel near them, said—with a twinkle in his eye—that the rocks in the bundle had mated and had a litter).

Other “Indian doctors” could send pains into people.  These were often pebbles, small snakes, or other physical objects.  A “sucking doctor” would be called to suck this pain out.  He (rarely she) would suck on the belly or chest of the patient, sometimes hard enough to draw blood (assumed to be posioned).  Often he would produce the stone or small animal.  I have encountered this practice among the Maya as well; my old friend Don José Cauich Canul sucked a live scorpion from the little niece of my field assistant Don Felix Medina Tzuc.  I did not see this, but Don Felix described it.  He was duly impressed.  Don José has taught me something of his craft, including his use of sleight-of-hand, so I know where the centipede really came from.  Claude Lévi-Strauss (1963 [1958]) has pointed out that this sort of deception is typically done by doctors who believe that the old-timers really had such powers, but modern ones have less power and must imitate the old-timers as best they can.  This seems to fit California and Maya cases.

            Arts represented interaction with the nonhuman realm. Among the Yokuts, people wore crowns of flowers during spring (Gayton 1976:83).  

Much of the art were clearly associated with shamanism; more is inferentially so.  The spectacular rock art of southern and Baja California—some of the most outstanding in the world—is highly abstract, and also features strange and unearthly creatures.  Most viewers of the art, from anthropologists to artists, feel that shamanism and vision states must be involved.  (Some reviews include Campbell 2007; Grant 1965; Whitley 2000, notably speculative; and for Baja California, Crosby 1997, a more ambitious work than anything devoted to Alta California.  See also Jean Clottes’ stunning book Cave Art, 2008, which deals with the paleolithic art of Europe but presents California material for comparison on pp. 300-303.)  Other, more unassuming or crude pictographs and petroglyphs are almost certainly mere “Kilroy was here” markers, or at best markers of local descent-group territory.  Unfortunately, we do not have the keys (though see Spoon et al. 2014a, 2014b—the Nevada Paiute still know something).  The shamans are gone. 

There are a few recorded explanations, most of which refer not to shamanic visions but to puberty rites.  Often, puberty rites involved explanations of the cosmos using pictorial but abstract symbols, and sometimes the initiates were supposed to draw geometric designs of their own.  The Luiseno girls’ puberty rite, for instance, involved drawing red checkerboard, diamond, or maze patterns on rocks, and many of these survived in my younger days in the Riverside area.  Unfortunately most have faded now. 

Otherwise, outside of fairly obvious representations of animals, we have little identifiable rock art.  Earlier theories of hunting magic have gone by the wayside.  Besides the known cases just noted, other rock art sites are very often astronomically aligned—in canyons down which the equinoctial sunrise strikes, for instance—or are on remote and spectacular rock outcrops or in caves, rather than along game trails or near water holes or the like.  It is very possible that a general relationship with the cosmos was intended and good luck in hunting was one perceived consequence.  However, the focus remains on that general relationship, not on a specific pragmatic application.

An excellent analysis of a mountain sheep shrine, by Robert Yohe and Alan Garfinkel (2012), summarizes all that is known of mountain sheep ceremonies, rock art, and hunting lore from southeast California.  Clearly, mountain sheep were important game animals, and a huge and complex body of lore surrounded them.  (They were once extremely abundant; their rarity today is due to introduced sheep diseases as well as overhunting and habitat destruction.)  The content of ritual is lost to us, but at least there are still large amounts of art and religious construction to analyze.

Songs were basic to activities and teachings.  They gave and expressed power, and had power themselves.  A good explanation was given by a California basketmaker, Mrs. Mattz.  Richard West reports that she

            “…was hired to teach basket making at a local university.  After three weeks, her students complained that all they had done was sing songs…. Mrs. Mattz, taken aback, replied that the were learning to make baskets.  She explained that the process starts with songs that are sung so as not to insult the plants when the materials for the baskets are picked.  So her students learned the songs….. Upon their return to the classroom, however, the students again were dismayed when Mrs. Mattz began to teach them yet more songs.  This time she wanted them to learn the songs that must be sung as yo soften the materials in your mouth before you start to weave….  The students protested…. Mrs. Mattz…patiently explained the obvious to them: “You’re missing the point,” she said, “a basket is a song made visible.”  (Quoted Wilkinson 2010:382). 

Appendix

            To give the flavor of Californian religious narrative, let us consider the beginning of the creation myth told by Hanc’ibyjim (Tom Young) to Roland Dixon in 1902-03 (Dixon 1912).  This myth was partially retranslated and massively rewritten by William Shipley (1991).  I will do still another rewrite, though I do not know the Maidu language and have to rely on Dixon and Shipley.

            Neither of the translators refers to the incredible chantlike prosody of the narrative, which comes across even to a non-Maidu-speaker like me.  It is worth setting some of this up in poetic form.  Hanc’ibyjim uses the obligatory marker of speech, –tsoia (“it is said”), as a chorus, its sharp sound contrasting with the beautiful flow of the narrative, full of “a” and “m” sounds.  Simply enjoy the sounds before reading the meaning.  (Most letters are pronounced as in Spanish, umlaut vowels as in German.  The apostrophe marks the accented syllable [not a glottal stop].)

Kō’doyapen kan ūniñ’ ko’do momim’ opit’mőni hintsetō’yetsoiam.

Hin’tstetoyewē’bisim hōmōñ’ jidiu; dunaat yj;tun jawun;naat tsemen’tsoia.

Tsai’tsainom mai’dűm hesī’kimaat hesim’maat kai’noyemen’tsoia.

Amőn’ikan ūniñ’ ka’dom tsewu’suktipem ka’dom yőtson’otsoia.

Epin’iñkoyōdi kō’do tsehe’hetsonopem yak’hubőktsoia.

Adōñ’kan wasā’ hubőktsoia.  (Dixon 1912:4.)

Literally, the first two lines means “Earth-Maker and this world water full-when drifted about, it is said.  Kept drifting about where world-in indeed little earth indeed saw-not, it is said.”

            Translating the first part of the story (and leaving out the endless repetition of “it is said,” so effective in Maidu, so monotonous in English):

Earthmaker, when this world was covered with water, drifted.

He kept drifting; he saw nothing, not even a bit of earth.

He saw no creatures of any kind, nothing flying.

He went on and on, over the unseen earth.

The world seemed transparent, like the Valley Above in the sky.

He felt sad.

“How, I wonder—how, I wonder—where, I wonder, in what world or place, can we see the earth?”  he said.  (After Dixon 1912:4 and Shipley 1991:18.)

[Coyote then appears, and he and Earthmaker discuss creating the world.  Earthmaker sings:]

Where are you, my great mountains, my world mountains?

            [Coyote sings:]

Where are you, my foggy mountains, my world I could travel?

            [A tiny piece of land like a bird’s nest then appears, and the two succeed in stretching it to make a world.  Meadowlark joins them, and Coyote goes on:]

My world, where I can go along the edge of the meadow,

My world, where I can travel side to side, wander all ways,

My world of mountains beyond mountains,

I call, singing, to my traveling-world,

In such a world shall I wander.

            [There is some conference among the three, about how to paint the world, and Coyote continues:]

I will paint it with blood,

There will be blood in the world,

Creatures with blood will be born,

Animals with blood will be born,

Deer and other animals,

People shall be born,

Nothing will be missing, all those with blood will be born.

Red rocks will come into being,

The world will seem painted with blood,

It will be beautiful.  (After Dixon 1912:5-10 and Shipley 1991:19-22.)

Coyote…stretched out the land with his feet.

‘Pushing it out, little by little,

He stretched it out to where the usn rises—

Foirst, he stretched it out to there.

Then, to the south, and to where the sun sets,

He stretched it out, little by little.  (Shipley 1991:22.)

            Creation continues, in an epic poem filled with intense images like those above.  This story is as beautiful and powerful as Genesis and one of the great religious poems of the world, yet it remains unknown, and neither Dixon’s nor Shipley’s translations do it justice (judging from analysis of Dixon’s line-by-line translation).  We need a Maidu to do a real translation that can bring out the full meanings and keep the power of the language.

References

Allen, Michael F.; Cameron W. Barrows; Michael D. Bell; G. Darrel Jenerette; Robert F. Johnson; Edith B. Allen.  2014.  “Threats to California’s Desert Ecosystems.”  Fremontia 42:2:3-8.

Anderson, M. Kat.  1999.  “The Fire, Pruning, and Coppice Management of Temperate Ecosystems for Basketry Material by California Indian Tribes.”  Human Ecology 27:79-113. 

—  2005.  Tending the Wild:  Native American Knowledge and the Management of California’s Natural Resources.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Anderson, M. Kat (ed.).  2017.  Special Issue: California Geophytes.  Fremontia, 44:3.

Anderson, M. Kat, and Frank K. Lake.  2013.  “California Indian Ethnomycology and Associated Forest Management.”  Journal of Ethnobiology 33:33-85.

Anderson, M. Kat, and Frank K. Lake.  2017.  “Beauty, Bounty, and Biodiversity: The Story of California Indians’ Relationship with Edible Native Geophytes.”  Fremontia 44:3:44-51.

Anderson, M. Kat, and Jeffrey Rosenthal.  2015.  “An Ethnobiological Approach to Reconstructing Indigenous Fire Regimes in the Foothill Chaparral of the Western Sierra Nevada.”  Journal of Ethnobiology 35:4-36.

Arnold, Jeanne E.  1987.  Craft Specialization in the Prehistoric Channel Islands, California.  Berkeley:  University of California, Publications in Anthropology, 18.

Arnold, Jeanne E.  2004.  Foundations of Chumash Complexity.  Cotsen Inst of Archaeology, Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 7. 

Atleo, E. Richard.  2004.  Tsawalk:  A Nuu-Chah-Nulth Worldview.  Vancouver:  University of British Columbia Press. 

Barbour, Michael; Todd Keeler-Wolf; Allan A. Schoenherr (eds.).  2007.  Terrestrial Vegetation of California.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Barrett, S. A.  1933.  Pomo Myths.  Milwaukee:  Public Museum of the City of Milwaukee, Bulletin, 15:1-608.

Bean, Lowell John.  1972.  Mukat’s People:  The Cahuilla Indians of Southern California.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

—  1992.  “Power and Its Applications in Native California.”  In California Indian Shamanism, Lowell John Bean, ed.  Menlo Park:  Ballena Press.  Pp. 21-32.

Bean, Lowell John (ed.).  1972.  California Indian Shamanism.  Menlo Park:  Ballena Press.

Bean, Lowell, and Thomas C. Blackburn (eds.).  1976. Native Californians:  A Theoretical Retrospective.  Ramona, CA:  Ballena Press.

Bean, Lowell John, and Thomas F. King (eds.).  1974.  ‘Antap:  California Inidan Political and Economic Organization.  Ramona, CA:  Ballena Press.

Bean, Lowell J., and Katherine Siva Saubel.  1972.  Temalpakh:  Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of Plants.  Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press.

Benedict, Ruth Fulton.  1923.  The Concept of the Guardian Spirit in North Ameica.  Washington, DC:  American Anthropological Association, Memoir 29.

Benson, William Ralganal.  2002.  “Creation.”  Tr./ed. Jaime de Angulo.  In Surviving Through the Days:  A California Indian Reader, Herbert Luthin, ed.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.  Pp. 260-310.

Bettinger, Robert L.  2015.  Orderly Anarchy: Sociopolitical Evoluiton in Aboriginal California.  Berkeley: University of California Press.

Blackburn, Thomas.  1975.  December’s Child:  A Book of Chumash Oral Narratives.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Blackburn, Thomas, and M. Kat Anderson.  1993.  “Introduction:  Managing the Domesticated Environment.”  In Before the Wilderness:  Environmental Management by Native Californians, Thomas Blackburn and M. Kat Anderson, eds.  Menlo Park, CA:  Ballena Press.  Pp. 15-25.

Blackburn, Thomas, and M. Kat Anderson (eds.).  1993.  Before the Wilderness:  Environmental Management by Native Californians.  Menlo Park, CA:  Ballena Press.

Boyd, Robert.  1999.  The Coming of the Spirit of Pestilence:  Introduced Infections Diseases and Population Decline Among Northwest Coast Indians, 1774-1874.  Seattle:  University of Washington Press.

Broughton, Jack M.  1994.  “Declines in Mammalian Foraging Efficiency during the Late Holocene, San Francisco Bay, CA.”  Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13:371-401. 

Broughton, Jack M.  2002.  “Pre-Columbian Human Impact on California Vertebrates: Evidence from Old Bones and Implications for Wilderness Policy.”  Kay, Charles E., and Randy T. Simmons (eds.), Wilderness and Political Ecology: Aboriginal Influences and the Original State of Nature.  Salt Lake City:  University of Utah Press.  Pp. 44-71.

Burrill, Richard.  1993.  Protectors of the Land:  An Environmental Journey to Understanding the Conservation Ethic.  Sacramento:  Anthro Company.

Callahan, Catherine.  1978.  “Lake Miwok.” In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 264-273.

Campbell, Paul Douglas.  2007.  Earth Pigments and Paint of the California Indians:  Meaning and Technology.”  La Crescenta, CA:  author.

Castetter, Edward F., and Willis H. Bell.  1951.  Yuman Indian Agriculture.  Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Castillo, Edward.  1978.  “The Impact of Euro-American Exploration and Settlement.”  In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 99-127.

Chase-Dunn, Christopher, and Kelly M. Mann.  1998.  The Wintu and Their Neighbors:  A Very Small World-System in Northern California.  Tucson:  University of Arizona Press.

Clemmer, Richard O.  2009a.  “Native Americans:  The First Conservationists?  An Examination of Shepard Krech III’s Hypothesis with Respect to the Western Shoshone.”  Journal of Anthropological Research 65:555-570. 

—2009b.  “Pristine Aborigines or Victims of Progress?  The Western Shoshones in the Anthropological Imagination.”  Current Anthropology 50:849-881.

Clottes, Jean.  2008.  Cave Art.  London:  Phaidon.

Cook, Sherburne F.  1976.  The Population of the California Indians 1769-1770.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Colville, Frederick Vernon.  1902.  Wokas, a Primitive Food of the Klamath Indians.  United States National Museum, Report, 1902, pp. 725-739.

Cozzens, Peter.  2002.  Eyewitnesses to the Indian Wars, 1865-1890.  Vol. 2:  The Pacific Northwest.  Mechanicsburg, PA:  Stackpole Books.

Crespí, Juan.  2001.  A Description of Distant Roads: Original Journals of the First Expedition into California, 1769-1770.  Ed./Tr Alan K. Brown.  San Diego:  San Diego State University Press.

Crosby, Harry.  1997.  The Cave Paintings of Baja California:  Discovering the Great Murals of an Unknown People.  San Diego:  Sunbelt Publications.

Delcourt, Paul, and Hazel Delcourt.  2004.  Prehistoric Native Americans and Ecological Change:  Human Ecosystems in Native North America Since the Pleistocene.  New York:  Cambridge University Press.

Des Lauriers, Matthew Richard.  2010.  Island of Fogs: Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Investigations of Isla Cedros, Baja California.  Salt Lake City:  University of Utah Press.

Deur, Douglas.  2009.  “A Caretaker Responsibility”:  Revisiting Klamath and Modoc Traditions of Plant Community Management.” Journal of Ethnobiology 29:296-322. 

Dillon, Richard F.  1973.  Burnt-out Fires.  Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Dixon, Roland.  1907.  The Shasta.  Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 17:381-498.

—  1912.  Maidu Texts.  Leyden:  E. J. Brill.  Publications of the American Ethnological Society, Vol. 4.

Dobyns, Henry.  1983.  Their Number Became Thinned:  Native Population Dynamics in Eastern North America.  Knoxville:  University of Tennessee Press.

Du Bois, Cora.  1935.  Wintu Ethnography.  Berkeley:  University of California Publications in American Anthropology and Ethnology 336:1:1-148.

Elsasser, Albert.  1978a.  “Mattole, Nongatl, Sinkyone, Lassik, and Wailaki.”  In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 190-204.

—  1978b.  “Wiyot.”  In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 155-163.

Erlandson, Jon M.  2015.  Paleoindian Use of Shellfish on California’s Northern Channel Islands.  Paper, Society of Ethnobiology, annual meeting, Santa Barbara, May.

Fenenga, Franklin, and Francis A. Riddell.  2012.  “A Weather Shaman’s Rain-Making Bundle from the Tübatulabal and Its Relationship to the History of Weather Control in Soiuth-Central California.”  Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 32:109-126.

Finnegan, Seth; Kristin Bergmann; John M. Eiler; David S. Jones; David A. Fike; Ian Eisenman; Nigel C. Hughes; Aradhna K. Tripati; Woodward W. Fischer.  2011.  “The Magnitude and Duration of Late Ordovician-arliy Silurian Glaciation.”  Science 331:903-906.

Forde, C. Daryll.  1931.  Ethnography of the Yuma Indians.  University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 28:4:83-278.

Fowler, Catherine.  1992.  In the Shadow of Fox Peak:  An Ethnography of the Cattail-Eater Northern Paiute People of Stillwater Marsh.  U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge, Cultural Resource Series #5.

— 2013.  The Kasaga’yu: An Ethno-Ornithology of the Cattail-Eatern Northern Paiute People of Western Nevada.  In Explorations in Ethnobiology: The Legacy of Amadeo Rea, Marsha Quinlan and Dana Lepofsky, eds.  Society of Ethnobiology, Contributions in Ethnobiology, 1.  Pp. 154-178.

Fry, Douglas P. (ed.).  2013.  War, Peace, and Human Nature: The Convergence of Evolutionary and Cultural Views.  New York: Oxford University Press. 

Gamble, Lynn.  2008.  The Chumash World at European Contact.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Gamble, Lynn (ed.).  2015.  First Coastal Californians.  Santa Fe: SAR Press.

Short coll. of articles.

Garduño, Everardo.  2016. “Making the Invisible Visible: The  Yucamns of the U.S._-Mexico Transborder Region.”  Human Organization 75:118-129. 

Garfinkel, Alan, and Robert Yohe II.  2010.  “Bighorn Hunting, Resource Depression, and Rock Art in the Coso Range, Eastern California:  A Computer Simulation Model.”  Journal of Archaeological Science 37:42-51.

Garth, T. R.  1978.  “Atsugewi.”  In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 236-243

Gayton, Anna.  1948.  Northern Foothill Yokuts and Western Mono.  University of California Anthropological Records 10:143-302.

—  1976.  “Culture-Environment Integration:  External References in Yokuts Life.”  In Native Califonrians:  A Theoretical Retrospective, Lowell John Bean and Thomas C. Blackburn, eds.  Pp. 79-97.

Gifford, Edward Winslow.  1916. Miwok Moieties.  Berkeley:  Unversity of California, Publications in American Anthropology and Ethnology, 12:139-194.

—  1957 [1936].  California Balanophagy.  In The California Indians: A Source Book, R. Heizer, ed.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Gill, Kristina M. 2017.  “10,000 Years of Geophyte Use among the Island Chumansh of the Northern Channel Islands.”  Fremontia 44:3:34-38.

Gill, Kristina M., and Kiristin M. Hoppa.  2016.  “Evidence for an Island Chumash Geophyte-Based Subsistence Economy on the Northern Channel Islands.”  Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 38:51-72.

Gleason, Susan.  2001.  In Search of the Intangible:  Geophyte Use and Management along the Upper Klamath River Canyon.  Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.

Goddard, Pliny Earle.  1903.  Life and Culture of the Hupa.  Berkeley: University of California Publications in American Arcaheology and Ethnology, 1:1.

—  1904.  Hupa Texts.  Berkeley: University of California Publications in American Arcaheology and Ethnology, 1:2.

—  1909.  Kato Texts.  Berkeley:  University of California Publications in American Arcaheology and Ethnology, 5:3:65-238.

—  1914.  Chilula Texts.  Berkeley:  University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 10:7:289-379.

Goldschmidt, Walter.  1951.  Nomlaki Ethnography.  Berkeley:  University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 42:4:302-443.

— 1978.  “Nomlaki.” In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 341-349.

Golla, Victor.  2007.  “Linguistic Prehistory.”  In Calfironia Prehistory:  Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, Terry Jones and Kathryn Klar, eds.  Lanham, MD:  AltaMira, division of Rowman and Littlefield.  Pp. 71-82.

—  2011.  California Indian Languages.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Goodrich, Jennie; Claudia Lawson; Vana Parrish Lawson.  1980.  Kashaya Pomo Plants.  Berkeley:  Heyday Books.

Grant, Campbell.  1965.  The Rock Paintings of the Chumash: A Study of a California Indian Culture.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

—  1978.  “Eastern Coastal Chumash.” In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 509-519.

Grayson, Donald K.  1977.  “Pleistocene Avifaunas and the Overkill Hypothesis.”  Science 195:691-693.

—  1991.  “Late Pleistocene Mammalian Extinctions in North America:  Taxonomy, Chronology, and Explanations.”  Journal of World Prehistory 5:193-231.

— 2001.  “Did Human Hunting Cause Mass Extinction?”  Science 294:1459.

Greenberg, Joseph H.  1987.  Language in the Americas.  Stanford, CA:  Stanford University Press.

Hames, Raymond.  2007.  “The Ecologically Noble Savage Debate.”  Annual Review of Anthropology 36:177-190.

Harrington, John P.  1932.  Tobacco among the Karuk Indians of California.  United States Government, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 94.

Hedges, Ken, and Christina Beresford.  1986.  Santa Ysabel Ethnobotany.  San Diego:  San Diego Museum of Man, Ethnic Technology Notes, 20.

Heizer, Robert F.  1978.  “Natural Forces and Native World View.”  In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 649-653.

Heizer, Robert F. (ed.).  1978.  Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.

Heizer, Robert F., and Theodora Kroeber.  1979.  Ishi, the Last Yahi.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Hildebrandt, William; Kelly R. McGuire; Jeffrey S. Rosenthal.  2010.  “Human Behavioral Ecology and Historical Contingency:  A Comment on the Diablo Cnayon Archaeological Record.”  American Antiquity 75:679-688.

Hill, Jane.  2001.  “Proto-Uto-Aztecan:  A Community of Cultivators in Central Mexico?”  American Anthropologist 103:913-934.

Hinton, Leanne.  1994.  Flutes of Fire:  Essays on California Indian Languages.  Berkeley:  Heyday Books.

Hinton, Leanne, and Lucille Watahomigie.  1984.  Spirit Mountain: An Anthology of Yuman Story and Song.  Tucson:  University of Arizona Press.

Hobbes, Thomas.  1950 [1657].  Leviathan.  New York:  E. P. Dutton.

Hopkins, Jerry N.; Gerrit L. Fenenga; Alan P. Garfinkel; Samantha Riding-Red-Horse; Donna Miranda-Begay.  2012.  “Further Refledtions on California Rain-Making Shamanism: ‘The Other Half’ of the Tübatulabal Shaman’s Rain-Making Bundle.”  Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 32:127-140.

Hoveman, Alice R.  2002.  Journey to Justice: The Wintu People and the Salmon.  Redding: Turtle Bay Exploration Park. 

Hudson, Travis: Thomas Blackburn; Rosario Curletti; Jan Timbrook (eds.).  1977.  The Eye of the Flute:  Chumash Traditional History and Ritual as Told by Fernando Librado Kitsepawit to John P. Harrington.  Santa Barbara:  Santa Barbara Natural History Museum.

Hull, Kathleen L.  2009.  Pestilence and Persistence:  Yosemite Indian Demography and Culture in Colonial California.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

—  2015.  “Quality of Life: Native Communities within and beyond the Bounds of Colonial Institutions in California.”  In Beyond Germs: Native Depopulation in North America, Catherine M. Cameron, Paul Kelton, and Alan C. Swedlund, eds.  Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Pp. 222-248.

Hunn, Eugene.  1991.  N’Chi-Wana, The Big River.  Seattle:  University of Washington Press.

Jackson, Helen Hunt.  1885.  A Century of Dishonor.  Boston:  Roberts Bros.

Jewell, Donald P.  1987.  Indians of the Feather River:  Tales and Legends of Concow Maidu of California.  Menlo Park:  Ballena Press.

Johnson, John R.  2015.  The Importance of Small-Sized Fishes in Chumash Subsistence.  Paper, Society of Ethnobiology, annual meeting, Santa Barbara, May.

Jones, Terry, and Brian F. Codding.  2010.  “Historical Contingencies, Issues of Scale, and Flightless Hypotheses:  A Response to Hidlebrandt et al.”  American Antiquity 75:689-699.

Jones, Terry L. Kenneth W. Gobalet; Brian Codding.  2016.  “The Archaeology of Fish and Fishing on the Central Coast of California: The Case for an Underexploited Resource.”  Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 41:88-108.

Jones, Terry; William R. Hildebrandt; Douglas J. Kennett; Judith F. Porcasi.  2004.  “Prehistoric Marine Mammal Overkill.”  Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 24:69-80.

Jones, Terry L., and Klar, Kathryn A. (eds.).  2007.  California Prehistory:  Colonization, Culture, and Complextiy.  Lanham, MD:  AltaMira, division of Rowman and Littlefield.

Jones, Terry L.; Judith F. Porcasi; Jon M. Erlandson; H. Dallas Jr.; T. A. Wake; R. Schwaderer.  2008.  “The Protracted Holocene Extinction of California’s Flightless Sea Duck (Chendytes lawi) and Its Implications for the Pleistocene Overkill Hypothesis.”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105:4105-4108.

Jones, Terry L.; Judith F. Porcasi; Jereme Gaeta; Brian F. Codding.  2008.  “The Diablo Canyon Fauna:  A Coarse-Grained Record of Trans-Holocene Foraging from the Central California Mainland Coast.”  American Antiquity 73:289-316.

Joslin, Terry.  2015.  Fishing and Ecological Resilience on California’s Channel Islands.  2015.  Paper, Society for American Archaeology, annual conference, San Francisco.

Kay, Charles E., and Randy T. Simmons (eds.).  2002.  Wilderness and Political Ecology: Aboriginal Influences and the Original State of Nature.  Salt Lake City:  University of Utah Press.

Keeling, Richard.  1992a.  Cry for Luck:  Sacred Song and Speech among the Yurok, Hupa and Karok Indians of Northwestern California.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

—  1992b.  “Music and Culture History among the Yurok and Neighboring Tribes of Northwestern California.”  Journal of Anthropoloigical Research 48:25-48.

Kelly, William H.  1977.  Cocopa Ethnography.  Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona, 29.  Tucson:  University of Arizona Press.

Kennett, Douglas J.  2005.  The Island Chumash:  Behavioral Ecology of a Maritime Society.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Kitsepawit, Fernando Librado.  1981.  The Eye of the Flute:  Chumash Traditional History and Ritual as Told by Fernando Librado Kitsepawit to John P. Harrington. Ed. Travis Hudson, Thomas Blackburn, Rosario Curletti, and Janice Timbrook.  Santa Barbara:  Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.

Krech, Shepard, III.  1999.  The Ecological Indian:  Myth and Reality.  New York:  W. W. Norton.

Kroeber, A. L.  1925.  Handbook of the Indians of California.  U. S. Government, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78.

—  1932.  “The Patwin and Their Neighbors.”  Berkeley:
 University of California Publication in American Archaeology and Ethnology 29:4:253-423. 

—  1972.  More Mohave Myths.  University of California Anthropological Records, 27.

—  1976.  Yurok Myths.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Kroeber, A. L., and Samuel Barrett.  1960.  Fishing among the indians of Northewestern California.  University of California Anthropological Records 21:1-210.  Berkeley:  University of California, Dept. of Anthropology.

Kroeber, A. L., and E. W. Gifford.  1980.  Karok Myths.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Kroeber, Theodora.  1961.  Ishi in Two Worlds.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Laird, Carobeth. 1975.  Encounter with an Angry God:  Recollections of My Life with John Peabody Harrington.  Banning, CA:  Malki Museum Press.

—  1976.  The Chemehuevis.  Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press.

—  1984.  Mirror and Pattern.  Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press.

Lang, Julian.  1994.  Ararapikva, Creation Stories of the People:  Traditional Karok Indian Literature from Northwestern California.  Berkeley, CA:  Heyday Books.

Lapena, Frank.  1978.  “Wintu.” In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 324-340.

Lapeña, Queeny; Jessica Morales; Rene Vellanoweth.  2015.  The Distribution and Chronology of Abalone Middens on the California Channel Islands.  Paper, Society for American Archaeology, annual conference, San Francisco.

LaRivers, Ira.  1994.  Fish and Fisheries of Nevada.  Reno: University of Nevada Press.

Latta, Frank F.  1977.  Handbook of Yokuts Indians.  2nd edn.   Santa Cruz, CA:  Bear State Books.

Lawton, Hary W.; Philip J. Wilke; Mary DeDecker; William M. Mason.  1976.  “Agriculture among the Paiute of Owens Valley.”  Journal of California Anthropology 3:13-51.

Lerch, Michael.  1981. Chukiam (All Growing Things):  The Ethnobotany of the Serrano Indians.  B.A. thesis, University of California, Riverside, Dept. of Anthropology.

Levinas, Emmanuel.  1969.  Totality and Infinity.  Tr. Alphonso Lingis (Fr. orig. 1961). Duquesne University Press, Pittsburgh.

Lévi-Strauss, Claude.  1963.  “The Sorcerer and His Magic.”  In Structural Anthropology.  Tr. Claire Jacobson and Brooke Grundfest Schoepf.   New York:  Basic Books.  Chapter 9, pp. 167-185. 

Lewis, Henry.  2003.  Review of Fire, Native Peoples, and the Natural Landscape ed. by Thomas Vale.  Journal of Ethnobiology 23:161-163.

Librado, Fernando.  1979.  Breath of the Sun.  Ed. by Travis Hudson.  Banning, CA:  Malki Museum Press.

Lightfoot, Kent; Edward Luby; Lisa Pesnichak.  2011.  “Evolutionary Typologies and Hunter-Gatherer Research:  Rethinking the Mounded Landscapes of Central California.”  In Hunter-Gatherer Arhcaeology as Historical Process, Kenneth Sassaman and Donald Holly Jr., eds.  Tucson:  University of Arizona Press. Pp. 55-78.

Lightfoot, Kent G., and Otis Parrish.  2009.  California Indians and Their Environment:  An Introduction.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Loeb, Edwin M.  1926.  Pomo Folkways.  Berkeley:  University of California, Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnography 19:2:149-405.

Luomala, Katharine.  1978.  “Tipai-Ipai.”  In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 502-609.

Luthin, Herbert W.  2002.  Surviving Through the Days:  A California Indian Reader. Berkeley:  University of California Press. 

Madley, Benjamin.  2012.  “When the World Was Turned Upside Down’: California and Oregon’s Tolowa Indian Genocide, 1851-1856.” In New Directions in Genocide Research, Adam Jones, ed.  London: Routledge.  Pp. 171-197.

—  An American Genocide: The United States and the california Indian Catastrophe.  New Haven: Yale University Press.  692 pp.  Illus.

Margolin, Malcolm.  2005.  “Indian Pedagogy:  A Look at Traditional California Indian Teaching Techniques.” In Ecological literacy: Educating our children for a sustainable world, Michael K. Stone and Zenobia Barlow, eds.  Pp. 67-79.

Martin, Paul S., and Richard Klein (eds.).  1984.  Quarternay Extinctions:  A Prehistoric Revolution.  Tucson:  University of Arizona Press.

Martin, Paul S., and Christine R. Szuter.  1999.  War Zones and Game Sinks in Lewis and Clark’s West.  Conservation Biology 13:36-45.

McCarthy, Helen.  1993.  “Managing Oaks and the Acorn Crop.”  In Before the Wilderness:  Environmental Management by Native Californians, Thomas Blackburn and M. Kat Anderson, eds.  Menlo Park, CA:  Ballena Press.  Pp. 213-228.

McCorriston, Joy.  2000.  “Wheat.”  In Kenneth Kiple and B. Ornelas (eds.):  The Cambridge World History of Food.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press.  Vol. 1, pp. 158-174.

McLendon, Sally, and Michael Lowy.  1978.  “Eastern Pomo and Southeastern Pomo.” In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 306-323.

Meacham, A. W.  1875.  Wigwam and Warpath.  Boston:  John Dale.

Mead, George R.  2003.  The Ethnobotany of the California Indians.  La Grande, OR:  E-Cat Worlds.

Miller, Virginia P.  1979.  Uknomno’m:  The Yuki Indians of Northern California.  Socorro, NM:  Ballena Press.

Minnich, Richard A.  1983.  “Fire Mosaics in Southern California and Northern Baja California.”  Science 219:1287-1294.

—  1987.  “Fire Behavior in Southern California Chaparral Before Fire Control:  The Mount Wilson Burn at the Turn of the Century.”  Annals of the American Association of Geographers 77:599-618.

—  2001a.  “An Integrated Model of Two Fire Regimes.”  Conservation Biology 15:1549-1153. 

—  2001b.  “Fire and Elevational Zonation of Chaparral and Conifer Forests in the Peninsular Ranges of La Frontera.”  In:  Changing Plant Life of La Frontera:  Observations on Vegetation in the United States/Mexico Borderlands, Grady L. Webster and Conrad J. Bahre,eds.  Albuquerque:  University of New Mexico Press.  Pp. 120-142.

—  2008.  California’s Fading Wildflowers:  Lost Legacy and Biological Invasions.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Minnich, Richard A., and Ernesto Franco-Vizcaino.  2002.  “Divergence in Californian Vegetation and Fire Regimes Induced by Differences in Fire Management across the U.S. Mexico Boundary.  In Fernandez, Linda, and Richard T. Carson (eds.),  Both Sides of the Border:  Transboundary Environmental Management Issues Facing Mexico and the United States.  Dordrecht:  Kluwer.  Pp. 385-402.

Mixco, Mauricio J.  1983.  Kiliwa Texts: “When I Have Donned My Crest of Stars.”  Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Morgan, Christopher.  2012.  “Modeling Modes of Hunter-Gatherer Food Storage.”  American Antiquity 77:714-736.

Nabhan, Gary.  1982.  The Desert Smells Like Rain:  A Naturalist in Papago Indian Country.  San Francisco:  North Point Press.

—  1985.  Gathering the Desert.  Tucson:  University of Arizona Press.

—  2013.  “The Wild, the Domesticated, and the Coyote-Tainted: The Trickster and the Tricked in Hunter-Gatherer versus Farmer Folklore.”  In Explorations in Ethnobiology: The Legacy of Amadeo Rea, Marsha Quinlan and Dana Lepofsky, eds.  Society of Ethnobiology, Contributions in Ethnobiology, 1.  Pp. 129-140.

Olmsted, D. L., and Omer C. Stewart.  1978.  “Achomawi.”  In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 225-235.

O’Neill, Sean.  2008.  Cultural Contact and Linguistic Relativity among the Indians of Northwestern California.  Norman, OK:  University of Oklahoma Press.

Ortiz, Beverly R., with Julia F. Parker.  1991.  It Will Live Forever:  Traditional Yosemite Inhdian Acorn Preparation.  Berkeley:  Heyday Books.

Pattie, James O.  1962

[orig. edn. 1831]

.  The Personal Narrative of James O. Pattie.  Philadelphia:  Lippincott.

Peters, Josephine Grant, and Bev Ortiz.  2010.  After the First Full Moon in april:  A Sourcebook of Herbal Medicine from a California Indian Elder.  Walnut Creek:  Left Coast Press.

Phillips, George Harwood.  1975.  Chiefs and Challengers.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

—   1993.  Indians and Intruders in Central California, 1760-1849.  Norman, OK:  University of Oklahoma Press.

— 1997.  Indians and Indian Agents:  The Origins of the Reservation System in California, 1849-1852.  Norman, OK:  University of Oklahoma Press.

Pierce, Wendy, and Gary Scholze.  2016.  “The Macrofossil and Starch Grain Evidence for the Use of Root Crops in the Owens Valley, California,m Icuding Two Potentially Irrigated Taxa.” Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 36:205-219.

Pierotti, Raymond.  2011.  Indigenous Knowledge, Ecology, and Evolutionary Biology.  New York:  Routledge.

Pilling, Arnold.  1978.  “Yurok.”  In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 137-154.

Pinker, Steven.   2011.  The Better Angels of Our Nature:  Why Violence Has Declined.  New York:  Viking.

Popper, Virginia S.  2016.  “Change and Persistence: Mission Neophyte Foodways at Selected Colonial Alta California Institutions.”  Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 38:5-26.

Powell, John Wesley.  1971.  Anthropology of the Numa: John Wesley Powell’s Manuscripts on the Numic Peoples of western North America 1868-1880.  Don D. Fowler and Catherine S. Fowler, eds.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.

Powers, Stephen.  1877.  Tribes of California.  Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Preston, William.  1996.  “Serpent in Eden:  Dispearsal of Foreign Diseases into Pre-mission California.”  Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 18:2-37.

Pyne, Stephen J. 2004.  Tending Fire:  Coping with  America’s Wildland Fires.  Washington, DC:  Island Press (Shearwater Books).

Raab, Mark.  1996.  “Debating Prehistory in Coastal Southern California:  Resource Intensification Versus Political Economy.”  Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 18:64-80. 

Reddy, Seetha.  2016.  “Changing Palates and Resources: Reginonal and Diachronic Trends in Plant Use in Prehistoric California.”  Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 36:227-244.

Rhoades, Lela.  2013.  Lela Rhoades, Pit River Woman.  As told to Molly Curtis.  Berkeley: Heyday Books.

Rick, Torben C.; Jon M. Erlandson; Todd J. Braje; James A. Estes; Michael H. Graham; René L. Vellanoweth. 2008.  “Historical Ecology and Human Impacts on Coastal Ecosystems of the Santa Barbara Channel Region, California.”  In Human Impacts on Ancient Marine Ecosystems:  A Global Perspective, Torben C. Rick and Jon M. Erlandson (eds.).   Berkeley:  University of California Press.  Pp. 77-102.

Rick, Torben C.; Jon M. Erlandson; Rene L. Vellanoweth; Todd J. Braje; Paul W. Collins; Daniel Guthrie; Thomas W. Stafford Jr.  2009.  “Origins and Antiquity of the Island Fox (Urocyon litteralis) on California’s Channel Islands.  Quarternary Research 71:93-98.

Riddle, Jeff.  1974.  The Indian History of the Modoc War.  Urion.

Ross, John Alan.  2011.  The Spokan Indians.  Spokane: Michael J. Ross.

Santy, Jenna.  2016.  ‘The Promise of Microbotanical Research in alifornia: A Case Study from CA-SBA-53, a Middle Holocene Archaeological Site along Goleta Slough.”  Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 36:193-204.

Sapir, Edward.  1910.  Yana Texts.  Berkeley:  University of California, Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 9, pp. 1-235.

—  1992.  “Kaibab  Paiute and Northern Ute Ethnographic Field Notes.”  Catherine S. Fowler and Robert C. Euler, eds.  In The Collected Works of Edward Sapir.  Vol. X, William Bright, ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Saubel, Katherine.  2004.  Isill Hekwas Waxish:  A Dried Coyote’s Tail.  Socorro, NM:  Ballena Press.

Schneider, Joan.  1993.  Aboriginal Milling-Implement Quarries in Eastern California and Western Arizona:  A Behavioral Perspective.  Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.

Shipek, Florence.  1989.  “An Example of Intensive Plant Husbandry: The Kumeyaay of Southern California.”  In: Harris, D. R., and G. C. Hillman (eds.).  Foraging and Farming:  The Evolution of Plant Exploitation.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press.  Pp. 159-170.

Shipley, William.  1978.  “Native Languages of California.” In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 80-90.

—  1991.  The Maidu Indian Myths and Stories of Hanc’ibyjim.  Berkeley:  Heyday Books.

Simmons, Alan H.  2007.  The Neolithic Revolution in the Near East:  Transforming the Human landscape.  Tucson:  University of Arizona Press.

Smith, Erin M., and Mikael Fauvelle.  2015.  “Regional Interactions between California and the Southwest: The Western Edge of the North American Continental System.”  American Anthropologist 117:710-721.

Spier, Robert F. G.  1978.  “Monache.”  In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 426-436.

Spoon, Jeremy, and Richard Arnold.  2014.  “Collaborative Research and Co-Learning: Integrating Nuwivi (Southern Paiute) Ecological Knowledge and Spirituality to Revitalize a Fragmented Land.”  Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture 6:477-500.

Spoon, Jeremy; Richard Arnold; Newe/Nuwuvi Working Group.  2011.  Nuwu Kanee, Nuwu Tooveenup (Our Home, Our Story): Nuwuvi (Southern Paiute) and the Spring Mountains Landscape.  Portland: Portland State University and The Mountain Institute.

— 2012a.  Nuwu-Vots (Our Footprints): Nuwuvi (Southern Paiute) and the Pahranagat Valley.  Report.  Portland: Portland State University and The Mountain Institute.

—  2012b.  Our Gathering Place:  Newe (Western Shoshone), Nuwuvi (Southern Paiute), and the Ash Meadows Landscape.  Report.  Portland: Portland State University and The Mountain Institute.

Spoon, Jeremy; Richard Arnold; Brian J. Lefler; Christopher Milton.  2015.  “Nuwuvi (Southern Piaute), Shifting Fire Regimes, and the Carpenter One Fire in the Spring Mountains National Recreation Arewa, Nevada.”  Journal of Ethnobiology 35:85-110.

Spoon, Jeremy; Richard Arnold; Brian Lefler; Kendra Wendel; Nuwuvi (Southern Paiute) Working Group; U. S. Forest Service; U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  2013.  Collaborative Resource Stewardship Plan: Nuwuvi (Southern Paiute), the Sheep Mountains National Recreation Area and the Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Report.  Portland: Portland State University and The Mountain Institute.

— 2014a.  Interpretive  and Public Use Site Plan for the Black Canyon Archaeological District. Report.  Portland: Portland State University and The Mountain Institute.

—  2014b.  The Voices of the Rocks Sing Through Us:  Nuwuvi (Southern Paiute) and Black Canyon.  Report.  Portland: Portland State University and The Mountain Institute.

Spott, Robert, and A. L. Kroeber.  1942.  Yurok Narratives.  University of California, Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 35:9:143-256.

Stern, Theodore.  1966.  The Klamath Tribe:  A People and Their Reservation.  Seattle:  University of Washington Press.

Stevens, Michelle L., and Emilie M.Zelazo.  2015.  “Fire, Floodplains and Fish: The Historic Ecology of the Lower Cosumnes River Watershed.”  In Rivers, Fish, and the People: Tradition, Science, and Historical Ecology of Fisheries in the American West, Pei-lin Yu, ed.  Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.  Pp. 155-187.

Stevenson, Alexander E., and Virginia L. Butler.  2015.  “The Holocene History of Fish and Fisheries of the Upper Klamath Basin, Oregon.”    Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 35:169-188.

Steward, Julian.  1936. Myths of the Owens Valley Paiute.  Berkeley:  University of California, Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 34:5:355-440.

—  1955.  Theory of Culture Change.  Urbana:  University of Illinois Press.

Stewart, Omer C.; Henry Lewis; Kat Anderson.  2002.  Forgotten Fires:  Native Americans and the Transient Wilderness.  Norman, OK:  University of Oklahoma Press.

Sugihara, N. G.; J. W. van Wagtendonk; K. E. Shaffer; J. Fites-Kaufman; A. E. Thode (eds.).  2006.  Fires in California’s Ecosystems.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Sunseri, Charlotte K.  2015.  “Taphonomic and Metric Evidence for Marrow and Grease Production.”  Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 35:275-290.

Suntree, Susan.  2010.  Sacred Sites:  The Secret History of Southern California.  Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Sutton, Mark.  1988.  Insects as Food:  Aboriginal Entomophagy in the Great Basin.  Socorro, NM:  Ballena Press.

Swezey, Sean L., and Robert F. Heizer.  l977.  “Ritual Management of Salmonid  Fish Resources in California.”  Journal of California Anthropology 4:6-29. 

Thompson, Lucy.  1991 [orig. 1916].  To the American Indian:  Reminiscences of a Yurok Woman.  New ed., edited and with foreword by Peter Palmquist; introduction by Julian Lang.  Berkeley:  Heyday Books.

Timbrook, Jan.  2007.  Chumash Ethnobotany:  Plant Knowledge among the Chumash Peoples of Southern California.  Santa Barbara and Berkeley:  Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History and Heyday Books. 

Timbrook, Jan, and John R. Johnson.  2013.  “People of the Sky: Birds in Chumash Culture.”  In Explorations in Ethnobiology: The Legacy of Amadeo Rea, Marsha Quinlan and Dana Lepofsky, eds.  Society of Ethnobiology, Contributions in Ethnobiology, 1.  Pp. 179-218.

Trafzer, Clifford, and Jack Hyer. 1999.  “Exterminate Them!”  Written Accounts of Murders, Rapes, and Enslavement of Native Americans during the Gold Rush.  Lansing:  Michigan State University.

Turner, Nancy J.; Laurence C. Thompson; M. Terry Thompson; Annie Z. York.  1990.  Thompson Ethnobotany.  Victoria, BC: Royal British Columbia Museum.

Tushingham, Shannon, and Colin Christiansen.  2015.  “Native American Fisheries of the Northwewstern California and Southwestern Oregon Coast: A Synthesis of Fish-Bone Data and Implications for Late Holocene Storage and Socio-Economic Organization.”  Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 35:189-215.

Vale, Thomas (ed.).  2002.  Fire, Native Peoples, and the Natural Landscape.  Washington, DC:  Island Press. 

Walker, Deward E., Jr. 2010.  “Traditional Fishing Practices among the Northern Shoshone, Northern Paiute, and Bannock of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation: A  Progress Report.”  Journal of Northwest Anthropology 44:53-62.

Walker, Deward E., Jr. (ed.).  1998.  Plateau.  Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 12.  Washington:  Smithsonian Institution.

Wallace, William J.  1978.  “Southern Valley Yokuts.”  In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8:  California, Robert L. Heizer, ed.  Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press.  Pp. 448-461.

Welch, James R.  2013.  Sprouting Valley: Historical Ethnobotany of ther Northern Pomo from Potter Valley, California.  Society of Ethnobiology, Contributions in Ethnobiology, 2.

Whisler, Emily; Amira Ainis; Rene Vellanoweth.  2015.  Making Ancient Birds Sing: Avian Archaeology on the California Channel Islands.  Paper, Society for American Archaeology, annual conference, San Francisco.

White, Raymond.  1963.  Luiseño Social Oganization.  Berkeley:  University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 49:2:1-194.

Whitley, David S.  1996.  The Art of the Shaman:  Rock Art of California.  Salt Lake City:  University of Utah Press.

Wildschut, William.  1975.  Crow Indian Medicine Bundles.  New York:  Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation.

Wilke, Philip.  1988.  “Bow Staves Harvested from Juniper Trees by Indians of Nevada.”  Journal of California and Great Basin anthropology 10:3-31.

—  2013.  “The Whisky Flat Pronghorn Trap Complex, Mineral County, Nevada, United States: Preliminary Report.”  Quarternary International 297:79-92.

Wilken-Robertson, Michael.  2004.  “Indigenous Groups of Baja Canlfirnia and the Environemnt.”  In The U.S.-M<exican BorderEnvironment, Tribal Environmental Issues of the Border Region, Michael Wilken-Robertson, ed.  San Diego: San Diego State University Pres.  Pp. 31-48.

—  2018.  Kumeyaay Ethnobotany: Shared Heritage of the Californias.  San Diego: Sunbelt Publications.

Wilkinson, Charles.  2010.  The People Are Dancing Again: The History of the Siletz Tribe of Western Oregon.  Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Wohlgemuth, Eric.  1996.  “Resource Intensification in Prehistoric Central California: Evidence from Archaeobotanical Data.”  Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 18:81-103. 

Woiche, Istet.  1992.  Annikadel:  The History of the Universe as Told by the Achomawi Indians of California.  Recorded and edited by C. Hart Merriam.  Tucson:  University of Arizona Press.

Wohlgemuth, Eric.  2004.  9,000 Years of Plant Use in Native Central California:  Implications of the Archaeobotanical Record for Archaeologists, Native Peoples, and Restoration Practitioners.”  Paper, Society of Ethnobiology, annual conference, Davis, CA.

—  2016.  “Early Limits to the Central California Acorn Economy in the Lower Sacramento Valley.” Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 36:181-192.

—  2017.  “The California Archaeological Record and Brodiaea Complex Conservation.”  Fremontia 44:3:42-44

Wolverton, Steve; R. Lee Lyman; James H. Kennedy; Thomas W. La Point.  2009.  “The Terminal Pleistocene Extinctions in North America, Hypermorphic Evolution, and the Dynamic Equilibrium Model.”  Journal of Ethnobiology 29:28-63.

Yetman, David.  2010.  The Ópatas: In Search of a Sonoran People.  Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Yohe, Robert, and Alan P. Garfinkel.  2012.  “Great Basin Bighorn Ceremonialism:  Reflections on a Possible Sheep Shrine at the Rose Spring Site (CA-INY-372), Rose Valley, Alta California.”  California Archaeology 4:201-224.

Zigmond, Maurice L.  1980.  Kawaiisu Mythology.  Socorro, NM:  Ballena Press.

—  1981.  Kawaiisu Ethnobotany.  Salt Lake City:  University of Utah Press. 

—  1990.  Kawaiisu.  Berkeley:  University of California, Publications in Linguistics, 119. 

The Huihui Yaofang: List of Medicinals, with Comparisons

Friday, November 30th, 2018

Arabic Medicine in China: Tradition, Innovation and Change

 

Paul D. Buell

Eugene N. Anderson

 

 

Part B: Medicinal Items Mentioned and Used in the Huihui Yaofang [Ver. 16 August 2018]

 

  1. N. Anderson

Characters supplied by Paul D. Buell

 

Introduction

 

As most readers will know, the Huihui Yaofang was a vast encyclopedia of Near Eastern medicine, compiled—evidently from Central Asian sources and probably by Iranic-speaking experts—in Yuan China, in the 14th century; what survives is about 1/6 of a Ming edition.

 

A modern edition appeared in 1996.  Editor Y.C. Kong and his collaborators—including Shiu-Ying Hu, the world’s leading expert on China’s ethnobotany—have identified most of the medicinals. We have found the rest, with a very few exceptions. (Another modern edition, by Song Xing, 2002, adds some useful confirmation.) Shiu-ying Hu died in 2012 at age 102, having had an active career as ethnobotanist for Harvard University for over 70 years.

 

In what follows, we list the substances with their modern biological classification and with brief summaries of their ascribed medical values in classical Greek, Arab, Jewish, Central Asian, Indian and Chinese medicine, using the standard references (discussed in detail below).

 

Listings:

 

A total of around 381 entries appears below (not counting synonyms and several completely unidentifiable items, which would bring the total to approximately 416). This does not translate to 381 species, because there are entries for generic things (“dung,” “soil”) and some entries that cover several species of plants that seem similar and were apparently used similarly. The actual total of identifiable species (or substances) is 287 plants, 68 animals and animal products, and 26 minerals. In some cases, multiple substances are derived from one species; in others, we are not sure of which species was used in the HHYF and thus include data for two or three similar ones. We have tried to make one entry correspond to one taxon as listed the HHYF. In many accounts we have included data on related species when such data are clearly relevant (e.g. when several similar species are used in similar ways in Central Asian medicine, as with oreganos, smartweeds, and many others). At the same time, when different species within a genus have different names in the HHYF, as with cinnamon relatives, mints, and Prunus, we have given separate accounts to each named category.

 

We can do no more than follow the identifications in Kong’s edition (Kong 1996) of the HHYF, including the various papers republished there. but some of these identifications are almost certainly wrong (see e.g. Launaea below). Further work is sorely needed.  Fortunately, most of the Arabic, Persian and Chinese names are well known and apply to well-known herbal and animal medicinals. It is striking to note how many of the plants in the HHYF are still used, and proven by biomedical research to have actual value.

 

The plant family assignments given herein are not always those given in earlier sources. When possible, I follow Hu Shiu-ying’s great work on Chinese food plants.[1] Recent research, especially genomic and cladistic work, has dramatically revised many earlier family alignments. The lily family, in particular, was once known as “the Smith family of the plant world”; there were once thousands of “lilies” only very dubiously related. This family has now been broken up into several tightly-defined groups that are known to be actual lineages. Everyone knew the lilies were a mess, but no one knew quite what to do about it, until modern genetics and chemistry gave them the tools.

 

We have tried to be conservative on this, not accepting unproven changes. Where confusion would be certain and problematic, because the changes are particularly recent, we have included the traditional family names in parentheses after the modern ones. (The very old, long-abandoned names ‘Compositae’ for Asteraceae, ‘Labiatae’ for Lamiaceae, ‘Cruciferae’ for Brassicaceae, and ‘Umbelliferae’ for Apiaceae are used in the oldest literature. I have not bothered to indicate this below.)

 

Species and genus names are given in standard current versions, which may need revision in some cases. Dominik Wujastyk)[2] is not alone is complaining not only about the difficulty of finding scientific names for Asian herbs, but also about the lack of taxonomic agreement about names even when the identifications are certain. Nonetheless, there is a reason for changes in Latin nomenclature.  Some names are just plain wrong. Others were (mis)applied by scientists who did not realize someone had named the plant already. Most often, research shows that a plant is more different from, or more similar to, another plant than was previously realized. In Wujastyk’s example, Nardostachys jatamansi, Indian spikenard, was once classed in the genus Valeriana, but turned out to be too different to fit in that genus.  Other names have also been applied to it but are not valid. At least scientific names are consistent and are based on something. The Sanskrit, Arabic, Chinese, English, and other names that have been used for Nardostachys are also confusing, as is often the case. Vernacular names are usually far too inconsistent to be very useful, though the Chinese did achieve a commendable consistency in herbal usage; Li Shizhen’s taxonomy is quite comparable to the best European taxonomy of his time in its systematic consistency. China lacked only a Linnaeus.

 

There is no question about the names—in Latin, Arabic, or Chinese—of common plants like fennel and coriander, but in folk practice, common names are regularly applied to anything of the same genus as the “correct” plant, and very different plants may be lumped under one name according to appearance. This became particularly problematic when New World crops came to Asia, because they were all too often given the name of some common native plant, leading to endless confusion. The Chinese transferred the name of an obscure variety of millet to maize.  Guavas were “foreign pomegranates,” pineapples were “foreign jakfruit,” and so for countless other species. All too often the word “foreign” is dropped in ordinary usage. In much of southeast Asia, chile (Capsicum annuum) replaced the completely unrelated and dissimilar long pepper (Piper longum) in spice use, and thus took over its name—for instance, lada in Malaysia and Indonesia. Mercifully, the HHYF dates to an earlier time, but we can see the same principle operating: often a Chinese name was used for a Near Eastern one labeling a plant of the same genus. We are left wondering if the Chinese plant itself was substituted. For example, recipes calling for quince use the Chinese name of the Chinese quince; we have no idea whether they used that species, or used the Near Eastern quince under the same name, or both.

 

 

Sources Used and Summarized

 

Hu: refers to Hu’s table, pp. 490 ff in the HHYF edition, of when plants are first mentioned in Chinese herbals. (She gives traditional dates for those. The actual dates of the entries in question may be later, since the Chinese, like modern medical writers, revised their medical textbooks every so often.)

 

From here onward, sources are listed, and utilized in the text, in chronological order of the material they treat: Ancient Egypt first, then the Greeks, and then the Muslim and Jewish sources in order by year, then Nadkarni’s Indian remedies, and finally Li’s Bencao Gangmu.

 

Material in parentheses is ENA’s commentary.

 

Manniche: Lisa Manniche’s An Ancient Egyptian Herbal brings together the relevant lore from the old papyri. I have briefly summarized pre-Greek uses. Greek medicine was introduced with Alexander the Great, if not before, and became dominant.

 

Theophrastus: Theophrastus, a student a Plato and Aristotle, compiled the first known botany textbook, a superb and thorough overview. In some areas, notably timber, his work is up-to-date enough to need few revisions today. He practiced ethnobotany 2200 years avant la lettre by asking mountain and island folk about their plants and plant uses; he bunched together in a brief section the material about which he had a healthy skepticism, such as the idea that mandrake root harvest required one to draw three circles around the plant with a sword, and for a second piece one must dance around the plant talking of erotic love.[3]

 

Unfortunately for our purposes here, his section on medical uses is short; possibly much is lost, or possibly he ran out of time. I have drawn on a few accounts where the plants are identifiable and the uses specified in some detail.

 

Theophrastus was unknown in Western Europe until the Renaissance, being “translated from Greek into Latin by Teodoro of Gaza (c. 1398-c. 1478).”[4] There is no evidence that he was any better known in Mongolia.

 

Athenaeus, in The Deipnosophists (1928-1941),[5] quotes Theophrastus and others on edible plants and medicine, but in snippets too short to be of any value here. The very long book is purportedly a record of a long dinner spent discussing foods, but is merely a bit of scholarship by quotation; no dinner could possibly be that dull, surely?

 

Dioscorides: Dioscorides shows a fascination with plants that are diuretic, emmenagogue, abortifacient, and curative of poisoning. Snakebite especially was an obsession, emphasized far beyond any believable role it may have had in Roman Empire pathology. Countless plants are given as snakebite cures. By modern standards, none of them works. This stands in contrast to the diuretics and abortifacients, many or most of which do work.

 

One wonders how all this could be sustained. How could so many plants be cited for snakebite, when none actually functions against venom? Probably, the Greeks, like many people today, did not well distinguish venomous from nonvenomous snakes, and listed as “good for snakebite” anything that relieved a nonvenomous bite.

 

Skin diseases also feature largely in his perspective. This makes more sense; skin conditions are very common, and easily relieved (if not always cured) by commonly available plant materials.  The modern Yucatec Maya have a vast number of skin remedies, because they have a vast number of skin problems. They explain that one never knows what plants will be around when one is suddenly wounded or burned in the field, and so one must know all sorts of plants that can provide first aid.  In addition, some remedies work for one condition, some for another. The ancient Mediterranean surely had similar problems and needs.

 

Fits, convulsions, and pains rank next. Cures for fevers and other classic infectious-disease syndromes are notably fewer. He describes herbs in concrete terms, rarely in theoretical except to say that some are “warming”; most of these do indeed feel warming, often because they stimulate blood flow to the skin. A few are cooling. The theories of Galen are far from Dioscorides’ pragmatic soldier’s approach.

 

This relative listing of concerns evidently provides much insight into what were, in Dioscorides’ day, considered to be the common problems. Perhaps they were of special concern to soldiers in the field.

 

Like herbalists everywhere (at least everywhere that the family occurs), Dioscorides uses many mints (Lamiaceae). This family does indeed contain a striking number of medically active substances, including many strong antibiotics. More notable is his—and the Greco-Roman world’s—fondness for Apiaceae (carrot family, including celery, dill, and other common flavorings). A vast variety is recommended, and many rank among his cure-alls. Apiaceous seeds often contain digestion-aiding oils, and the resins of many have medical effects. Still, one wonders how the value of Apiaceae became so emphasized.

 

Available is Robert Gunther’s 1934 edition of the translation by the great English botanist John Goodyer. Goodyer translated the book in 1652-55 but never published it, and indeed it has never been published except in this one edition. Identifications are often tentative, though many have worked on the problem; the 1934 book includes an appendix listing identifications assembled by Charles Daubeny in 1857[6]  and provides updated ones. These seem generally accurate, but I have made silent corrections in some cases, especially for new scientific usages. Some identifications are clearly wrong (see e.g. under Pinus below) and many must be only guesses.

 

Goodyer inconsistently transliterated Greek ypsilon as “y” or “u.” To make comparison with scientific and English names easier, I follow standard botanical usage, making it “y” when it is a stand-alone vowel or first vowel in a diphthong and “u” when the second element in diphthongs.  (I thus avoid the French system, widely used today in English as well as French, in which ypsilon is “u” and the long-u sound is “ou.”)

 

Galen of Pergamon (130-200 AD):  Galen’s book on food[7]  adds very little to the specifics of herbal application and use. He usually added his theoretical classification system to the general herbal knowledge of the time (better found in Dioscorides, Pliny, etc.).

 

Anthimus (fl. 511-534),[8] though an important medical writer of later antiquity, has even less of relevance here. But he gives many interesting notes on uses and digestibility, but little about medicine.

 

Paul of Aegina (625-690) maintained the herbal and Galenic traditions in Byzantium. He was a key link to later medicine and is among those Greek authorities cited by name in the HHYF.

 

Levey: Martin Levey’s translation of medical formulary of Al-Kindī (801-873)[9] goes well beyond mere translation; his enormous ethnobotanical appendix covers everything from ancient Sumer, Babylon, and Egypt to modern India. Below, however, we focus on Al-Kindī’s own uses. His remedies are overwhelmingly for external application; sores, skin problems, and mouth and eye conditions were obviously major problems then, as they are today in the Middle East. Many of the other remedies are for stomach ailments, and are usually good homely remedies and mild but effective herbal cures of the sort familiar to many who grew up in mid-20th century America.

 

Notable is the overlap between Al-Kindī’s drugs and the HHYF’s. Few drugs are found in one but not the other. One is also struck by the similarity with the remedies recorded from Morocco by Bellakhdar et al.[10] in the late 20th century, and visible now in such venues as the great bazaar in and around the center of Marrakesh. Notable, also, and not unrelated, are the high percentage of Al-Kindī’s drug names that have gone over into English, or, alternatively, are from the Greek and thus cognate with Greco-English and/or scientific names. Greek kentaurion became Arabic qanṭūriyūn, Latin and scientific Centaurium, English “centaury.”

 

Al-Bīrūnī (973-1048): This Central Asian polymath, one of the greatest Islamic scholars, produced Al-Bīrūnī’s Book on Pharmacy and Materia Medica, edited and translated by the Pakistani Yunani hakim (doctor) Mohammed Said.[11] Al-Bīrūnī spent time in India and wrote an excellent account of that subcontinent, and thus learned about Indian drugs, though it is not clear if he had done so when he wrote this herbal. Even without full Indian treatment, his herbal is one of the more astonishing medical sources of all time. An incredible work listing some 850 simples, it updated Dioscorides and added Near Eastern discoveries and philologies.  Unfortunately for our purposes, it is much more an economic botany than a pharmacology.  Details on medicinal uses are fewer than on wood uses, local varieties, edibility, and even poetic and metaphoric uses. When he does give medical uses, he often cites them to Dioscorides or to Rāzī. It is clear from the entries that he intended this book to be used as a supplement to their herbals. It provides names in many languages, background information, and substitutions, but generally refers the reader to them (sometimes to Galen, Mesue, and others) for the medicinal uses. When he does give medicinal uses, it is often because the plant is obscure. Such obscure plants did not generally become known to the Mongols or Chinese, and thus are outside our scope here. Serious comments on medical uses almost stop about half way through, resuming with Letter 20. (A copyist at the end of 19 in the version used by Mohammed Said says the previous copyist must have been “insane,” because there were so many mistakes and omissions).  Minor comments and names are ignored in the present work. Said’s translation is an astounding accomplishment in itself, involving not only translation and annotation but identification of the plants, animals and minerals mentioned; moreover, Sami Hamarneh provides an appendix reviewing al-Bīrūnī’s life and work and providing notes on all the dozens of authors drawn on by al-Bīrūnī in the book.

 

Here and elsewhere, Said and Hamarneh have provided a very large percentage of the English-language material on medieval Near Eastern medicine, just as Fred Rosner has done on the medieval Jewish material.[12] Without them and a very few others (notably Michael Dols and Martin Levey) we would know very little about this huge and important tradition.

 

Avicenna (Ibn Sīnā, 980-1037). Avicenna, born near Bukhara, was probably the greatest medical man between Galen and the “scientific revolution” of the 16th-17th centuries. Avicenna’s Canon was the basic medical book of the entire western world for centuries.  Its second volume is an herbal. Unavailable in English till very recently, this book was translated by the Hamdard Delhi group of Yunani doctors and edited and published by Laleh Bakhtiar.[13] (At the same time, the first volume was translated and published;[14] it had appeared before in a poor summary.) Avicenna’s drug records are summarized below.

 

An interesting point about Avicenna’s herbal, and to an extent al-Bīrūnī’s, is their awareness of Indian drugs. In Central Asia, they had much more opportunity to learn of these.

 

Like many later authorities, Avicenna uses very many drugs for the same purposes, and usually uses any given drug for many purposes. In particular, there is a standard list of uses for drugs considered hot and dry in the humoral system—as most active drugs are. They are used externally for swellings and wounds, and for earaches and eye troubles; internally, for respiratory problems and stomach aches. Many, perhaps most, of them do indeed work for these conditions—but some are much better than others. Some could be combined, but that is not often mentioned. I assume that the situation is the same as that which my Maya friends in the Yucatan Peninsula explained to ENA: You have to know all the plants that treat a given condition, because you never know which plants will be available when the need arises.

 

Like Dioscorides, he recommends an astonishing number of abortifacients—many of which are well-known in modern medical literature (and are often quite dangerous). Some of this was precautionary—warning women what to avoid—but at the very least these early societies, with their supposedly pronatalist policies, felt a clear need to know what would terminate a pregnancy.

 

Avicenna has notes on 226 of our medicinals: 182 plants, 32 animals, 12 minerals. This is by far the most mentions in any authority, Li Shizhen being the runner-up with 203.

 

Nasrallah: Nawal Nasrallah[15] appends to her translation of a medieval Arab cookbook an enormous, comprehensive glossary of Arabic terms for foods, including medicinal items. She includes considerable material from Medieval medical herbals. Some material is summarized below, but most of it duplicates the accounts in the more complete translations cited herein.

 

Graziani:[16] A general study of medieval Arab medicine as seen in the works of Ibn Jazlah (d. ca. 1100). He provides an appendix listing major drugs; in this he not only gives some of Ibn Jazlah’s uses, but provides considerable valuable comparative material, including otherwise impossible to find folk uses of today.

 

Maimonides (1135-1204): Maimonides[17]  lists several uses, mostly of foods, closely following Galen and Dioscorides. Maimonides’ incredible dictionary of drug names,[18] an early ethnobotany, is, alas, lacking in medical detail.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy:[19] Translation and annotation of the important herbal of Shams al-Dīn Al-Samarqandī (ca. 1250-ca. 1310), the closest well-studied source in time and space to the HHYF. Most of the common drugs below are used by Al-Samarqandī, but it is hard to tell exactly how in most cases, since he usually provides only a long list of ingredients in an introductory paragraph or for a formulary recipe. It would be tedious to mention all cases, so only the most important ones are inserted in the species accounts below. Al-Samarqandī used carrot, cinnamon, cress, cucumbers, cyperus, frankincense, ginger, gourds, ironwood, lavender, lettuce, malabathrum, mint, myrrh, nightshade, peppers (black, cubeb, long), sagapenum, sarcocol, senna/cassia, scammony, sebesten, sesame, tarragon, wormwood, the mineral remedies, and most of the other commoner remedies described in the species accounts below, presumably in the usual ways. He also used several remedies not found in what we have of the HHYF, including whey (“milk of cheese”), which he recommends highly.

 

Lev and Amar: Efraim Lev and Zohar Amar[20] have studied the Cairo Genizah documents concerning medicine and extracted a vast amount of medical lore, including discussion of 278 materia medica items—interestingly close to the figure of 286, the figure for the medieval Levant, and also the average of modern folk medicine lists they could discover for the Middle East (but the modern Cairo markets produced fully 504 items, raising that average considerably).  They provide an extremely valuable review of materia medica in the Greek-Arabic-Jewish tradition from Theophrastus to the present (pp. 55-86). The entries under particular drugs review all early sources. This is the best and most valuable single compendium of medieval Near Eastern medications, but most of the information in it is from—or at least in—the other sources cited here, and it seems preferable to cite to them.

 

The discussions of drugs show that the Genizah physicians tended to use almost any drug for almost any condition. (So did Avicenna. So did medieval European doctors).[21] In particular, almost every animal, mineral and vegetable was used for the most common complaints—eye problems, stomach upsets, skin pathologies of every kind, kidney problems, hemorrhoids, swellings, and so on. One becomes weary of reading the same long list of uses for every drug, even those—and there are many—that have no conceivable value for any of the stated purposes. Clearly, the idea was to try everything and hope something worked.

 

Notable, here and in the classic early sources, is the use of virtually everything for eye medicine.  This is explained by the fact that the Near East’s extreme dryness, extreme dustiness and extreme crowding have always caused eye problems and diseases to be a major concern here—far more so than in countries with less extreme conditions. Evidently, anything that could soothe the eye, let alone actually treat diseases there, was pressed into service.

 

The level of sharing with the HHYF is astonishing. Some 200 of the 278 are shared, including all the mjaor ones. Only very local items (spiny lizards, rare desert plants, and the like) are not.

 

Kamal:  Kamal’s modern-day encyclopedia of Islamic medicine[22] contains a great deal about pharmaceuticals. It also has considerable data on bites, cancers, etc.

 

Fattening drugs: Kamal cites Avicenna: Almonds, hazelnuts, nigella, camphor, pistachois, cannabis (presumably the seeds), and pine seeds. Make into pills and take with wine. These are not only fattening but aphrodisiac.[23]

 

Conversely, slimming can be aided by centaury, birthwort, gentian, germander, parsley, sumac, and other herbs.[24]

 

Cauterization:  Major section; for many purposes. Local burning seems to have been used for almost everything. A huge section covers almost every condition.

 

Compounds: Another large section.[25]

 

Bellakhdar et al.:[26] A study of modern Moroccan folk and traditional medical uses. They recorded 231 species and 567 indications. Digestive remedies were the most frequent, followed by cosmetic and skin uses. (ENA has had the opportunity to observe this medicinal tradition in the field, visiting traditional drug markets and observing medicinal plants in the Atlas; thanks to Dr. M. Ouhammou for superb ethnobotanical guiding.) The findings here show great similarity to Kamal’s Egyptian data and lesser but real similarity to ancient and medieval uses. There is a truly astonishing degree of overlap between modern Morocco and medieval North China in species and uses. There would surely be more if more of the HHYF had survived.

 

Ghazanfar:[27] This book is a wonderful ethnobotany of Arabia. Ghazanfar is based in Oman, an exceptionally enlightened Arab country as far as scholarship goes. She gives full nomenclature, usage, and treatment directions, especially for Omani practice. She gives very detailed descriptions of treatments and treatment methods. Particularly unique and valuable are her findings on women’s medicines, especially in relation to childbirth; this is an area almost totally inaccessible to male researchers today (less so in medieval times, when gender attitudes were generally more liberal in Arabia than they are now). She also has a great deal on aphrodisiacs—some two dozen plants being noted—and one wishes she had indicated whether any of these are used by women. This book would repay much more comparative research, but I am limiting citations to very basic nomenclature (no strictly local names) and uses. Interesting here, especially in comparison with Levey, are the number of plants in the HHYF that are in Arabic medicine but not in her book—usually because they are not native to desert Arabia, but are Greek plants (often extending into northern Arabia and montane Iran).

 

Lebling and Pepperdine:[28] This valuable book on Saudi Arabian folk medicine is a beautifully illustrated popular account (a “coffee table book”) rather than a thorough ethnobotany, but it is rigorous and valuable as far as it goes. It records in detail many household remedies. Again, the presence of a female researcher (Donna Pepperdine) allowed otherwise inaccessible material on women and childbirth to be recorded. Among the most interesting findings here is the apparently universal use of spices and herbs to restore strength and tone after delivery; this seems a close equivalent to the Chinese custom of “doing the month” by eating foods rich in protein, iron, calcium and other mineral nutrients.

 

Mandaville:[29]  James Mandaville’s superb recent ethnobotany of the Bedouin of Arabia.

 

Another reference with many modern folkloric uses of these plants is by Chishtiyya;[30] it adds little to what is extracted below, but has some interesting brief formulas that may be compared with the much longer ones in the HHYF.

 

Madanapāla Nighantu: An ayurvedic materia medica compiled for King Madanapāla (a central Indian king) in 1374 A.D., and thus almost contemporary with the HHYF. It has been edited and translated by Vaidya Bhagwan Dash assisted by K. Kanchan Gupta.[31] They provide good annotations and give the Sanskrit and many transliterations. Disease name translations are only approximate; the Sanskrit is given so that one can check the actual medieval indications. I have not provided the full transcriptions. In general, few of his remedies are in the HHYF. Many congeners are, but I have not summarized their qualities here.

 

The book discusses the various values of different types of waters, as does the YSCY and some of the Arab and Persian sources. It also discusses alcohol and alcoholic drinks at length—something that is of course rather thinly represented in Islamic works, and is surprisingly thin in Chinese sources also.

 

Interesting is the amount of sharing with the Near Eastern sources from slightly earlier.  Evidently, yunani (“Ionian,” i.e. Galenic) medicine had influenced ayurveda enormously by this time, and ayurveda had influenced the Near East at least as much. Outside our purview here, but very interesting in this text, are the many recommendations about foods, seasonal regimen (food, sex, exercise, etc.), and other matter, reasonably close to the Near Eastern works.

 

Dash’s identifications are not always perfect; Psidium guajava is given for one name (not in our database), but it did not reach India until the 16th century.

 

Nadkarni:[32] A standard English-language source on Indian traditional materia medica.  A huge collection of remedies, both ayurvedic and “unani” (i.e., yunāni, Greek). These are not distinguished, but the unani remedies are essentially the Arab-Persian ones. The book is a good source not only for Indian uses of the HHYF plants, but also for Persian ones, which are often not described in the Arabic sources. Of course, ayurvedic remedies moved into Arabic and Persian practice quite freely, too.

 

The number of uses of plants in Indian medicine is truly noteworthy; everything with any visible effect seems to be used for a vast range of purposes, and, notably, a huge range of unlikely plants are “aphrodisiac.” Medieval cookbooks and sexual manuals from India confirm this tendency to see aphrodisiacs in every garden.

 

More recent work by Vaidya Dash on India[33] has been consulted also.

 

Dash: Vaidya Bhagwan Dash, Materia Medica of Tibetan Medicine [34]  a wonderful compilation. Material is culled from Tibetan sources, primarily the sMan gyi min gi rNam Grans. It seems close to ayurvedic medicine—not surprising, because it is basically a translation of an 8th-10th century Kashimiri work, translated into Tibetan around 1013. Dash reports that it is still very influential in Tibet and neighboring areas, including Mongolia.[35] Dash’s own ayurvedic background is clearly relevant to his interpretations, and he seems to have selected sources particularly influenced by ayurvedic medicine.

 

Notable is the use of essentially all spices in Tibet to treat poisoning. Possibly they were used as emetics, as they are today, but a deeper belief seems implied.

 

In spite of the clear evidence of Tibetan influence on the Mongols and on the HHYF, the number of Tibetan medicines not in the HHYF is astonishing. The HHYF remedies truly are Near Eastern, with a solid Dioscoridean core. Tibet has had rather little influence on the pharmacopoeia of this book. See the reasoning on this in Part A.

 

We have also consulted Clifford).[36] We have had the benefits of discussion with Denise Glover, whose work on Tibetan medicinal plants is extensive but unpublished.

 

Eisenman: Eisenman et al., Medicinal Plants of Central Asia: Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan,[37] provides an excellent, thorough reference to medicinal herbs of high central Asia; gives the actual chemistry, and contemporary herbal uses. A fascinating note is the very large number of plants used medicinally in these two countries, many of them also used all over the western world, including Cnicus benedictus (blessed thistle) and Datura stramonium as well as Salvia (sage), Verbascum (mullein), and Silybum (milk thistle), that did not find their way into the HHYF. This seems truly remarkable. Conversely, medicines widely used in China and also in these parts of Central Asia, such as Codonopsis, did not make it to the west. These observations present interesting historical problems. Eisenman et al. list many biochemical findings for each plant; note that these are Russian or Central Asian research, often old and often preliminary, and are not to be taken as current demonstrated biochemical effectiveness! I have thus kept them strictly separate from my much more brief notes (in parenthesis) on current uses.

 

Sun: Sun Simiao, Recipes Worth a Thousand Gold, a great Tang Dynasty medical compilation (appearing 654 AD). Sun is quoted literally, since his work is beautifully concise and clear, and since it has not previously been translated or made available to non-Chinese readers. The translation here is by Sumei Yi, done in 2007 when she was a graduate student at the University of Washington, used by her kind permission; I have edited and commented on it.

 

Li:  Li Shizhen’s Bencao Gangmu, the famous Chinese herbal compilation that remains definitive in traditional Chinese medicine. (NB:  “traditional Chinese medicine,” with small letters, is the traditional medicine of late imperial and early 20th-century China. “Traditional Chinese Medicine,” with capitals, is a specific derivative of it, developed by the Communists after 1950, and quite different in countless ways from the older version.)  Li mentions some 203 of the medicinals in the HHYF, including at least 46 western ones and 15 from India and southeast Asia. Used here is the very unsatisfactory Foreign Languages Press edition,[38] which over-translates illness names (using English equivalents that do not exactly correspond to the traditional categories) and is otherwise problematical. Nonetheless, awaiting a full and improved translation, this version is satisfactory.[39] One very useful thing done by the Foreign Languages Press edition is capitalizing the humoral illness-causal categories (Hot, Cold, Wind, etc.) to separate them from literal heat, cold, and so on (but also from the Galenic hot/cold qualities of the ingredients themselves). I follow this edition in using “toxic” and “nontoxic” to translate you du “having poison” and wu du “lacking poison,” but actually the terms mean something closer to “poison-potentiating” and “safe in most applications.” They are also translated as “having a strong medicinal impact” and “not having a strong medicinal impact.” According to Chinese medicine, a plant that is you du may be poisonous or it may simply bring out poisons in other medicines or in a patient’s body itself. We have drawn the line at following their mistranslation of “balanced” as “plain”; balanced herbs are neutral between heating and cooling—they balance yang and yin.

 

Li usefully quoted all the major herbals he could find, so that we have data going back to early times. Outside of a small study of the 7th-century “Recipes Worth a Thousand Gold,”[40] there is little translation or specific study of these materials.[41] We await much-needed studies of Chinese herbals, especially Tao Hongjing’s monumental 6th-century works, which remain not only untranslated but quite little studied in the western world.

 

Striking is the comparison of Li’s mammoth compilation with the far more modest Greek and Arab herbals. For instance, he has 14 large pages (in the translation) on various aconites, as opposed to a page or so in the western sources. There is no room even to summarize adequately Li’s enormous detail; mere suggestions of the wealth are given below.

 

A problem for Chinese doctors of the old school was the enormous range of conditions treated by almost any important drug; how would one decide? Usually, standard mixtures were prepared.  But, also, our rather long experience with ordinary Chinese pharmacists and herbalists is that they knew quite well which drugs really, visibly, empirically worked for a given condition, and did not worry about the countless others specified for that condition in the old herbals although patients might demand something special. They would give artemisia for worms, or watercress for scurvy, for instance—not the minimally effective nostrums mentioned in Li’s more obscure sources. Not all their remedies worked, but at least they maximized their odds given what they could know.

 

It is worth noting that Li repeats with a straight face and proper respect the more ridiculous stories in the old herbals and in the folk wisdom of his own time, but is conspicuously silent about them when writing in his own voice to evaluate what an herb really does. This is exactly equivalent to Dioscorides’ (and his Arab followers’) “some say.” But even the long-suffering Li does sometimes denounce truly outrageous stories (see under Cinnamomum cassia).

 

A notable thing about Li’s book is that he clearly recognizes taxonomic reality, putting e.g. Artemisia species together, Brassica species together, and so on. The Chinese names do not reflect this; Chinese simply gives a quite separate name to every common plant, and tend to assimilate the rest to superficially similar common ones, with an appropriate adjective—so the pomegranate, when the Chinese acquired it from the western world, became the “seedy willow,” and then the South American guava (introduced by the Spanish or Portuguese) became the “foreign seedy willow.” Li sometimes arranges plants according to these ad hoc names, as in treating the ma “hemp” plants—sesame (hu ma), flax (ya ma) and marijuana (da ma)—together although they are very dissimilar and Li must have seen they were botanically very different.  Usually, however, he seems to have a pre-Linnaean view of taxonomy, similar to that in Europe in his time.

 

Meserve: Ruth Meserve[42] has published a short list of Mongol medicinal plants collected by Ralph Chaney on the Roy Chapman Andrews expedition to Mongolia in 1925. He provides extensive commentary. The most interesting thing about the list is how few plants from it are on the list below. Only a few widespread species are shared. Clearly, the HHYF was concerned solely with transmitting received medical wisdom; unlike the YSZY, it did not incorporate or seek to incorporate specifically Mongol knowledge.

 

In addition to the above sources, Chipman[43] summarizes a pharmacist’s manual from Cairo, ca. 1260. It mentions many (perhaps most) of the medicines herein, and gives uses and formulas, as well as tests for genuineness. The material is taken from the classics, and has nothing significant to add, but is interesting to show what was standard practice in the developed west as the Mongols were expanding.

 

For the following list, Uphof[44] and Wikipedia always provide faithful backup, especially useful when no one else gives the authorities and families. Tobyn et al[45] provide a great deal of information, not summarized here, on post-medieval uses of herbs in European medicine; most of the herbs are in our list below.

 

There is a huge modern literature on medical botany, and all or nearly all the plants mentioned herein have been the subjects of extensive studies, mostly chemical and taxonomic; a simple computer search turns up many, and there is no reason to go into this literature.

 

Below, material in parentheses, beyond simple word queries and synonyms, are our own observations from wide experience with Chinese and other folk medicines.

 

 

The Medicinals

 

Herbal

 

Acacia gummifera Willd., Fabaceae. Bunk (Persian).

 

Manniche: A. nilotica for vermifuge, swellings, sores, wounds, etc., and even in bandages on broken bones (the tannin might ease the pain and swelling).

 

Dioscorides: I-133, akakia, A. vera [and probably other spp.]. Binding and cooling. Juice of leaves (and/or fruit) for eyes, sores, skin conditions, etc. Stops excess menstruation and related conditions (presumably leucorrhea). Stops diarrhea. Wash for eyes. Gum, with egg, good on burns. Also used to make black hair dye.

 

Levey: A. arabica gum for lesions, teech, cough, eyes, etc.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: Astringent, haemostatic, darkens hair, good for skin, good in eyes for conjunctivitis and redness, used for leucorrhoea, etc. Some of this obviously refers to the bark extract rather than, or as well as, the gum.

 

Avicenna: A. arabica, shaukah, qaraẓ, aqāqiā. Gum of Arabic trees is hot; Egyptian cold and dry. Constricting. Very good for many external uses, including swellings. Roots and seeds of Egyptian acacia for healing joints. Acacia gums used for vision, coughs, sore throat, stomach, etc. A. nilotica (and probably other spp.) hot and dry, strengthening, clears skin, good for stomach, but disturbs the mind.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: Usual uses; important in Al-Samarqandī’s herbal.

 

Lev and Amar: A. nilotica gum for eyes, headache, stomach, teeth, cleasning, fractures, etc.  Less usual is a use as “a depilatory for hairy women” (p. 181), presumably as Persian wax is used today. Hot and dry. The highly astringent juice of acacia pods was used in sexual medicine “to constrict the glans and strengthen the penis, as well as in a preparation to restore virginity” (p. 181; i.e. to constrict the vagina to give the false impression of virginity). Other acacias of uncertain identity also used.

Kamal: Sont, shokah; “anciently for heoptysis and ophthalmias” (28).

 

Bellakkhdar et al: ‘alk talh. For broncho-pulmonary infections; antitussive.

 

Ghazanfar: A. nilotica resin for cataracts; leaves for diarrhea; seed extract for diabetes; leaf paste for boils; smoke of pods for colds. A. senegal gum for many medicines. Several other species used locally.

 

Nadkarni: Acacia spp., gums astringent, demulcent, expectorant, etc.; for a vast range of uses; shoots, seeds, leaves for many uses also, most obviously depending on the tannins in them.

 

Li: A. catechu known only as an “earth,” a resin imported from far off.

 

(The powerful catechin tannins in acacia actually make it very effective for many medical uses.  Various acacia products were officinal in the United States well into the mid-twentieth century.)

 

 

Aconitum ferox Wall., Ranunculaceae. Bish

 

Dioscorides: IV-78, akoniton eteron, Aconitum lococtonum and/or A. napellus, wolfsbane, to kill wolves. IV-77, akoniton, probably Doronicum pardalianches, used to kill “Panthers and Sowes, and wolves, & all wild beasts” (Gunther 1934:475).

 

Al-Bīrūnī:  Khāniq-al-namir. Aconitum lycoctinum. Poisonous. Kills wild animals. Discussion followed by a number of other poisons of dogs and wolves; species of Aconitum or other poisons; identifications unclear.

 

Avicenna: Deadly poison, but used for skin conditions, and very carefully taken for this also. A. lycoctonum very poisonous, too much so to use; only for poisoning wild animals.

 

Kamal: Akonit, or khaneq al-theb (“strangler of wolf”). A. napellus for poisoning, but also “sedative, antipyretic and sudorific” (29). For rheumatism, gout, cough, asthma.

 

Nadkarni: Root used for diaphoretic, diuretic, antiperiodic, anodyne, antidiabetic, antiphlogistic, antipyretic, narcotinc, sedative. Acrid and poisonous. Several other spp. mentioned.

 

Dash: A. heterophyllum cold, digestive stimulant, carminative, cures dysentery and parasites.

 

Eisenman: A. karakolicum and A. soongaricum taken in kumys, broth, etc., in spite of high toxicity, for tuberculosis and headaches and sore throats; externally for rheumatism and similar painful conditions. A. leucostomum used for heart arrhythmia. A.talassicum for rheumatism, malaria, veterinary medicine.

 

Li: A. carmichaeli, loulanzi: Bitter, pungent, toxic. Good for malignant dysentery, scrofula and Cold. Malignant sores and leprosy. Directions given.

 

  1. coreanum, baifuzi: Warming and usually considered toxic. Treats pains, stagnation of blod, face ailments, pathogenic Cold and Wind, etc. Tonifies liver.
  2. kusnezoffi, wutou: Several opinions on humoral qualities; all agree it is toxic. Used for fevers due to Wind, etc. Several pages of indications and formulas, most for dispelling Cold conditions (but also fevers and much else); one is warned of toxin, and Li gives a personal reminiscence of a friend who died of overdose.
  3. ochranthum, niubian: Minor use, largely to kill ectoparasites on people and animals.

(Well-known alkaloid toxins make this a dangerous medicine.)

 

Li: A. carmichaeli, loulanzi: Bitter, pungent, toxic. Good for malignant dysentery, scrofula and Cold. Malignant sores and leprosy. Directions given.

 

  1. coreanum, baifuzi: Warming and usually considered toxic. Treats pains, stagnation of blod, face ailments, pathogenic Cold and Wind, etc. Tonifies liver.
  2. kusnezoffi, wutou: Several opinions on humoral qualities; all agree it is toxic. Used for fevers due to Wind, etc. Several pages of indications and formulas, most for dispelling Cold conditions (but also fevers and much else); one is warned of toxin, and Li gives a personal reminiscence of a friend who died of overdose.
  3. ochranthum, niubian: Minor use, largely to kill ectoparasites on people and animals.

(Well-known alkaloid toxins make this a dangerous medicine.)

 

 

Acorus calamus (Chinese form sometimes separated as A. gramineus Soland.), Acoraceae.     Native.

 

Manniche: A. calamus rhizome powdered for ant repelling, perfume, tooth powder, shampoo…, at least in later times and very likely in ancient times.

 

Dioscorides: 1-2, akoron, Iris pseudacorus, root for body pains, liver, ruptures, convulsions, spleen, eye medicine, poisoning. 1-17, kalamos euodes, Acorus calamus, root for kidneys/diuresis, hernia, reducing menstrual flow (as drink or pultice), cough (incl. smoke with terebinth resin), etc.

 

Levey:  A. calamus, teeth; memory and mind cure.

 

Avicenna: Wajj. Persian agir. Hot and dry. Usual minor uses for hot dry drugs, plus use for stomach gas, improving complexion, treating convulsions and muscle rupture, pain of liver, abdominal pain, hernia, uterine pains, diuretic, emmenagogue, stimulant.

 

Lev and Amar: Stomach, colic, tonic.

 

Kamal: ‘Erq-aikar, al-wagg. simulant; for eyes.

 

Nadkarni: Stimulant, emetic, nauseant, stomachic, aromatic, expectorant, carminative, antispasmodic, sedative. In unani specifically, aphrodisiac; for sight, antipoison; for digestion, cold, coughs, nervous complaints.

 

Dash: Indigestion, appetite. Throat, etc.

 

Li: Changpu. Treats pain due to Wind, Cold, Humidity. Stops coughing, opens Heart orifice, etc.; very long list of indications. Cheers the spirit.

Baichang, A. calamus, receives much less attention. Apparently used as a poor substitute for the foregoing.

 

(Sweet flag still widely used medicinally, especially by Native Americans, the plant being circumpolar in distribution)

 

 

Adiantum capillis-veneris L., Polypodiaceae. Barsiyyawashan (Persian).

 

Dioscorides: IV-136, adianton, A. capillus-veneris, “is of force” for practically anything: asthma, dyspnoeia, pox, etc.; diuretic and emmenagogue; for spleen, stones, stopping diarrhea, curing poison, sores and boils; grows and restores hair; and even makes fighting-cocks braver when fed to them![46]

 

Avicenna: Neutral tempering or slightly hot and dry.  Dissolving, blood thinning, constricting.  Ashes for baldness. Used for abscesses, tubercular lymph glands, malignant ulcers, dandrusff, itches.  Internally for lungs, coiughs, stomach, urine, urinary calculi.  Emmenagogue. Aspleenium  hot and dry, diutant, dissolvent. Used for spleen. Also kidney and bladder stones.

 

Lev and Amar: kuzbarat al-bi’r, etc. Hair, purgative, snakebite, worms, stones, stomach skin.  Expectorant. Stops hemorrhages, accelerates menstruation, diuretic. Asplenium onoperis for spleen (hence name) and hemorrhoids, intestines, etc. For melancholy and related conditions.

 

Nadkarni: Expectorant, diuretic, emmenagogue.

 

(Widespread tonic use continues today)

 

 

Aegle marmelos Correa, Rutaceae.  Bull. BiLi.

 

Avicenna: Hot and dry. Diluent; blood thinning. Fruit bitter, piungent, constrictive, but soothing like honey.

Nadkarni: Cooling, alterative, nutritive. Fresh fruit is laxative. Unripe is astringent, digestive, stomachic. Pulp stimulant, antipyretc, antiscorbutic.

 

(Note that this is an example of an almost strictly Indian medicinal in the HHYF. The central Asian Avicenna must have learned of it from India, directly or indirectly. Indian contacts were deep and wide in central Asia in his time.)

 

 

Agaricus campestris L., AgaricaceaeALiFong, AliHun; ghārīqūn

 

Dioscorides:  III-1, agarikon. He thought it was a root, but he knew that at least some agarika grew on stumps like mushrooms. Binding, warming, for sores and ruptures and falls, for all respiratory conditions, liver, rashes, “womb stranglings, and sickly looks”; for spleen, stomach, blood, pains, epilepsy, constipation, snakebite; emmenagogue, and for “women suffocated in ye womb,” malarial shivering.[47] Certainly useful, but we remain unsure what the term agarikon comprised.

 

Avicenna: Hot and dry. Dissolving and diluent of thick humors. Used for swellings, asthma (with wine), stomach ache, purging black bile and phlegm, fevers, insect bites. A different species, fuṭr or kashnaj, identified as Boletus luridus in our source, is cold; minor external uses. Notes poisonous mushrooms, which cause numbness, strokes, etc., and bear rapidly putrefying and sticky substances on the cap; these could be Amanita or a toxic Russula or other bolete.

 

Levey: Malaria, jaundice, stomach, liver.

 

Nasrallah: Sweet but turns bitter. Cures stomach-ache, diarrhea, etc.

 

Lev and Amar: Al-Kindī used it for malaria, intestines, liver. Maimonides: cleansing, expectorant. Hot and dry. Ibn Sīnā: for epilepsy and malaria. Other uses noted, including modern one to stanch wounds—presumably powdered (a use known from my own folk tradition).

 

Nadkarni: Tonic. A. ostreatus astringent.

 

Li: Moguxun. Reinforces Intestine and Stomach, dissolves phlegm and regulates qi, but mainly a food.

 

 

Agrimonia eupatoria L., Rosaceae.  Ghafath. Afeidi 阿肥的

 

Levey:  Ghāfit. In electuary for jaundice, and phlegm.

 

Al-Bīrūnī:  Notes some differences of opinion. Benign, incisive, detersive; slightly styptic. For falling hair, etc. Drunk (and/or applied?) for skin problems.

 

Lev and Amar: ghāfit. Poisons, stings, bites; liver, kidneys, eyes, cough, fever, jaundice—in short, the standard things for which the Near Eastern sages used almost every drug.

 

Kamal: astringent, tonic, antihelminthic. Leaves and root (only leaves mentioned for antihelminthic action).

 

Nadkarni: Aromatic, astringent, antihelminthic, diuretic. (Note near-identity to Kamal’s Egyptian uses.)

 

Eisenman: A. asiatica. Hemostatic. “Decoction of underground parts and dried stems and leaves is used”) p. 26) for gastrointensinal conditions; astringent; for rehumatism and verious external conditions. Flowers also.

 

 

Ajuga chamaepitys Schreb., Lamiaceae. Kamafitus (Gr), Kemafeitusi  可馬肥禿思, Ar

 

Dioscorides: III-175, chamaipitys, A. chamaepitys, ground pine. Rashes; liver, kidneys, being diuretic; aconite antidote; with figs for stomach; with honey etc. for purge; several other minor uses. III-176, chamaipitys etera, ?Teucrium or Ajuga iva; chamaipitys trite, Passerina hirsuta.  Uses as for 175.  III-153, anthyllis, second type, may be A. iva; for kidneys and epilepsy, and as pessary for womb inflammations (with rose and milk).  Used on wounds.

 

Eisenman: A. turkestanica for weight, hair growth, ulcers, burns, wounds. Several compounds shown to have anabolic and tonic activity.

 

 

Ajuga iva Schreb., Lamiaceae. Subtended under Kamafitus

 

Dioscorides: See above.

 

Bellakhdar et al:  Shendgura. Antihelminthic, panacea (sic), and for intestinal disorders

 

Nadkarni: A. bracteosa astringent, aperient, diuretic.

 

 

Alectoria usneoides. Usneaceae. Ushnat, Ushna; includes also Usnea spp. and probably other lichens.

 

Dioscorides: I-20-21, bryon, Usnea sp., lichen. For pains of vulva; suppositories; etc. Used in perfumes and painkillers for its binding quality [medical or physical?].

 

Galen: Astringent.

 

Levey: Swollen spleen; eyes.

 

Vicenna: Ushnah. Hot, or possibly cold; dry. Relieves inflammations, swellings, etc. With medicinal oil for joints. Produces sleep if soaked in wine and taken. Clears vision. Stops vomiting; also for stomach, relieving gas, etc. Sitz bath relieves uteral pain.

 

Lev and Amar: Usnea sp., Parmeliaceae, ’ushna. Swellings, furuncles, stiffness, eyes, heartbeat, stomach, womb obstructions, menstruation, liver, womb pains, anaesthetic. Stops vomiting.

 

Li:  [Songluo 松蘿, Usnea spp.  Bitter, sweet, balanced, nontoxic.  For malaria and some other serious illnesses.

 

(Useful, powdered, for stanching blood and the like, but the internal uses seem without any biomedical foundation.)

 

 

Allium cepa L. (including the var. ascalonicum), Alliaceae (Liliaceae). Ishqīl/Yisijili 亦思吉里 also Ba©al l-fār, when processed and roasted, and Khallu l-‘un©uli , “vinegar onion.”

 

Manniche: A. cepa, astringent. Stops excessive menstruation, bleeding; for mummification also.  (Probably it had more astringent chemicals then than now.) Cooling (probably so considered because of the astringency).

 

Dioscorides: II-181, kromyon, A. cepa:  appetite, thirst, bringing about vomiting and purging, stomach problems generally, hemorrhoids (usually as suppository apparently). Juice with honey for a very wide range of conditions. With chicken grease, given for diarrhea, hearing and ear problems, and many other conditions. With raisins or figs as plaster for sores. If sick, eating too many onions brings lethargy.

 

Galen: Onions in general. Bitter, heating. Thin the humors and cut viscid ones. Lose bitterness (i.e. spiciness) when boiled.

 

Levey: Squill, Urginea maritima, Ishqīl. Malaria, jaundice, ear, stomach, liver pains; seeds demulcent and stimulant. Kurrāth, the Near Eastern leek-like onion, for headache and hemorrhoids.

 

Avicenna: A. cepa, baṣal; pīāz in Persian. Drops of the juice in the nose to cleanse the head.  Drops in ear for ringing, and heaviness of head, etc. Too much use harms the intellect and produces bad humors. In eye for cataracts; seeds with honey for corna. Minor uses internally and for piles. A. porrum, leek (actually a var. of A. cepa). Hirbah; kurrāth; these are different varieties, and tame and wild ones are distinguished. Hot and dry to different degrees, by variety.  Various external uses on wounds, ulcers, etc. Vapor of seeds for nosebleeds, and with cedar resin for tooth decay. Oral use causes bad dreams. Used for ringing in ears, but bad for teeth and eyes.  used for asthma, etc. Seeds for coughing up blood, and with vinegar for spleen. Pungent and so irritates digestive tract; produces gas. Diuretic (leaves). Emmenagogue. Stimulate sexual desire. Various combinations for pains, etc. Urginea maritima, ishqīl or ‘unsul, hot and dry, for serious external uses (very burning and destroying), asthma, cough, spleen, stomach, diuretic, etc.

 

Lev and Amar: A. cepa, baṣal. Eyes, ears, paresis and weakness of sexual organs, aphrodisiac.  Prevents vomiting. Strengthens memory and appetite. Externally, cleans wounds etc.; poultice.  Maimonides held it a bad food, partly because he recognized its low caloric value—so he recommended it for weight-loss diets. A. cepa var. porrum, Near Eastern form, kurrāth, hot and dry, nutrition and for hair and skin; trivial uses. Urginea maritima, squill, baṣal al-far’, etc., for malaria, jaundice, intestines, liver, epilepsy, etc. (Highly poisonous and might have some antibacterial action.)

 

Kamal: A. cepa, baṣal in Arabic, for whitlows (poultice), rubefacient (rubbed over), peel for filiarisis but doubtful; many ancient Egyptian uses. A. porrum (leek; these too actually a var of cepa), kurratl, qurt, etc., for expectorant; asthma, cough, respiratory diseases; enema for constipation.

 

Bellakhdar et al: Common onion, bsal, antiasthmatic and used for skin diseases and dental hygeine; leek, zgebt l-korrat, basal l-korrat, for hair care. Note dialect difference here and elsewhere between Maghribi Arabic and standard (bsal and basal vs. baṣal).

 

Ghazanfar: baṣāl. Juice for coughs, deafness, skin, stomach.

 

Madanapala: palāndu. Sweet. Properties similar to garlic.

 

Nadkarni: Oil stimulant, diuretic, expectorant. Bulb emmenagogue; topically as stimulant and rubefacient. Roasted, demulcent, aphrodisiac, antiseptic.

 

Dash: Sweet, minor uses.

 

Eisenman: A. karataviense, bulb used for lungs and breath. A. suvorovii, very rare, pickled for spitting blood and tuberculosis. Also on skin for eczema, itch, etc. Neither of these has known biomedical compounds beyond ordinary allicin compounds.

 

Li:  A. cepa.  Hucong胡蔥.  Edible.  Warming, dissolving, softening.  General tonic.  Allium nipponicum Fr. et Sav., Shansuan.  One of a number of Allium spp. used for dissolving, warming, etc.

 

(Onion juice is slightly antiseptic, and the plant seems good for heart health.)

 

Meserve: A. fistulosum, “for loss of appetite” (Meserve 2004:79). Muich comparative material.

 

 

Allium sativum L., Alliaceae (Liliaceae).  Saqardiyūn/Suguerdirong速古兒的榮

 

Manniche:  Oddly not used in medicine.[48] Used for food.

 

Dioscorides: II-182, skorodon, A. sativum; leukoskorodon, A. ampeloprasum; ophioskorodon, A. scorodoprasum; elaphoskorodon, A. subhirsutum. The descriptions make the scientific identifications likely. Used (eaten, or drunk) for stomach problems of all kinds, boils, eyes, vermifuge, snakebites, arteries, coughs, lice and nits. Plaster, mashed, for snakebite, hemorrhoids, bites of mad dogs; burnt with honey, for eyes, hair loss, etc.; with salt and oil or honey for papules and sores and skin problems of all kinds; with “taeda” and frankincense for toothache; with fig leaves and cumin for bites of the “mygale”; leaf decocted or used for smoke, as emmenagogue; mashed with black olives for diuretic (Gunther 1934:189-191). Apparently any garlic will do for all these diverse uses.

 

Levey: Thūm. Pain in ears; suppuration, fistulas.

 

Avicenna: Thūm. Hot and dry. Laxative and stomachic. Oddly, eating it with mountain mint destroys lice and nits. External uses include ash with honey for shedding skin. For baldness, freckles, abscesses, skin ulcers, mites; with germander for malignant wounds. Expels blood (i.e. sanguine humor), yellow bile and black bile. Poultice with vinegar for muscoles. Causes headache, butboiled for toothaches. Used for dandruff, and with egg yolk for cracks in the skull. With yok for eyes. For throat, cough, colds. Good for stomach. Hip bath of garlic leaves is diuretic and emmenagogue and helps expel placenta. Orally helps also. With honey-water for phlegm and worms. Purgative. Possibly anaphrodisiac, but helps produce semen.

 

Nasrallah: Hot; causes stomach-ache and thirst. Drying. Anaphrodisiac.

 

Lev and Amar: thūm. Both wild and tame used. (The wild would probably be a different species.)  Cureall: bites, stings, inflamattions, eyes, lungs, worms, throat, coughs, toothache, skin, emmenagogue, stomachic, diuret

ic.

 

Kamal: thom, theriac-al-fuqara’, “theriac of the poor”: “stomachic, antipyretic, intestinal antiseptic, e.g. in cholera, food poisoning, enteritis and enteric fever. It is expectorant in whooping cough and asthma; prevents dental caries, diuretic, emmenagogue, carminative and aphrodisiac. Boiled in water or milk, the fluid is useful in colic and urinary stones. Externally it is rubefacient. As ear-drops it improves hearing. Externally it also removes the toe-corn.” (45). Oil antiseptic.

 

Bellakhdar et al: tuma. Antihelminthic, antirheumatism, urinary antiseptic, antidote. Used for pulmonary and digestive disorders and hypertension (this last presumably a modern use).

 

Ghazanfar: thōm. Abdominal pain and colic, dandruff, diabetes, diarrhea, eyes, tuberculosis, bites and wounds.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: Topically on bites and stings, bleeding, hair loss, warts. Taken for coughs, colds, diarrhea, fatigue, heart, stomach including vomiting. Eaten after childbirth, with spices.

 

Madanapala: laśuna. Hot. Laxative, carminative, aphrodisiac, rejuvenating, nourishing; for hair, intellect, dyspnoea, cough, fever, anorexia, edema, piles, skin, colic, parasites.

 

Nadkarni: Stimulant, carminative, emmenagogue, antirheumatic, antihelminthic, alterative.

An amazing ayurvedic paean of praise to garlic, dating to the 6th century, is translated by Dominik Wujastyk.[49] This document is so overwritten, and in such a delightful style, that one suspects humorous irony, but clearly someone really thought garlic was the great cureall. Significantly for our purposes here, the document occurs in a manuscript transcribed—and much later (re)discovered—in Kucha, Xinjiang.

 

Dash: Pungent, sweet, hot, promotes strength and virility. For intellect, voice, complexion and eyesight.  Helps in healing fractures. For heart, fever, pain and other conditions in abdomen, constipation, skin, parasites, etc. A cureall.

 

Sun: Garlic (hu葫): spicy, warm, and poisonous. The spiciness will go to the five internal organs. So it dispels deteriorative ulcer (yongju癰疽) and cures “the ulcers of hidden vermine” (?? chuang[匿蟲]瘡).[50] It eliminates the noxious feng (fengxie風邪) and kills the poisonous qi expelled by a gu (gu duqi 蠱毒氣). When the bulb has only one clove, it is best. The Yellow Emperor said, “If one takes raw garlic with salted herring (qingyu zhashi青魚鮓食), it will cause ulcer in his abdomen, or swelling in his intestines, or ache and hardness in the abdomen (shanjia疝瘕). If one has frequently taken raw garlic, he will hurt the of his liver when he is having sex. It will make one’s face lose color. In the fourth and eighth month, do not eat garlic. Otherwise, it will hurt the spirit (shen 神) as well as the qi of the bladder. It will cause gasping and the feeling of being frightened (chuanji 喘悸). It will cause the shortage of the qi around the ribs and the upper part of the side of the body (xielei qiji 脅肋氣急). It will also frequently cause one to lose sense of his taste.”

 

Li:  Dasuan 大蒜, hu.  Warming, nontoxic. Standard food.  Helps digestion but large amounts are harmful (in various ways for various reasons, depending on authority quoted). Several pages of indications and recipes.

 

(Allicin, the acrid chemical released when garlic is injured, is a powerful antibiotic and antifungal, which is why the plant produces it on injury.  Allicin is also stimulant. The medicinal value of this plant is very widely known and used.  Allium spp., especially this one, may well be the most-used drugs on earth.)

 

 

  1. victorialis L., Alliaceae (Liliaceae). Native Ishqīl/Yisijili 亦思吉里

 

Sun: Longroot onion (gecong格蔥): spicy, mildly warm, nonpoisonous. It gets rid of noxious poison caused by miasma (zhangqi瘴氣). If one has taken it for a long time, it is beneficial to the gall qi. It also strengthens the mind. Its seeds mainly treat the discharge of semen (xiejing泄精).

 

Li:  Gecong.  Pungent, warm, nontoxic. Usual Allium uses plus antiparasite action against worms, fleas, etc.

 

(A very common medicinal plant in East Asia; unknown in the old Near East. It is probably the “mountain onion” of some recipes in the HHYF, but see Veratrum.)

 

 

Aloe spp., incl. “Aloe vera L.” Asphodelaceae (Liliaceae).

 

The name Aloe vera is invalid technically, because Linnaeus never made it really clear which aloe he was naming, and no one has been much clearer since. Thus it is not used in standard botany works. Hu identifies the HHYF plant as A. barbadensis Miller (her number 973).  This is indeed the standard Chinese “aloe vera” (our observations as well as published sources), and also the Indian one (see Nadkarni), but other species are used elsewhere under the “aloe vera” name.

 

Manniche: Dubiously identified; possibly mentioned in a catarrh remedy.

 

Dioscorides: III-25, aloe, A. vulgaris. Juice, dried, for binding and drying. Produces sleep. For stomach cleansing, spitting blood, poxes, purge. For wounds and sores, including genital sores and cracks, hemorrhoids, eye sores, etc. With wine for falling hair; with honey and wine for tonsils and gums and mouth sores; roasted, for eyes. Dioscorides explains in detail how to tell the pure from the adulterated or counterfeit, indicating that this drug was (1) imported and (2) highly valued.

Avicenna: Notes 3 spp., Socotran (presumably A. socotrana), Arabian and Samangani. Socotra is best. Gum used. Hot and somewhat dry. Constricting. Helps sleep. Put on scars, skin infections, ulcers, arthritis, etc., and for hair loss and swellings. With rose oil, rubbed on head for headaches. Purgative; used for stomach ache, etc. Arabian form causes spasms when taken internally. Worst on cold days, so avoid it then.

 

Levey: ṣabir. In preparations for boils, abscesses, teeth, eyes, insanity and epilepsy, perspiration.

 

Lev and Amar: Eyes, inflammations, headaches; in compounds for insanity, epilepsy, sweat, abscesses, etc. Stomach, nervous system, liver. Maimonides: A. succotrina for haemorrhoids, stomach, bleedig, wounds. Several modern uses noted, including usual uses on wounds and sore places, as purgative, intestinal, etc.

 

Kamal: ‘wud, sabr, lowah; genus in general. Aloin is stimulant, stomachic, laxative. For anemia, amenorrhea, atonic dyspepsia; jaundice, piles; antihelminthic. Powder dusted on wounds. The Arabs would have used Socotra aloes and other local products.

 

Bellakhdar et al: sibr, sibr sidqi, A. succotrina [a.k.a. socotrana] laxative, hypoglycemic, and for skin.

 

Ghazanfar: A. vera leaves for fever, headache, eyes. Several other species used for various similar purposes.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: Diabetes, hair loss. Modern evidence of value for diabetes.  Antioxidant.

 

Nadkarni: Cathartic, stomachic, tonic. Other Aloe spp. tonic, purgative, laxative, etc.

 

Dash: “A. barbadensis” [the traditional ID for “aloe vera”]:  laxative, rejuvenating, for eyes, corpulence, strength, virility. Spleen, liver, fever, burns, eruptions, bleeding, skin diseases.

 

Li:  Luhui盧薈.  Besides the obvious external uses: Vermifuge, tooth soothing, treats restlessness and suffocation from Wind and Heat, dispearses Heat, etc. Poorly known in China at the time.

 

(Aloes of the small-sized “aloe vera” group are still used worldwide for their well-known and well-demonstrated value in healing the skin, especially from sores and burns. They are grown in gardens and houses everywhere, and are among the most widely used herbal medicinals. The HHYF in several places specifies Socotran aloes, which come from a quite different group of species peculiar to that island.)

 

 

Alpinia galanga L., Zingiberaceae. Lesser galingale (galangal).  Introduced to China. Liangjiang良姜, Khūlanjān/Saowulinzhang掃兀鄰張. (Farsi), khwalinjān

 

Levey: A. officinarum, khūlanjān, greater galingale. Stomachic; for sexual overindulgence; for breathing, teeth, fistulas.  Both the name for this and for the lesser galingale are from Farsi khawlinjān.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: for dementia, citing, as so often, Rāzī.

 

Avicenna: A. officinarum, khalanjan, etc. Hot and dry. Useful in stomach, other very minor uses.

 

Nasrallah: Aphrodisiac, as well as digestive and breath-sweetening.

 

Graziani: A. officinarum, khūlanjan. Liver pain, digestion, stomachic, sciatica, easing urination (Ibn Jazlan). Ibn Butlān used it for sciatic vein, sweetening the mouth, strengthening cold stomach, increasing sexual power. Today in Iran, Iraq and Egypt as aromatic and carminative.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: As above. Minor.

 

Lev and Amar: khūlanjān, khawlanjān. Stomach including colic; tonic. Treats sex

addiction, strengthens respiration, improves virility, etc. Used in toothpaste.

 

Bellakhdar et al: A. officinarum, kudenjal, kolenjan; antitussive, stimulant.

 

Ghazanfar: A. officinarum in tea with cinnamon and cloves for colds, tonic, aphrodisiac.

 

Nadkarni: Aromatic, stimulant, stomachic, carminative. A. officinarum same.

 

Li: A. japonica, shanjiang山薑. Pungent, hot, nontoxic. Treats pain with cold, malignant qi, etc.

(Stimulant and stomachic chemicals well known.)

 

 

Althaea rosea (L.) Cav., Malvaceae.  Native

 

Theophrastus: II, p. 309. marsh-mallow (A. officinalis). For fractures; also in wine for coughs.

 

Dioscorides: III-144, malache agria, Malva sylvestris; malache kepaia, Alcea [=Althaea] rosea.  Plaster for sores, stings, skin conditions, etc. Decoction for womb, stomach pains, poisonings, etc. Makes one vomit up poison.

III-163, althaia, Althea officinalis, marsh mallow. Taken for wounds, sores, skin problems, and similar conditions (including nerves). With grease or turpentine, applied to inflammations; also for womb, expelling afterbirth etc. Decoction of root in wine for dysentery, toothache, and many other conditions. Seed for skin conditions; also for bites, stings, etc.

 

Avicenna: A. officinalis, khiṭmī. Slightly hot. Relaxant, drying, diluting, etc. External uses to soften, dissolve blood, mature boils, relieve skin conditions and joint pains. Poultice for swellings, edema, etc. Poultice on chest. Boiled down roots orally for inflammation of urinary tract, burning in intestines. Rub with vinegar and olive oil for insect bites.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: A. officinalis for few uses. Today for chest and bladder.

 

Lev and Amar: A. officinalis. Khaṭmī. Sciatica, varicose veins, liver, bile corruption, swellings, lung ailments, urinary tract burning, kidney stones, hot coughs, etc. Sweet, gooey root product used for lozenges, lotions and poultices. Also externally on all sorts of pains, abscesses, swellings, etc.

 

Kamal: Khatmiyah, khatmi, althea. A. officinalis: emollient, sedative. For throat inflammations.  Enema for enteritis. Ear bath for ear infections. Powdered roots used in pills.

 

Ghazanfar: Flowers in tea for coughs.

 

Nadkarni: Seeds demulcent, diuretic, febrifurge. Roots astringent, demulcent.

 

Eisenman: A. nudiflora, dried flowers for diarrhea. Root and seed decoction for postnatal bleeding.  Plaster of flower and leaf powder for tumors.  Fresh stem on cuts.  Roots and seeds diuretic tea. No demonstrated biomedical effect. A. officinalis, anti-inflammatory, for flu, sore throat, liver, urine, stones, cycstitis, tumors, prostatitis, joint pain.

 

Sun: Hollyhock/althea (wukui吳葵): it has another name, shukui蜀葵. It is sweet, mildly cold, smooth, and nonpoisonous. Its flower stabilizes the heart qi. Its leaves eliminates the heat caused by outside sources (kere客熱). It helps empty the intestines and stomach. It cannot be frequently taken, or it will slow one’s mind. If one is bitten by a dog and then takes it, the wound will never recover.

 

Li: Shukui. Seeds, roots, stem, flower used. Cooling; disperses heat. Diuretic. Treats dysentery and a large number of other conditions and pains.

 

(A. officinalis, marsh mallow, has a sweet substance in the root that can be beaten up into a frothy white mass—the original of marshmallow candy, now made of spun sugar. It was originally medicinal, for the soothing purposes indicated by many authors above. Eisenman notes that it is used in biomedicine to treat eczema, itch, skin inflammations, and for metabolism—taken internally for all. Also used with other herbs for stomach and intestinal ulcers, colitis, dysentery, kidneys, etc. Action seems largely due to soothing compounds. Probably many of the above accounts refer to this sp., not rosea.)

 

 

Ambrosia maritima, Asteraceae.  Bastard absinth, amrūsiyā. One mention in the Index.

 

Ghazanfar:  Bronchial asthma; antispasmodic; diuretic. Contains chlorosesquiterpene lactones.

 

 

Ammi copticum.  Nānakhwah.  See Carum copticum.

 

 

Amomum spp. including A. racemosum Lam., Zingiberaceae.  Hamama, qāqulla.

 

Dioscorides: I-14, amomon, begins by describing a bush, probably Cissus; then “that which commes from Pontus” fits Amomum subulatum or Elettaria cardamomum. Like many spice names, this one was reapplied from a non-spicy Greek plant to an Asian spice, but early enough for Dioscorides—that is, the late-edited version we have—to include both. The Amomum was “warming, binding and drying” and as a plaster could relax and ease pain, from eye conditions to scorpion stings. (Dioscorides was obsessed with scorpions; they must have been a major problem in the rural Greek world.) Decoction drunk for liver and kidneys, etc., and as antidote. Some of these uses are probably for the Cissus.

 

Levey: Amomum spp., qāqullah, in throat and mouth preparations, for hemorrhoids, for breathing, for stomachic.

 

Nasrallah: Heating, dry; more so than Ellettaria.

 

Lev and Amar: “palpitation, theriac, purgative, general tonics, indigestions, haemorrhoids, looseness of bowels, stomach ailments, and colic” (p. 101). Also wounds stings, eye problems, etc. Hot and dry (as it is today in China). Soporific, and for liver and kidneys.

 

Bellakhdar et al: Aframomum granum-paradisii, guza sahrawiya, stimulant, aphrodisiac.

 

Madanapala: A. subulatum, sthūlailā, for appetite, nausea, poisoning, mouth, head, vomiting, cough.  Hot.

 

Nadkarni: A. subulatum and relatives, stimulant, carminative. For stomach, kidneys, etc.

(Amomum species have strong stimulant and carminative effect.)

 

Dash: A. subulatum, digestive, carminative, aromatic, for bad taste in mouth. Cleases uterus.

 

 

Amomum tsaoko Crevost & Lemarie.  Native; another species, A. xanthioides Wall, probably included.  Introduced.  Caoguo草果. Egyp, Gaz is-sirk.

 

Li: These, and/or A. villosum, included in suoshami縮砂密. A. tsaoko is usually called caokuo is Chinese, this being the source of the scientific name. Warming. Generally considered pungent. Nontoxic. Treats consumptive diseases, diarrhea and dysentery, and other Cold conditions. Long detailed account with many indications.

 

 

Ampelopsis cantoniensis Planch. Vitaceae. Possible but uncertain identification for one entry in the Index.

 

 

Anacardium sp, Anacardiaceae. See Semecarpus anacardium.

 

 

Anacyclus pyrethrum (L.) Link, Asteraceae. Pellitory-of-Spain. ‘Āqīr qarh.ā

 

Dioscorides: III:73. Paralysis, phlegm, toothache.

 

Levey: Blemishes, neck pustule, sore throat, teeth, insanity.

 

Avicenna: Būzīdān (Arabic and Persian). Hot and dry. Minor rubbing and massaging uses for soothing. Cleans out nose. Used for toothaches.

 

Lev and Amar: ‘āqir qarḥa, ‘ud qarḥ. Eyes, throat, insanity, pustules, teeth, headaches, stomach-ache, malaria, chills, paralysis, swellings, stings. etc. Hot and dry.

 

Nadkarni: Stimulant, sialogogue.

 

 

Anamirta paniculata Colebr., Menispermaceae. Mahizahrah.

 

Nadkarni: Seeds for night-sweats (tuberculosis).

(Another case of a strictly Indian or Indo-Iranian drug in the HHYF.)

 

 

Andropogon schoenanthus L., A. nardus. Poaceae. Not in Ch med or native to Ch. Ikdhir/Yijiheier亦即黑而/Adiheier阿的黑兒. Also binj-e idhkhir [“root of schoenus”]. Also the flower, fuqāḤ-e idhkhir. In Chinese the root is Yijiheiergen亦即黑而根, “root of Idhkhir.”

 

Dioscorides: I:17. Probably the species he called sxoinos.

 

Galen:  Astringent, diuretic.

 

Levey, Levey and Al-Khaledy: idhkhir, lemon-grass. Kidneys. Modern uses for tumors, fevers, etc.

 

Lev and Amar: ’idhkhir. Kidneys, fever. Stones. Bleeding (flowers).

 

Bellakhdar et al: Antipyretic, diuretic. Idkir, obviously the source of the Chinese, which would have been pronounced almost exactly like idkir in Yuan times.

 

Nadkarni: Oil stimulant, carminative, antispasmodic, diaphoretic. Extensively used. Many other spp. of the genus used.

 

Dash: A. jwarancusa, bitter, cold, aphrodisiac, urinary.

 

Since lemon grass (Cymbopogon citratus) is not in the HHYF, it seems possible that the HHYF subsumes it under this name.

 

 

Anemarrhena asphodeloides Bge., Asparagaceae (Liliaceae). Native. Zhimu 知母

 

Li:  Zhimu. Huge synonymy. Bitter, cold. Very large number of indications, and history of use going back to long passage by Zhang Zhongjing (Later Han).

 

 

Anethum graveolens L., Apiaceae. Dill. Shabath Shibiti 失必提. Morocco: Karwiya amja. (Note that this name is derived from caraway, not the Arabic word for dill.)

 

Levey: Shabath. In plaster for arthritis, and in remedy for kidneys and bladder.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: Shibthth. Cites Dioscorides as diuretic; for gripes and inflammation; palliative.  Reduces hiccups. Palliates uterine pain; sitz bath. Seeds burnt for hemorrhoids. Galen gave it as hot and dry, resolvent, anodyne, soporific, matures inflammations, helps genitalia, soporific.  Rāzī adds: very hot, too much so for people with hot temperament; useful for gas and lumbago.  Other sources note galactagogue, etc.

 

Avicenna: Shibitt. Hot and dry. Externalliy, ash for ulcers; oil for nerve pain and other pains, on head for sleep, in ear for earaches.  Dill leaves and seeds internally for breast milk production; hiccups; abdominal pain.

 

Graziani: Shibith. Used by Ibn Jazlah for brain diseases, nose, ears, and throat illnesses, and vomiting poison. Boiled with oil and water and drunk. Al-Kindī used it for limb problems, kidneys, and bladder.

 

Lev and Amar: shibth. For arthritic limbs, kidneys, bladder, pain, breath, digestion.  Emmenagogue. Carminatve.

 

Kamal: Shabat. “The seeds are stomachic, cardiac tonic, carminative and soporific. The ashes are antiseptic for sores” (57).

 

Bellakhdar et al. (1991): modern Moroccan use as aphrodisiac, stomachic, antiseptic. Parts unspecified; presumably seeds and ashes as above.

 

Ghazanfar: Seeds for colic.

 

Li: Shiluo 蒔蘿. Pungent, warm, nontoxic. Known as a foreign drug; few uses; unclear image.  Diarrhea, gas, aches, etc.

 

(There appears to be more than a little confusion in the HHYF about apiaceous seeds. All the commonly-used ones contain volatile oils that are stimulant, carminative, and stomachic, as virtually the entire Eurasian world has known since time immemorial. They are in the first herbal writings.)

 

 

Angelica sinensis (Oliv.) Diels, Apiaceae. Native. Danggui 當歸

 

Li:  Danggui. Sweet, warm, nontoxic. This famous cureall rates 7 pages in the translation.

 

(As all those familiar with Chinese medicine know, it is used to treat almost everything that is not clearly a Warm condition. So important in women’s medicine that it is called “women’s ginseng.”)

 

 

Apium graveolens L., Apiaceae. Possibly subtended under Karafs but not attested as such in our HHYF although there are references to “wild celery” as an equivalent.

Var dulce DC

 

Manniche: Popular, important. Tonic, appetiser, carminative (mostly the seeds) and the juice is diuretic. Used in mixes to stimulate appetite, treat the teeth, “cool the uterus” (Manniche 1989:76), and as contraceptive. Used also in remedies for burns and eye problems.

 

Dioscorides: III-67, anethon. Dill. Decoction of dried leaves and seeds, lactogogue, eases sores and pains, stops diarrhea and vomiting. Diuretic. Too much dulls sight and reduces sexual potency. Seed burnt, ash applied to skin eruptions.

Avicenna: Karafs. Hot; dry only when dried somewhat. Relieves gas, opens obstructions, sudatory. Wild celery has hot and pungent properties; erosive, cleansing, irritating. Wild celery—from his description, including different species—treats baldness, cracked nails, warts, cold eruptions, vitiligo, scabies, etc. Poultice of the wild form for ulcers. Not good for headache, but roots promote nasal discharge. Garden celery for poultice. Diuretic, emmenagogue, harmful in pregnancy; can hasten labor or even bring abortion. (This probably refers to a wild type, since some wild relatives do indeed produce abortion.) Disagreements on stomach effects; not considered good. (The different species explain the differences here.)

 

Levey: Karafs. Seed in poultice for stomach, in electuaries, in drug for memory, and as stomachic. Modern uses as carminative, aromatic, tonic (evidently the seed).

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: term (karafs) may include parsley. (The HHYF also seems a bit confused about parsley, celery and related herbs.)

 

Lev and Amar: karafs. “Pains, palpitation, theriac, sand in kidney, wounds, indigestion, haemorrhoids, looseness of bowels, stomach ailments, and colic, and as a purgative” (p. 136); Seeds for most of these, and diarrhea, flatulence, warts, diysuria, dysmenorrhea, hard swellings, abortifacient; leaves for inflammations; roots for male erection; celery water for sciatica, veins.  Once again we see the use of a very mildly active substance for a vast range of conditions, most of which would be trivially affected by it (if at all). Many of these uses persist and still more can be found in modern times.

 

Kamal:  Seed diuretic and antispasmodic; some say carminative, emmenagogue, aphrodisiac, stops lactation.

 

Nadkarni:  Unani uses as deobstruent, resolvent; pectoral tonic, carminative with purgatives; diuretic, emmenagogue, etc.  In addition, seeds are stimulant and cordial. Prevents rheumatism and gout.

 

Dash: Pungent, hot, digestive, carminative, stimulant. For parasites.

 

Li: Qin 芹. Cold, nontoxic. Minor uses.

 

(Domestic celery is as biologically uninteresting as one could get, but wild celery and, above all, some of its relatives are active medicinally.)

 

 

Aquilaria agallocha Roxb., Thymeleaceae. Imported. Aloeswood, Chenxiang 沉香.

 

Avicenna: Constricting. Hot, dry, diluting.  Causes constipation, so used for dysentery.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: Minor use. Today for astringent, stomachic, etc. The appearance of this plant in Al-Samarqandī is one of the marks of progressively increasing Indian influence; it is, in fact, called ‘ud hindī in the text.

 

Lev and Amar: Al-Kindī used it for enlarged head, bad respiration, tooth complaints including caries, etc. Others note various uses, including Maimonides’use for stimulating sexual desire and pleasure.  Hot and dry. Carminative, for nerves, diuretic (Ibn al-Bayt.ār).

 

Bellakhdar et al: ‘ud l-qmari, cardiac stimulant.

 

Nadkarni: Stimulant, cholagogue, deobstruent. In nerve tonics, carminative and stimulant preparations. For gout, rheumatism, vomiting, snake-bite, etc. Fumigant for wounds and ulcers.  Paste with other things on chest, head.

 

Dash: Hot. Fumigant.

 

Li:  Chenxiang (“sinking fragrance”—a very famous perfume and fumigant throughout Chinese history). Warm or hot. Clears the mind as well as treating pains and much else. In addition to treating Cold conditions it does what a good warming drug should do: adds energy, stamina, etc., and treats weakness or debility.

 

 

Aralia racemosa L., Araliaceae. Sadah (Persian) A misidentification; A. racemosa is an American plant, and not in the Chinese pharmacopoeia. Possibly intended here for A. cordata.

 

Nadkarni: A. pseudo-ginseng for dyspepsia and vomiting.

 

 

Arctium lappa L., Asteraceae. native. Burdock, Niupangzi牛蒡子.

 

Kamal: lawiyah, or from the Greek: arqityon, araqityon, arqityum. “Aperient, diuretic and diaphoretic” (the root; 73).

 

Li: Many synonyms. Fruit, root and stem used for a large number of Cold conditions, etc.

 

 

Areca catechu L., Arecaceae. Binlang檳榔

 

Avicenna: Cooling, constricting. For hot and hard swellings, eye pain, aphrodisiac.

 

Levey: faufal. Ointment, nasal uses.

 

Kamal: “astringent, stupefying, anthelmintic” (73).

 

Lev and Amar: fawfal. Liver, skin.

 

Madanapala: pūīphala. Cold. Digestive, intoxicating, appetiser. For parasites.

 

Nadkarni: Stimulant, astringent, antihelminthic. Modern data on stimulant, toxic, mind-altering qualities added.

 

Dash: Astringent, sweet, laxative, intoxicating, appetiser.

 

Li: Binlang (which, like the HHYF name, is a Sinicization of the Malaysian name pinang—via Hokkien, in which the characters that in Mandarin are “bin lang” are pronounced “pin nang.”).

 

Known as a Southeast Asian product.  Seed qualities subject to varying opinions. Many indications, most conformant to the real stimulant qualities of the seed.

 

 

Aristolochia longa L., A. rotunda L., Aristolochiaceae. Zarāwand, zarawand-gird, zarawand-daraz. Zalawan咱剌灣

 

Theophrastus: II-319: Applied for head bruises, wounds, snakebite. Pessary for womb. Taken for snakebite, sleep.

 

Dioscorides: III-4, aristolochia stroggole, A. pallida. “Aristolocia is so called because it is thought to help passing well women in child-bed.” (The Greek name means “noble or best for birth.”)  But it can be an abortifacient, too. This one is “female” because rounder.

III-5, aristolocia makra, A. parvifolia, A. sempervirens.  The male, because larger and less round-leaved and round-rooted. (This same distinction between male—longer, more pointed—and female—rounder—varieties of plants is made among the Maya of Yucatan. Possibly it came via the Spanish from Dioscorides. The Maya also use Aristolochia as a cureall. In fact, wherever this genus is found, its toxic but highly bioactive ingredients have tended to attract herbalist attention.)

III-6, aristolochia klematitis, A. boetica.

 

In addition to uses for birth and menstruation—either in medicines or as plaster—these herbs were used for poisons and bites, asthma, rickets, spasms, spleen, ruptures, convulsions, pains, splinters, and much else. Cleans gums and teeth.

 

Avicenna: Hot and dry. Cleansing, diluting, opening, absorbing. Can extract thorns. Produces flesh (round sp.). Used for skin diseases, ulcers. Orally for gout. Good for tetanus. Used for head conditions, asthma, hiccups, spleen, etc. Purges out phlegm and yellow bile. Emmenagogue and abortifacient. Treats scorpion poison.

 

Levey: A. rotunda, zarāwand mudaḥrij. Scrofula, nose ointment, boils, ulcers, hemorrhoids, teeth, etc. In oil of wild cucumber for sinews, backache, sciatica, pains of rheumatism and lameness.  One species for tooth powder.   

 

Graziani:  Zarawand mudahraj, zarawand tawil. A. rotunda, A. longa respectively. Use unmentioned but widely used.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: A. longa in several recipes.

 

Lev and Amar: Vomiting, gas, warts, dysuria, dysmenorrhea, swellings.

 

Kamal: zarawand; whole genus discussed; some emmenagogue, sudorific, antipyretic, but species unclear.

 

Bellakhdar et al: Laxative, emmenagogue, anti-palpitant.

 

Ghazanfar: A. bracteolata rubbed on stings, bites. It is toxic.

 

Nadkarni: A. indica, for snake-bite and other bites, both externally and internally.  For leprosy, dropsy, cholera, diarrhea, intestinal problems, abortifacient. Several other spp. with similar uses.

 

Dash:  A. indica pungent, bitter, for parasites, scorpion stings, snakebite, ulcers.

 

Li: A. contorta and A. debilis, tianxianteng, bitter, warm nontoxic, for many uses relating to warming. Blended widely. A. mandschurica, tongcao, treats both cold and heat; disperses stagnant qi, drains urine, treats a range of conditions. Balanced, nontoxic.

 

(Aristolochia species are used worldwide for tonic and cureall effects, including childbirth, whence the name, Greek for “fine birth”; but the plants are actually too toxic for safe use.)

 

 

Artemisia abrotanum L., Asteraceae. Qaysum/Gaisong改松.

The many very real medical values of Artemisia spp.—a huge genus of some 550 speces—have made these plants medicinally important almost everywhere they are found. Perhaps their use for “female troubles” associated them with Artemis. They are still grown by millions of Chinese and other Asian households, and very often elsewhere in the world, from Europe to Latin America. They are still very widely used as vermifuges (in spite of some danger), abortifacients (much more danger), digestive aids (their original role in vermouth, “wormwood” wine), and so on. See below; most entries in the HHYF refer to annua or are hard to disentangle; identifications combined below.

 

Avicenna: A abrotanum specifically is ‘ubaithrān. Hot and dry. Dissolving, blood-thinning, etc.  Irritant, so not for wounds. Tea for muscular contusions, brain diseases, cold problems in head.  Improves vision and breathing. Cooked with olive oil for stomach. Expels fetus.

 

 

Artemisia absinthium, A. annua L., Asteraceae. Afsintīn/Afusanting阿福散汀

This, the traditional Chinese treatment for malaria, has emerged as the leading treatment for malaria today, partly because it kills young stages of the parasite almost totally, making it difficult for the parasite to evolve resistance (as it has to other treatments; see White 2008 for an excellent account).

 

  1. absinthium and other spp. are included in this section because the text is unclear on these related and similar species.

 

Dioscorides: III-127: artemisia monoklonos, A. campestris; artemisia monoklonos etera, A. vulgaris. Either one could really be abrotanum and annuum may be involved also. For emmenagogue and abortion.

III-138, artemisia leptophyullos, A. arborescens. Poultice for stomach and sore sinews.

III-26: apsinthion, A. pontica, A. absinthium; warming, binding. Emmenagogue. For poisons, including shrew bites (which can be infected) and sea-dragon bites. For eyes and ears, liver, stomach, many other conditions. Absinth wine noted and used; in Propontis and Thrace it was used as a general tonic drink. The leaves could be used for insect repellent, as powdered sagebrush leaves were in China and elsewhere.

III-27, apsinthion thalassion, A. maritima.  Warming, bad for stomach, but a powerful, effective vermifuge.

III-28: apsinthion triton, santonion, A. palmata.  Also vermifuge.

Note that only two Artemisia spp. are recommended for vermifuge, though all work well.

 

Levey:  This sp. is shīh, used for teeth and mouth. A. absinthum, ifsintīn. Reduces swelling of the spleen.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: “artamisiyā, artamāsā” for headaches due to colds (citing Rāzī, as he often does).  “Afsantin,” this species, repels moths, cleans the air, is useful for hair, but can cause headache if taken (as for drinking alcohol—possibly explaining the headache!). Used in ears. Used for apoplexy, eyes, etc.

 

Avicenna: A. absinthium, asfantīn. Several other names for wormwoods are given. Bitter, biting, acrid. Purgative. Smoke and vapor used as well as tea. Astringent. Used for swellings, pimples, wounds, ulcers, black bile, eyes, a very wide range of internal ailments, and, of course, worms.

 

Graziani: “absinthum” used; shikh, with synonyms etc.; stomachic [and surely vermifuge].

 

Lev and Amar: all the species are discussed together, though the Arabic clearly refers to several different species with quite different names. Apparently the Genizah documents are shaky as to actual identifications. Uses as specified under the species.

 

Kamal: A. absinthum, Arabic afsantin or shaibah, as tea, appetizer, tonic for brain, heart, stomach; febrifurge, worm medicine, emmenagogue. A. pontica, shih, burnt for purifying; febrifurge; tea for diabetes.

  1. abrotanum, qaysum, stimuilant and anthelminthic. The “female” (whatever Kamal may mean by that) is khrisaneh; it is stomachic, antivconvoulsive, anthelminthic.
  2. santonin, shih khurasani, qaisum ontha antihelminthic.

 

Bellakhdar et al: A. arborescens, antihelminthic; diuretic; emmenagogue; abortive; aperitive. A. herba-alba, gastro-intestinal, antiseptic, anthelminthic, poison antidote, hypoglycemiant, emmenagogue.

 

Ghazanfar: A. herba-alba for worms.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: A. herba-alba and A. sieberi, shih, etc.; for diabetes, indigestion, kidneys, stomach, weakness, and with bay leaf and rose water or milk, fenugreek, and other spices for childbirth (presumably recovery after delivery). A. judaica, bu-aythiran, sheeh, for insomnia, rheumatism, skin, stomach.

 

Nadkarni: A. absinthium, febrifurge, stomachic, deobstruent, diaphoretic, antihelminthic, antiseptic, stomachic. Toxic, but tonic effect on brain. A. maritima, strong antihelminthic; antispasmodic. Several other spp. used.

 

Eisenman: Carminative; vermifuge. Used locally for dyspepsia, insomnia, “liver, stomach, spleeen, and gall bladder, fever, hemorrhoids, malaria, intestinal ulcers,…wounds” (p. 41).  Biomedically effective on skin, and for stomach, as well as for worms. A. annua, leaves for skin conditions.

 

Li: A. annua?, huanghuahao黃花蒿, pungent, bitter, cool, nontoxic, minor uses. A. annua is normally qinghao青蒿. This seems to be a color variant of it, greener in leaf, yellower in flower (the name means “yellow-flowered wormwood”).

  1. apiacea, A. annua, qinghao. Leaves and fruits used. Bitter, cold, nontoxic. Many uses, including killing external parasites and other pest insects. The famous use, of course, is for malaria; artemisin derived from it is now the worldwide drug of choice for that disease. Li apparently got confused, and used “qinghao” for A. apiacea.
  2. anomala, liujinucao劉寄奴草, fruit, bitter, warm, nontoxic. Minor uses, mostly digestive.
  3. argyris, ai, a very common and important remedy. Usually leaves used, but fruit also. Bitter, slightly warm, nontoxic. Not only is it taken for a huge range of conditions; the leaf is dried and powdered for moxibustion. A rare and unusual Artemisia, qiannian’ai千年艾, “Argy wormwood of a thousand years,” is found in mountains and used to treat male debility and female pain; from Li’s description it appears to be a different species.
  4. capillaris, A. scoparia, yinchenhao茵陳蒿. Bitter, balanced or cold, nontoxic. Important; wide range of uses. Like some other wormwoods, it will make the rabbits that eat it immortal, according to early reports that Li politely indicates he questions.
  5. japonica, muhao牧蒿, bitter, slightly sweet, warm, nontoxic. Minor uses, plus in combination for malaria.
  6. keikeskiana, yanlu [CHARACTERS??], bitter, cold or warm, nontoxic. Range of treatments for pain and digestion, etc.
  7. sieversiana, baihao白蒿, leaves, roots, seeds used; cool; similar to above. Many uses as food and drug.

 

(Sagebrushes are digestive in small doses, vermifugal in larger, dangerously abortifacient in slightly larger—all cultures in the range of the genus seem to know this. Use, very widespread but often deadly, as last resort for abortion.)

 

Meserve: Artemisia sp. for constipation, and other Mongol uses cited, including the inevitable vermifuge use as well as antiseptic and febrifuge uses.

 

Elisabeth Hsu:[51] a major paper by this brilliant Needham Institute researcher finds A. annua used for external purposes—bites, stings, wounds—in the earlier literature, including one of the excavated Mawangdui texts. Ge Hong is the first known to have used it for intermittent and persistent fevers, certainly including malaria.[52] He used extracts or infusions of the fresh plant, as did later writers, but eventually the dried material was made into tea, which is much less effective. A. apiacea, Li Shizhen’s “qinghao,” is less effective, but may have been easier to extract. Hsu thoroughly reviews the literature. A companion piece[53] stresses the common-sense nature of plant knowledge (with philosophical grounding from Thomas Reid and Scott Atran on the concept of “common sense”), and the resulting mix of truth and error that culture constructs from plant experiences.

 

 

Artemisia dracunculus L. (=A. dracunculoides Pursh), Asteraceae. Tarragon.

One mention in Index; evidently not a serious medicinal. Not mentioned in most sources; evidently blanked by the more pharmaceutically active Artemisia spp. See above

 

Dioscorides: apparently mentioned. Old uses as diuretic, anthelminthic, emmenagogue, as with other artemisias.

 

Avicenna: ṭarkhūn; Persian tarkhūn. Dry, somewhat cold. Reduces libido and hard to digest.

 

Kamal: A. dracunculus, tarkhun (whence English “tarragon”) is stomachic, emmenagogue, anti-tooth-decay.

 

Eisenman: For edema, scurvy, appetite, carminative.  Powder for mouth conditions. Vermifuge.  Central Asian tarragon has no methyl-chavicol, unlike the western form, but the medical relevance of this is unclear. A. leucodes, a more sagebrush-like species, is strongly anti-inflammatory and used in biomedicine for athersclerosis and heart problems. A. scoparia used for respiratory conditions, rheumatism, and as diuretic; also, like other Artemisia spp., vermfuge and emmenagogue. Essential oils with such action are noted. A. viridis, infusions for uclers, kidneys, liver, bile ducts, but biomedical action unstudied.

 

 

Artemisia vulgaris L., Asteraceae.  native. Afsintīn/Afusanting阿福散汀. Iran, afzentin

 

Dioscorides: see above.

 

Kamal:  Swaila, shwaila. A. vulgaris, emmenagogue, anti-hysteria; roots anti-epileptic. Used for catarrh in Morocco.

 

Madanapala: Nāgadamanī. Cures poisons.

 

Nadkarni: Antihelminthic, antiseptic, expectorant.

 

Dash: Bitter, cardiac, alleviates dosas, cures afflictions by evil spirits as well as poisoning and skin conditions.

 

Eisenman: Wide range of folk uses, including colds, nervous conditions, epilepsy, neurasthenia, anticonvulsant; poisoning, inflammation of gastrointestinal tract, tuberculosis, appetite, ulcers; wounds (externally). Antibacterial, anthelminthic, and other biomedical effects well known.

 

Sun: Wormwood/hairhead wormwood (baihao白蒿): [54] bitter, spicy, balanced, and nonpoisonous. It nourishes the five internal organs. It is good for the Middle Burner (zhongjiao中膲) and enhances qi. It helps hair grow. If one has taken it for a long time, he will not die; white rabbits take it and become Immortals.

 

 

Asarum sieboldii Miq., Aristolochiaceae. And other A. spp. Native. ‘Āqīr qarā/Ajierhaerha阿吉而哈而哈

 

Dioscorides: I-9, asaron, Asarum europaeum. Root for ruptures, convulsions, cough, breathing problems; diuretic and emmenagogue. With wine for poisonous bites. Leaves as poultice for inflammations, headache, inflammations, rashes, etc. Smell induces sleep. Can cause vomiting.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: Warming. Used for smallpox.

 

Kamal: A. europoeum, asaron, emetic.

 

Nadkarni: A. enropoeum, emetic, cathartic.

 

Li: This and A. heterotropoides, A. sieboldii, A. hexalobum are xixin, a common and important drug still today. A. forbesii is duheng.  Roots used.  Warming, pungent, nontoxic. Many uses, with little in common; a cureall.

 

 

 

Asparagus officinalis L., Asparagaceae (Liliaceae). Marjubah (Persian), whence the HHYF’s Mār-chūba/Maerchubo馬兒出伯. Also spelled Mārshūbah in a subtext and occurs as Haliyūn/Halirong哈里榮

 

Dioscorides:  II-152, aspharagos, Asparagus acutifolius. Root decoction for illnesses generally; kidneys, being diuretic; helps with dysentery and bites. Can make one infertile. Seed, etc. used also. Dioscorides properly dismissed a tale that bits of rams’ horns would grow into asparagus.

 

Avicenna: Neutral to hot. Cleansing, opening. Dissolvent Diuretic. Roots increases semen and libido, so helps in conceiving. Suppository for menses. Used for kidney stone. A kind that grows on rocks is hotter and stronger.  (The normal kind grows in marshy ground and cannot live on rocks, so this is evidently some other, interesting species.)

 

Graziani: Asparagus sp., hilyawn, used by Ibn Jazlah for sciatica. Other medieval Arab uses for kidneys, bladder, backache, lumbago, pains in lungs; in syrup and robs.

 

Lev and Amar: eyes, strength, bites, urine, pains, etc. Seeds fermented good for sexual medicine, and plant aphrodisiac (traditionally from phallic shape). Diuretic.

 

Bellakhdar et al.: sekkum, A. albus antirheumatismal and for liver infections; aperitive.

 

Nadkarni: Dropsy, rheumatism, gout, etc. Whole plant used. Some other spp. noted.

Eisenman: A. persicus, for various conditions; no empirical data though contains various chemicals.

 

Li:  A. cochinchinensis, tianmendong天門冬, root widely used. Sources disagree on qualities and value.  Used in medieval times to prolong life and youth, with some preposterous stories from Ge Hong and others. Li admits value as a tonic, but maintains his skeptical silence in regard to the “immortality” and “300-year longevity” stories.

 

 

Astragalus sarcocolla Dym., Fabaceae. ‘Anzarūt/ Anzaluti安咱盧提. Also called for is Astragalus gummifer, Kathīrā’/可西剌 (Sometimes identified as, or equated with, Penaeus mucronata L. See Levey.)

 

Dioscorides: IV-62, astragalos, A. baeticus and/or similar spp. Stops diarrhea.  Diuretic.  Good for old sores, as powder applied.

4-18, medion, A. sesameus. With honey for dysentery. Seed in wine emmenagogue.

 

Levey:  This or Penaea mucronata L., salve for skin spots, leprosy, abscesses, cataracts; in musk.

 

Avicenna: ṣamagh, anzarūt, etc. Astragalus spp. He calls it “Persian gum,” which may reflect his Central Asian origins. Hot and dry (somewhat). Can cause baldness. Poultice for swellings, etc.  Sets sprained organs. Used for ear, eyes, coughs and chest (with honey and wine), kidney pains, etc.

 

Lev and Amar: ‘anzarūt. Eyes, very widely and for almost any eye condition; sexual health; skin spots, abscesses; leprosy. Wounds, intestines, etc. Hot and dry.

  1. gummifera, kathīrā, Perspirant; for cough and espiratory diseases, throat pains, limbs, etc. In compounds for all sorts of purposes.

 

Bellakhdar et al.: A. gummifera, ktira. Antitussive, antiashthmatic, reconstituant.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: A. sarcocolla, anzarut, kuhl farsi. On cuts and wounds; rubbed on babies; taken for indigestion.

 

Nadkarni: Aperient. Other spp. used.

 

Eisenman: A sieversianus, infusion for kidney and bladder stones. Seeds for “hernias in children, and are smoked to treat syphilis” (p. 52). Biomedically, antioxidant, sedative, antibacterial, anti-inflammatroy, and other effects demonstrated; saponins from roots protect liver from chemicals; clearly a plant to watch.  Many chemical ingredients known.

 

Li:  Five or more species lumped in Chinese as huangqi黃芪. A very common, important drug then and today; usually the root used. Several pages of uses, for almost every imaginable condition and some unimaginable ones.

 

 

Astragalus tragacantha L., Fabaceae. Kathīra. Probably a misidentification for the above, but possibly both this and A. sarcocolla were known. Members of the genus are more or less interchangeable in Arabic-Persian medicine.

 

 

 

Balsamodendron africanum Arn., B.  mukul Hook., and probably other spp.  Burseraceae.  Sometimes classed with Commiphora.

 

Levey:  Kūr azraq, resin of former; muql, latter.  Dressings; insanity.

 

Bellakhdar et al: B. africana, cosmetics, digestive, pulmonary cure, stomachic.

 

Ghazanfar: Commiphora mukul (=B. mukul) for childbirth:  resin burned, smoke directed to birth area to get placenta expelled and dry up area.

Earlier and other uses unclear as to species. (HHYF confusing on this also.)

 

Nadkarni: B. mukul gum, demulcent, aperient, alterative, carminative, antispasmodic, emmenagogue. Said to be aphrodisiac.

 

 

Bambusa spp., Poaceae. Stem concretions or ash: tabasheer (Arabic ṭabāshīr). Also one mention of use of shoots in soup, but this is merely an intrusion of Chinese foodways rather than a medical entry (it is the other ingredients in the soup that are medicinal).

 

Avicenna: constricting, ripening, dissolvent. Bitter, drying. Used for ulcers, sores, eye inflammation, heart, yellow bile in stomach, quenching thirst, stopping vomiting, etc.

 

Levey: Few casual mentions.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: Commonly recommended by Al-Samarqandī in many formulations. One of the marks of progressively increasing Indian influence on Near Eastern medicine. Note that it does not appear often in the earlier sources.

 

Lev and Amar: Jaundice, fever, palpitation, stomach and diarrhea, bile, black bile, phlegm, mouth sores, gums, eyes, etc.

 

Nadkarni:  Stimulant, astringent, febrifuge, tonic, cooling, antispasmodic, aphrodisiac. Unani specifically: Tonic for heart and liver, sedative, and for vomiting, palpitation, coma, fevers.

 

Li:  Bamboos are zhu竹, the shoots zhusun竹筍, the concretions in the stems—what is usually meant by tabasheer—zhuhuang竹黃. Minor, somewhat dubious uses.  Bamboos, on the other hand, are used for a vast range of conditions.

 

(This substance is singularly inactive pharmacologically, but the high content of silica granules in the ash would possibly make it good for binding and soothing sores.)

 

 

Berberis spp. (probably originally B. vulgaris L. in the source materials, but several species occur in China and are used medicinally, so no doubt this should be understood generically), Berberidaceae. Barberry. Barbārīs, amirbārīs.

Brief mentions; not significant. Apparently the reference in the HHYF index is to the fruit as a food, not the wood and root as remedies.

 

Dioscorides: probably B. lycium. Fruit much used.

 

Avicenna: cold, dry. Syrup for eradicating yerllow bile. Indian barberry is dissolvent, and used on sores and ulcers. Barberry taken internally for spleen, etc. Causes constipation.  Fruit used.

 

Lev and Amar: Liver, spleen, abdomen, bowles, bile, etc. Maimonides recommends for stomach, purgative, etc. Widely used for ointment for skin in Iraq and Iran today.

 

Nadkarni: Several spp. used, esp. B. vulgaris. Tonic, stomachic, astringent, antipyretic, tonic, antiperiodic, diaphoretic, alterative, root purgative, etc. The yellow alkaloid berberine, from the wood and roots, is known to be effective for at least several of these uses. Fruit can serve as a laxative. B. lycium Royle for hemorrhoids and ulcers. B. vulgaris for leprosy, snakebite, malaria, jaundice (presumably sympathetic magic, because of the yellow extract), etc. The fruit has minor medical uses as laxative, stomach soothing, etc.

 

Eisenman: B. integerrima, fruit antipyretic (and a food). Roots for wounds, bone fractures, rheumantism, heart pain, stomach aches.  Leaves for kidney stones. Tea of flowers for lungs, chest, headache.  Infusion of fruits for constipation and wounds. Contains berberine, widely known as a blood pressure and relatant drugs; depresses nervous system action. Also has antitumor and bacteriostatic action and other biomedical effects. B. oblonga, similar uses; atnidiarrheal; root for eyes and mouth (wash for sores). Residue from root tea eaten or applied externally for jaundice, stomach, back and other pains. Shares biomedical effects of other barberries (berberine, etc.).

 

Li:  Various spp. for aphtha, nasal and oral eczema, worms, Heat in stomach and abdomen, etc.

(Common food in Iran.  Nutritious. The English name is a folk etymology based on Latin barbaris, the source also of the Arabic and scientific names. But the plant does have barbs and berries, so the folk etymology was easy to invent.)

 

 

Beta vulgaris L var. cicla L. Chenopodiaceae.  [Pr.] Chugundur/Junda莙薘

 

Dioscorides: II-149, teutlon melan agrion. Good for the belly, but the black root causes constipation. Juice in nostril with honey to purge the head and help pains of ears. Cleanses sores, etc. Raw leaves to anoint skin eruptions, etc.

IV-16, leimonion, B. sylvestris, seed for dysentery.

 

Levey: Silq. Includes other plants. Beet leaves in a clyster.

 

Lev and Amar: Silq. Hot and dry to some, but Maimonides saw it as cold and moist. Various kinds. Good food. Modern uses for seeds and leaves as well as root; leaves put on stings, rashes, wounds, dandruff, etc.; food for intestines, urination, kidney stones, anemia, liver.

 

Kamal: Diuresis, cystitis, constipation. Leaves used.

 

Nadkarni: Various minor uses for headache, liver, eyes, burns, constipation, hemorrhoids, and externally for ulcers, sores, dandruff, etc.

 

Li: Tiancai菾菜. Sweet, bitter, very cold, slippery, nontoxic. Use, obviously, for very serious Heat conditions, including some “real” heat affections like moxibustion burns (poultice used for them as well as bites, etc.).

 

 

Bletilla striata (Thunb.) Reichb., Orchidaceae. F. Native. Baiji白芨

 

Li:  Baiji.  Nontoxic, pungent. Balanced. Wide range of uses, especially for chapping, wounds, swellings, acne, and other external conditions.

 

 

Borago officinalis L., Boraginaceae.  KunDuShi. Arabic Lisān al-thaur/Lisanusaoer里撒奴騷而

Al-Bīrūnī: Lisān al-thawr; “būghlūs in Roman.”  (“Cow tongue”; cf. English “bugloss”—which is bu-gloss, cow-tongue, not bug-loss!)  Refrigerant. Quotes several major authors.

 

Avicenna: Hot, moist. Exhilarant; relieves anxiety (still believed in 21st century!). Cures mouth ulcers.

 

Graziani: Ibn Jazlah used it for palpitation, cough, chest pain; could harm the spleen.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: Usual importance—a person from the Persian cultural universe, which included Samarqand, would never neglect this greatest of Persian curealls.

 

Maimonides: Used by Maimonides as rather a cureall (Maimonides 1974).

 

Lev and Amar: Probably various species, including Anchusa spp., used. Hallucination, eyes, headaches, fever, aphrodisiac, etc. many uses, internal and external, including madness and melancholy. Relieves pain, etc.

 

Kamal: Aperient and diaphoretic.

(Used in Persia today under the name “cow’s tongue” for every imaginable condition, including those mentioned by Graziani. Usually made up as an herbal tea. Anderson’s Iranian students were all raised with it. Dried flowers in bags of all sizes are sold in every Persian market. Oddly little or no use in traditional medicine in India or China.)

 

 

Boswellia carteri Birdw., Burseraceae. Imported. Mai’a/Mia米阿, also lubnā or Lubān/Lubuna魯不納. Hu: Ruxiang乳香; 540.

 

Dioscorides: 1-81, libanon; thus, frankincense. Warns about adulteration. Warming, binding, cleansing. Applied: Cures ulcers and wounds, suppresses bloody flux and excessive bleeding, cures skin ailments (long list), relieves women’s breast inflammations. Taken with medicines:  arteries, intestines, lungs; but being drunk by the healthy, it drives mad or kills.

1-82, phloios libanou:  bark of this species.  Similar uses, but more binding.

1-83, libanou manna, manna of the species. Similar uses. One wonders what this is as opposed to the gum itself.

1-84, libanou aithalie, “fuligo of frankincense,” i.e. soot prepared by charring. For inflammation of eyes, repressing fluxes, cleaning ulcers, etc. 1-85 notes that other resins (myrrh, styrax, etc.) make good soot also.

 

Levey: Lubān, Lubnā.  Storax (gum) from this plant. In a clyster for humors.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: Kundur. Heating, etc. Quotes Galen, Paul of Aegina and many Arab writers.

 

Avicenna: Kundur. Hot and dry.  Stops bleeding. Vapor has strong drying quality, constricting tissues and channels. Many external uses, by itself or with vinegar, oil, honey, rose oil, etc. With duck fat on skin fungus, and with swine fat (odd thing to see in a Muslim book) “on burn ulcers and cold fissures” (*p. 465). Used internally for fevers, vomiting, etc.

 

Graziani: Kandur, kundur, luban.  Resin used.

 

Lev and Amar: Lubān, kundur. Maimonides used I for melancholy, rabid dog bites, stings, hemorrhages, wounds, skin diseases; hot and dry. Various other authorities noted the same, plus use for lungs, intestines, liver, etc. Strengthens teeth and gums. Used today for these purposes and for disinfectant.

 

Kamal: Luban, loban. Stimulant, emmenagogue; for throat and larynx, locally for chilblains; sudorific; toothache relief.

 

Bellakhdar et al: Antitussive, cosmetic.

 

Ghazanfar: B. sacra. Lubān, bakhor. (Same sp. as above; taxonomy has been debated.)  Gum for perfume, mastitis, teeth, digestion, etc.; soot for eyes; gum chewed by pregnant women and to treat emotional problems. Diuretic, purgative, and for memory in Saudi Arabia.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: Smoke for wounds and swellings, post-delivery, etc. Taken for childbirth, coughs, diabetes, diarrhea, liver, lungs, memory, nausea, odors, oral care, stomach!

 

Nadkarni: This and various related Indian spp.; resin refrigerant, diuretic, demulcent, aperient, alterative, emmenagogue, etc.

 

Li: Xunluxiang薰陸香, ruxiang. Known to be from the western world.  Warm or hot, nontoxic. Treats pains, disabilities, etc.

(Resin well known as antiseptic and soothing.)

 

 

Boswellia papyrifera Hochst., Burseraceae. Tus.

Same data and sources, but seem distinguishable in the formularies.

 

 

Brassica alba (L.) Boiss. and other Brassica spp. Brassicaceae. Native. Karanb/Keboer可伯兒.Morocco, Zarrit s-san

 

Dioscorides: II-134, gongylis, B. rapa, turnip. Root, eaten boiled, noted as causing flatulence; “provoking venerie” (Gunther 1934:147), presumably from the stomach irritation. Decoction for gout and sores; drunk or applied.  Leaves diuretic. Seeds antidotal to poison etc.

 

Levey: Khardal. May include Sinapis. Leprosy, erysipelas, itch, etc.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: Brassica sp. Khardal. Treats dyspepsia and flatulence.

 

Avicenna: B. rapa, shaljam, turnip. Softening effects; trivial uses; increase semen; water of boiling is diuretic. B. nigra, khardal, black mustard. Hot and dry to fourth degree. Prevents production of phlegm. Oil very warm. Fumes repel insects. Cleansing, dissolving, rubefacient. Poultice irritating and erosive; clears complexion and spots, dissolves hot inflammations and chronic swellings, used with sulfur on tubercular lymph glands. Used on scabies and arthritis. For ear, eye (for day-blindness and roughness). Internally for windpipe, inflammation of spleen, hysteria. Aphrodisiac. Used for intermittent and chronic fevers.

 

 

  1. campestris, Brassicaceae, turnip, shaljam, used for gout, chapping, etc. Probably in HHYF under the generic Karanb, which is not called for that often. Stalks diuretic. Seeds in pastes, electuaries, confections; analgesic for bites; antidote. Aphrodisiac. Wild turnip seeds for poultices for mouth and skin.

 

Graziani: “Mustard,” khardal, species uncertain, used by Ibn Jazlah for menstrual disorders. Ibn Butlān used it for gout and for loosening induration. Today in Iran and Iraq [as elsewhere in the world] for emetic.

 

Lev and Amar: Sinapis alba, khardal. Skin and skin conditions including leprosy, erysipelas, and neck pustules. Several species recognized (unclear identifications). Seeds for stomach. Plan for inflammations, rheumatism, pains, colds, influenza, jaundice, stones in urinary system, etc.

 

Bellakhdar et al: B. napus, magic uses; B. nigra, magic, calefacient, revulsive.

 

Madanapala: Sārsapa, B. campestris. Heavy, hot. Alleviates dosas.

 

Nadkarni: Mustard powder stimulant, emetic, diuretic. Digestive. Oil stimulant, rubefacient, vesicant.

 

Dash: B. campestris and B. nigra discussed together; pungent, cures parasites and colic. B. nigra prevents afflictions by evil spirits and bestows auspiciousness on children.

 

Li: Baijie白芥. Known to be from west. Pungent, warm, nontoxic. A range of respiratory and warming uses, as for coughing, phlegm, asthma; most familiar to the western world.

  1. campestris, yuntai蕓苔. Pungent, warm (or cool), nontoxic. Common food. For swellings, erysipelas, other external conditions, as well as diarrhea and other internal matters. Leaves and seeds used. The disagreement over whether the leaves are warm or cool persists today. The seeds are always warm.
  2. chinensis (B. campestris var. chinesis), song, baicai白菜. Stem and leaf sweet, warm or cool (today considered very cooling), nontoxic. Leaves for digestive and a few other complaints. Seeds for oil used for hair growth etc.
  3. rapa (B. campestris var. rapa), wujing蕪菁, root, leaves, seeds. Bitter and nontoxic. Various conditions. It is not clear which of these apply to the western turnip and which to the indigenous Chinese turnip, which are closely related and confused even by modern scientists.

(Stimulant effects of Brassica seeds are known worldwide. Mustard plasters are still not unknown in the United States.)

 

 

Brassica juncea (L.) Czern. et Coss. Brassicaceae. Native. Does not occur in the HHYF as such but could be subtended by the generic karanb.

 

Nadkarni: Plant aperient and tonic.  Oil stimulant, counterirritant.  Hot mustard bath, emmenagogue.

 

Sun: Mustard leaf (jiecai芥菜): spicy, warm, nonpoisonous. It treats nose problems (guibi歸鼻). It dispels noxious qi in the kidney. It breaks spells of vomiting caused by coughing. It makes qi move downward. It is good for the nine orifices. It is good for eyesight and hearing. It pacifies the Middle Jiao膲 [Burner] (anzhong安中). When one takes it for a long time, it warms the Middle Jiao, though alternatively it is said that “it chills the Middle Jiao.” Its seeds are spicy. The spiciness also treats nose problems (guibi). The seeds are poisonous. They especially treat throat illnesses caused by wetness, wind, or cold (houbi喉痹). They can rid every kind of wind poison and bump [boil? Tumor?] caused by living in wet and lower places (fengduzhong風毒腫). The Yellow Emperor said, “Mustard leaves cannot be taken along with rabbit meat. Otherwise they will cause bad and noxious disease (exiebing惡邪病).”

 

Li:  jie. Leaves and seeds; large number of miscellaneous uses, mostly household first-aid and minor remedies, but Li personally recommends the seeds for lockjaw, deafness, epistaxis, and other serious conditions.

(Seeds of this plant are the traditional source of the standard Chinese mustard preparations, used in households as stimulant, etc.)

 

Brassica oleracea L., Brassicaceae. Kurunb, karnab.

Var. botrytis L. Kalam (Persian)

 

Dioscorides: Krambe. II:120, sight, trembling, stomach, erysipelas, carbuncles, gangrene, spleen, pessary against conception, etc.

 

Avicenna: Laxative, drying. Good for inflammations of soft connective tissue. Leaves made into poultice, sometimes with flour. Heals wounds, eused on burns with egg white, treats mites and the like. Burnt and used with butter on chronic pain of chest and ribs. Poured on arthritis.Boiled wild cabbages, and seeds, delay intoxication.  Diuretic. Emmenagogue. For treating displaced uterus, but this can interfere with semen. Sea cabbage (Crambe maritima) mild laxative. Various other uses.

 

Levey: Kurunb. Ulcers, etc.

 

Lev and Amar: Qunnabīṭ, qarnabīt, kurnub. Stomach ulcers, etc. Bites, food poisoning.

Graziani:  Kurunb. Ibn Jazlah used for bites and to stop trembling. “Dioscorides employs it for dull sight, trembling, stomach, erysipelas, carbuncles, gangrene and spleen troubles” (1980:208); presumably this is an Arabic Dioscorides; it is not in the English.

Li:  ganlan. Sweet, plain, nontoxic. Very little said; known as a western borrowing, rarely found in China. Very interesting is that Li puts it with smartweed and other herbs rather than with the other Brassica species, which are together in a single group of entries.

 

 

Bryonia alba L. Cucurbitaceae. (Persian) Hazarjashan/Hazaersashang 哈咱兒撒商.

 

Manniche: B. dioica for bladder and urinary problems, stomach problems, digestion, anal inflammation.

 

Dioscorides: IV-184, ampelos leuke. Young shoots (a traditional European food) diuretic. With salt on ulcers and gangrenous sores. Root or fruit for sunburn and scars, etc., or with wine for inflammation and abscesses. Root brewed and drunk for epilepsy, one dram daily for a year.  Also apoplexy, dizziness, etc. More (drunk or as pessary) will produce abortion. Fruit, eaten in boiled wheat, lactogogue.

 

Avicenna: Hot, dry. Cleansing, diluent, warming. Cleanses the body and treats scars and marks. Used on hard swellings, spleen inflammation (taken with vinegar), etc. With honey for hysteria.  Useful for stomach; astringent, pungent, a boit bitter and acrid. Abortifacient but good for displaced uterus. Black bryony (Tamus communis) used for chest, paralysis, etc.

 

Lev and Amar: B. creticaFāshirā, hazārjishān. Pains in womb, swellings, diuretic, purgative, ulcers, abscesses, etc.  Juice increases mother’s milk but excess causes vomiting. Roots for cleansing, bunions, boils, scars, skin.  Ointment of root cooked in oil for pain, hemorrhoids, broken bones, etc. Leaves for stomach, diuretic.

 

Kamal:  fashra, etc. Cathartic.  For anasarca, mania, jaundice, colic, constipation.

 

Nadkarni: Several related species have minor uses in India. B. epigoea especially in alterative, tonic, antihelminthic, aperient, with uses for sexually transmitted disesases, acute dysentery, etc.

 

 

Bupleurum chinense DC. & other spp. Apiaceae. Native. Chaihu柴胡.

 

Kamal: B. perfoliatum, antihelminthic. Cooked, for hematomas.

 

Li: Chaihu. Several other species included in this name. Root a common, important medicine.  Bitter, balanced to cold, nontoxic. Several pages of indications. Leaf used for ears to prevent deafness.

 

 

Calonyction muricatum. Convolvulaceae. Tentatively identified in one HHYF recipe; not noted in the herbals. Likely an error for some other convolvulaceous plant.

 

 

Calycotome spinosa. Fabaceae. Dārshīsh’ān/Daershishian荅兒失實安. Hairy thorn-broom. Mentioned in the Table of Contents. Nothing known of its herbal use here, and little or nothing in the literature; very possibly a mistake, the name being used for some more medicinal species of broom. A widespread weed with no recorded medical uses.

 

 

Cannabis sativa L. Cannabaceae (Urticaceae). Native. Humaten胡麻仁 (seeds) Hu: 100.

 

Manniche: With celery for eyes.

 

Dioscorides: III-165, kannabis emeros. Seed eaten, kills sexual desire (!). Juice of green plant for pain of ears. (Interesting that the drug quality was not known. Our 17th-century translator already calls it Cannabis sativa. This is by no means the only plant already known in 1655 by its eventual Linnaean name.)

 

Al-Bīrūnī: Shāhdhānaj. Seeds dry up sperm. Infusion of seeds for ears. Leaves cure gas.  Desiccant. Embrocation applied to hot inflammations and the like. Note differences from Dioscorides; Galen cited for the drying up of sperm, presumably the same idea as Dioscorides’ anaphrodisiac claim.

 

Avicenna: qinnab. Seeds are shahdānj, oil is ḥabb-al-simnah and may sometimes come from other spp. Hot and dry. Dissolves gas. Minor external uses; Causes dark-sightnedness. Seeds fattening but hard to digest. Makes semen sticky. Mild laxative.

 

Nasrallah: Adds that the seeds create “unfavorable humors in the body and cause headaches and constipation.”[55] Notes that Ibn al-Bāytar described marijuana and its extremely intoxicating, maddening properties. Apparently the poor used them in pills or with sugar and sesame.

 

Graziani: Avicenna and Rāzī used as anaesthetic, painkiller.  They warned against overdose.  Ibn Jazlah avoided it. Modern uses in Middle East as anaesthetic, styptic, diuretic.

 

Lev and Amar: Against insanity (!) and epilepsy. Al-Bīrūnī and others noted dangers of use; causes intoxication and even insanity. Maimonides notes use of oil for ears. Plant used for soporific and eye pains (cf. modern use for glaucoma).

 

Kamal: qinnab hindi, qunbus; hashish for the drug. Narcotic.

 

Bellakhdar et al: just a narcotic. Famously a major part of Moroccan culture.

 

Madanapala: Bhangā. Digestive, constipative but also cures constipation [i.e., regularizes digestion]. Causes intoxication.

 

Nadkarni: Stomachic, antispasmodic, analgesic, stimulant, aphrodisiac, sedative, etc. Bad effects of habitual use noted. (Important part of Indian culture; traditional indulgent, often abused long before modern times.)

 

Dash: Bitter, hot, sharp, constipative, carminative, intoxicating. Makes one talkative.

 

Li: For foretelling future, amnesia, etc. Plant toxic, seeds debatably so. Sweet, balanced to cold.  Seeds much used for medicine and in early times for food and oil. Leaves, being dangerous, much less used. (The indulgent use of marijuana was conspicuously rare in traditional China, in sharp contrast to the Islamic and Indian worlds.)

 

 

Capparis spinosa L., Capparidaceae. Kabbār/Keboer可伯兒

 

Dioscorides: II-204, kapparis; cynosbatos; many other names. Fruit for spleen, urine, dysentery, sciatica, palsy, ruptures, convulsions, toothache; emmenagogue; applied on ulcers; juice kills worms in ears.

 

Avicenna: Root and fruit used. Pungent and hot. Keeps mustard from fermenting and spoiling.  Root bitter and pungent. Hot and dry; hot according to local climate (hotter where climate is hotter). Fruit dissolving, opening, cleansing; root erosive. Bark bitter and pungent; constrictive.  Nutritious, but less so when salted (interesting, showing that it was salted then as now). Bark of root for wounds, pain, tenderness, etc. Extract as enema. Can treat paralysis and loss of sensation. Chewing bark of root relieves cold headaches.Treats worms; extract instilled in ear (possibly for worms in ear?). Relieves toothache. Mouthwash, probably from root bark again.  Salted fruit for asthma. Fruit and root bark for splenic hardness. Kills roundworms when taken internally; increases sexual desire; treats piles and menses.

 

Levey: Kabbār. Root bark in poultice for spleen, and for hemorrhoids. Leaf for the spirits.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: Root rind for various conditions; fairly important to Al-Samarqandī.  Current uses for ulcers, scrofula, carminative, aphrodisiac, fever, rheumatism. Various uses in India, including dropsy.

 

Lev and Amar: kabar. Pains, women’s afflictions, insanity, worms in ears, diuretic; mouth medicine for sores, gums, teeth; also stings, wounds, stomach, emmenagogue, hemorrhoids, appetite, etc., etc.

 

Kamal: qabbar (Persian kabar). Roots diuretic, fruit carminative and sudorific. Leaves alleviate toothache.

 

Bellakhdar et al: Antirheumatic, stimulant; treats painful menstruation.

 

Ghazanfar: Laṣafa, fakouha, shafallah. Leaves for earache, coughs, worms, diabetes. Other spp. of the genus and the closely related Cleome for various purposes.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: Emetic, scrofula, spleen, liver.

 

Nadkarni: For palsy, dropsy, gout, rheumatism. Related species, similar minor uses.

 

Eisenman: For hepatitis; root bark smoked for syphilis. Flower juice for scrofula. Fruit, decocted, for hemorrhoids and toothatches, and gums. Antioxidant and other biomedical effects; experimental data indicate potential.

 

Li: Several local species, mabinlang馬檳榔 (“horse’s areca-nut”). For childbirth. A “minority”-area drug very little known in Han circles, but Li recommends it personally for mouth and gum sores—another example of his seeking out even very obscure drugs.

 

 

Carduus benedictus L., C. dipsacus L., Asteraceae. Bād-āvard/badawaerdi八達洼而的

 

Dioscorides: This species not distinguished, but he cites many thistles, including skolymos, Scolymus hispanicus, glossed as “carduus” in the 1655 translation, and used for urine; shoots a pot-herb.

 

Li:  C. crispus, feilian, bitter, salty, balanced, nontoxic; for a number of conditions. One early herbal recommends it for “Wind in the skin that makes the patient feel as if it is a bee sting with bumps,”[56] another for getting rid of worms like horse’s tail hair (i.e. probably whipworms) in the genitalia.

 

 

Carthamus tinctorius L., Asteraceae. Hu: Honghua 紅花973  Safflower.  Apparently confused with Gardenia in naming saffron “foreign gardenia” or “foreign safflower.”  Used on its own medicinally.

 

Dioscorides: IV:188, knekos, purgative.

 

Levey: In salve for beatings.

 

Avicenna: ‘aṣfar. Hot and dry. Usual minor external uses. Taken with fig or honey for abdominal pain and to evacuate burnt phlegm. A number of mixtures and combinations mentioned, including with almond, anise and honey.

 

Lev and Amar: qurṭum, qirṭim. Womb, kidney pains, heart, poisons, urinary tract. Causes diarrhea; laxative. Hot and dry; much used in Medieval Egypt.

 

Kamal: Qurtum, qurtuma, bahram and variants. Oil purgative and emmenagogue. Mixed with honey for soothing use on skin, etc.

 

Bellakhdar et al: ophthalmic, antiseptic, laxative.

 

Ghazanfar: Conjunctivitis and related conditions; whole plant extracted, or leaves simply crushed.

 

Nadkarni: Seeds purgative, roots diuretic.

 

Dash: Alleviates blood, etc.

 

Li: Hunglanhua紅蘭花. Pungent, warm, nontoxic. Usual range of uses. Seeds and leaf.

 

 

Carum copticum Benth. (Trachyspermum ammi L.), Apiaceae. Known in English by the Indian name ajwain or ajowan. Nānakhwah (Arabic) from nankhawah (Persian). Nanghua囊化or Nanhua難化 in the HHYF. This or caraway (Carum carvi) is presumably the “karawyā,” implausibly defined as dill, in the HHYF.

 

Dioscorides: III-66, karos, Carum carvi, caraway. Antidote, etc., used like dill. Root boiled and eaten.

 

Avicenna: hot and dry. Used for skin; pulverized fruits with honey for bruises. Digestive. Treats gas, upset stomach, nausea. Treats cold liver. Used for cleaning eyes and darkened sight.  Increases stickiness of semen, as does rue. Emenagogue; pessary for displaced uterus, etc.  Diuretic. Minor first aid uses for stings. Caraway is hot and dry, carminative, strengthening.  Relieves stomach and gas. For eyes, but overdose harmful. Clears chest and coughs, treats hiccups. Scent said to be abortifacient.

 

Levey: For hemorrhoids. Minor use.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: Very commonly used by Al-Samarqandī in a range of formulas.

 

Lev and Amar: nākhuwāh. Hot and dry. Diuretic, for skin, bites, liver, stomach, urine, etc. C. carvi, hot and dry, for smallpox, kidney stones, stomach worms, swellings, sleep, etc.

 

Kamal: C. copticum, ammi, nikhwah, nan-khuwav, etc. Stimulant, carminative. For appetite. C. carvi, karawyah, al-niqr, etc.; seeds fragrant, stomachic, carminative, diuretic.

 

Bellakhdar et al. (1991:126):[57] “digestive, stimulant, spasmolytic, analgesic, sedative for children” in modern Morocco.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: Stomachic. Mothers drink tea of it to increase milk.

 

Nadkarni: Antihelminthic, antiseptic, carminative.

 

Dash: C. carvi bitter, cleanses uterus, and for colic.

(Another apiaceous seed, with the usual well-recognized properties—stomachic, carminative—from the volatile oil. Contains enough thymol and related phenols to be strongly antibiotic, and widely used for this, especially for treating digestive disease)

 

Eisenman: C. carvi, a common plant in Central Asia, used as sedative, expectorant, diuretic, carminative, laxative, sedative, appetite help; most of this is well documented medically.

(Oddly, this plant never made it to China as a regular medicine; it seems almost limited to the HHYF.)

 

Cassia acutifolia Del., Fabaceae (C. angustifolia). Sana-makki.

 

Levey: Sanā makkī. Infusion. Used generally as purgative, etc.

 

Avicenna: C. fistularis. Khiyār shambar, qiththā. Cold and moist, with some heat. Laxative.  Used also for visceral swellings, throat, gout, joints, diphtheria, liver (including jaundice and liver pain), thirst, etc.

 

Lev and Amar: sanā. This and other species for eyes, women’s illnesses, epilepsy, smallpox, purgative, etc. Recent use as cathartic.

 

Kamal: C. absus, shishm, etc. From west Sudan. Eye powder for eye diseases made from seeds; with sugar, sarcocolla, celandine. C. senna, sana, sana-makkak, sana hejazi, al-sana-al-Makki; purgative, cholagogue. Major cure for constipation. Also vermifuge for roundworms.

 

Bellakhdar et al: C. (Chamaecrista) absus and C. glauca, znina, ophthalmic, antiseptic. C. italica, sana haram, sana mekka, laxative, blood-cleansing.

 

Ghazanfar: Several Cassia  and related spp. for purgative and stomachic uses.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: C. italica, purgative, laxative.

 

Nadkarni: This and other spp. purgative, laxative, antiparasitic.

 

Dash: C. tora, reduces fat, cures skin fungus and itch.

 

Li: C. tora, jueming 決明.  C. sophora, jiangmang茳芒. Various uses. The long-suffering Li breaks out into vituperation at the silliness of some claims about cassia; for instance, a claim that cassia in the garden makes lame children. He says: “This is what a decadent scholar had overheard and [one] should not take it seriously.”[58]

(Cassia spp. are still widely and effectively used to treat constipation and similar complaints.)

 

 

Cassia fistula L., Fabaceae. Khayār shanbar/Heiyaershanbaer黑牙而閃八而.

 

Lev and Amar: khiyyār shanbar (one name) and variants thereof. Hot and dry. Purging. Swellings, nerves, throat, anti-venom, etc.; similar modern uses, also for colds, cleansing blood, fevers, gall bladder, liver, respiration.

 

Kamal: Khiyar, shambar (two separate names). Eye-drops. Pulp of seed pod edible.

 

Bellakhdar et al: kiyar shambar; ‘ud salib. Laxative; for gastro-intestinal disorders.

 

Ghazanfar: For constipation, stomach ulcers and gastritis, hemorrhoids.

 

Madanapala: Āragvadha. Mild purgative. For fever, heart, bleeding, colic, etc. Flower constipative; pulp and flower bitter.

 

Nadkarni: Purgative. Root tonic and febrifuge.

 

Dash: Mild laxative.

(Effective and well-known laxative, purgative. Standard in biomedicine until fairly recently.)

 

 

Cedrus spp.  C. deodara Loud., Pinaceae. Dīudār/Diaodaer吊荅兒

 

Avicenna: C. deodara, diwdār. Hot and dry. Bitter. Sap pungent; produces thirst; hot and dry.  Used for cold diseases of head; stroke; epilepsy. Dissolves kidney and bladder stones. C. libani.  Resin hot and dry.  Treats lice, mites, and the like. Tones up flabby flesh. Cones or seeds apparently cause headaches, but the resin cures them. Leaves with vinegar for mouthwash.  Resin used in ears and eyes. Cone to control coughs (presumably boiled and tea used). Treats painful urination; diuretic, with pepper. Bark disinfectant, pesticide, emmenagogue, abortifacient, birth easer.  Constipating. Resin as enema for worms. Contraceptive if rubbed on penis.

 

Kamal: C. libani, arz-libnan, needles diuretic and used on wounds.

 

Bellakhdar et al.: C. atlantica, qitran er-raqiq, for skin infections, antiseptic, hair-care.

 

Nadkarni: Wood carminative. Bark powerful astringent, febrifuge. Unani specifically:  Antispasmodic, anti-paralysis, and for fevers and kidney-stones.

(The three Cedrus species are very similar, and a nice example of a genus whose members have mutually exclusive ranges and would surely be substituted for each other. Cedar leaves, bark and resin are rich in volatile oils, terpenes, and other chemicals, and have a strong astringent and antibiotic action. Many of the uses above would be justified biochemically.)

 

 

Centaurea behen L., Asteraceae. Bahman, bahman-sapid (Persian). Bahaman八哈蠻.

 

Dioscorides: III-8, kentaurion makron, Centaurea centaurium. Root for ruptures, convulsions, pleurisy, respirators infections especially tuberculosis, etc.  Emmenagogue and abortifacient; root applied to vulva. Good on wounds.

 

Levey: C. centaurium, qanṭūriyūn, in clyster, and for sciatica, lameness, backaches, rheumatic pains.

 

Avicenna: Bahman. Hot and dry. Heart tonic. Increases semen.

 

Lev and Amar: Qanṭūriyūn; bahamān abyaḍ. Heart, gout, aphrodisiac.

 

Kamal: noted for thinning.

Bellakhdar et al: C. chamaerhaponticum, for gastrointestinal and hepatic disorders.

 

Nadkarni: Aphrodisiac, and used for jaundice and stone.

 

Eisenman: C. depressa, tea for melancholy, neurasthenia, eye conditions, hepatitis. Biomedical antibacterial and antifungal action.

 

 

Ceratonia siliqua L., FabaceaeCarob.  Kharnūb (whence “carob”), yanbūt (Arabic). Haernubi哈而奴必.

 

Avicenna: Bad for stomach; hard to digest. Good for skin—extract rubbed on. Diuretic. Can be laxative. Different carobs from different areas have somewhat different properties.

 

Lev and Amar: A number of uses, ranging from treating fractures (how?) to diuretic, anti-swelling, stopping bleeding, increasing sexual desire, and even curing the hair. Vaious uses of honey, juice, jam, pods, etc.

 

Ghazanfar: Diarrhea; seeds eaten.

 

Nadkarni: Purgative, astringent, for cough.  Pods used.  (Evidently in tea.)

(High tannin content of plant, especially pods, explains use for diarrhea.)

 

 

Cetraria islandica (L.) Ach., Parmeliaceae. Iceland moss. No direct reference but there is a general term for moss Ushnah/wushina兀失拏 which may have included Iceland moss.

Iceland moss is a lichen with a number of folk and herbal medical uses; not in the Asian sources but widely used in Europe, and current today for humans and animals for a number of herbalist uses. The HHYF may be referring with Ushnah to a wider or general category of lichens; the few references are hard to pin down (see Alectoria).

 

Cheiranthus cheiri L. (Erysimum cheiri), Brassicaceae. Root of Khīrī/Hailigen海黎根

 

Dioscorides: III-138, leukoion, wallflower. Leukoion thalassion, C. tricuspidatus. Confused in this edition of Dioscorides with Viola alba (violet) and apparently also Matthiola incana (stock), but distinguishes the yellow-flowered one as the medicinal one; its uses ring true for a mustard (cf. other mustards in the book), not for a violet. The pictures are unequivocally Brassicaceae. Seeds used in bath, for womb and as emmenagogue, and as pessary for same and as abortifacient. Seed infusion drunk for respiratory complaints, etc. Roots in oil used as rub for gout and the like.

 

Nadkarni: Emmenagogue.

 

Chrysanthemum x  morifolium Ramat. A hybrid of C. indicum and at least one other sp., possibly C. coronarium. Asteraceae. Native. Juhua菊花

 

Avicenna: C. parthenium, the related and somewhat similar feverfew, varioius minor uses.

 

Nadkarni: C. coronarium and C. indicum for gonorrhea.

 

Sun: C. coronarium (tonghao茼蒿)[59]: spicy, balanced, non-poisonous. It pacifies the heart qi and nourishes the spleen and stomach. It also eliminates thick or thin mucus in the respiratory tract (tanyin痰飲).

 

Li: Ju 菊.  Flower, leaf, foliage. Bitter, balanced, nontoxic. White ones somewhat different in values from yellow. Many uses. (The modern, very common Chinese use as febrifuge and general coolant, however, seems minor, and the plant was “balanced” to Li, rather than, as now, very cooling.)

  1. indicum, ye ju 野菊, bitter, pungent, warm, slightly toxic. Minor uses mostly on external irritations.

(Chrysanthemum spp. and related genera such as Matricaria are used worldwide to reduce fevers—hence the name “feverfew”—or just make the patient feel cooler. The biomedical jury is still out on whether these plants actually have any such value.)

 

 

Cichorium endivia L. Asteraceae. Woju萵苣ASiMangGong. Lettuce is called for a number of times in the HHYF under its generic Chinese name.

 

Levey:  Baql, hundabā’. Nasal ointment; itching. Other for bites, etc. Some Cichorium or similar plant is ṭalakhshaqūq, used for poultices for swellings. Root to cure insanity.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: Karwah, a mysterious drug from Kashmir, is described by “some pharmacists” as root of wild endive. It could also be dandelion (notes). Root cooling, refrigerant, febrifurgal.  Adulterated with aconite roots, which is a very dangerous thing to do. Interesting to show Al-Bīrūnī’s attention to new drugs not in the Dioscoridean canon.

 

Avicenna: hindabā’. Bitter. Cold and dry, but with a moist component. (The idea that a plant could have two natures is occasional in Avicenna and occasional in Chinese medicine too.)  Removes obstructions. Not a strong medicine; wild is stronger than domestic. Milky sap relieves conjunctivitis. Used for chest poultice, and gargle for soe throat (with purging cassia). Relieves nausea and yellow bile. Strengthens heart. Good for stomach of a person with hot temperament.

 

Graziani: Ibn Jazlah noted two kinds (possibly the two spp. Herein) and used for obstructed liver (whatever he meant by that), gout, stomach, malaria, astringent, stomach. Kindī used it for nasal ointment and juice for itching. Samarqandī used it in syrups and robs.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: Very important, used widely.

 

Lev and Amar: Plaster, liver, aphrodisiac, weak eyes, headaches; stops salivation; liver and bile corruption; other uses. Recent uses add many, most of them involving putting the plant on irritations as a soothing agent, but also taken for a vast range of purposes. As so often, we see an ordinary food pressed into service for anything and everything.

 

Bellakhdar et al: C. intybus, diuretic, hepatic. (Essentially the same plant as C. endivia. Odd that it is so little noticed by older writers; its value as a diuretic is unquestionable and must have been well known for millennia.).

 

Ghazanfar: C. intybus, ḥinḍiba’, for fevers (leaves, eaten raw or boiled); dyspepsia (roots); headache, jaundice (fruits).

 

Nadkarni: Resolvent, cooling for bilious complaints. C. intybus for bile, digestion, tonic; aperient, diuretic. Resolvent. Carminative seeds.

 

Eisenman: C. intybus, roots for appetite and digestion; flowers for stomach inflammation, intestines, gall bladder, kidneys including stones, heart conditions. Biomedical action as sedative, heart tonic, anti-inflammatory, cholesterol uptake drug, etc., and more certainly proved use as diuretic.

(Appetite can be stimulated by the bitterness. C. endivia is unknown in the wild and appears to be a domestic hybrid, presumably of intybus with C. pumilum.)

 

 

Cinnamomum burmannii.  See C. cassia.

 

 

Cinnamomum camphora (L.) Presl., Lauraceae. Kāfūr (Indian)/ kefuer可夫兒.

 

Levey: Kāfūr. Poultices for liver and spleen, drugs for sore throat. Teeth, eyes.

 

Nasrallah: Cold and dry, so used for heat-related conditions. Can produce euphoria. For tooth decay. Over-sniffing can bring insomnia, etc. Can be balanced with heating things such as ambergris. Nasrallah retails some medieval stories to the effect that the trees were frequented by tigers, and camphor could be gathered only when the tigers were in heat and went off to cool themselves in water. (This is presumably a merchants’ tall tale to justify charging high prices, like many other medieval tall tales about spices.)

Lev and Amar: Antisepsis; cough; jaundice; trachoma, ulcers, pains, swellings, etc. Even for use in dyeing hair black. Common in ointments. Dissolves bladder stones. A major aromatic medicine.  Recent uses include the above and also typhoid.

 

Graziani: In India for sprains and rheumatism. Medieval Arab uses for headache, abscess, kidney and bladder stones.

 

Bellakhdar et al: l-kafur. Antiseptic, for skin diseases, revulsive.

 

Ghazanfar: Kafur. Bark, branches and root, anti-convulsant, antihelminthic, carminative.

 

Madanapala: Karpūra. Aphrodisiac. Cold. Curse burning syndrome, distaste in the mouth, edema. For obesity and some poisons.

 

Nadkarni: Diaphoretic, stimulant, antiseptic, antispasmodic, expectorant, sedative, carminative, etc. More or less a cureall.

 

Dash: Sweet, cold, intoxicating (!). Cures eyes, thirst, poison.

 

Li: Zhang樟. Wood, zhangcai樟柴, and camphor, zhangnao樟瑙, minor use in several compounds.

 

 

  1. cassia Presl. Lauraceae. Native. Gui桂

The Chinese generic is used to describe a number of kinds of cinnamomum, also specific descriptives for specific species. Chinese cinnamon or cassia is not singled out in the HHYF and is lumped with other Cinnamomum spp. Several were used.  See C. zeylanicum below.

 

Avicenna: As usual, unclear which species is discussed. Darṣīnī or darchīnī. Diluting, absorbent, opening. Oil very hot. Constricting. Pungent, tenuous, erosive. Cinnamon was rubbed on spots, used on swellings and ulcers, used on ringworm. Bark with honey for acne. Oil for nervous tics, colds, earaches. Treats many internal pains. Used with oil, wax and egg yolk for many reasons including preventing production of hardness in uterus and kidneys. Emmenagogue. Various uses for female medicine, etc. Treats fevers. Avicenna notes that juniper berries can substitute. C. tamala (or C. citriodora), sādhaj, malabathrum. Hot and dry.

 

Lev and Amar: Cassia was distinguished as salīkha in the Middle East, including in Avicenna and the Genizah documents, but apparently used as C. zeylanicumC. citriodorum, sādhaj, is malabathrum, with minor uses including preventing caries, treating hot swellings, etc.

 

Nasrallah: stomachic, whets the mind, aphrodisiac.

 

Dash: Cold, aromatic. For heart, anorexia, parasites, skin, influenza.

 

Li: Gui; jungui菌桂for small reedy trees. Considerable differences of opinion on humoral qualities, but general agreement that it is hot or very hot. Bark (rarely leaf) for a vast range of uses mostly involving heating and dispelling. The jungui were used for magical practices to produce immortality, about which Li says “Taoist alchemists always make such stories to mislead people” (Li 2003:2945). C. japonicum, tianzhugui, and true laurel, Laurus nobilis, yuegui, follow in the book with minor uses. The entry on true laurel is actually about mythical trees that are obviously not laurel; included are stories (which Li ridicules) of seeds falling from the cassia-tree in the moon.

(Cinnamon and cassia oils are powerfully antiseptic, as well as stimulant and carminative.  C. japonicum certainly, C. loureiroi probably, and C. burmannii possibly, are referred to in the HHYF, used more or less the same as C. cassia.)

 

 

Cinnamomum japonicum.  See C. cassia.

 

 

Cinnamon loureiroi.  See C. cassia.

 

 

Cinnamomum zeylanicum Nees, Lauraceae. Salīkhah/Saliha撒里哈

 

Manniche: Used with other ingredients—mostly vehicles: oil, fat, honey—for unguents for sores, growths, wounds, anal inflammation, etc. Theophrastus describes cinnamon for perfume among the Egyptians.

 

Dioscorides: I-13, kinamomon. Gunther identifies it as C. cassia, but Dioscorides notes many kinds from many countries. These would be different species and genera. All are warming. Reduces menstruation when drunk with myrrh. Gets rid of poisons, heat, eye problems, etc. With honey on sunburn and skin diseases. For coughs and similar problems, kidneys, dropsy (congestive heart failure), etc.

Dioscorides’s “kassia” (I-12) is equated with C. iners, but, again, the description refers to several plants and tells how to distinguish them. The real stuff—unquestionably true Cinnamomum spp.—is used like 1-13.

(The “kinnamon” problem is monumentally vexed. Kinnamon evidently referred, originally, to a native Greek or Near Eastern plant. The name was extended to anything with a “hot” bark.  Cinnamon oil, like chile pepper oleoresin, directly stimulates the pain receptors, thus feeling sharp or hot without actually doing damage. Eventually the Greek name settled on Cinnamomum, as being by far the most medicinally useful species. Cinnamon oil is in in fact strongly antiseptic, warming and carminative, stimulant, and generally a first-rate medicine, which appears to be rising again as antibiotic-resistant organisms evolve.)

 

Levey: C. zeylanicum and C. cassia, dār ṣīnī. For happiness. Strengthens stomach and liver. In tooth and breathing recipes. (It has been shown by modern science to have a cheering effect if scented or consumed.)

 

Al-Bīrūnī: Dār Sīnī, now C. zeylanicum, possibly cassia in his time. Warming, acrid. Used in various medicines.

 

Lev and Amar: dār ṣīnī for both C. zeylanicum and C. cassia; qirfa for the former alone.  Coughs, colds, eyes, colic, obstruction, flatulence, diarrhoea, pleurisy, trembling, palpitation, purging, tonic, etc. For urine; emmenagogue, abortifacient; for skin diseases, eyes, eas, etc.  (Anderson suspects this would mostly be the oil.) Liver teeth and mouth, depression, hearing, neck pains, etc. Maimonides lists many uses, adding poisons, bites, stings, etc. to the above.  Also for sexual health.

 

Kamal: Salikha, qirfa sini. Aromatic, carminative, astringent. C. zeylanicum (true cinnamon in modern food usage), qurfa, dar sini, same uses. Also astringent for diarrhea, and internal antiseptic for typhoid.

 

Bellakhdar et al.: qerfa, qerfa galida. Stimulant, notably digestive and cardiac; emmenagogue; used for headache. C. zeylanicum, dar sini, stimulant; used for headaches, memory loss, colds. (Note that qerfa, qurfa, and l-kafur are all forms of the same word. “L” is the definite article in Moroccan Arabic, corresponding to standard Arabic “al.”)

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: For coughs, colds, stomach; menstrual pain; and childbirth, with many remedies for helping delivery and for recovery after delivery. Most involve mixed spices with fat, honey, or milk. Cf. cardamom.

 

Madanapala: Tvak. Hot. For poisoning, heart, pelvia, piles, rhinitis, parasites, semen.

 

Nadkarni: This and other spp. carminative, antispasmodic, aromatic, stimulant, hemostatic, astringent, antiseptic, stomachic. (A long list, but most of these uses are well supported by modern research). Unani specifically adds absorbent, diuretic, aphrodisiac, demulcent; used for colds, headaches, hiccups, liver, diarrhea, etc.

(Cinnamon contains a volatile oil that is intensely fragrant, and strongly antiseptic and carminative, with very good action on digestion; the oil kills skin diseases but can burn in heavy use. Cinnamon is actually one of the most effective medicines, by modern biomedical standards, in this corpus.)

 

 

Cistus ladaniferus, C. creticus.  Cistaceae. Lādhan/Ladan剌丹

 

Levey: The name applies to the resin. Used in dentifrice, ointment.

 

Avicenna: Qissūs, lādhan. Hot, though relatives include some cold items. Some value for retaining hair. Boiled down with wine for ulcers. Poultice also for ulcers. Ointment for burns.  Sniffing, with orris root oil, honey, and sodium nitrate, for headaches. Ear drops from tips, with pomegranate peels, relieve ears and teeth. Poultice for spleen. Flowers in wine for dysentery. Emmenagogue. Suppository for menses and abortifacient, and getting placenta out. Suppository for uterine swellings.

 

Lev and Amar: Minor medication; styptic, constricting, thus e.g. for strengthening penis and constricting glans in Maimonides’ sexual medicine.

 

(Gum widely used as medicine and soothing agent in Mediterranean from ancient times to today.  These two and perhaps other species may be included in the HHYF as Lādhan.

 

 

Citrullus colocynthis Schrad., Cucurbitaceae. Sham-e anzal, Hanzal/Shahamuhandali沙哈木罕荅里.

 

Manniche: C. lanatus probably used for finger tremors, constipation, various magical procedures.

 

Dioscorides: IV-178, kolokynthis, colocynth. Purging. Made into pills. Drives out phlegm and various diseases. Abortifacient; as pessary. On toothache. Bad for stomach. Suppository for constipation.

 

Galen: Bad for stomach; indigestible raw.

 

Avicenna: Ḥanẓal. Dissolving, erosive, absorbent. Young leaves stop bleeding. Put on swellings, etc. Used as massage for leprosy and elephantiasis. Also, presumably the fruit here, for nerve pain, arthristis, etc. Powdered for bleeding, cleansing the brain, washing teeth and mouth, etc. Hollowed, burned, for eardrops. Used for stomach swelling, etc. Cures diarrhea, but purgative. Abortifacient. Used on snake bites.

 

Levey: Ḥanẓal. For itch, insanity, rheumatism and phlegm.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: Expels hot and unnatural humors, but dangerous; much use gives diarrhea that can be fatal.

 

Lev and Amar: Ḥanẓal.  Tongue swelling, swollen throat, easing tooth extraction.  Pith for joint pains. In prescriptions for fever, tetany, colic. Cathartic. Treats itching, insanity, and much in between. Expectorant. Constipation, headache,stings, epilepsy, lung disease, depression, kidneys, etc. Leaves for hemorrhages, boils, leprosy, etc.  Roots for sting and bites, and increasing mother’s milk.  Various minor uses.

 

 

Citrullus vulgaris Schrad. Watermelon.  Cucurbitaceae. Xigua 西瓜Purgative, diuretic, for oedema and jaundice, kidneys, internal lesions, bites.

 

Graziani: Ibn Jazlah used it for elephantiasis, nervous pain, gout, eye disease, and snakebite.  Used today in Iran and Iraq as a drastic cathartic, in Egypt as purgative and astringent.

 

Kamal: handhal, ‘alqam. Seed oil for liniment.

 

Ghazanfar: Bites; laxative; joint pain.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: purge, suppository.

 

Madanapala: Indravārunī. Bitter, hot, pungent; laxative; for jaundice, spleen, abdominal diseases.

 

Nadkarni:  Drastic, cathartic, diuretic, emetic, etc.

 

Dash: For digestion, jaundice, and anemia.

(Colocynth still used, and is effective, for the uses noted by Nadkarni. Watermelon is an effective diuretic, still widespread in Old World folk medicine from China to Europe.)

 

 

Citrus aurantium L., Rutaceae, bitter orange. Native (?).  Turunj/Tulunzhi突論只 is called for twice and is apparently citron. Otherwise, various oranges are called for in the HHYF usually under Chinese generics such as Ganzi 柑子 or Deng 橙

 

(Added here are notes on Citrus limon Burmann / C. aurantifolia Swingle, Rutaceae, lemon and lime. They are not in the HHYF but are not distinguished well in the old herbals, and thus may be included in the general term here; in any case, their modern medical uses in the Middle East are relevant. All these citrus fruits are hybrids, often complex, of tangerine, lime, and pomelo.)

 

Avicenna: C. aurantium (“C. sinensis” in Bakhtiar edn., but that plant was unknown in Central Asia in Avicenna’s time), zarrīn darakht. Leaves for urination and menstruation.C. limon, hot and dry. Externally for ringworm, swellings, wounds, etc., and facial paralysis. Strengthens brain. A collyrium from sour lemon helps remove yellow tinge in eyes from jaundice; orally for conjunctivitis. Sour lemon and fruit in sugar for palpitations, etc., and with vinegar for leech in throat. Buds and rind help digestion, though rind itself in not very digestible. Lemon with wine is laxative and treats excessive menstrual discharge. Extract calms sexual desire in women. Seeds anti-poison.

 

Lev and Amar: C. limon, līmūn, Juice mild purgative; peel and leaves against poison (Maimonides). Snakebite, headaches, fainting, stomach, appetite (both increase poor appetite and restrain gluttony), etc. Treats scars (this can work; the combination of oil and acid softens the skin). Not clear whether lime is included in these indications.

 

Bellakhdar et al: C. limon, lim-deqq, cosmetic; used on skin spots.

 

Ghazanfar: Lumi, C. aurantifolia. Juice, fruit, peel, bark for cataracts, colds, fever, chest pains, earache, stomachache. Crushed dried fruit made into poultice for thorn sticks. (The dried limes of Oman are among the most famous Near Eastern items of commerce, found worldwide today in Middle Eastern food stores.)

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: C. aurantifolia, lumi, limun. Colds, coughs, colic, diarrhea, mesntrual pain.

 

Kamal: Leaves of C. aurantium stomachic and antiepileptic. (The first of these uses is still universal in Latin America; ENA, personal research.)  One variety, bergamot: fruit, bergamut in Arabic, eaten as antihelminthic.

 

Madanapala: Jambhīra, C. limon.  Sour, hot. Colic, distaste, cardiac pain, parasites, etc. Nārangī (identified as C. reticulata but no doubt actually aurantium or sinensis.). Sour, hot, laxative appetiser, cardiac. Nimbu, C. aurantium, sour, but one var. is sweet; digestive, carminative.

 

Nadkarni: Dried peel aromatic, stomachic, tonic, astringent, carminative. Oil strong stomachic; topical applications stimulant. Several other citrus spp. discussed.

 

Dash: As in the Madanapala volume, Dash identifies “nāranga” (here) as C. reticulata, which we doubt. In any case, in Tibet it apparently is used for appetitie, digestion, heart, following ayurvedic norms. C. limon given for thirst, colic, nausea, vomiting, asthma, constipation. This would probably be the juice.

 

Li: Zhi 枳. Fruit, immature or mature. Bitter, slightly cold, nontoxic, sour. Several pages of recipes.  Entry followed by one on trifoliate-orange, Poncirus trifoliata. Gouju 枸橘; Li notes without comment the old story that bitter (or other) oranges planted north of the Yangzi River, they turn to trifoliate oranges. (This is true; the oranges were grafted onto trifoliate understock, as they still are around the world; the cold winters and droughts of northern China killed the graft and let the understock grow up. ENA has seen this happen many times in California.)

(Citrus species contain volatile oils of well-demonstrated value for soothing the stomach, treating minor skin conditions, etc.)

 

 

Citrus medica L., Rutaceae. Native to China, but widespread, possibly domesticated in India.  Certainly a “western” plant to most East Asians. The lemon, which appeared in the medieval Near East, is a descendant from a hybrid with lime. Turunj/Tulunzhi突論只.

 

Dioscorides: 1-164, persica mela, C. medica, citron?  For stomach and belly; unripe is too binding.  Dried or decocted for diarrhea.

1-166, medika, C. medica, citron. Drunk in wine to resist poisons etc. Juice for sweetening breath. Reduces lust in women. Put into clothes-chests to repel moths.

It appears that both these articles apply to citron. The second one clearly does, the description being unmistakable. Apparently we are dealing with the same thing under two names with two different usages.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: Utrujj. Cucumber-like; name sometimes used for types of cucumber and/or melon.  Nothing specific about its medicinal value, but several beautiful poetry quotes.

 

Graziani: Utruj, C. medica. Widely used; use unspecified.

 

Kamal: C. medica:  Fruit skin stomachic, tonic; seeds antipyretic and antihelminthic; juice astringent, used for vomiting, rheumatism, and inflammation.

 

Madanapala: Bījapūra. Appetiser; for throat, tongue, heart; bleeding. Light and sour. Pulp cold.  Skin and flower bitter and hot. Pistil light; constipative; for colic, abdomen. Seed hot; for parasites. Juice for colic, indigestion, constipation, digestion, anorexia, dyspnoea, cough, thirst, anorexia, etc.

 

Dash: C. medica for griping, intestinal pain; digestive, cardiac; for asthma, cough, anore

 

 

  1. reticulata (“C. erythrosa” Tanaka) Rutaceae. Native. Not in HHYF as such.

 

Li: JuFruit, seed, pith, leaf, peel all used, in various stages. Major drug. Fruit sweet, sour, warm, nontoxic; peel bitter, pungent, warm and nontoxic. A number of uses cluster around warming, soothing, astringent, and harmonizing functions.

Li discusses many other types of citrus, including pomelo C. grandis.

 

 

  1. x sinensis (C. junos Tanaka). Rutaceae. Native. Under Gan 柑 in the HHYF.

The sweet orange is apparently a very ancient hybrid of tangerine and pomelo C. grandis.

 

Li: Jinqiu金球, cheng  橙 (the last means sweet orange specifically). Minor uses. Closely related is C. x nobilis, gan, a stable swarm of tangerine-orange hybrids with specific qualities (very sweet, juicy, flavorful, large) gets a separate entry in Li, just before this one (with several obsolete scientific names synonymized in Li 2003).

 

 

Cocos nucifera L., Arecaceae. Coconut. Yepiao椰瓢.

 

Avicenna: Somewhat hot and dry. Good food, though heavy. Aphrodisiac. Oil for piles, joints.  Very old oil—copra oil—kills worms.

 

Lev and Amar: Very good for sexual health, also hemorrhoids, mental perception.

Dash:  Sweet, cold.  Strength, virility, corpulence, muscle tissue.  Cleanses urinary bladder.  (Today, the flesh would be used for the former, the water for the latter.)

(In modern Chinese folk medicine, the meat is used for soothing and nourishment.  It is nutritious enough to give some credence to the sexual nutrition claims, but it would work only by helping nutrition generally.)

 

 

Colchicum autumnale L., Colchicaceae (Iridaceae). Sūranjan/Shulingzhang屬伶章 or LaḤ/Lalahua剌剌花.

 

Dioscorides: IV-84, kolchikon. Poisonous. But counteracts mushroom poisoning.

IV-85, ephemeron, C. parnassicum. Bulb for toothache. Leaves for swellings and humors, applied.

 

Avicenna: Purgative, biting. Used for gout (somewhat effectively) as a massage. Arthritis. Not good for stomach; weakens it. However, it is laxative and aphrodisiac, the latter with ginger, mint and cumin. Purges phlegm, worms, thickens humors.

 

Levey: Sūranjān. In drugs for calculi and for the spirits.

 

Graziani: Suranjān. In Babylonia for poison, stings, head and eye, breast pain.

 

Lev and Amar: sūranjān, khamīra. Kidney stones mental illness, hemorrhoids, abscesses, sexual appetite. Used for fattening in spite of its poisonousness.

 

Kamal: lihlah, kolshik. Corn and seed cathartic, cholagogue, diuretic, sudorific, emetic, irritant.  Poisonous in large doses. Used in gout, rheumatism, etc., and throat conditions.

 

Nadkarni: C. luteum substituted in India for the above. Rheumatism, gout, etc. Unani:  Alterative, aperient; diseases of liver and spleen.

(Powerful, dangerous stimulant.)

 

 

Commiphora myrrha Engl. Burseraceae. Imported. Myrrh, Moyao沒藥. also Murr/Muliye木里葉

 

Dioscorides: I-77, smyrna, myrrh. (Identified as Amyris hafal by Gunther.[60]) Long directions on telling counterfeits. Warming, drying, astringent. Produces sleep. Emmenagogue, aid in childbirth, applied with wormwood etc. Taken against cough, pain in side or thorax, dysentery, malaria. Kills worms. Sweetens breath. Applied for armpit chafing, teeth and gums, etc. Even cures “broken ears and bared bones,” etc.[61] when applied with various agents. Various other minor usees. Soot made and used also.

 

Levey: Murr. In applications for erysipelas, boils, cankers, abscesses, decayed teeth, wounds, eyes, insanity, nosebleeds. The antiseptic and soothing values of myrrh were obviously well known.

 

Nasrallah: Adds abortifacient and vermifugal uses. Smearing on toe will keep a man able to have sex as long as it is on his toe (Ibn al-Bayt.ār).

 

Lev and Amar: C. mukul (bdellium, a common medicine in the Near East) for colic, diarrhea, liver, sciatica, veins, legs, nails, swellings, lungs, cough, kidney stones, hemorrhoids, bile, expelling fetus, etc.  Various kinds noted.

  1. myrrha, murr, stomach, liver, coughs, colds, ulcers, sores, toothache, wounds, eyes, hemorrhages, snakebite, dog bite, worms, etc.

 

Kamal: “It is stimulant and astringent, and is used in dyspepsia, chronic bronchitis, leukorrhea, amenorrhea, and as a local application in stomatitis, carious teeth, and inflammation of the gums.” (p. 91)

 

Ghazanfar: Resin for colds, fevers, digenstion, hemorrhoids, toothache.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: Murr, murrah. Abdominal pain, chest, childbirth, colic, coughs, colds, digestion, health, infections, menstrual pain, sore throat; topically on wounds, cuts, newborn (navel), burns.

 

Nadkarni: Gum stimulant, expectorant, emmenagogue; externally, astringent.

 

Dash: Cold, aromatic, for skin and blood, uterus, thirst.

 

Li: Moyao. Disperses blood stasis, helps physical damage of all kinds, swellings, pains, etc.  Known to be from the west, but a local Southeast Chinese myrrh is mentioned; it would be a different species.  Bitter, balanced, nontoxic.

(In addition to the proverbial use as incense, myrrh gum is genuinely antiseptic, astringent, soothing.  It was one of the more effective drugs in this canon. Still used medicinally, and was even in biomedical practice till very recently.)

 

 

Commiphora opobalsamum (L.) Engler. Burseraceae. Balasān/Bolasang伯剌桑.

 

Dioscorides: Drying, heating; long discussion of how to tell it, so clearly important import.

 

Avicenna: hot, dry. Digestive and diuretic. Used on sores, swellings, pains, skin conditions.

 

Levey: Bakasān. Drying, heating; clyster.

 

al-Bīrūnī: Large tree; oil healing, mixed with other substances.

 

Lev and Amar: balasān. Eyes, epilepsy, palpitation, purging, stomach, etc. Oil for spleen, kidneys, liver, womb, lungs, cough, tuberculosis, urine, skin, bites, stings, poisons. Works against infertility, dizziness.

 

Nadkarni: Fruit carminative, expectorant, stimulant; gum astringent and demulcent.

(Effective antibacterial.)

 

 

Convolvulus scammonia L. Convolvulaceae. Scammony. Saqamūniyā/Saheimuniya撒黑木尼牙. Also Mamūda/Mahamuda馬哈木荅.

 

Dioscorides: purgative.

 

Avicenna: Saqmūniā. Hot and dry. Cleansing, dissolvent. Used in poultices for skin disease, ulcers, etc. For headaches; but harms heart, stomach, intestines and liver. Purges yellow bile, but to be used with care.

 

Al-Kindī: purgative, stomach medicines.

 

Lev and Amar: Root. Fever, nerves, stomach, liver. Dangerous; produces diarrhea and abortion.  In ointment for skin, wounds, scars, headaches.  Powerful purgative. Expels worms. Can cure intestinal diseases, palpitations, insanity.

 

Nadkarni: Cathartic; used for dropsy and anasarca.

 

Eisenman: C. subhirsutus seeds used for gastrointestinal conditions; infusion of plant for pain, convulsions, wounds, asthma, tuberculosis. Biomedical action: analgesic but irritating to eyes; large doses paralyze nervous system. Less toxic derivatives used for spasms and other conditions.

(Powerful purgative. Not in Chinese practice though important in the Near East; presumably too strong in a negative way for the Chinese medical spirit.)

 

 

Coptis chinensis Franch., Ranunculaceae. Native. Huanglian黃連.

 

Avicenna: Coptis trifolia, māmīrān, hot and dry, purifying; minor uses typical of hot and dry drugs.

 

Nadkarni: C. teeta. Bitter tonic; for appetite, digestion, etc. Used in jaundice, convalescence, fevers, dyspepsia; conjunctivitis (salve).

 

Li: C. chinensis, huanglian, Chinese goldthread. Rhizome most used; bitter, cold, nontoxic.  Many pages on this very popular Chinese drug, whose coldness makes it used to treat Fire of many sorts.

(Modern research confirms some traditional values, due to berberine, but more research is needed.  It is very likely that in the HHYF it is used in place of C. teeta, as one of several cases in which a native drug was used only because it was a substitute for the Middle Eastern one. C. teeta occurs in Yunnan雲南and is harvested by minority peoples there. It is used as an analgesic and antibacterial as well as for the uses of C. chinensis. This is another of the interesting cases in which Avicenna is our only western source for an otherwise Indian drug.)

 

 

Cordia myxa L., Boraginaceae. Sibsitān/Xibixitang西比西唐Sibistan.

 

Theophrastus: food (it has a small, pear-like fruit).

 

Levey: Sabastān,sibāsah. In electuary for happiness and stomach and liver.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: Shajarah al-dibq and other names. Disiccant, refrigerant. Against heat and coughs.  Removes hardness in chest. Cures blenorrhea due to agitation in bile in kidneys and bladder.  Expels worms.

 

Avicenna: C. sebestena. Sibistān, Persian sīsabān.  Laxative.

 

Lev and Amar: Ointment for liver etc. Purgative. Malaria, etc. Astringent; dry but neutral (not hot or cold).

 

Graziani: Sabastān. Ibn Jazlah used it for bronchial and pulmonary problems and stomach disorders, to calm sneezing, for throat pain, and as mild laxative; if taken excessively could harm the liver. “Al-Kindī has it in a remedy to lift up the mood and strengthen stomach and liver.”[62]  Used today in Iran for coughs and chest, in Egypt and Syria as laxative and for respiratory problems.

 

Kamal: C. sebestena, sabastan, mokhatah. Soothing for chest conditions and urinary tract infections. Apparently the fruit is eaten for this.

 

Ghazanfar: Seeds and leaves for stomach ailments and wounds.

 

Madanapala: Ślesmāntaka. Hot. For hair, poisoning, pustular eruptions, ulcers, erysipelas, skin; fruit [the foregoing was presumably the leaves] for virility, consumption, blood.

 

Nadkarni: Mild tonic. C. latifolia better known; for chest, uterus, etc. Demulcent; bark mild astringent and tonic.

 

Dash: Sweet, cold. No special uses mentioned.

 

 

Coriandrum sativum L., Apiaceae. Kashnij. Yuansuizi芫荽子.

 

Manniche: Many remedies for stomach problems used it. Externally it was used in unguent for small sores (herpes?). The related cumin Cuminum cyminum was very heavily used for stomach complaints—as it still is, worldwide.

 

Dioscorides: III-71, koriannon. Cooling. Heals skin eruptions and ulcers, inflammations, etc.  Seed drunk can expel worms and increase male semen. Excess of the seed is bad. Juice for inflammations, applied to skin.

 

Avicenna: Kuzbarah. Cold and dry, but Galen said it could be warm—perhaps having both a cold and a warm property. (Modern Chinese and others also tend to disagree about its coldness and warmth.)  Constricts. Used for swellings, etc. With rose oil, honey and dried grape for hives and eczema (the combination of soothing and antiseptic qualities would work very well here). Used for fainting, epilepsy, fevers related to yellow or black bile or phlegm.  Fresh coriander used for sleep. Treats inflammations and mouth sores. Powdered dry coriander for mouthwash.  Helps eyes, relieves stomach, purges worms, etc. Fresh and dry both cause mental confusion and reduce sexual desire and male potency (a very odd claim).

 

Levey: Kuzbarah. Headache, etc.

 

Nasrallah: Digestive, soporific, eases childbirth.

 

Lev and Aman: Eyes, diarrhea, inflmmatory swellings, headaches, fever, heart. Plant made into compress for stings. Also, taken, to accelerate childbirth. Incense from it keeps snakes and scorpions away. Sexual medicine and stimulant. Several other minor uses. Modern uses add toothache. Another all-purpose plant. (Its carminative and stimulant effects help digestion—hence wide use in Near Eastern spicing then and now—but it hardly deserves this wide use.)

 

Graziani: Kuzbarah. Ibn Jazlah used it for eyes, bleeding, vomiting, but warns it dulls the eyes and reduces semen.

 

Kamal: Kuzburah, qalantarah, etc. Fruit carminative, aromatic.

 

Bellakhdar et al.: for scurvy (evidently the leaves); anti-rabies, stomachic, aphrodisiac, tonic, antiinflammatory (presumably the seeds; aphrodisiac probably only as  mixed into ras-al-hanout, traditional Moroccan spice and drug mixes used for that purpose and often working through incorporation of Spanish fly [cantharid beetles]).

 

Ghazanfar: Kobzra, kabzara, khabzara. Dried seeds, leaves, carminative, for digestion, swellings, eyes, general tonic; seeds boiled in water, for nausia as well as general stomachic, or in vinegar with sugar as tonic for heart and system.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: Kuzbara, kizbara. Digestive.

 

Madanapala: Dhānyā. Diuretic, cardiac tonic, appetite; alleviates excess dosas; for dyspnoea, cough, thirst, piles, parasites.

 

Nadkarni: Fruit stimulant, carminative, stomachic, antibilious, refrigerant, tonic, diuretic, aphrodisiac. Leaves pungent and aromatic.

 

Dash: Diuretic. Pungent and bitter.

 

Sun: Coriander (Chinese parsley, cilantro) seeds (huxuzi胡荽子): sour, balanced, nonpoisonous. They help digest grains and recover one’s appetite. Its leaves cannot be taken frequently, or it will cause short memories (duowang多忘). Hua Tuo 華佗 said, “If one has armpit odor (lit. “fox smell,” huchou 胡臭), bad breath (kouqichou 口氣臭), or rotten teeth (?ni chong chi [匿蟲]齒. “teeth hiding vermine”), taking coriander leaves will worsen the condition. if one is suffering from noxious qi in the abdomen, he should never take it. Otherwise, it will arouse his chronic conditions. One having cut-wounds should not eat it either.”

 

Li: Husui 胡荽, yuansui 芫荽. Root and leaf pungent, warm, slightly toxic.  Good food; digestive.  Beneficial to the body, protecting; many specific uses. Seed pungent, sour, balanced, nontoxic.

(Overall, note the wide agreement across cultures on the value of this plant.)

 

 

Cornus macrophylla Wall, Cornaceae. Native.  Dingpi丁皮.

 

Sun: Dogwood (Cornus officinalis Sieb. et Zucc., shizhuyu食茱萸): spicy, bitter, greatly warming, nonpoisonous. It should be collected in the ninth month. When preserved for a long time, it becomes better. When its fruit is closed [presumably:  not ripe enough to burst open], it is poisonous and should not be used. It stops pain and helps the qi move downward. It terminates vomiting caused by coughing. It eliminates coldness in the five internal organs. It warms up the Middle Jiao and treats every kind of cold shi[63] that will not disappear (lengshi buxiao冷實不消). Its raw, white bark mainly treats the illness of being attacked by noxious qi (zhong’e中惡), stomachache, and toothache. Its thin roots treat Three Worms and threadworm. The Yellow Emperor said, “In the sixth and seventh month, do not eat dogwood, or it will hurt the spirit and the qi and arouse hot-summer qi (fuqi伏氣).” If one’s throat is not clear, or if wicked wind attacks people (zeifeng zhongren賊風中人), or one’s mouth is wry and cannot speak, take one sheng升 of dogwood and get rid of black seeds and closed fruits. Take three sheng of fermented soy beans (chi豉). Add pure liquor (qingjiu清酒) to the dogwood and beans. Boil them till they reach the boiling point for four or five times. Take the juice and cool it down. The patient has half a sheng of the juice three times a day. After it sweats him a little, he will recover. If one is stung by a scorpion (chai蠆), he should chew dogwood, put what has been chewed up on the wound, and the poison will be dispelled.

 

Li:  Songyang松楊. Leaf, sweet, salty, balanced, nontoxic, for fractures and blood; bark, bitter, balanced, nontoxic, for dysentery. (Tannin makes it effective for this.)

 

 

Cornus mas L., Cornaceae. Dogwood. One reading for mū/Mo, but that is normally, and surely in the HHYF, Meum athamanticum. However, dogwood uses in the west are clearly relevant, since Meum probably was used as a substitute for C. mas in western-derived formulations.

 

Avicenna: Hot and dry. Diluent, cleansing, opening. Root taken for arthritis, painful urination, bladder pain, menstruation, and “cold and aseous inflation of the liver.”[64] Ash of bark on wounds.

 

Lev and Amar: C. mas, , qaraniyya. (Ali Zargari’s book of Persian plants lists this second name, but not mū, as an Arabic name for this sp.)  Phlegm, poisons, etc.  For urine and generating heat. Helps smell, voice, stickiness, soothes stomach, live, kidneys. Stimulates sexual desire, cures infections of bladder, stops sweating, dispels pains. Oil for shivers, paralysis, coldness, weakness.

 

 

Corylus avellana L. Betulaceae. Hazelnut. Mentioned in Index. Not in our recipes. Jillauz/Chiliwoza赤里窩咱

Avicenna: Aṭyuṭ, bunduq (“round thing”). Hot and moist. Cleansing, constricting.Slow to digest.  Minor uses include use to remove blue spots on infants, but Avicenna says only “some” believe this, meaning he does not.[65]

 

 

Crataegus azarolus L. Rosaceae. Common hawthorn. Soup of this plant, presumably the fruit, mentioned in Index. Za’rūr/Zaluli咱盧黎

 

Dioscorides: Sweet fruit used.

 

Avicenna: Constricting. Best fruit for eliminating yellow bile.

 

Eisenman: C. altaica. Leaves and dried flowers and fruits in tea for “hypertension, dizziness, tachycardia, insomnia, heart diseases and common colds.”[66] Laxative. Biomedical evidence for effectiveness, for heart etc. Tannins give some value. Vitamin C content high. C. songarica, similar uses and values.

(Fruits of Chinese hawthorns are widely used medicinally in China today, for cooling, tonic, astringency, but oddly absent from the herbals.)

 

 

Cressin alenois.  Possible identification for a mysterious name in the Table of Contents. Used in Morocco for appetite and as general stimulant (Abdelhai Sijelmassi, Plantes médicinales de Maroc, on website). Nothing else recorded in the literature. Maliyāsa/Maheiliyasa馬黑里牙撒

 

 

Crocus sativus L., Iridaceae. Many variants Za’farān/Zafalan 咱法闌/Zafalang咱法郎/ Safalang撒法朗; Zarnab/ Zaerbaby咱兒納不.

 

Dioscorides: I-25, krokos. Applied with women’s milk to stop flux of eyes. Drunk and/or pessary for uterus. Stirs lust. Soothes inflammations, applied. Diuretic.

I-64, krokinon. Complicated recipe for oil with saffron and other herbs infused. Warming, soporific, etc.

 

Levey: Za’farān. In musk, air freshener, and perfume products. For nose, scrofula, swollen head, liver, sore throat and mouth, bad teeth and gums, eyes, epilepsy and insanity, stomachic. In these various medicines it is probably used largely to give pleasant flavor and stimulant quality. Others used it for eyes, etc.

 

Avicenna: za‘farān. Hot and dry. Constricting and dissolving. Dissolves swellings. Rubbed on inflammation. Causes headache but used for sedative. With wine, makes drunkenness worse, causing uncontrollable behavior. Strengthens eyesight; various optical uses. Exhilarant; cardiac tonic; good for lungs and chest conditions. Causes vomiting, reduces adppetite, diuretic, aphrodisiac. Used for hardness, malignant ulcers, etc. in uterus.

 

Nasrallah: Adds that, in alcoholic drinks, saffron creates “an ecstatic state of euphoria, almost to the point of madness.”[67] Ibn Sīna noted that one could even lose one’s soul.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: Very important in Al-Samarqandī’s formulations; major medicine.

 

Lev and Amar: za‘farān. One of the curealls, used for the usual reasons:  eyes, headache, stomach, brain, liver, bile, sexual energy, epilepsy, hemorrhages, purgation, inflammations, women’s ailments, various topical applications, and so on and on. Hot and dry.

 

Graziani: Za‘faran, shiyaf. Ibn Jazlah used it in eye powder, eye wash, and to meliorate strong medicines. Also strengthens heart. Excessive use harmful to lungs, causes headache and drowsiness.

 

Kamal: Za’faran; emmenagogue.

 

Bellakhdar et al: emmenagogue and abortive; cardiac stimulant.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: Headaches, heart; externally, skin care. Anticancer potential noted, and a less plausible finding of value for learning and memory, though like lemon balm and mint it certainly has a soothing and focusing effect when sniffed.

 

Madanapala: Kunkuma. Hot, pungent. Makes one happier and alleviates excess of dosas. For skin, ulcers, parasites, headache.

 

Nadkarni: Stimulant, aphrodisiac, stomachic; anodyne, antispasmodic; emmenagogue.

 

Dash: Bitter, astringent, hot. For parasites among other things.

 

Li: Fanhonghua 番紅花. Sweet, plain, nontoxic. Barely known. Even so, mentioned for melancholy with stagnation and suffocation, blood stasis, mania, etc.; can make one happy.

(The importance of this stimulant, warming medicinal spice continues, though it is now priced out of the reach of most.  Saffron is in fact antiseptic and warming. Thus, like rose, it fits the medieval Near Eastern ideal of a plant that is beautiful, wonderful-tasting, and genuinely medicinal. Research also confirms that the scent can increase happiness.

Throughout East Asia, turmeric or safflower are substituted for saffron in dyeing, cooking, and medicine.  Turmeric does have spice and medicinal value; safflower has no well-demonstrated value and is tasteless. The two were enough to block saffron from getting established in China.)

 

 

Croton tiglium L., Euphorbiaceae. Introduced to China. Saqamūniyā/Sajimuniya撒吉木你牙. Egyptian: Habb il-muluk

 

Avicenna: Māhūdānah; seed is dand. Hot and dry. Strong vomiting and laxative agent. For a range of stomach conditions.

 

Kamal: C. cascarilla, qishr-‘anbar, nabat habb al-muluk. Bark aromatic, antipytretic, soothing, anti-emetic, expectorat.

 

 

 

  1. tiglium, habb al-muluk, hab al-Salatin. Seeds produce an oil used as antihelminthic, and cathartic for constipation, anasarca, syncope, and externally for rheumatism, gout, etc. Badou芭荳.

 

Bellakhdar et al.: drastic.

 

Ghazanfar: C. confertus for constipation, coughs, tonic, pains.

 

Nadkarni: Drastic purgative. Seeds vermifuge. Oil powerful cathartic; vesicant. Plant used as extreme measure, for purgation and for violent stimulus in dropsy, apoplexy, etc.

 

Li: badou. Major drug. Seed pungent, warm, toxic. Cures diarrhea and other intestinal complaints. Vermifuge. Usual huge range, but also some instructions on what not to treat with so poisonous a cure.  Seed coat and seed oil sometimes used.

(Powerful, dangerous purgative and vesicant.)

 

 

Cucumis melo and its var. conomon (Thunb) Mak.  Cucurbitaceae. Shaogua稍瓜. Native. (conomon is a native Chinese variety, but the sweet fruit is west Asian.)

 

Avicenna: C. melo, biṭṭīkh. Cleansing. Unripe and ripe fruit and seeds all used. Flesh and seeds used to clear skin; peel on forehead prevents eye secretions. Root produces vomiting. Diuretic.

Wild cucumber (C. sativus?). Hot and dry. Wild one used for medicine. Used on ulcers and sores, and internally for dysentery, urination, menstruation, vomiting, etc.

 

Lev and Amar: C. melo, shammām, diuretic, good for stomach, useful on swellings and skin. C. melo var. chate (with a long, hairy, grooved fruit) for liver, cough, aphrodisiac, etc. Wounds, bites, diuretic, stomach-soothing. Common food. C. sativus, minor use for fevers and diuretic and stomach.

 

Sun: Chinese melon (yuegua越瓜): sweet, balanced, nonpoisonous. One cannot take it too much. It is good for intestines and stomach.

(The latter is a small, smooth fruit, but otherwise similar to the Near Eastern one. It works as a diuretic and stomach-soother—note that both the Genizah physicians and Sun knew its value for the stomach, though they could not have been in touch. It might help cough.)

 

 

Cuminum cyminum. Apiaceae. Cumin. Kammūn/Kemuni可木你, only a few references but cumin may also occur under the Generic Zira/即剌, also referring to caraway. This same term occurs also for dill (and maybe some related spp.) as Shiluo蒔蘿, a very old borrowing. This apiaceous plants’ small dry fruits (“cumin seeds”) are medicinal throughout the Near East and areas influenced by it.

 

Dioscorides: stomachic; with wine for poisons.

 

Avicenna:  kammūn. Hot and dry. Warming. Relieves gas. Erosive, drying, constricting. Wash for cleansing face. Ointment, with oil and borad bean flour, for inflammation of the testes. With vinegar for acne. Inhalation of powder with vinegar, for nosebleeds. Chewed with olive oil or salt and used externally. Used internally for labored breathing; stomachic.

 

Levey: carminative, stomachic, carminative, stimulant; against flatulence. In India for arthritis etc.

 

Ghazanfar: “antispasmodic, carminative, sedative and stimulant.”[68] Several active ingredients explain at least the carminative and stimulant functions (it is hard to believe how it could also be a sedative!). For diarrhea, nosebleed, sexual potency, colic.

(The traditional heavy use of this spice in beans, a use invented in the ancient Near East and spreading with beans to Mexico and elsewhere, is based not only on flavor but on the fruits’ considerable success at improving digestion and combating flatulence. However, the spice is almost unknown in China.)

 

 

Curcuma longa (C. aromatica in Kong).  Salisb. Zingiberaceae. Introduced to China. Does not occur directly in the HHYF but probably subtended under other C. spp.

 

Levey: C. longa, kurkum. Throat, mouth, teeth, gums.

 

Avicenna:  Hot and dry.  Dissolvent.  Used for nerves eyes, jaundice.

 

Lev and Amar: kurkam, kurkum. Teeth, throat, gums, mouth, eyes. Jaundice, stoach-ace, digetion, headaches, vagina. Purgative. Hemorrhoids. Hot and dry. Imported from India and likened to saffron.

 

Ghazanfar: C. longa, kurkum. Bronchitis, coughs, bruises, skin, eyes; rhizome used.

 

Madanapala: C. longa, haridrā. Hot. For skin diseases, urinary disorders, vitiation of blood, edema, anemia, ulcer.

 

Nadkarni: Tonic, stimulant, carminative. C. longa, Same. Used for liver, etc., and even worms.

 

Dash: Cures poisoning, helps bones heal, etc. Pungent, bitter, cure urinary problems, etc.

Dash: C. longa bitter, hot, eliminates wastes, cures poisoning, urinary diseases, itch, skin coditions, parasites, julcers, rhinitis, anorexia.  (Much of this is folk Indian usage.)

 

Li: Turmeric, C. longa, yujin郁金 (other writings), includes C. aromatica.  Pungent, bitter, cold, nontoxic. Many uses for pains and illnesses.

(Strong stimulant effect; stomachic; vitamin and iron content makes it valuable for nutrition, which explains some of the traditional medical uses.  Under study today for anticancer, antiseptic and antiparasite uses.)

 

 

Curcuma zedoaria (Berg.) Rosc., zedoary. Zingiberaceae. Imported. C. zerumbet (Rosc.) Roxb. Zedoary is Zurunbat (Egyptian), in the HHYF Zarnab/Zaernabu咱兒那不, Zarnabāt/Saernabate撒兒那把忒Guangshu廣戍. C. Zerumbet is Zurunbād/Zuerbadi祖兒八的

 

Levey: Zurunbād.  Nosebleed. Used elsewhere for stomachic, tonic, carminative, etc.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: For eyes. Antitoxin.

 

Avicenna: Zaranbād. Hot and dry. Dense. Relieves gases. Cardiac tonic. Good against insect bites.

 

Kamal: C. zerumbet. Cardiac tonic, other minor uses.

 

Bellakhdar et al: C. longa, kerqum, digestive stimulant, for blood diseases, against amnesia.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: C. longa, kurkum. On burns, eyes, infections, skin ailments. Smoke for colds and coughs. One of the spice foods for women after delivery, in soup with meat, onion, pepper, cumin.

 

Nadkarni: Stimulant, carminative, expectorant, demulcent, diuretic, rubefacient. Root in particular is cooling, diuretic, aromatic. Used widely. C. zerumbet used like ginger.

 

Dash: Pungent, bitter, hot, appetiser, stimulates digestion, cures spleen, piles, skin, cough.

 

Li:  Pengshu蓬朮 and other names. Rhizome used. Bitter, pungent, warm, nontoxic. Similar uses to above.

 

 

Cuscuta epithymum L. /or/ Bove ex Choisy, Convolvulaceae. Dodder of thyme. (It grows as a parasite on thyme, hence the specific scientific and Arabic names, both from Dioscorides’ Greek for “on thyme.” Many other very similar dodders occur, and must have been used; the temptation to pass them off as this one would have been great, since the dried medicinal material would have been very difficult to recognize to species.) Afīthimūn/阿副體門.

 

Dioscorides: IV-79, epithymon. Drunk with honey for purging and black choler (melancholy).

 

Avicenna: Hot, dry and pungent. Relieves gas; digestive. Not good for those with yellow bile excess. Purgative for black bile and phlegm. Avicenna also has an entry for European dodder, C. europaea, Arabic kushūth, a different plant.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: Similar uses; very important to Al-Samarqandī, as it is in the HHYF.

 

Lev and Amar: afīthimūn. Influenze spasms, epilepsy depression (al-Kindī). Vomiting, bile, nerves, worms, hert diseases, purging, etc. Hot and dry. An unidentified species or set of species is kashūth [or Kushūth/Keshuxi可述西], with various uses, including liver, spleen, malaria, and stomach. Diuretic, purgative, emmenagogue. For pains and infections. Maimonides uses it in a sexual medicine for “excitation and great desire” but notes this medicine also causes “sorrow and depression” (which makes one wonder when it could have been worth bothering with[69]).

 

Nadkarni: C. reflexa, alterative, purgative, antihelminthic. Seeds carminative and anodyne.  Stem purgative.

 

Li:  C. chinensis, tusizi菟蕬子. Seed useds; pungent, balanced, nontoxic.

(This species of dodder parasitizes thyme, hence the Greek name, and its Arabic derivative, also the English name dodder-of-thyme. Its modern uses seem minor, but it was one of the most important medieval remedies.)

 

 

Cydonia vulgaris (C. oblonga) and C. indica Spach., Rosaceae. Shul/Xili西里/Shuli屬里; Safarjal/Safarerzheli撒法而者里. (In the Near East it would be vulgaris. In actual practice in China, C. vulgaris might have been used, but Pseudocydonia sinensis (a.k.a. Chaenomeles sinensis, Cydonia sinensis) would have been the major medicinal quince.)

 

Dioscorides: V-28, C. vulgaris, wine (oinos kydonites) binding; for stomach, dysentery, liver, kidneys (diuretic).

 

Levey: C. vulgaris, safarjal, seed in drug for coughs, in a mothwash, etc.

 

Avicenna: C. vulgaris, safarjal (Persian bīh). Cold and dry. Oil constricting. Oil on ulcers and skin. Roasted quince on eye swellings. Extract for difficult breathing, asthma, etc. (Still used for this in China.) Treats vomiting and hangover. Diuretic.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: Al-Samarqandī and others boiled down the fruit and made syrups, robs, and preserves of it, for its own value but also as vehicle for medicines. (The modern use of it for quince paste, the original “marmelade” from Spanish marmelada, derives from this; the paste is still used in folk medicine in many parts of the world. The fruit juice is boiled down to a solid cheese-like substance. This is still used medicinally for the throat. In the New World tropics, where quinces will not grow, guavas were early substituted, producing one of the world’s great confections, guabada.)

 

Lev and Amar: C. oblonga (=C. vulgaris). Safarjal. Strengthens stomach, helps check diarrhea; seeds, fruits, and jam for stomach in general. Headaches. Seed oil for medications against abscesses of liver.

 

Kamal: C. vulgaris, safargal, safarag. Astringent.

 

Nadkarni: C. vulgaris, fruit astringent, demulcent, tonic. Leaves, buds and bark astringent. Seeds used for gonorrhea, dysentery.

 

Sun (almost certainly referring to Chaenomeles sp.): Quince (muguashi木瓜實): sour, salty, warm, astringent, and nonpoisonous. It mainly cures the illness caused by wet qi (shibiqi濕痹氣), cholera, violent vomiting, on-going spasms in the back part of the legs (houjiao zhuanjin buzhi後腳轉筋不止). Its uncooked bark is nonpoisonous. It is edible after being boiled.

 

Li:  C. oblonga (=C. vulgaris), sour, sweet, slightly warm, nontoxic. Minor uses, mostly for indigenstion. Stops watery diarrhea.

(The astringent quality and the fibre in quince do work against diarrhea. The Chinese use quince syrup for the throat and for cooling in general, and for harmonizing with other cooling herbal medicines in a range of situations. Anderson can testify from experience that the throat-soothing functions are real.)

 

 

Cymbopogon schoenanthus (L.) Spreng. Poaceae. See Andropogon schoenanthus.

 

 

Cynanchum atratum Bge. Apocynaceae (Asclepidaceae). Native. Baiwei白薇

 

Avicenna: C. vincetoxicum, qunna barā. Cleansing, erosive. Externally for skin, shedding skin, ulcers. Clears tjhick fluids from brain by sniffing water of roots (presumably infusion). For lungs, liver, spleen, etc.

 

Li: Baiwei. Root. Bitter, salty, balanced (or cold) and nontoxic. Large range of uses. Many other spp. mentioned.

 

 

Cyperus rotundus L. Cyperaceae. Native. Xiangfu香附. Su’d/Shuwudi述兀荅 is Cyperus longus.

 

Dioscorides: kypeiros. Root used. Warming, diuretic and useful for kidney/bladder stones. Used for scorpion bites. Emmenagogue. Used in ointment for eyes and other conditions.

 

Levey: Su’d. In drugs for canker, ulcers, teeth.

 

Avicenna: C. esculentus, ḥabb al-zalim. Hot and moist. Fattening. Increases seminal fluid. C. rotundus, sa’ad, used on ulcers in “state of foul decay,”[70] on joints and nerves, chronic nose and throat diseases. Expels stones.

 

Lev and Amar: C. longus, su‘d.  Against scorpion stings (topically?), Stimulated menstruation. Treats mouth and teeth, thus in toothpaste. In medication to eliminate sexual desire. Hot and dry.

 

Graziani: Su’d. Used for taste and wonderful smell.

 

Kamal, C. esculentus, habb al-Aziz, habb al-Zalam. Oil relaxing; alleviates pains of mastitis.

 

Bellakhdar et al: the sp. for hair care, tonic; C. longus reconstituant, aromatic

 

Madanapala: Musta. Cold. Digestive stimulant, carminative. For parasites, bleeding, thirst, fever.

 

Nadkarni: Stimulant, tonic, demulcent, diuretic, antihelminthic, stomachic, carminative, diaphoretic, astringent, emmenagogue.

 

Li: Shacao, xiangfuzi 香附子. Rhizome sweet, slightly cold, nontoxic, bitter to some. Foliage and flowers also used. Important drug with many pages of uses and recipes. A very standard qi regulator.

(Tubers roasted for soothing plaster in Middle East.)

 

 

Daemonorhops draco Bl., Arecaceae. Imported to China from early times. Xuejie 血竭. Hu: 659.

 

Li: Qilinjie 麒麟竭. Resin. Sweet, salty, balanced, nontoxic. For pain, bleeding, blood stasis, new flesh, other physical injury issues; external conditions generally. Various other uses.

 

 

Daphne mezereum L., Thymeleaceae. Māzariyūn/Mazalawan馬咱剌彎; Māziriyūn/Maqiliwan馬齊里彎.

 

Dioscorides: IV-148, daphnoides (literally “laurel-like,” because in Greek daphne applied to laurel, Laurus nobilis; in English as in scientific Latin it was rather unfortunately applied to the unrelated genus Daphne). Leaf taken, apparently eaten rather than in tea, to expel phlegmatic matter from stomach; causes vomiting; emmenagogue; provokes sneezing. Leaves and fruit for purge.

 

Avicenna: Mādhrīum (from the Greek). Hot and dry to fourth degree (i.e. extreme). Cleansing, purifying. Removes dead skinb, treats vitiligo and spots. Also on skin fungus, ulcers (with honey), dead skin, scabies. Mouthwash. “Very harmful to the liver”[71] (true enough). Purges out water. Expels worms. Careful instructions given on dosage, since overdose is deadly.

 

Bellakhdar et al: D. gnidium, lezzaz, hair-care, abortive. D. laureola, walidrar, drastic.

 

Li:  D. genkwa, yuanhua芫花. Sources disagree on humoral codings but agree that it is toxic (which it is, by any standards). Several pages of medical uses for dozens of conditions.

  1. odora, ruixiang蕊香, sweet, salty, nontoxic, for laryngeal infection (only).

(Dangerously toxic plant.)

 

 

Daucus carota L. Apiaceae. Introduced, but long cultivated in China. Dūqū/Duhu 堵胡

 

Dioscorides: III-83, three kinds of “daukos” described, at least one of which is surely this sp. All have seeds that are warming. Emmenagogue and abortifacient. Diuretic. Help with coughs, bites, swellings, etc. See Athamantha above.

 

Levey: Jazar. Seed for stomach and for sexual overindulgence. In one remedy for calculus.

 

Avicenna: jazar. Hot and moist. Wild carrot seed is strong laxative. Powdered seeds and leaves for corroxsive ulcers. For inflamed chest. Relieves abdominal pain; diuetic; wild seeds, unlike seeds of garden form, do not produce gas. Stimulates menstruation, but the use for abortion (so well known in Europe) is not mentioned.

 

Lev and Amar: In addition to the usual jazar, it apparently was called dawqū, dawkaws and daucos in some Genizah documents, an odd bit of surviving Greek. Palpitations, eye problems, purgative. In theriac, and the usual minor complaints—pains, cough, bites, and so on—that seem to have had every drug in the Genizah documents used as opportunity permitted. Maimonides held it hot and dry and used it in sexual medicine.

 

Kamal: Jazar. Seeds carminative and diuretic, juice stomachic and diuretic, used in jaundice and bronchitis. (The use for jaundice is presumably sympathetic magic.)

 

Bellakhdar et al: urinary infections.

 

Ghazanfar: Gizrī. Crushed seeds with honey for sexual potency.

 

Madanapala: Grñjana. Hot, digestive, constipative, for bleeding and piles.

 

Nadkarni: Fruits abortifacient and for diarrhea. Root for first-aid poultices, burns, skin, etc.

 

Eisenman: Common weed in high Central Asia. Vermifuge, purgative, etc. Extract of seed has been used biomedically for cholesterol, kidney and gallbladder problems, coronary conditions, etc., but seem not usually current.

 

Li: Huluobo胡蘿蔔 (“Iranian radish”; today hongluobo紅蘿蔔, “red radish”). Sweet, pungent, slightly warm, nontoxic. Largely a food; good for appetite and health generally, improves digestion.

(Wild carrot plants still used as an abortifacient; unpredictable, dangerous, but a resort of the desperate. The cultivated carrot is often said to have been developed in Afghanistan in the late Middle Ages, but there are unmistakable pictures of domestic orange carrots in Dioscorides mss. in Europe, going back to the Juliana Anicia codex of 512; see Carrot Museum website, www.carrotmuseum.co.uk.)

 

 

Delphinium staphisagria L. Ranunculaceae. Zabīb al-jabalMayūbazaj/ Maiyuzazhi 買與咱只.[72] Also Mawizak/Maiyuza麥雨咱

 

Dioscorides: Phlegm, toothache, rheumatic gums, itches.

 

Levey: Zabīb al-jabal, mayūbazaj. Epilepsy, neck pustules. Today, as emetic, for itch and skin.  (Very widely used in Near East at all time periods.)

 

Avicenna: D. staphisagria, mawīzaj. “Seeds are burning, corrosive, pungent, and biting” (p. 658). Kill lice (better with arsenic) and mites. Chewed for clearing phlegm and edema from brain. Used in mouthwashes, etc. D. officinale: jadwār, zarduār, etc. Antidote against snake bites, aconite, insect bites, etc. Not well known to this writer.

 

Lev and Amar: zabīb al-jabal, etc. Epilepsy, neck pustules, skin, lice, toothache.

 

Nadkarni: various related spp., minor uses.

 

Eisenman: D. confusum, tea for intestinal disorders, muscle tone, veterinary antiparasitic medicine. Several current biomedical uses for delphiniums; highly toxic but can be used for anesthesia, parkinson’s disease, various nervous conditions. D. semibarbatum tea with barley flour on tumors. Ashes on eczema and scabies. Tea for fever, flu, sore throat, burns, anticonvulsive, stomach, etc. Kills flies and cockroaches.

 

 

Desmodium (Hedysarum) gangeticum DC., Fabaceae. Matin/Mating馬亭.

 

Nadkarni: Bitter tonic, febrifuge, digestive, anticatarrh. D. latifolium alterative, tonic, for diarrhea, vomiting, insanity, ulcers.

 

 

Dolichos lablab L. Fabaceae. Native. (Now renamed Lablab purpureus, but we retain the old name here for convenience, since it is used in almost all the references.) Dolichos Bean. Biandou扁豆.

 

Levey: lūbiyāh; this name may also apply to Vigna sinensis (it is a general Arabic word for beans, now including New World beans unknown to medieval Arabia). In a preparation for freckles.

 

Avicenna: Lablāb. Hot and dry. Softening, dissolving, drying, purifying. Removes hair and kills lice. Leaves usable on large wounds, as poultice or internally with wine. Poltice on wounds also.  Said very good. Used for earaches also. Treats chest and lung afflictions including asthma (as with other beans, presumably mixed with more obviously medicinal items). Leaves with vinegar for enlarged, inflamed spleen. Purges burnt bile.

 

Kamal: Liblab, kisht, etc. No medical use noted.

 

Ghazanfar: Lablab. Roots aphrodisiac, laxative, diuretic, and to regulate menstruation.

 

Nadkarni: Seeds aphrodisiac.

 

Li: Biandou (a name now used for the broad bean or the lima bean). Sweet, slightly warm, nontoxic. Several minor uses.

 

 

Doronicum scorpioides Lam. (D. grandiflorum), Asteraceae, leopard’s bane. Durūnj/Durunazhi都盧拏只; Daurunj/dulongzhi都龍知.

 

Dioscorides: IV-77, akoniton, Doronicum pardalianches. See under Aconitum above.

 

Levey: D. pardalianches L. Durūnj, darsūnaj. In collyrium, etc.

 

Avicenna: Darūnaj, khāniq al-namir. Hot and dry. Usual minor uses. Stimulates heart. “It causes leopards to suffocate.”[73]

 

Lev and Amar: D. scorpioides, darwanj, for eyes, and an anaphrodisiac. Hot and dry.

 

Nadkarni: Root of D. hookeri aromatic and tonic. D. pardalianches cardiac, tonic, for depression, melancholia, and scorpion stings.

 

 

Dracaena spp. Dracaenaceae (Liliaceae), dragontree.  Resin imported to China from quite early Dam [al]-akhawayn/Danmuaheiyun擔木阿黑云.

 

Avicenna. Dam al-akhawain. Uncertain as to cold or hot; dry.  Used on ulcers and wounds and for strengthening the stomach. Minor and debatable remedy, in his time.

 

Levey: Dam al-akhawain, for fistula, hemorrhoids, canker, gums, etc.

 

Lev and Amar: D. draco, the famous dragon’s blood, dam al-’akhawayn, shīyān. Fistula, hemorrhoids, canker, looseness of gum, stomach, bleeding, wounds, diarrhea.

 

Ghazanfar: D. serrulata. ‘Ariyeb, ‘ayrob. Resin for hemorrhage, skin infections; pain.

 

Nadkarni: D. cinnabari, astringent.

 

 

Dryobalanops aromatica Gaertn.f., Dipterocarpaceae. Introduced. Baroos Camphor or Borneo Camphor/Piannao片腦; Longnao 龍腦; Hu: 659.

 

Nadkarni: Gum. Diaphoretic, antiseptic, antispasmodic, stimulant.

 

Li: Longnaoxiang片腦香. Li explains that the name—“dragon brain fragrance”—indicates the drug is precious (i.e., powerful like a dragon).  However, the uses are rather few, and the resin seems poorly cognized, with sources disagreeing on the humoral codings. Nontoxic. (The name may be from the appearance of the dried resin lumps, or some other feature.  )

 

 

Ecballium elaterium (L.) Rich., Cucurbitaceae. qiththā’ al-imār/Heisaliheimaer黑撒里黑麻而/Jidawuheimaer吉荅兀黑馬兒

 

Dioscorides: IV-154, sikys agrios. Leaf juice in ears for earache. Root, paste, on swellings, gout, sciatica. Decoction for toothache. Beaten for skin infections, scars, etc. Purges phlegm and choler. Purge.

IV-155: seed extract of same. Causes purging and vomiting. Can be overdone, in which case wine with oil is recommended. Poured in with milk into nostrils for rash and headache. Various other minor conditions.

 

Avicenna: qitha’ al-ḥimār. Hot and dry. Diluting, blood thinning, drying. External uses for jaundice, scars, wounds, skin diseasses, swellings, abscesses, ringworm, scabies, arthritis, etc.  Internally for laxative, swellings, vomiting. Evacuates phlegm and excess blood (sanguine humor).

 

Levey: ‘alqam. In oil for binding sinews, pain in back, rheumatisim and lameness. For nosebleeds.

 

Kamal: qaththa’ al himar, etc. Renal and cardiac anasarca, brain congestion [1], paralysis.

 

Nadkarni: Narcotic; for malaria and rabies.

 

 

Elettaria cardamomum L., Zingiberaceae. Doukouhua豆蔻花/Baidoukou白豆蔻

 

Dioscorides:  I-5, kardamomum. Unmistakably the present plant, from the description (including source countries), and not the native Greek cress, kardamon (see Lepidium). Infusion for respiratory and other diseases, worms, scorpion stings, poisons, breaking kidney/bladder stones, etc. Abortifacient. Applied for itch, etc.

 

Avicenna: Ḥamāmā, hīl. Hil in Persian. Hot and dry. Cleansing and diluting. For stomach, cold liver. Stops vomiting. Diuretic and emmenagogue; treats pain in uterus and is used to support a displaced uterus. Bath for kidney pain; orally for pain in womb. Plaster with sweet basil for scorpion stings.

 

Levey: Hāl. For happiness. Also teeth and breath, breathing, stomachic. “Still sold…as a stomachic, stimulant, carminative, and condiment.”[74] (Anderson can confirm it is still sold for these purposes in the Middle East.)

 

Lev and Amar: Hāl, kākalī. Colic, kidney stones, cough, paralysis, stomach complains, tuberculosis, skin.  Vermifuge. Teeth and mouth, respiration, tonic, etc. Still used for all these, including appetite and stomach, nausea, votmiting, stones, etc., and even for insanity and depression.

 

Graziani: qaqullah. Ibn Jazlah used it for constipation and as dentifrice.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: Minor uses following the above.

 

Kamal: habbahan, hab al hal, al hayl, etc. “Stomachic, carminative, anit-colic, heart stimulant, aphrodisiac, emmenagogue, relaxant and digestive” (117).

 

Bellakhdar et al: qa’qulla. Aphrodisiac, calefacient.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: Hal, hail. Stomachic and for liver. After childbirth, a woman is given a mix of cardamom, ginger, pepper, fennel, cinnamon, cumin, peppermint, browned flour, and fat. Cardamom with nigella and ginger in olive oil make a rub for coughs and colds.

 

Madanapala: Elā. For dyspnoea, cough, pales, dysuria.

 

Nadkarni: Powerful aromatic, stimulant, carminative, stomachic, duretic. Unani adds use for nausea, vomiting, headache, digestion; as resolvent, etc.

 

Dash: Uses not given.

 

Sun: Spicy, warm, astringent, nonpoisonous, and able to warm the Middle Jiao (burner; wenzhong溫中)[75]. Its major effects are to cure heartburn and stomachache, stop vomiting, and get rid of bad breath. (All of which fits perfectly with modern experience.)

 

Li: Not mentioned specifically, but doubtless included in the various cardamoms.

(Still used today in a minor way in China and more commonly in the Middle East; the Amomum cardamoms are much more important medicinally, but Elettaria is used too. All are effective, having volatile oils with stimulant, carminative, digestive effects.)

 

 

Embelia ribes Burm. Primulaceae (Myrsinaceae). Biranj/Bolangji伯朗吉/Bailang白朗; Biranj kābili /Bilingjikebuli必靈極可卜黎 etc.

 

Avicenna: Birank kābulī. Notes it as an Indian item, coming (to Central Asia, evidently) from Sindh. Expels phlegm and worms.

 

Madanapala: Vidanga. Digestion, flatulence, abdominal disease, constipation, parasites.

 

Nadkarni: Carminative, antihelminthic, stimulant, alterative, purgative. Fruit used.

 

Dash: Digestion, colic, constipation, parasites. Note similarity to Madanapala uses.

Note that this is another case of an Indian drug in the HHYF; its importance in Tibetan medicine shows that it may have reached Central Asia via Tibet, but Avicenna had it, obviously via Kabul (see the name); it was one of several Indian drugs that he knew well.

 

 

Emblica officinalis.  See Phyllanthus emblica.

 

 

Emilia sonchifolia DC, Asteraceae. Yangti羊蹄. Uncertain.

 

Nadkarni:  Sudorific.

 

Minor Chinese medical uses.

 

 

Ephedra sinensis Stapf. & presumably other spp., Ephedraceae. Native. Mahuang麻黃.

 

Nadkarni: E. vulgaris and relatives or synonyms. Alterative, diuretic, stomachic, tonic. Seems to be known mostly as a plant learned from Chinese practice. Many Indian species noted.

 

Eisenman: E. equisetina, infusion of green shoots for rheumantism, scabies, ulcers, malaria, altitude sickness, fever, heart disease. Plants also used for asthma. E. intermedia, stimulant and antiasthmatic. These species, unlike some ephedras, contain ephedrine and pseudoephedrine and are therefore highly effective biomedically.

 

Li: E. sinica, mahuang. Bitter, warm, nontoxic. Many pages of uses, but the use to relieve asthma is universally known. Root also used.

(It was the major worldwide drug for asthma and related conditions, in biomedicine as well as Chinese folk practice, until safer ones were discovered very recently.)

 

 

Eriobotrya japonica (Thunb.) Lindl. Rosaceae. Pipaye枇杷葉.

 

Li: Pipa 枇杷. Li notes the name comes from the similarity of the leaf shape to the profile of a lute (pipa 琵琶in Chinese). Fruit, leaf, flower and bark all used. Balanced and nontoxic; fruit sweet but leaf bitter. Various uses, external and internal.

(Loquat syrup is a universally used Chinese nutraceutical today, for its soothing, emollient, balancing, and general feel-good qualities, familiar to almost anyone with Chinese background or experience. It does not seem to have been so used in traditional times, which is certainly interesting. At least, Li and our other sources do not mention it.)

 

 

Eruca sativa Mill., Brassicaceae. Jirjīr/Zhierzhier知而直兒. Rocket.

 

Dioscorides: II-170, euzomon. Eaten raw “doth provoke Venery,”[76] especially flowers and seeds. Diuretic, digestive. Seeds in sauces as mustard is used.

 

Levey: Jirjīr. Insanity, stomachic. Many minor uses.

 

Lev and Amar: Jirjīr. Plant aphrodisiac; treats sexual weakness, strength of sperm, etc. Also for nternal diseases, urinary tract, gas. Increases mother’s milk. Seeds against insanity and stomach pains. Wet and hot (Maimonides).

 

Kamal: Gargir, baqlat ‘Ai’shah. Seeds vesicant, diuretic, aphrodisiac, anti-caries.

 

Bellakhdar et al: calefacient.

 

Nadkarni: Known, but no significant medical uses.

(Whole plant stimulant, from glucosinolate chemicals, but not much value medicinally.)

 

 

Euphorbia granulata Forsk., Euphorbiaceae. ‘ilk-al-ghzal; Euphorbia sp., Euphorbiaceae.  Farfiyūn/Falafurong法剌夫榮/Faerfarong法而法榮 (Persian); Shibram/Zhebulan折不藍.

 

Dioscorides: III-96, euphorbion, Euphorbia spp.?  (Description vague and smacking of travelers’ tale.) Sharp, burning sap extracted. Drunk for groin pains, bones, etc., and snakebite.

 

Levey: Furbiyūn, afarbiyūn. Abscesses, fistulas, scrofula; ointment. In a remedy for insantiy.

 

Avicenna: E. pityusa, shabram.  Hot and dry (very). Used very widely for external conditions.  Also for teeth; breaks up rotten teeth. Treats eye swellings. Harms stomach and liver, so used with care in mixtures. Removes piles.

 

Graziani: Furbiyun. Ibn Jazlah used it for paralysis, numbness, kidneys, against miscarriage, stopping tears, and for dog bites and burning belly. Modern Egyptian use in ointments for paralysis etc.

 

Lev and Amar: afarbiyūn, farbiyūn. Various spp. Wounds, mumps, insanity, purging. Hot and dry. Constricts womb and prevents miscarriage.

 

Kamal: E. officinarum, farbion, etc. Emetic, cathartic, poisonous. Juice vesicant, sloughing, rubefacient externally.

 

Bellakhdar et al: E. resinifera, abortive, drastic, toxic; skin conditions and earache cure

 

Ghazanfar: Many species, with many local names, for every type of external application. E. hadramautica also for purgative.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: E. helioscopia and others.  Emetic, purgative (sap); externally, for paralysis, apoplexy, etc.

 

Nadkarni: Huge range of species used for the usual reasons (emetic, purgative, cathartic, etc.).

 

Eisenman: E. jaxartia, powdered root for wounds and syphilis. Latex for fungal skin conditions, scabies, corns and warts. A number of chemicals; some may be effective. E. apulum, purgative; for tuberculosis.

 

Li: Langdu狼毒includes many species, and yet more are used under other names. Li clearly saw them as related, putting them near each other in his work. Root usually used; bitter and pungent, balanced, toxic. Large range of indications, many of them external. (Euphorbia spp. often have strong external action, irritating to actually blistering the skin but effectively killing parasites, treating fungus and infected swellings, etc.)

 

 

Ferula asafoetida Lam. (also given as Ferula foetida [Bunge] Regel, apparently the same sp.), Apiaceae. Ashtu-ghar. Imported. Anjudān安吉丹/Anjidang安吉當 (from Arabic Anjudān—angudān in vernacular); Hiltīt/Heilititi黑黎提提. Also: Awei 阿魏, Hu: 659.

The many Ferula species used medicinally in Asia are possibly confused in the HHYF. ßaghyin/Saeyin撒額因/Saheiyin撒黑因; Sakabīnaj/Samibienazhi撒吉別拏只 (root of ferula spp.)

 

Dioscorides: III-55, panakes herakleion, Ferula opopanax or rel. Sap. Warming, mollifying, for agues, spasms, convulsions, ruptures, pains, coughs, gripes, strangury, scabies, and almost everything else. Emmenagogue and abortifacient. Salve for head, boils, eyes, dog bites, etc.  Root shaved, on vulva, abortifacient or birth aid. With honey on wounds and sores.

III-56, panakes asklepion, poorly described, may be F. nodosa. Flower, seed, on ulcers etc.

III-87, libanotis, one sort may be F. nodiflora. Similar cureall to the others.

III-91, narthex, F. communis. For griping and sweats; seed. Green pith with wine for snakebite and flux.

III-95, sagapenon, F. persica. Brief notes; similar uses to other spp.

III-98, ammoniakon, Ferula spp. As following, plus use for thorax when licked with honey or eaten with juice of Ptissana. Cures bloody urine, cleans eyes, etc. Applied with vinegar for hardness in abdomen and joints. Good for lassitudes and sciatic pains.

III-94, silphion, F. tingitana. Cureall, recommended for almost everything. Taken or applied as indicated for toothache, dog bites, poinsons including poisoned arrows, scorpion stings, etc.  Gangrene, carbuncles, corns, swellings, etc. Taken for respiratory and throat problems of all sorts, including leeches in the throat; general health, etc.; also as for other Ferula spp. This is the famous resin cureall that led to extinction of the best (Libyan) kind. Dioscorides was writing at the height of the truly fanatical obsession with silphium and other Ferula spp. which led to Libyan silphium becoming the textbook example of a plant exterminated by overcollecting.[77]

 

Avicenna: Hot, dry, diluting (bloodthinning); relieves gas; purgative; dring. For body odor, hair growth, fungus, mouthwash, tumors and sores, ulcers, growth of flesh, rheumatism, epileps, headaches, earaches, eye conditions in general, clearing voice, asthma, shortness of breath, jaundice, diuretic, purgative, malaria, and even kills leeches in the throat!

 

Levey: Ḥiltīt. Cold affliction of phlegm, aphrodisiac, rheumatism, etc. Throat and toothache.  Various forms. F. marmarica  is one source of gum ammoniac,  used widely in the HHYF.

 

Al-Bīrūnī:  Quotes Oribasius:  mollifying, flatulent, etc. Apparently on his own, he adds: Deodorant, dispels evil-smelling humors.  Poltice. Removes abcesses. For rheumatism.

 

Aphrodisiac. Cures hemorrhoids if boiled with pomegranate peel in vinegar and drunk.

 

Lev and Amar: Hot and dry, purgative, ointment on bites.

 

Kamal: Haltit. Gum anticonvulsive, stomachic, antihelminthic, emmenagogue.  Enema for gas and convulsions.

 

Bellakhdar et al: antiepileptic; F. communis antispasmodic.

 

Ghazanfar: Ḥaltīt, ḥaltīta. Antispasmodic, colic, expectorant, sedative; resin used, boiled or chewed. Also to fumigate women after childbirth, as with mukul resin. Resin with honey for menstruation.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: Coughs, colds, stomach disorders, fevers, sore throat toothache (topically). Apparently antifungal (modern bioscience cited).

 

Nadkarni: Stimulant, carminative, antispasmodic, expectorant, laxatic, antihelminthic, diuretic, aphrodisiac, emmenagogue, nervine, etc. Unani uses for brain, digestion, vision, paralysis, epilepsy, convulsions, colic, etc.

 

Dash: F. foetida digestive, stimulant, appetiser. For colic and parasites.

 

Eisenman: F. foetida. Major folk medicine. Anticonvulsant, vermifuge, nervous condition treatment; restorative and tonic in Chinese medicine. These uses seem sustained by biomedical experiment.  Has been used in modern medicine as stimulant, etc. Contains a huge range of bioactive chemicals. F.kuhistanica, resin for syphilis; external use for wounds, tumors, etc.  Antibactierial. F. moschata, rare, tonic, etc.

 

Li: F. sinkiangensis, F. fukanensis, awei. Li is aware that the use of asafoetida was largely learned from the Middle East. Pungent, balanced, nontoxic. Kills worms, dispels gas, useful digestively in general.

 

Rossetti:[78] Still common spice; medicinal uses not discussed, but excellent history of production, trade, and use in food.

(This famous cureall was used in American folk medicine within living memory. The bad smell was supposed to scare away devils, among other things.)

 

 

Ferula galbaniflua Boiss. et Buhse, Apiaceae. Bārzad/Bieerzadi別兒咱的/Bieersadi別兒撒的(Persian)

 

Dioscorides: III-97, chalbane, Ferula ferulago, Selinum galbanum, or similar plant; possibly F. galbaniflua. Galbanum is the same. Emmenagogue, abortifacient; for coughs and respiratory problems, ruptures, convuilsions, poisons, etc. For pains and fits, etc. Variously mixed with potions. Applied for pains.

 

Levey: Various psychiatric complaints (madness, weakness…).

 

Avicenna: Jāushīr, a small plant; kamāshīr, a stronger and apparently larger form. Hot and dry. Bitter. Laxative, dissolving, gas relieving. Emmenagogue and in larger doses abortifacient. Used for asthma, cough. Various external uses including as collyrium for eyes. In general, a typical Avicenna cureall—put on all external conditions, taken for all minor internal ones.

 

Lev and Amar: qinna, etc. Insanity. Modern uses suggest there were many more uses in early times.

 

Kamal: Qana-washq, khalabani, qinnah, barzad, etc. Gum expectorant, anti-cough, anti-convulsive, emmenagogue.

 

Nadkarni: Stimulant, expectorant, antispasmodic, etc.

 

 

  1. persica, Apiaceae. Sagapenum. Sakbīnaj/Sajibienazhi撒吉別拿只; ßaghbīn/Sayibing撒亦冰

 

Dioscorides: Sagapenon. Various uses for this important Ferula resin.

 

Avicenna: Sakbīnaj. Hot and dry. Dissolvent, diluting/blood thinning, warming, cleansing. Relieves gas. Treats paralysis and dislocations. Relieves some headaches and epilepsy. Used fin eyes for dim vision, etc. Used for chest, for abdominal pain, dissolving stones, etc.; emmenagogue and abortifacient.

 

Lev and Amar: sakabīnāj. Kidneys, glands, back pains, insanity, etc. Hot and dry.

(Extremely important in medieval Europe as well as the HHYF, but oddly rare in the Arabic herbals.)

 

 

Ficus carica L. Moraceae. Introduced to China as cultigen. Tīn提尼; Wuhuaguo無花果, Hu: 1407

 

Manniche: Already used for constipation and related complaints (as it still is in the 21st century worldwide). Also in a number of remedies for heart and lung diseases. (The heart remedies would work for stomach problems but not for heart ones, and surely “heart” just means “internal pains” here.) Suppository for anus pain. F. sycomorus used similarly.

 

Dioscorides: I-183, syka. Laxative. Good for throat and bladder and kidneys, for asthma, epilepsy, dropsy (congestive heart failure). With hyssop for a tea for thorax. Good for respiratory problems generally, for inflammations, and much else. For women, with fenugreek, rue, etc., for fomentations (unspecified). With various substances for external use on almost every imaginable external condition. Also a long list of preparations for internal conditions. Juice used for coagulating milk; also as emmeanagogue, laxative, childbirth easing, plasters for gout and skin conditions, etc.

I-184, syka agria, wild fig. Juice from pounded leaves for ulcers, etc. Sprigs boiled with beef make it “soone sod,”[79] which must mean “tender,” since that is what they actually do (a meat tenderizing enzyme is in the leaf shoots). Similarly for curdling milk.

I-181, sykomoron, Ficus sycomorus Linnaeus. Grows in Mediterranean islands; Name sycomoron, “fig mulberry,” because it is a fig tree with mulberry-like leaves (Dioscorides’ explanation; basically correct). Fruit for laxative but bad for stomach generally. Sap for skin conditions, or drunk or applied for snakebite, etc. Used for hard swellings and pains.

I-182, sykon en Kypro (“fig in Cyprus”), apparently a variety of the above, and so used.

 

Galen:  Laxative, cleaning; often used with medicinal herbs.  Harmful to inflamed liver and spleen.

 

Levey: Tīn. Skin and ulcers; poultice for swelling, etc.

 

Avicenna: Tīn. Hot, moist. Cleansing, dissolvent, etc. Usual laxative and cleansing uses, and a vast number of uses for soothing, relieving, etc., internally and externally. Treats essentially anything, though evidently largely as a soothing agent.

 

Kamal: tin. Cooked for drink for smallpox, measles, scarlet fever, bronchitis, urinary affections, respiratory problems, etc.  Gargle for mouth and throat sores.  Sap laxative and external caustic.

Bellakhdar et alshariha, kermus, tin. Laxative.

Ghazanfar: ṭin. Leaves, fruit and latex for various external applications. Fruit tonic, laxative, diuretic; for kidneys, including kidney stones; for cough. In Yemen, mixed with dates, raisins and honey for depression or nervous tension (pleasant enough that it might even work!).

 

Madanapala: Añjīra. Cold, sweet. Alleviates some dosas, and blood.

 

Nadkarni: Aperient, emollient, cooling, laxative, demulcent.

 

Li: Wuhuaguo (“flowerless fruit,” the flowers being invisible inside the fig). One old herbal knew that “if the fruit is not stewed within a few ays, it will evolve into an ant, which will fly away by penetrating the peel,”[80] Known to be an import, and not much used, but fruit and leaf used for hemorrhoids and appetite, and fruit, oddly, for diarrhea and dysentery.

(Figs are still a very standard folk and even biomedical doctors recommend them as laxative. Both species appear frequently in the Bible, the common fig as the choicest tree fruit. The Biblical prophet Amos stressed his humble origin by saying he had been a dresser of sycomore trees.)

 

 

Foeniculum vulgare Mill., Apiaceae. Introduced to China as common seasoning. Huixiang茴香; Rāziyāna/Laziyala剌子牙剌. Hu, 659.

 

Both Dioscorides and al-Bīrūnī knew this plant, but said little about it.

 

Levey: Bisbās. Swellings and enlargements. Scrofula, ulcers, fever, stomach, liver pain, eyes.

 

Avicenna: Rāzīānaj. Seeds used. Hot and dry; cultivated is less hot. Opens obstructions.  Strengthens eyesight. Moist fennel (probably means the leaves) increases milk. Treats nausea and stomach ache. Diuretic and emmenagogue.Treats urinary system.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: Important in Al-Samarqandī’s text. Now diuretic, purgative, stimulant, carminative, stomachic, emmenagogue; root purgative. “In Persia today…it is one of the five ‘opening roots’ of the ancients; the others are parsley, celery, asparagus, and butcher’s broom.”[81]

 

Lev and Amar: shamār, rāyazānaj. Weak eyes, headache, hemorrhoids, aphrodisiac, brain problems, cooling generally, etc. Fennel seeds for children with incessant crying. Put on sore eyes, navel problems of newborns, etc. Maimonides used it in wine for the heart, holding it hot and dry. Modern uses extensive and varied.

 

Evelyn:[82] “Aromatick, hot, and dry; expels Wind, sharpens the Sight, and recreates the Brain.”

 

Kamal: shamar. Stomachic, diuretic, emmenagogue, carnimantive, anti-epileptic, soothing for colic. Aphrodisiac and lactagogue.

 

Bellakhdar: for liver and pancreas; dyspnoea.

 

Ghazanfar: Shih, samār. Decoction of leaves and seeds for couighs and carminative uses. Stems for toothbrushes. Seeds diuretic and for kidneys.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: Colic, stomachache, flatulence, indigestion, rheumatism.

 

Madanapala: Śatapuspā. Fever, ulcers, colic, eyes.

 

Nadkarni: Fruit stimulant, carminative, diuretic, emmenagogue, purgative. Root purgative.

 

Dash: Sweet, hot, appetiser.

 

Sun: Fennel (huixiangcai茴香菜): bitter, spicy, mildly cold, astringent, and nonpoisonous. It is particularly important for treating cholera. It prevent sunstroke (bire辟熱) and gets rid of bad breath. If one boils smelly meat in water, add a little of it and the smell will go away. So it is called “the return of the good smell“. If the sauce is smelly, adding fennel to it will rid of the smell. Its seeds treat, especially, snakebites that have not healed for a long time. Crush and apply on the wound. It also treats nine kinds of swelling in the neck (lou瘺).

 

Li: Huaixiang懷香, huixiang. Fruit used (minor uses for foliage). Many uses, some so mystical that they defeated even the translators, others more related to the well-known (and still used) stomachic and digestive properties of the fruit.

Other apiaceous seeds may be confused here.

 

 

Fraxinus excelsior L. Oleaceae. Lisān al-‘asāfīr/Lisanuasafeier里撒奴阿撒飛兒/Hei[li]sanuliasafeier黑[里]撒奴黎阿撒肥而/Lisanuliasabeier里撒奴黎阿撒肥而.

Dioscorides: I-108, melia, Fraxinus ornus, manna ash. Juice of leaves drunk with wine, or applied, for snakebite; bark burned as ash applied for leprosy.

 

Avicenna: F. ornus, shir khishk, man. Neutral. For cough, chest congestion, purging yellow bile.

 

Lev and Amar: palpitation, purgative, aphrodisiac, for gases, stomach, pains, urination, memory; aids pregnancy.

 

Kamal: F. excelsior, lisan al ‘asfur, fraksunus, etc. Bark febrifuge. Leaves sudorific. F. ornus, manna mild aperient and cholagogue.

 

Bellakhdar et al: F. angustifolia, lisan t-tir, lisan l-‘usfur. Aphrodisiac, calefacient.

 

Nadkarni: Bark astringent; leaves purgative.

(The common ash has no major medical uses. Probably substitutes for manna ash, a mild laxative of long-standing use.)

 

 

Fumaria officinalis L. Papaveraceae (Fumariaceae). Shay®araj/Satela撒忒剌; Shāh®iraj/Shayitalazhi沙亦他剌只/撒忒剌

 

Dioscorides: IV-110, kapnos, F. parvifolia. Gives several alternative names. Juice quickens sight and brings tears. Used to prevent plucked eyebrow hair from regrowing. Eaten for choleric urine.

 

Levey: Shātiraj. Various humoral disorders. Popular today for various reasons.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: Shāhtaraj, qufnus. Cites Galen:  Sharp, pungent, astringent, diuretic, good for gall bladder and stomach. Helps eye and heart. Rāzī adds that it kills lice and ticks, cures itch, strengthens gums and tongue, etc. Juice reduces scab and itch, strengthens stomach, opens liver.

 

Avicenna: shīṭraj (making it easy to confuse with Lepidium). Hot and bitter. Used on itching, skin disease, gums.  Strengthens stomach. Laxative and diuretic.

 

Lev and Amar: shāhtaraj.  Helps melancholy; diuretic; for skin, blood, stomach.

 

Kamal: Shahatarg, shahatra. Tonic. Skin diseases. Antipyretic. Good for caries and jaundice.  Fluid extract used.

 

Ghazanfar: F. parviflora. Antihelminthic, laxative, for dyspepsia; externally, paste for skin rashes.

 

Nadkarni: Diaphoretic, tonic, diuretic, antihelminthic, aperient, etc. Used for sexually transmitted diseasess and leprosy, among other things.

 

Dash: F. parviflora bitter, cold, for fever, burning, anorexia, fatigue, intoxication, giddiness.

 

Eisenman: F. vaillantii, decoction for blood cleansing, diuretic, “coughs, jaundice, headache, fever, gonorrhea, uterine bleeding, erysipelas,” (118), etc. Also bath for itch, rashes, and pimples.  Biomedically, fumarine causes paralysis, catalepsy. Inhibits cholinesterases.

 

 

Gardenia jasminoides Ellis, Rubiaceae. The Chinese name for this plant is routinely confused in the HHYF with saffron, Crocus sativus, q.v. Still, it may very well have been used.

Li describes many uses for it. Fanzhizihua番梔子花.

 

 

Gentiana lutea (and/or asclepidea) L., Gentianaceae. Jantiyānā/Zhentiyana真體牙拿/Hentiyana恨提牙拿/ Jan®iyān

 

Dioscorides: III-3, gentiane, gentiana. Root warming, binding. Drunk with pepper, rice and wine for venomous bites. Also for pain of side; falls; ruptures and convulsions; liver and stomach problems. Abortifacient. Applied to ulcers, skin conditions, and inflamed eyes.

 

Avicenna: Janṭiānā. Hot and dry. Laxative. Syrup rubbed on twisted muscles and on bruises.  Used for conjunctivitis. Internally for lungs, spleen, liver. Diureti and emmenagogue. Abortifacient.

 

Nadkarni: G. kurroo, root, local equivalent to above; similar chemistry. Tonic, antiperiodic, antibilious, astringent, stomachic, antihelminthic.

 

Eisenman: G. olivieri, decoction of flowering herb for gastric conditions, malaria, teeth and gums and mouth; externally for ulcers and abscesses. Syrup from boiling gentian with barberry roots for side pains, rheumatism, chest pain. Biomedically, tests how sedative and anti-inflammatory action; chemicals identified.

 

Li: Qinjiao秦艽, longdan龍膽; each name covers many species of gentian. Roots used. Bitter and nontoxic. The former are the warmer ones, the latter the cooling species. The usual proliferation of uses.

(Gentian remains a European folk remedy, used in many digestive liqueurs and drinks.)

 

 

Glaucium corniculatum Kurt, Papaveraceae. Horned poppy. Māmithā/Mamisamo馬米撒末

 

Dioscorides: III:86. For eyes.

 

Levey: For eyes, erysipelas, gout.

 

Eisenman: G. fimbrilligerum, seeds crushed and roasted for hemostatic and tonic use for women after childbirth. Oil also effective. Decoction of leves and flowers as tonic, stimulant; large doses emetic and soporific, even to asphyxiation. Seeds laxative. Biomedical experiments confirm, and show antiarrhymthmic action.

 

 

Glossostemon bruguieri (Desf.), Malvaceae. Mughāth/Muaxi木阿西 (Arabic name). 

Uncertain identification.

Medicinal and food in Near East. Not in our sources but apparently in the HHYF.

 

 

Glycyrrhiza glabra L., G. uralensis Fisch., & probably other spp, Fabaceae. Native, but the Chinese sp. is obviously being used for the western one. Sūsi/Suxi速西; Gancao甘草.

 

Levey: Sūs. In electuary for coughs; salve for itching; oxymel for humors; in oil for scrofula, hemorrhoids, etc. Rob for tooth medicine, jaundice, cough, malaria, rheumatism, sciatica, pterygium. Many other remedies in other authors. As in China, it seems to be a general carrier and mollifier.

 

Avicenna: Moderate, slightly hot and moist. On burns and skin infections. Root for eyes.  Internally, softens and clears trachea; good for lungs; decreases thirst and treats burning in stomach; used for gonorrhea and internal ulcers. Treats fever.

 

Graziani: Sūs. Used in rob (thick syrup). Ibn Jazlah used it for leprosy, spleen ailments, and scorpion stings. Today in Middle East for acute indigestion.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: G. glabra made into a rob for a very wide range of uses; major part of Al-Samarqandī’s pharmcopoeia.

 

Lev and Amar. G. glabra, sūs and other names. Various preparations for yellow bile, acute fevers, etc. Skin, cough, chest, liver, scabies, hemorrhoids, mumps, teeth, pains, jaundice, even killing fleas. Weight gain, facial skin improvement, sharpens eyes and other eye applications.  Lungs, liver, spleen, etc., indeed almost every ailment of every part of the body.

 

Kamal: irq al-Sus, irsus, G. officinalis. Laxative, flavor for medicines, demulcent in throat lozenges.

 

Bellakhdar et al.: G. glabra, ‘arq sus, sore throat, cohlagogue, refreshing.

 

Ghazanfar: G. glabra, rhizome and leaves, coughs, expectorant, idigestion, pain, purgative.

 

Nadkarni: Tonic, cooling, demulcent, expectorant, diuretic, emmenagogue, gentle laxative.  Unani uses for liver, bladder, lungs, nerves, etc.

 

Eisenman: Decoctions and extracts for cough, chest, etc. G. uralensis roots diuretic, laxative, carminative, for pneumonia, bronchitis, asthma, ulcers, poisoning.

 

Li: Gancao. Usually this species, but term includes other species. Roots used. Fully ten large pages on this plant, the universal harmonizer, smoother, side-effects mollifier, and general additive of Chinese medicine, so important that the great Tao Hongjing陶弘景compared it to “the imperial instructor—who is not the monarch, but the monarch follows his instructions.”[83] Its role as harmonizer means that it is usually used in combinations, for essentially any type of condition. (This was still true in Chinese medicine in the 1960s.)

(Used as a general vehicle, soothing and harmonizing; hence its use in almost every possible condition in both the Middle East—see Lev and Amar—and China.)

 

 

Gossypium spp., Malvaceae. Cottonseed is tentatively identified as one item mentioned in the Index. Qu®n/Huteni胡忒尼. Mianhua綿花 is used in frequent reference to cotton cloth for binding, etc. Cotton at that time would be Gossypium herbaceum and Gossypium arboreum, not the common modern species (they are new world–barbadense and hirsutum).

 

Avicenna: quṭn. Seeds for chest and as laxative.

 

Lev and Amar: quṭn; seeds for purulent wounds, sexual desire; oil for hair. Plant for heartbeat, insanity, swellings, memory, diarrhea, burns skin diseases, hemorrhages.

(Seeds toxic; an effective male contraceptive but too dangerous to use. Otherwise apparently no biomedical value. They are now detoxified for food use.)

 

 

Gypsophila struthium L., Caryophyllaceae. Kundus/Kundusi困都思/Kundushi困都失 /Kundushi捆都石 (Gr)

 

Levey: kundus. In remedy for insanity.  Al-Samarqandī used it in a plaster for various purposes.

 

Lev and Amar: kundus. Insanity, skin, diuretic, purgative.

(It is rarely mentioned except in the HHYF and obscure in the sources.)

 

Helleborus albus L. Ranunculaceae. Not in the HHYF as such but Helleborus spp. is routinely confused with Veratrum and H. spp. almost certainly occur identified as such, quite probably incorrectly in many cases.

 

Dioscorides: IV-152, sesamoeidesHelleborus cyclophyllus. Purge, with white hellebore (i.e. Veratrum, q.v.)

 

al-Bīrūnī: Toxic, medicinal.

 

Lev and Amar: Kharbaq.  Diuretic; also for skin diseases, warts, epilepsy, madness, black bile, toothache, eyes.

 

Kamal: kharbaq (for Helleborus in general) used for mania, amenorrhea, ascites; now used only in veterninary medicine. White hellebore deadens pain; used in ointment.

(Highly toxic. The alkaloid can be hallucinogenic, hence possibly having some effect in madness; possibly not the desired effect. Not that Veratrum, confused with this plans, does not have such affects. It stimulates the heart in very small regulated doses, thus treating dropsy and serving as diuretic in that case; thus the diuretic use, above, which may clearly refer to Veratrum.)

 

Helleborus niger L.; Helleborus officinalis Salisb., Ranunculaceae. Same comment as previous. (See under Veratrum viride for white hellebore.)

 

Dioscorides: IV-151, ‘elleboros melasHelleborus officinalis, black hellebore. (Probably includes H. niger.) Roots for purging by vomiting or diarrhea. For epilepsy, melancholy, arthritis, fits, paralysis, etc. Pessary for emmenagogue and abortion. In ear for ear problems; applied to skin for skin conditions; to teeth for toothaches and mouthwash. Cataplasm for dropsy. Planted near vines, it makes their wine purgative! Sprinkled about house; thought to preserve from evil spirits (as rue still is in Latin America and other places—a use of rue not mentioned by Dioscorides). If one sees an eagle while digging it, one will die.

V-82, oinos elleborites, hellebore wine. Brewed with wine must. For constipation, or to vomit, including voluntary vomiting at banquets. Many brews and uses noted. The inevitable emmenagogue and abortifacient uses noted.

 

Avicenna: kharbaq aswad. Extremely toxic; used to kill rats—“not suitable for cowards!”[84] Hot, dry, dissolvent, diluting, cleansing. Renews youth and vigor. Those wishing to take it should abstain from heavy food for three days. Used for skin conditions, scabies, etc., wounds, ears, eyes. Internally, evacuates black and yellow bile and phlegm.

 

Nadkarni: Hydrogogue, cathartic, emmenagogue, antihelminthic. Poison. Local anaesthetic.  Used for a wide range of conditions, including epilepsy, mania, melancholia, etc., as well as on skin and for worms.

(The dangerous stimulant alkaloids in hellebore have banished them from use today, but they were important in folk medicine throughout history.)

 

 

Hordeum vulgare. Poaceae. Damai大麥. Oddly and significantly, while there are more than a score of mentions of barley flour and one of barley congee, barley water does not seem to have enjoyed in the HHYF the enormous importance that it enjoyed in Hippocratic-Galenic medicine. The thrust is as part of foods to eat with medicines, as in Greek medicine.

From ancient Egypt (Manniche 1989:108) and especially from Hippocrates onward through time, it was a sovereign food for the sick. Averroes, echoing Hippocrates, says: “Barley water is inferior to wheaten, but is cooling and readily digestible, and its coldness is of the first degree.  Barley water is more medicinal than bread, it is excellent in hot and dry diseases, since it cools, moistens, tempers, and wonderfully generates a laudable humour, nor does it inflate or remain in the stomach…”[85] Similarly, Al-Bīrūnī goes on at some length from Dioscorides, Galen, etc. on the advantages of barley water.

 

Avicenna: Cold and dry. Water used on freckles, pimples, etc. Poultice made with quindce and vinegar for gout, and other poultices for chest, etc. Barley water used for chest, but is “not suitable for stomach,”[86] a rather amazing point given the importance of this item from Galen and Dioscorides right down to Anderson’s own Midwestern childhood (the old Galenic uses were still very much alive). It was, however, used for fevers (as in the Midwest!).

 

Levey: notes that Al-Kindī uses it for memory, dental medicines, etc., and barley water to make hair and beard grow.

 

Nadkarni: Tonic and astringent decoction, as well as the usual use for invalids.

 

Dash: Yava in Sanskrit. Sweet, cold, laxative, aphrodisiac, cures diseases of urine, rhinitis, asthma, cough, etc. This use as a cureall recalls Greek medicine.

 

Li: Da mai. Minor uses.

Barley water was made by boiling barley for a long time in a large amount of water. Pearl barley (barley with seed coats milled off) was used for illness and convalescence from early times well into the 20th century (as Anderson remembers from personal childhood experience). Pearl barley, boiled in soup, was one of the medicines most enthusiastically adopted by China, and is still sovereign in Chinese medicine as a cooling agent.

 

 

Hosta plantaginea, Agavaceae. Yuzan玉簪. Dubious identification.

 

Li: Root is sweet, pungent, cold and toxic. Used for mastitis, sterilization of women, detoxification of snakebites and insect bites and stings, helping with pulling teetch, etc.

(A common Chinese ornamental plant, beautiful and sweet-scented but of little traditional medical note.)

 

 

Hyoscyamus niger L. Solanaceae. Native. Tianxian天仙; Bang/Fanaqi法納乞/Ponaqi拍納乞/Bang

 

Dioscorides: IV-69, ‘Yoskyamos melas, leukos, meloides, respectively identifie in Gunther as H. niger, H. albus, H. aureus. Descriptions a bit equivocal. First two cause frenzies or narcosis, and not normally used. Third (evidently meaning the second above)  with white flowers is gentler.  Juice from plant or seeds hard to store, but can be mixed with wheatmeal and dried for storage.  Juice used for pains, in various preparations, for various areas of the body; also respiratory problems excessive menstruation, gout, swollen genitals, swollen breasts of nursing women, etc.

I-42, seed oil for poorly specified conditions.

 

Levey: Banj (derived from Indian bhang). Cold ailments, insanity, epilepsy, melancholy.

 

Avicenna: Banj. Cold and dry. Soporific. Externally for pain, swellings, earache, eyes. Internally for gout pain, coughing up blood, pain in uterus. Poisonous.

 

Nasrallah: Deadly poison, especially seeds. Cold and dry.

 

Graziani: Binj, banj. Medieval Arab uses for toothache, stings of poisonous animals, swellings, stomach disorder.  Maimonides used it for poinsonous and painful stings.

 

Lev and Amar: banj, shawkarān, saykarān. Also H. niger. For palpitation, crying, toothaches, earache, bleeding, eyes, spitting blood, women’s diseases. With hellebore for cold, insanity, epilepsy, blck bile.

 

Kamal: bang, bang aswad. Sedative, narcotic,anti-epileptic, relaxant, painkiller, anti-colic, mydriatic.

 

Bellakhdar et al: H. niger and H. albus, both sikran. Narcotic, toxic, antihemorrhoidal, dental analgesic; magic. Atropa belladonna and A. baetica [closely related to Hyoscyamus and worth relating], zbib leydur, aphrodisiac, memory stimulant.

 

Ghazanfar: H. gallagheri, zgaf, for hair growth.

 

Nadkarni: Digestive, astringent, antihelminthic, as well as the narcotic effect.

 

Eisenman: Analgesic. Leaf juice for tumors, earaches. Water infusion of seeds for convulsions; smoke from burning seeds for toothaches. Plaster of leaves on abscesses. Biomedical action includes use of atropine for bile ducts, stomach ulcers, intestinal spasms, etc., and mydriatic.  Scopolamine formerly used as nervous system depressant; too toxic for much current use.

(Another plant with dangerous tropane alkaloids. Antispasmodic, analgesic.)

 

 

Hypericum perforatum L., Hypericaceae. Fāriqūn/Faligong法里公; Hayūfārīqūn/胡法里渾. (Gr).

 

Dioscorides: III-171, ‘yperikon, Hypericum crispum, H. barbatum. Resin diuretic; as pessary, emmenagogue. With wine for malaria; seed for sciatica.

III-172, askyron, H. perforatum. Fruit drunk with hydromel for sciatica. Expels choleric problems. Applied to burns.

III-173, androsaimon. H. perfoliatum and/or H. ciliatum. Same uses.

 

Avicenna: hīyūfārīqūn (from the Greek). Hot and dry. Attenuating, diluting, dissolving. Externally on large, cold, hard swellings; biurns; large wounds; malignant ulcers; dusted on soft ulcers. For hip and joint pain. Internally as diuretic, emmenagogue.

 

Nadkarni: Astringent, aromatic, antihelminthic, diuretic, emmeenagogue, purgative. For diarrhea, hemorrhoids, etc.

 

Eisenman:  commonly used. Decoction used as “astringent, anti-inflammatory, antiseptic, tonic, and hemostatic, and is used to treat kidney diseases, heart diseasese, diarrhea, and hemoptysis” and externally for wounds.[87] Still used for most of those uses in contemporary medicine in Central Asia. H. scabrum, similar uses; antimicrobial activity demonstrated in laboratory experiments.

(Traditional use in Europe as antidepressant recently confirmed by experiment and wide use, but less used now due to problematic interactions with commercial drugs.)

 

 

Hyphaene thebaica, Araceae. One of the possibilities for Muql/Muheili木黑里/Muheili木黑黎Listed in some sources as producing a gum used as or for muql, but in the HHYF muql is surely the gum of a Balsamodendron (Commiphora), q.v. Thus this tree may or may not be in in the HHYF.

 

 

Hyssopus officinalis L., Lamiaceae. Zūfā/Zufa祖法/Zufuda祖夫荅/Zufa祖伐

 

Dioscorides:  III-30, ‘hyssopos. Notes there are two sorts. Gunther identifies it (or one type) as Thymbra spicata, with figure of an Origanum sp. [Anderson believes at least one type is a Hyssopus sp.]  With green figs for stomach, purgative. Applied, with fig and nitre, for spleen, dropsy; with wine for inflammations. Decoction with figs for throat. Relieves toothache. Smoke for ears.

 

Levey: Zūfā. In oxymel for malaria, jaundice, etc.

 

Avicenna: Zūfā yābis. Hot and dry. Dissolvent. Usual minor uses for hot dry drugs; also, internal use toimprove complexion. Boined down with vinegar for toothaches. Vapors for ear. Poultice with borax and fig on spleen. Orally for swellings. With caraway and orris root for worms, phlegm, etc. Laxative.

 

Lev and Amar: zūfā yābis. Hot and dry (at least to Maimonides). Chest, lungs, coughs, stomach, asthma, jaundice, blood clots in eyes, diphtheria, toothache, earache, dropsy, bites, tears.

 

Graziani:  Zūfa. Ibn Jazlah used it for lungs, cough, hard swellings, spleen, and vermifuge. Rāzī used it, citing Dioscorides, for swellings, vermifuge, chest.  (Note difference from our received Dioscorides, summarized above.)

 

Kamal: Zofa, isof. Tops and leaves stimulant, carminative, tonic, expectorant, anti-catarrhal.

 

Nadkarni: Stimulant, stomachic, expectorant, diaphoretic, emmenagogue, carminative; used for hysteria, colic, coughs, asthma, sore throat, bronchitis, uterus, etc., and even for worms.

 

Eisenman: H. seravschanicus, infusion “expectorant, anti-inflammatory, astringent, tonic, antihelminthic, to heal wounds, and to treat bronchial asthma, gastrointestinal diseases, dyspepsia, rheumatism, anemia, stenocardia, neurosis, scrophua, meteorism and hyperhydrosis…applied to the mouth to treat stomatitis and bad breath, and externally to heal persistent wounds.”[88] In short, the Central Asian cureall. Biomedically demonstrated antibiotic action.

(Widespread European use for many conditions.   Biomedical value established for many of these. Has soothing effects.)

 

 

Inula helenium L., Asteraceae. Rasan (Persian). Rāshin/Laxin剌辛

 

Dioscorides: I-27, elenion. Elecampane. Root warming. Decocted for diuretic and emmenagogue. Root taken in honey for cough, ruptures and convulsions, swellings, venomous bites, stomach. Leaves boiled and applied for sciatica.

III-136, konyza, I. viscosa, I. saxatilis, I. Britannica (three types mentioned). Leaves for snakebite and the like. Emmenagogue and abortifacient (taken or applied).  For strangury, gripes, rashes, epilepsy, fits, etc. In herbal bath for womb problems including menstrual problems.

 

Levey: Rāsin. For stomach and rheums.

 

Avicenna: Rāsin. Hot and dry. Root used externally for pain, but causes headache. Internally in syrup withy honey, expectorant and purifying; relieves sore throat and cough. Thins blood.  Diuretic.

 

Lev and Amar: Diuretic; for coughs, bites, stings, menstruation, poisons; intestines,digestion, cleansing lungs, strengthening mind. Hot and moist.

 

Kamal: Rasan. Persian Qanas. Root stimulant for skin, bronchitis, amenorrhea.

 

Bellakhdar et al: I. viscosa, reconstituant.

 

Nadkarni: For bronchitis and rheumatism.

 

Eisenman: I. britannica. Infusion or decoction of roots for cystitis, diabetes, jaundice, catarrh, bone tuberculosis, rheumatism, hemorrhoids; vermifuge, hemostat, etc. Anti-inflammatory, astringent. I. grandis, tuberculosis, gastrointestinal conditions; vermifuge. Young stems, debarked, for restorative.  Anti-oxidant. I. helenium, same uses plus diuretic, emmenagogue, etc.  External use for eczema and scabies. Root tincture in vodka for gastritis, ulcers, nerves, heart disease, hypertension, etc. Biomedical uses for respiratory and gastrointestinal conditions; ulcers; expectorant, diuretic, etc. Effective vermifuge and skin parasite killer. Sesquiterpene lactones inhibit cancer lines.

(The anti-cancer effect of the sesquiterpene lactones of this and related species has been considerably investigated, but nothing significant has come of it so far.)

 

 

Ipomoea turpethum (L.) R.Br., Convolvulaceae. Turbid/Tulubidi突魯必的; Turbud/Daerbudi荅兒不的(Sanskrit); Yinchaihu銀柴胡; Qianniu牽牛is used for I. nil.

 

Levey: Turbad. Purgative, widely used and recommended in medieval Near East.

 

Avicenna: Turbud. Produces dryness; used for nerves and phlegm.

 

Graziani: Mentioned; no use given.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: Standard remedy in this work. Root a strong purgative. Arabic name, turbid, turbud or turbad, is from Sanskrit; a clear, early Indian influence.

 

Lev and Amar: Dry; purgative.

 

Ghazanfar: I. pes-caprae, seeds purgative.

 

Nadkarni: Roots cathartic and laxative; a “black” form is more drastic, to the point that it is no longer used.

(Odd that this common medicinal plant—an effective cathartic and laxative—is not found in more of the authorities. I. aquatica is used medicinally in China, but is so different a plant that it is not worth comparing here.)

 

 

Iris lactea Pall. Var. chinensis  (Fisch.) Koidz. Iridaceae. Native. The HHYF is not so precise in its nomenclature and mostly uses generics which include a number of spp. This includes Sūsan/Suoshan璅珊 which can refer to Iris l. but not exclusively so. Another general term is Irīsā /Yeersa也而撒 apparenty including Iris florentina. Also referred to is I. ensata including Malin馬藺 etc.). Zihua紫花, is also an Iris sp., which one is uncertain.

Dioscorides: I-1, iris, I. germanica and/or I. florentina. Dioscorides notes the name comes from the rainbow, because of the varied flower colors. Root warming, extenuating. For coughs, gross humors. Drunk in hydromel to purge away thick and choleric humors, cause sleep, provoke tears, heal stomach-ache. With vinegar for venomous bites, fits, etc. With wine, emmenagogue.  Infusion for sciatica, fistulas, sores. With honey for abortion, but application not clear. Applied to hard swellings, etc. Various uses for skin and external ailments.

I-66, irinon, iris oil. Complex recipe for an oil with many herbs.Mollifying and warming, etc.

 

Levey: Sūsan: lily, iris, etc. Lily oil for swelling in ears, hemorrhoids, etc.

 

Avicenna: Sūsan for iris; īrsā’ for orris root. Hot and dry. Drying cleansing. Usual uses of hot dry drugs for skin conditions, sweelings, wounds, ulcers. Treats nervous breakdown; oil removes fatigues. Internally with vinegar or wine for convulsions, etc. Enema for pain and sciaticsa.  Camomile oil, iris oil, for fatigue; dill oil for cold. Root boiled for mouthwash. Treats breathing problems. Laxative. Abortifacient. Treats most internal pains. Sitz baths and suppositories used for lower-body conditions; suppository expels yellow and black bile and phlegm. Treats fevers and insect bites. In short, this plant is a real cureall, to a degree rarely allowed by Avicenna.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: Apparently this is the īrsa or īrīsā he describes. “Sawsan” is partial equivalent. Orris is calorifacient, demulcent, lenitive, flatulent, deobstruent, detersive, purifier, etc. Juice resolves phlegm. Decoction for scirrhus, scrofula, pustules, ulcers, etc. Regenerates flesh. Sternutatory. Used in toothaches, ear problems, nostrils, wounds, gargling, hydrops, hemorrhoids, gripes, etc.  Emmenagogue and much more. Basically a cureall, used in all conditions.

 

Lev and Amar: I. florentina or I. mesopotamica. ’īrisā, sūsān, sawsan. Kidney stone, wounds ears, palpitation, purgative, menstruation, abortion, eyes, etc.  Cough, phlegm, sleeplessness, stomach pains, stings, bites, men’s and women’s problems, skin, wounds, earaches, mouth sores, hemorrhoids, eliminating wetness, etc. Another all-purpose herb.

 

Graziani: “Lily or Iris,” sūsan. Dioscorides for drawing out blood, inflammation of eyes, breast (note difference from English version!). Today in Egypt for detersive, liniment, emmenagogue.  Lily in Iran for labor pains and headache.

 

Kamal: I. florentina, sawsan, irisa, qos-quzah (“rainbow”). Rhizome purgative.

 

Bellakhdar: I. germanica, I. pseudoacorus, I. florentina, reconstituant, antirheumatic.

 

Dash: I germanica, bitter, pungent, for insanity, epilepsy, evil spirits (rakshas).

 

Li: I. pallasii, lishi蠡實, and I. tectorum, yuanwei鳶尾, various minor uses.

 

 

Juglans regia L., Juglandaceae. Walnut. Hutao胡桃.

 

Dioscorides: against poisons, dog bites, worms, internal infections, gangrene, etc.

 

Avicenna: jauz. Hot, pungent. Vinegar and honey drink treats being sick from walnuts (presumably from eating the fruit as opposed to the nut). Gum for hot ulcers. Oil for deep, feveish ulcers. Bark for throat inflammation, etc. Nuts difficult to digest, but all right if preserved or fresh-peeled. Not for hot stomach, however. Various external uses of different arts of the plant.

 

Lev and Amar: Cholera, body blemishes, hemorrhois, kidneys, cough, stomach, liver. Unripe fruit for eyes, draining urine, etc. Shell for limbs and gums, and usable in regulating menstruation. Nut on skin. Leaves for ears, kidneys, stomach, worms, lice, etc. Resin strengthens stomach.

 

Eisenman: Decoction of nuts to treat high blood pressure, heart, mouth; from fruit husk, for external use on ulcers, eczema, dermatitis; tea of leaves drunk for diabetes, vermifuge, skin diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, tuberculosis; decoction for scrofula and rickets. Root bark slightly laxative. Biomedical use in area for skin conditions including bacterial sores; antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory action; leaves effective. Omega-3 fatty acids in nuts beneficial for arteriosclerosis.

 

Sun: Walnut (hutao): sweet, cool, astringent, nonpoisonous. One cannot eat too much. Otherwise it will arouse phlegm, make people sick, or make them vomit liquid or food.

 

Li: Hutao (“Iranian peach”—yet walnuts are probably native to China as well as Iran; presumably the large edible and medicinal variety came from Iran, as the English name “Persian walnut” also tells us). Sweet, neutral or hot or cold (!), warm, nontoxic.  Fattening. Moistens muscle. Tonifies qi, nourishes blood, moistens dryness, dissolves phlegm. Reinforces gate of life (mingmen, “length-of-life gate”) and helps the three burners; Li adds a long monograph on these mysterious organs and their relationships. Relieves pain, hernia, dysentery, etc. Kills worms, treats poison; good on skin for leprosy, scabies, tinea, etc. Large number of formulas given. Separate discussions for green rind, and for bark of the tree.

(Common in Near Eastern medicine.  In China, used very widely today, including as a brain strengthener because the nut looks like a brain.  This bit of sympathetic magic is probably widespread. The extremely astringent, tannin-rich husk [fruit], bark and gum are used extensively in Avicenna’s healing, and are in fact very effective by any standards. The omega-3 fatty acids make this one of the most beneficial foods in this time of excessive consumption of omega-6 fats.)

 

 

Juniperus. See under Thuja orientalis. Cupressaceae. Very widely used medicinally around the world, actual juniper is not certainly mentioned in the HHYF; references appear to be to Thuja. Possibilities of juniper use should not be discounted. The well-known toxic, antibiotic, abortifacient, and astringent uses of many juniper species are well known in Central Asia (Eisenman covers four species) and China. A serious study of Cedrus, Juniperus, Tetraclinis, and Thuja in Near Eastern medicine is sorely needed to remove confusion of names, record actual uses (by genus and species), and compare with the well-known and quite dramatic biomedical values of these plants.

 

 

Lagenaria siceraria (Molina) Standl., Cucurbitaceae. Incl. var. clavata and var. depressa Ser.  Both native. Qar’u/Heiliyi黑里亦

 

Avicenna: ūbūṭīlān. Used on wounds, but Avicenna is very skeptical of its value.

 

Lev and Amar: widely used in various prescriptions, but probably mostly as a carrier. Fevers, liver, bile, earache, fever, headache, throat, cough. Diuretic.

 

Dash: Bitter; alleviates dosas.

 

Sun: Bottle gourd (tianhu甜瓠)[89]: sweet, balanced, smooth, and nonpoisonous. It mainly treats emaciation and thirst (xiaoke消渴), noxious ulcer, festering and aching in the flesh of the nose and mouth. It leaves are sweet and balanced. They primarily helps resisting hunger. Bian Que said, “If one has beriberi (lit. foot qi, jiaoqi 腳氣) or is weak and swelling (xuzhang虛脹), he should not eat it, or his illness will never end.”

Gourds (gua) [possibly bottle gourd, Lagenaria siceraria, but the quote implies he may be thinking of winter melon] are sweet, cold, smooth, and nonpoisonous. They hold back thirst. The Yellow Emperor said, “In the ninth month, don’t eat frosted gourds (winter melon, Benincasa hispida). It is towards the winter and will cause cold, hot, or warm illness (han re ji wenbing寒熱及溫病).” When one starts to eat it, it causes nausea. After one finishes with it, it remains in the heart as water and it cannot be digested. Otherwise it returns to the stomach (fanwei反胃). If one eats gourds that sink into the water, he will have cool illness (lengbing冷病) and will not be cured in life.

 

Li: Hulu葫蘆. Very important plant in Chinese culture, but medicinal uses few and minor, for various parts of the plant.

(Cooling in Chinese medicine; astringent; fairly effective diuretic; still a minor but well-known plant in Chinese folk medicine.)

 

 

Lagoecia cuminoides L., Apiaceae. Qardamānā/Jiermana吉兒馬那/jierdimana 吉而的馬拏. Qardamānā is also commonly understood as caraway and most often as cardamom. The Lagoecia identifications should be considered doubtful.

Mediterranean herb and occasion cumin substitute (Uphof). In our sources only as a surmise and the translation of the name in Lev and Amar.

 

 

Launaea angustifolia, (Desf.) Kuntze (syn. Sonchus, angustifolia, Zollikofera angustifolia).  Asteraceae. Maybe Kumai 苦蕒vegetable.

The only mention of this species in our sources is in Mandaville; he reports that in Arabia the herb is called marār from its bitterness, and has no use. Kong et al. identified the Arabic name saliyy as this species under the now long obsolete name Zollikofera. This is almost certainly a misidentification. Presumably they relied on some very early herbal that used that name. Some other Launaea species rate trivial mentions in Near Eastern herbals.

 

 

Laurus malabathrum, Lauraceae. Sādaj/Sada撒荅; Sādhaj hindī/Sadazhixindi撒荅只忻的  (“Indian malabathrum”; it is indeed from India but is not a malabathrum, though related)

 

Levey: For tears. (Levey thought it might be a spikenard.)

(A common enough Indian drug that even though rarely mentioned it is probably correctly identified here.)

 

 

Laurus nobilis, Lauraceae. Ghār /Aer阿兒; Òabbu’l-ghār/Habuliaer哈不里阿而 (berries).

 

Dioscorides: I:78, daphne. Scorpion sting, ears, liver, inflammations.

 

Avicenna: Bark hot and dry. Seed warming, relaxant. Oil useful for baldness, etc. Bark/seed extracts and oil for swellings, nerves, head, headaches, ears, chest, liver, spleen, abdominal pain.  Oil causes nausea but stimulates menstruation. With honey and vinegar for diarrhea. Bark can be abortifacient. Treats stings and scorpions.

 

Levey: In clyster for kidneys. Seed in formula for vermifuge and for air purifying.

 

Nadkarni: Astringent, stomachic, aromatic, stimulant, said to be narcotic (wrongly).  Emmenagogue and for leucorrhea, etc.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: Ghār. Minor uses.

 

Lev and Amar: ghār, rand. Stomach, hemorrhoids, palpitations, liver, spleen, kidneys, bites, poisons, worms, etc. Hot and dry.

(The stimulant yet soothing volatile oils are effective for symptomatic treatment of the less serious conditions above.)

 

 

Lavandula spp., notably L. stoechas L., Lamiaceae. Ustūkhūdūs/Yisituhudusi亦思禿忽都思/Wusutuhuduxi烏速突忽都西/Wusuhuerdirong烏速胡而的榮/Yisitaowudusi亦思討兀都思

 

Dioscorides: III-31, stoichas. Decoction for chest pains. Added to antidotes.

 

Avicenna: Usṭūkhūddūs, apparently from stoechas. Hot and dry. Bitter, dissolvent, opening, cleansing, somewhat constricting, strengthening, anti-decaying. Boiled down, relieves nerve pain, cold diseases of nerves, etc. Necessary for patients with cold diseases of nerves. Good for melancholia and epilepsy. Can induce vomiting, especially in those with excess bile.  Strengthens urinary organs; purges phlegm and black bile.

 

Graziani: Azhar al-Khazān. Modern uses in India and Egypt as carminative, resolvent, antispasmodic, stimulant.

 

Lev and Amar: isṭūkhūdūs. Eyes, including things like lice on eyelid (it would work, being strongly insecticidal). Malaria, wounds, hair, lengthening life, strengthening heart, asthma, infections, swellings, etc. Maimonides considered it hot and dry.

 

Bellakhdar et al: calefacient, nervous diseases, antitussive. L. x abrialis for urinary and gynecological problems, and colds; also cosmetic uses. L. multifida gastro-intestinal, antiseptic, colds. (ENA’s observations confirm that this useful genus is exceedingly popular in Morocco.)

 

Ghazanfar: L. dentata, L. officinals, L. pubescens, carminative, for headaches, colds; L. dhofarensis, stomach, kidneys, nerves.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: L. dentataKhuzama.  Gas, urinary problems.

 

Nadkarni: Unani/ Near Eastern uses as resolvent, deobstruent, carminative; for colic in chest.  One unani source calls it the “broom of the brain”—it expels brain crudities, strengthens the intellect, etc. Also stimulant, carminative, emmenagogue, etc.

(Various species of lavender are used throughout the world medicinally; they are powerfully antiseptic. The scent is so universally liked, and found soothing and cheering, as to make one wonder about evolved attraction, and many would agree that it sweeps away worries—purges black bile and treats melancholia, as Avicenna put it. Experiments confirm that simply smelling it soothes the brain. This has led to extensive farming of lavender, for the scent and sometimes for flavoring food, in France, Morocco, the United States, and elsewhere. Lavender oil is insecticidal, which explains the name, cognate with “laundry”; the plants are still widely used to keep insects from eating stored clothing.)

 

 

 

Lepidium latifolium L., Brassicaceae. Shī®araj/Shatalazhi沙他剌只/Shidalazhi失荅剌知; Shī®arj/ Shidalazhi失荅剌知/Satela撒忒剌/shayitala 沙亦他剌只; Shāh®iraz/Shaheifeiliezhi沙黑肥烈知.

 

Manniche: Seeds found archaeologically. (Medical use seems likely.)

 

Dioscorides: II-205. Plaster for sciatica; leaves, beaten with root of elecampane. Hung around neck for toothache.

II-185, kardamon, L. sativum. Seed warming, sharp, bad for stomach but used to kill worms and produce abortion. Emmenagogue and aphrodisiac. Recognized as similar to mustard and rocket seeds. Presumably applied, it cleanses skin problems. Drives away serpents, stops falling hair, applied to carbuncles, etc. Used for a range of conditions; seed; also foliage, less effective.

The Greek name was transferred to the spice (see Elettaria) early, but survives in altered form as the scientific name Cardamine for a large genus of cresses closely related to Lepidium.

 

Levey: Shīṭaraj, Vitiligo. ḤurfL. sativum. Skin, ulcers, etc.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: Jarjīr; cites “arzūmūn” as the “Roman” name. Two varieties, the main one clearly a Lepidium, the other different. Cites Dioscorides for the Lepidium as calling it aphrodisiac, carminative, diuretic, detersive. Note that some of these uses are indeed in the received version summarized above, others not. This is not the only case of medieval Near Eastern sources citing now-lost bits of Dioscorides.

 

Avicenna: Shāhṭaraj, L. latifolium. Interestingly, not shīṭaraj, which Avicenna uses for Fumaria.  Hot, dry, bitter. Rub with vinegar. Much more on: Ḥurf, thūm, L. sativum. Hot and dry.  Dissolvent. Used on swellings, boils, ulcers, mites, ringworm, chronic skin diseases, joint pains, etc. Taken for lungs and asthma. Heat for stomach and liver. With honey as poultice for spleen enlargement. “Stimulates sexual desire, expels worms, promotes menses and causes abortion.”[90] In short, a typical cureall.

 

Nasrallah: Seeds hot; abortifacient. Treat asthma, headaches. Expectorant, stimulant. Can repel insects. Leaves similar but moister and thus less hot and less effective.

 

Lev and Amar: Shītaraj. Skin conditions, gout, spleen.

 

Graziani: “cress,” qurdumanā, eaten in Persia and elsewhere.

 

Lev and Amar: L. latifolium, shīṭaraj. L. sativum, rashād, ḥurf. Skin; ulcers, weakness, teeth, gums, mumps, intestiness, emmenagogue. Wounds, bites, stings. Possibly for abortion. For pains, worms, hard stomach, spleen, etc.

 

Bellakhdar et al: L. sativum. Brocho-pulmonary infections; childbirth difficulties; tonicardiac; revulsive.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: L. sativum, rashad, hilf, etc. Seeds. Blood cleanser; coughs; seeds or leaves eaten to speed up healing of broken bones; childbirth, eaten especially after delivery, with other nutritive spices, for recovery. Many remedies here. Also diabetes, hair loss, indigestion, kindney stones, sore throat, stomachache.

 

Nadkarni: L. sativum, seeds aperient, diuretic, alterative, tonic, demulcent, aphrodisiac, carminative, galactagogue, emmenagogue.  (In short, about like every other spicy seed in Indian medicine.) Leaves somewhat stimulant, diuretic.

 

Eisenman: L. perfoliatum, minor uses, including ground seeds for nerves.

 

Li: Several spp. grouped as tingli 葶藶. Seeds used as purgative, etc.

(Seeds and foliage of this mustard-like plant are very high in glucosinolates, which are safe yet strongly stimulant and carminative. The term Shīṭaraj is used in Indian and possibly Persian medicine for Plumbago rosea, rose-colored leadwort,[91] which may have been taken—rather strangely—as a substitute for Lepidium. There is no way of knowing for certain if this is done in the HHYF. One assumes that the HHYF follows orthodox usage, however.)

 

 

Lepidium sativum L., Òurf/Huerfu忽而福. See above.

 

 

Levisticum officinale Koch., Apiaceae. Kāshin/Keshen可深; Kāshim/ Keshen可深; Kāshen/Kexini可昔尼. Lovage in English.

 

Dioscorides:  III:51, ligystikon. Digestion, edema, urine, stomach.

 

Levey: Coughs, earache.

 

Avicenna: Sīsāliyūs, kāshim. Hot and dry.Internally for gas, abdominal pain, epilepsy, asthma, chest mucus, digestion, worms, urinary and uterine pain.

 

Lev and Amar: kāshim barrī. Coughs, earache, bruises; intestines, dropsy; expels worms; induces menstruation.

(This well-known apiaceous plant is indeed effective for relieving mild stomach problems.)

 

 

Linum usitatissimum L.  Linaceae. Kattān/Ketang可唐/Ketan可檀.

 

Dioscorides: II-125, linon. Flax. Seed for inflammations, internal and external; with honey and oil. Raw, as cataplasm with figs and nitre, for sunburn and skin conditions. With lye on hard swellings. A large number of other minor external uses. Aphrodisiac, with honey and pepper.  Used in herbal bath for womb inflammations. Clyster/suppository for bowel conditions and constipation.

 

Avicenna: Hot. Neutral between moist and dry. Cleansing; produces gas. Paste for freckles.  Various preparations for swellings, joints, head, chest, etc. Rinse or sitz bath for uterus.

 

Graziani: Ibn Jazlah used it in ointment for keeping body from heat and keeping it soft and moist; evidently linseed oil is meant.

 

Lev and Amar: kattān. Seed or oil used; hot and dry. Seeds for chickenpox, skin, stomach, coughs.  Oil for embroactions, for various reasons.

 

Kamal: kittan. Ground seed demulcent; presscake for poultices.

 

Bellakhdar: zerri’at l’kettan. Laxative, emollient, antitussive.

 

Ghazanfar: Seeds for constipation, joint pain (externally applied), urinary disorders, venereal diseases.

 

Nadkarni: Demulcent, expectorant, diuretic; seeds hot and dry, aphrodisiac. Flowers for cordials.

 

Dash: Sweet, for strength and skin.

 

Li: Ya ma亞麻. Oil on leprous and other sores.

Flax has probably been known in China since the Han Dynasty,[92] but this is not certain, since early records call both it and sesame hu ma, “Iranian hemp.” It was not grown as a fibre crop in China till the 20th century.

(Flaxseed oil is a good oil for the skin, as well as high in omega-3 fatty acids.)

 

 

Liquidambar orientalis Mill., Altingiaceae. Resin. Imported. Rose maloes/Suhe蘇合; May’ah/Mia米阿 (once). Hu:547. The Chinese word is said to have been derived from the Malay.

 

Nadkarni: Storax; stimulant, expectorant, diuretic, antiseptic, disinfectant, astringent. Unani:  tonic, resolvent, astringent.

 

Li: Suhexiang 蘇合香. The resin. Imported (he thought, wrongly, from Southeast Asia; it probably came via that region, hence the Malay name used in East Asia). Sweet, warm, nontoxic. Powerful treatment for toxins, worms, noxious agents generally. He used the resin of the native L. taiwanensis, feixiangji, for various illnesses.

(Gum still widely used.)

 

 

Lupinus termis Forsk., Fabaceae. Tarmush/Daermusi荅兒木思; Turmus/Tuermixi突而迷西; Tarmus/荅兒木思; Jarjar/Zhierzhier知而直而.

 

Dioscorides: II-132, thermos emeros, Lupinus sp. Seed meal with honey or vinegar, or leaves, eaten or in tea with rue and pepper, for vermifuge and for nausea. Various external uses for gangrene, ulcers, sores, skin conditions in general. Pessary, with myrrh and honey [presumably to soften down its poisonous qualities], for menstruation and for abortion.

 

Levey: Turmus. Spots, abscesses.

 

Avicenna: ālūsan, tarmus. Hot and dry. Bitter. Externally for pimples, wounds, swellings, tubercular lymph glands, etc. Taken with vinegar and honey for many of these as well as used externally. Boiled-down (soup?) for gangrenous conditions. Poultice for sciatica. Flour on head ulcers. Internally with vinegar, honey, rue, and/or pepper for nausea etc. Various uses for worms, etc. Can even be abortifacient, orally or “as a device with common rue and pepper or with honey.”[93] Useful for rabid dog bites (whether externally or internally used is not stated).

 

Kamal: Lupinus albus, turmus, diuretic.

 

Bellakhdar et al: L. albus, termas, semqala beyda, hypoglycemiant; for liver disorders.

 

Nadkarni: L. albus, termas in Hindi as well as Arabic, antihelminthic, diuretic, tonic.

 

 

Lycium afrum L., Solanaceae. Òu†a†/Hazaze哈咱則. The Arabic name apparently covers both this sp. and Rhamnus infectorius, the latter being more obviously medicinal, and thus probably the one intended in the HHYF.

 

Dioscorides: lykion, Rhamnus infectorius. Medical qualities of this plant are so different from Lycium that summary seems worthless, especially since it is one of those curealls that he used for everything. He notes an “Indian Lycium[94] that may be a true Lycium. It was used, however, more like the Rhamnus, for inflammations of the spleen, diarrhea, emmenagogue, purgative.

 

Avicenna: ‘ūsaj, L. shawii. He mentions “the view of some that desert thorn counters the ill-effects of sorcery and the evil eye when it is hung over doors and windows” (p. 356). The skeptical phrase “of some” means Avicenna believes no such thing. More realistic use as poultice for fevers and inflammations.

 

Levey: Ḥuḍaḍ. Scrofula, lesions, preventing miscarriage. Also as ‘ausaj, for pustules.

 

Lev and Amar: khawlān, ‘awsaj. Various species and the Rhamnus used for eyes, as well as gums, coughs, spleen, diarrhoea, swellings, dog bites, etc.

 

Graziani: Lycium sp. Hudad, used by Ibn Jazlah for swelling, eyes, leprocy.

 

Bellakhdar et al: L. intricatum, ‘ud l-gerteg, for women’s sterility and for itch.

 

Ghazanfar: L. shawii, stems boiled for diuretic, laxative, tonic; berries for colic and for eyes.

 

Sun: L. chinense, Chinese wolfthorn leaf (gouqiye枸杞葉): bitter, balanced, astringent (se澀), and nonpoisonous. It restores the body from being weak and increases the essence and marrow (jingsui精髓). The proverb says, “If you leave home for one thousand li, don’t eat luomo蘿摩[95] or wolfthorn.” This is because they are very strong in the Dao of yang and then will assist the qi of yin and soon cause diseases.

 

Li:  L. chinense and occ. L. barbarum, gouqi 枸杞.  Fruit, leaf and root. Usually, the dried fruit is used, being a cureall. The roots of very old plants can take on the form of an animal; one estimated to be a thousand years old looked like a dog, and was therefore offered to the Emperor Huizong of Song as a medicinal prodigy. Li even quotes a bit of “doggerel” about this event.

(L. chinense (and probably L. barbarum) is actually more a medicinal food, or “nutraceutical,” than a drug; its biomedical value lies largely in the fact that its berries and leaves have almost the highest concentration of vitamins and minerals known in any natural product. It has thus been used for thousands of years, pragmatically and empirically, as biomedicine uses vitamin-mineral supplement pills. It is especially valued for convalescents and women recovering from childbirth. Handfuls of the dried berries go into the soups made for women “doing the month” of rest and high-nutrient eating after parturition.)

 

 

Mallotus philippensis Muell., Euphorbiaceae. Qanbīl/Hanbili罕必里

 

Levey: qanbīl. Red glands on fruit used for ulcers. Antihelminthic.

 

Nadkarni: Many names and uses; widespread, important. Cathartic, antihelminthic, aphrodisiac, purgative, etc. Powder (“kamala powder”) a standard vermifuge in India.

(This appears to be another Indian influence in the HHYF.)

 

 

Malus communis DC (Pyrus malus L.), Rosaceae. Linqin林檎; Tūrūshā/Tulusha突魯沙. (domestic apple)

 

Avicenna: Sweet and thus relatively neutral; unripe, cold (sour); ripe warmer. Tasteless and unripe apples have no medicinal value. Fruit a mild stomachic and heart strengthener; leaves more valuable—used (evidently in tea) with apple extract for skin conditions. Avicennia recognized the value of apples for diarrhea as stomach soother and binder—still standard medical use (see the BRAT diet—bananas, rice, apples and tea—for diarrhea).

 

Lev and Amar: Eyes, bites, etc. Cold and dry.

 

Sun: Crab apple (linqin林檎, rinkin, Malus asiatica): sour, bitter, balanced, astringent, nonpoisonous. It ends thirst. It makes people want to spit. It cannot be taken too much. Otherwise it will make the mai weak.

Apple (Malus pumila, naizi奈子): sour, bitter, cold, astringent, nonpoisonous. It makes people endure hunger and is good for heart and qi. It cannot be eaten too much. Otherwise it will cause flatus (luzhang臚脹). If one has been sick for a long time, his situation will become even worse after eating it.

 

Li: M. micromalus, haihong, haitangli海棠梨:  sour, sweet, balanced, nontoxic.  M. asiatica, linqin:  For fever. Sour, swet, warm, nontoxic.

 

 

Malva rotundifolia Desf. Malvaceae. Khubbāzī/Hubaza忽八咱; Kuihua葵花.

 

Dioscorides: III-164, alkea, Malva alcea, mallow. Drunk with wine or water for dystentery and ruptures.

 

Galen: Wild mallow (Malva sp.). Moist, moderately heating, viscid, glutinous, digestible. Thick juice. [The plant is very mucilaginous.]

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: Usual uses. Today for coughs, chest and purging.

 

Lev and Amar: M. sylvestris mentioned but nothing given for it.

 

Kamal: M. sylvestris, kubbaza, khubbayzah (the modern vernacular is khubez). Leaves soothing, emollient [as they are almost everywhere, and effectively, as Anderson knows from experience]; used for poultices. Used in enemas for acute enteritis.

 

Bellakhdar et al: M. sylvestris, baqula, kubbeyza: laxative emollient.

 

Ghazanfar: M. parviflora, seeds and leaves for demulcent and fevcer and ulcers; external.

 

Nadkarni: Leaves mucilagionus, emollient as poultice. Seeds same; also demulcent; power taken for coughs, uncerated bladder, hemorrhoids, similar conditions. Other spp. also used.

 

Sun: [See taxonomic note for Li.]  Mallow (dongkuizi冬葵子): sweet, cold, nonpoisonous. It mainly cures coldness, hotness, or weakness in the five internal organs and six hollow organs (wuzangliufu五臟六腑). It breaks the five kinds of urinary problems (wulin五淋). It is helpful for discharging urine. It also cures the difficulty of producing milk by women. It cures blood stoppage (blocking; xuebi血閉). If one takes it for a long time, it will strengthen the bones and make the muscles grow, lighten the body, and lengthen life. In the twelfth month, gather the leaves, which are sweet, cold, smooth, and nonpoisonous. It is good for spleen. If one takes it for a long time, it is good for the stomach qi. Its heart [usually this would mean central shoot and bud, but they are harmless and a common Chinese food, so woody lower stem is probably meant here] harms people. With every kind of medication, eating the heart is contraindicated. The heart is poisonous. The Yellow Emperor said, “If one takes frosted mallow that has previously been preserved without cooking it, it will cause five kinds of liquid illnesses (liuyin流飲)[96]. When the liquid accumulates too much, it will make him vomit. ” [I.e., it ferments too much.] When mallow and carp (liyu鯉魚) or fish in general (zha鮓) are taken together, this harms people. In all four seasons, when the earth is prosperous (tuwang土王), avoid raw mallow. It will cause indigestion and arouse chronic diseases. [Probably this means that if the mallow flourishes too much because of good growing conditions, it should be avoided; indeed, mallow, though highly nutritious, can become hard to digest and over-rich in nitrates if overgrown.  Mallow is another plant notable for high levels of vitamins.]

 

Li: M. parviflora, tukui菟葵. Same species complex as M. rotundifolia (the small mallows are all closely related and taxonomically almost impossible to separate or sort out). Trivial, mostly magical uses. However, a common food.

(The small mallows represent a species complex, with M. rotundifolia, M. parviflora, and M. sylvestris, among others, poorly distinguished. These, like the Chinese lycium, are exceedingly high in vitamins and minerals, and thus have the same use in nutrition—de facto vitamin-mineral supplements. They fill this role in Arab culture especially, but were a major vegetable and nutrition aid in China too, especially in early times. They were a standard vegetable in ancient China, a low-status food in medieval China, and a famine food more recently—thus do less choice vegetables sink down the status hierarchy. Incidentally, kui now includes sunflowers and is often so translated, but sunflowers were introduced from North America in the last couple of centuries.)

 

 

Mandragora officinarum L. Solanaceae. luffāḤ/Heifahei黑法黑/Lifa里法; Shabīzaj/ Chebanizhi徹怕你知.

 

Manniche: Probably shown in art, and, if so, surely used for tranquilizing etc.

 

Dioscorides: IV-76, mandragoras, Atropa mandragora, mandrake. Male and female varieties noted. These are obviously different species, but the dscriptions make it hard to pick these out.  For sleep and pain relief. Expels black choler and phlegm, but is deadly in overdoes. Used in eyes and other topical applications. Pessary emmenagogue and abortifacient. Used for snakebite.  Large number of other related uses. Use in love magic noted.

V-81, oinos mandragorites, mandrake wine. Root bark brewed with wine must.  Causes sleep and relieves pain.

 

Avicenna: luffāḥ, yabrūj. Cold and moist. Anesthetizing. Used for swellings, abscesses, tubercular lymph glands. Power with vinegar for deep-red inflammation with fever and pustules.  Poiultice on arthritis and eoephantiasis. In wine for sleep; anal suppositories are also soporific.  Excessive use or even smelling cuases a stroke. Causes vomiting of bile and phlegm.  Emmenagogue and abortifacient. Poisonous. Sirāj al-quṭrub, M. autumnalis: Hot and dry, though not very. Opening, but constricts vessels, so helps stop bleeding; “best drug for healing wounds.”[97] Poultices used. Internally for vomiting blood. Enema for intestinal ulcers. Antidote for scorpion stings. “Said” (i.e. Avicenna is skeptical here) to tranquilize scorpions in the wild.

 

Levey: Sāsak. In a remedy for insanity and epilepsy. Luffāh. In collyrium and in insanity remedy. Narcotic, at least in other medieval sources.

 

al-Bīrūnī: Usual material and folkore, as above.

 

Lev and Amar:  Leprosy, skin diseases, eyes, snakebite, headache, swellings, mumps, wounds, pains, stings, insanity, epilepsy, sleeping.  Toxicity recognized.  Anesthetic.  Maimonides notes use for tightening vagina to simulate virginity, and holds it cold and dry.

 

Kamal:  yabruh, mandraghorah, sirag al qutr, sabizak-Ibn al-Baytar, etc.  Narcotic, sedative, anaesthetic.

 

Bellakhdar et al: M. autumnalis, bayd l-gul, narcotic.

 

Nadkarni:  Sedative and anaesthetic; dangerously toxic.

(Powerful, dangerous alkaloids probably as important as the alleged manlike shape of the root in making this a valued but feared drug in early times.)

 

 

Marrubium vulgare L., Lamiaceae. farāsiyūn/Falaxirong法剌西榮.

 

Avicenna: Farāsiyūn. Hot and dry. Cleansing, dissolvent, etc. For earache, eyesight, chest and lungs, laxative, emmenagogue.

 

Lev and Amar: Farāsiyūn. Earache, hearing, eyesight, lungs, womb, chest, liver, spleen, rabid dog bites; emmenagogue. All this from Ibn Sīnā.

 

Bellakhdar et al: Marrubium vulgare, merryut, notably important:  diuretic, hypoglycemiant, hair-care, antihelminthic, anti-tinea, antipyretic, anti-jaundice, antidiarrheal, emmenagogue, and cosmetic.

 

Ghazanfar: Expectorant.

 

Nadkarni: Stimulant, expectorant, resolvent, antihelminthic, alterative; for respiratory and digestive conditios, jaundice, tuberculosis, rheumatism, amenorrhea, etc.

 

Eisenman: M. anisodon, decoction for chronic catarrh, thrat, toothaches. Biomedical use as sedative and heart aid.

(Bitter, astringent; standard cough remedy well within my own memory and experience, only replaced by better biomedical remedies in the last very few decades.)

 

 

Matricaria chamomilla L.; Anthemis nobilis L. Asteraceae. Uquwān/Wuguhuwan烏古虎頑. Chamomile.

 

Dioscorides: III,137, various chamomiles for febrifuge etc.

 

Galen: Laxative, resolvent.

 

Levey: Fuqqāh. Al-ard. For fever, eyes, muscles.Carminative, stimulant, etc.

Related Anthemis nobilis, bābūnaj, used similarly and for spleen, liver, stomach.

 

Lev and Amar: M. aurea, bābūnaj. On skin; poultices, lotions, etc. for usual reasons. Also eyes. Hemorrhoids, settling liver and stomach, strengthening limbs. For urinary stones, menstruation, urination, sweating.

 

Nadkarni: Babuna and cognates. Antiseptic, antiphlogistic. Antispasmodic.

 

 

Melilotus officinalis (L.) Lam., Fabaceae. Iklīl al-malik/Yiqililumuluku亦乞里魯木魯枯/ Iklīl/Yiqilili以其黎黎.

 

Dioscorides: III-48, melilotos, but apparently referring to clover, Trifolium.

 

Levey: iklīl al-malik. Liver, stomach, fever, etc.

 

Avicenna: M. arvensis, iklil al-malik. Somewhat hot and dry. Constricting, dissolvent. Tonic for organs. Externally on inflammations, ulcers, skin, ears, inflamed eyes, sore anus or testicles.  Internally, diuretic, emmenagogue, abortifacient. (This indicates how desperate people were for abortifacients; the amount needed for coumarin—the toxic principle in question—to accomplish this would be cattle-feed quantities.)

 

Nasrallah: hot; diuretic.

 

Lev and Amar: M. albus, iklīl al-malik. Eyes, skin, wombs, bits, poisons, stones, fever, liver, etc.

 

Kamal: Iklil al-malek, handuq, nafl, ghosn al-ban. Used in eyedrops. Seeds stop diarrhea in children.

 

Bellakhdar et al: M. indica, azrud, hair care.

 

Ghazanfar: Otrah. Astringent, narcotic; poultice for pain.

 

Eisenman: Infusion for catarrh, migraines, hypertension, bladder and kidney pain, menopause. Externally in compresses, plasters, wash, for various wounds and infections. Biomedically, coumarins in this plant suppress nervous system action and—as is well known—inhibit blood clotting.

 

Li: Many close relatives used for various purposes.

(Coumarin, which interferes with blood clotting, makes this a dangerous remedy.)

 

 

Melissa officinalis L., Lamiaceae. Badranj-būya/Badilanzhiboya八的闌只博牙/ Badarūj/Badulu八都魯 (Persian).

 

Dioscorides: III-118, melissophyllon, lemon balm. Leaves with wine, or applied, for scorpion stings, dog bites, etc. Herbal bath, emmenagogue. Put on teeth for pain. Clyster for dysentery.  Leaves drunk with nitre for mushroom poisoning and gripes. Uses for ulcer, gout, etc.

 

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: Minor uses; today in Persia as carminative and tonic.

 

Lev and Amar: bādharnabūyah (the source of the HHYF name), bādīrnabīh. Plant reelieves snakebite, abscesses, cough, respiratory problems, and lung diseases. Seeds a component of a drink that cleans the heart. Cures black bile, stings, etc. Many minor uses including sexual energy, eliminating phlegm, aiding digestion, etc.

 

Kamal: Torongan, ibn al-baytar, hashishet al-nahl, habaq torongani. Stomachic, cardiac, carminative, anti-epileptic. Infusions for fainting and indigestion. (Most of these uses are still in folk practice in the European world, including sniffing to treat depression.)

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: For stomach; also tiredness and run-down condition. Reported in medical literature as antiviral and improving mood.

 

Nadkarni: Minor; for swellings, bowel complaints.

 

Eisenman: For migraines, insomnia, women’s conditions, goiut, dizziness, anemia; for cardiovascular disease, and as analgsic, sedative, hypotensive, diuretic, digestive, toxicosis.  Biomedically, most of these uses are confirmed, albeit not very dramatically. One Central Asian study found use in Alzheimer’s disease [though this should not be taken very seriously]. Essential oil anti-oxidant.

(The limoniol and other volatile oils have a strongly soothing and stomachic function. Even the scent is relaxing and relieves worries and sadness.The many volatile oils in this plant have well-demonstrated relaxing effect when smelled, whether this is a “psychological” or a “biological” effect.)

 

 

Mentha aquatica L., Lamiaceae. Faudanaj/Fudanazhi夫荅納知/Fudanazhi夫荅那知.

 

Dioscorides: III-42, ‘edyosmos agrios. Properties similar to following; less good.

III-41, ‘edyosmos emeros, M. sativa (?). Warming, binding, drying. Juice of leaves stops bleeding, kills roundworms, provokes lust. Sprigs in pomegranate juice stop hiccups, vomiting, choler. Applied in plaster for skin conditions, headaches, etc. With salt on dog bites. Juice for ear pain. Applied as birth control agent (?). Good for stomach.

 

Levey: Ḥabaq nahriyy, mint. Fevers, jaundice, pains. For smell. Now stomachic, etc. Faudanaj, fautanaj, faudhanaj, M. aquatica and other mints, for poultices for spleen, liver, stomach, binding sinews, oxymel for humors.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: many comments on mints, under the usual names, esp. na’na’, but no serious medicinal comments.

 

Avicenna: Na ‘na ‘, pūnah. Hot and dry. Pungent and bitter. External uses: boiled down with wine for removing black spots; poultice with flour for abscesses, headaches. Heals fractures and ruptures. Bath for itches. Internally for leprosy, worms. Digestion, coughing up blood, jaundice, purging phlegm; for appetite, etc.  Aphrodisiac. “The pre-coital use of mint as a suppository prevents pregnancy;”[98] see following entries. Emmenagogue. May kill sperm and prevent nocturnal emissions. Removes black bile. Tonic.

 

Nasrallah: Hot, dry, sharp, stimulates appetite and digestion, relieves bloating and headaches, etc. Good for heart and for sexual performance. Contraceptive (women using as suppository).

 

Lev and Amar: M. sativa, nammām, na‘nā. Convulsions, tetany, fever, colic, spleen, liver, stomach, sinews, bites and stings, cleanses menstrual blood, strengthens lungs, soothes hiccup, and even claimed to prevent preganncy and contribute to sexual ability. Hot and dry.

 

Kamal: M. aquatica, n‘nai’ al-mazare’; M. piperita (a hybrid possibly not yet existing in Dioscorides’ time), ma‘na’, na‘na’, saisambar. Aromatic, carminative, stomachic, anti-convulsive, emmenagogue, rubefacient; for colic, flatulence, headache, rheumatism etc. Mints smelt for nausea.

 

Ghazanfar: M. longifolia, na‘ana, for coughs, breathing, stomach, chills and fevers.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: mint species in general, for abdominal pain, stomach, throat, colds, colic, headache, insomnia, menstrual pain. With other spice foods for mother after delivery, to restore strenghth.

 

Nadkarni: M. arvensis, and mints in general (including M. aquatica as well as M. sylvestris and others), aromatic, carminative, stimulant, antispasmodic, stomachic, emmenagogue. M. x piperita antiseptic, also, and used for external as well as internal preparations.

 

Eisenman: M. asiatica, anti-inflammatory, hemostatic; for wounds, gastritis, dysentery, diarrhea, colitis, tuberculosis, respiratory tract, coughs, toothache, gall bladder.

 

Sun: Mint leaves (Mentha spp., fanheye蕃荷葉): bitter, spicy, warm, nonpoisonous. Can be frequently taken. These make the qi of the kidneys recede. They make one’s breath pleasant and clean. It is especially good for dispelling noxious poison (xiedu邪毒) and it eliminates tiredness (laobi勞弊). If one is thin and tired, he should not take it frequently, or it will arouse the illness of losing weight and feeling thirsty.

(Mints are still used worldwide for stomach, skin, throat, coughs, colds, and many other minor purposes. Very effective for stomach, throat, etc., and by wide agreement—if not medical proof—as a mood-improver, even when merely smelled. They are grown in a very large percentage of the world’s gardens, and in the aggregate are probably the most widely grown medicinal herbs in the world. They are a major commercial crop in the United States and elsewhere, for medical and flavoring uses.)

 

 

 

 

Mentha pulegium L., Lamiaceae, etc. (Mentha silvestris, M. Arvensis and other M. spp.). Pudina/Pidina普的納; Fautanaj/Fudanazhi夫荅納知 , etc. (Persian); Bohe 荷葉.

 

Dioscorides: III-43, kalaminthe, M. sylvestris, calamint. Three types; one clearly M. pulegium; another, described as having longer leaves and being less effectual, is surely M. sylvestris.  Warming, sharp. Helps snakebites (and even drives away snakes), urine, ruptures, convulsions, gripes, and the rest of the standard Dioscorides catalogue. Emmenagogue, abortifacient, and kills worms (virtually guaranteeing that M. pulegium is the primary reference here). Juice dropped in ears to kill worms there.

 

Kamal: filayah, fulayah; fawtang, fawthang. Stimulant, carminative, emmenagogue.

 

Bellakhdar et al: Fliyyo. Against chills; cure for broncho-pulmonary infections. M. rotundifolia (timijja, marsita, timersit) anti-hemorrhoidal and against chill. M. viridis, na’na’, liqqama refreshing and against headache. (It is not clear what species are really involved. Spearmint, na’na’, a hybrid or variety of the above and/or M. aquatica, is famously the signature herb of Morocco, used not only in food and medicine but as the universal tea, drunk sweetened on all occasions.) Calamintha officinalis, menta (loanword), for pulmonary infections, refreshing. (Many of these uses are widespread in the Mediterranean and the whole complex is worth reporting here.)

 

 

Menyanthes trifoliata L., Menyanthaceae. Kishnīj/Keshinizhi可失尼只

 

Kamal: Itraifel. Emmenagogue, tonic, antipyretic, diuretic, anti-caries. Leaves used.

 

Li: Shuichai水蠆. Sweet, slightly bitter, cold, nontoxic. Helps sleep, but also may keep awake; Li knew it poorly and was not sure of its values.

 

 

Mesua ferrea L., Clusiaceae. Nāramushk/Naermoshiqi納而謨失其/Naermushiqi納而木石其 /Naermushiqi那兒木失乞; Mazz/Mazu馬祖 (Persian);

 

Avicenna: nārmushk. Hot and dry. Diluting, dissolving. Used for cold stomach and liver.  Similar to nard. (Another Persian-Indian drug notably lacking in more western sources but picked up by Avicenna.)

 

Madanapala: Nāgakeśara. Hot; For bad smells, serious skin diseases, erysipelas, poisons.

 

Nadkarni: Flowers astringent, stomachic, stimulant,  carminative; unani use for heart, expelling winds, antispasmodic, diuretic.

 

 

Meum athamanticum Jacq., Apiaceae. Spignel. Mū/木瓦/Mo

 

(This common medicinal herb, used like other medicinal Apiaceae as stomachic, carminative, etc., is strangely absent from the classic herbals, though mentioned in the HHYF.)

 

 

Moringa oleifera Gaertn., Moringaceae. Bān/Bang邦/Bani (Ar. gen.)八尼.

 

Manniche: M. pterygosperma and/or M. aptera Gaertn. oil for stomach ache; enema for anus; mixed with other things to apply to sore gums; refreshing ointment; used in poultices, eardrops, mosquito repellent, etc.

 

Levey: M. pterygosperma Gaertn. For hair oil, teeth and gums, nosebleeds, ointment.

 

Kamal: Hab al ban, gos al-ban, al-habbah al-ghaliah (“costly seed”), yasar. Ban or ben oil produced from seed. Used in perfumes and cosmetics, as well as for lighting.

 

Lev and Amar: M. peregrina, bān. Oil strengthens teeth and gums, acts against nosebleed and aging, strengthens senses and sexuality. “Treats leprosy skin diseases, toothache, boils, spleen and liver troubles, rheumantism; it is an emetic and a purgative.”[99]

 

Ghazanfar: M. peregrina, source of ben oil.  Oil for headache, fever, abdominal pain, constipation, burns, back and muscle pains, and for childbirth.

 

Nadkarni: Notably important in India. All parts used.  Antispasmodic, stimulant, expectorant, diuretic. Fresh root acrid and vesicant; internalliy stimulant, diuretic. Gum bland. Seeds acrid and stimulant. Bark emmenagogue, abortifacient. Flowers stimulant, tonic, diuretic. Unani conisder the flowers hot and dry. Plant is cardiac and circulatory tonic and antiseptic.

(M. oleifera is famous throughout Africa, the Middle East, and South and Southeast Asia as a medicinal and nutritional aid, but does not seem to have reached China by Li’s time. It is there now. It is widely planted, and recommended by aid agencies, as a food and medicinal crop.)

 

 

Morus sp., Moraceae. Mulberry. Shen椹

 

Mentioned as a food in two places. In China it would be M. alba L., but the Near Eastern one is usually M. nigra L. Both, especially the latter, are common foods, but of little medical note.

 

Avicenna: M. alba, M. nigra. Tūth. Sweet, hot, moist (white sp.). Minor external uses; soothing.  Sour ones not good for stomach. Salted and dried ones very constipating, so used for dysentery.  Bark purifying and purgative.

 

Eisenman: M. alba, leaves for angina; fresh leaf juice for toothaches; fruits and juice for “oral and throat bumps, dysentery, anemia, … diuretic, hemostatic.”[100] rashes, scarlet fever.  Biomedically, some very tenative results for blood pressure, leukemia cells, blood sugar. Leaves contain tannins, coumarins, and other bioactive chemicals.

 

Li: M. alba.  Sang . Sweet, cold, nontoxic. Various differences of opinon ecorded on this.  Tonifying, treats strains and extremes, nourishes. Helps lung and intestines. Disperses stagnation of blood. Many medical prescriptions, for root, bark, etc. as well as fruit.

 

 

Myristica fragrans Houtt., Myristicaceae. Roudoukou肉荳蔻. Unlikely: Òabb l-bāni/Habulibani哈卜黎八尼. Hu: 973.

 

Dioscorides: I-110, maker, mace. Called a bark. Drunk (as tea) for spitting blood and dysentery.

 

Levey: Bisbāsah. Mace. Strengthens breathing. Jauz bawwā, nutmeg, for teeth, breathing.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: Jauz buwwā. Antipyretic, antiphlogistic.

 

Avicenna: Jauz būwwā’. Mace is bizrkitān. Hot and dry. Mace is constricting of tissues and improves body odor. Nutmeg used to scent breath. Mace used in ointment for swellings; nutmeg for eyes. Mace strengthens stomach and liver, nutmeg strengthens liver, spleen, stomach.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: Bisbās, mace, appears in compounds. Strengthens spirits. Today tonic, stomachic, liniment, internal and external aromatic.

 

Lev and Amar: jawzbuwā, basbāsa,  jawz al-ṭīb. Breathing, colic, coughs, colds, sexual desire, etc. Hot and dry.

 

Bellakhdar et al: guzt sh-sherq, s-sibisa, besbasa. Aphrodisiac, stimulant, calefacient, anti-hemorrhoidal, vaginal infections.

 

Madanapapa: Jātīphala. Hot. Digestive, carminative. For vomiting, parasites, rhinitis, cough. Mace used similarly.

 

Nadkarni: Stimulant, carminative; nutmeg narcotic in large doses. Oil rubefacient, stimulant, aperient. Mace is carminative and aphrodisiac. Wood astringent. Unani use as stomachic, aphrodisiac, and for many conditions from diarrhea to fevers.

 

Dash: Pungent, hot, aromatic. Cures poisoning. For diarrhea and urinary troubles.

 

Li: Roudoukou. Pungent, warm, nontoxic. Nut used, as elsewhere. Warming, digestive, antidiarrheal. Most of the various virtues seem to reduce to this.

(The warming, stimulant, carminative, and stomachic qualities of nutmeg and mace are widely known; the narcotic use perhaps too widely known! Nauseating in large doses.)

 

 

Myrtus communis L., Myrtaceae. Mūrd/Muerdi木兒的/Moerdi摩而的 (Persian from Greek).

 

Manniche: Various dubiously identified conditions. Mixed with other ingreidents. Usually external, as for penis, chest, stomach, swellings, limb stiffness, indeed almost any body pains; also hair ointment (it would alleviate several scalp conditions). Internally for cough.

 

Dioscorides:  I-155, myrsine, myrtle. Berries given to those who spit blood etc., juice for same and for stomach and other conditions including scorpion stings. Fruit used to make hair dye.  Herbal bath for womb fluxes (leucorrhea?), and for various skin conditions. A large and repetitive catalogue of external uses, for every imaginable condition.

 

Galen: Fruit astringent, constipating, cold.

 

Avicenna: ās. Cold, dry, though “box myrtle” is hot. Stops diarrhea, prspiration, bleeding, etc.  Boiled-down tea poured over broken bones helps them set. Syrup good for diarrhea and pain.  Good with olive oil on inflammations, wounds, ulcers, etdc. Fruit used for joints. Stops nosebleeds (fruit? Juice?). Helps eyes, chest, etc. Paste of fruit strengthens stomach. Fruit diuretic and helps with inflammations of urethra. Many other uses—something of a cure-all.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: Long history of uses, going back to Talmud as well as Dioscorides and down to many modern uses. In India astringent, for epilepsy, stomach and liver diseases, etc.

 

Lev and Amar: ‘ās, marsīm. Usual uses for eyes, stomach, hemorrhoids, etc., but also for dyeing hair black and other cosmetic uses. Also, oil on spider bites and on glans penis, etc. Reported even for hearing and kidney stones. Cold and dry.

 

Kamal: Juz al-tib. Mace is bisbasah. Carminative; good for rheumatism.

 

Bellakhdar et al: r-rihan. Hair-care, antidiarrheal. For gastro-intenstinal disorders.

 

Ghazanfar: Yās. Introduced and cultivated in Arabia. Leaves for colic, couighs, fevers, headache, nosebleeds. Various topical uses on blisters, stings, ulcers. Insecticide.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: Stimulant, antispasmodic, diaphoretic, etc.

 

Nadkarni: Stimulant, astringent.  Leaves antiseptic and rubefacient.

 

Li: Wide range of Myrtaceae used in China, for all purposes, but not this sp.

(The species is effective as antiseptic; slightly toxic.)

 

 

Narcissus tazetta, Amaryllidaceae. Chinese sacred lily. Narjis/Naergexi納而各西. Shuixianhua水仙花.

 

Avicenna: Narjis (Persia nargis). Cleansing, drying. Powdered root for swellings, whole root with vinegar for skin spots. Used on wounds, nerves, joints, head, chest.  Root causes vomiting but treats pain in uterus and bladder.

 

Li:  Combats pathogenic wind. Root bitter, slightly pungent, slippery, cold and nontoxic. Many minor medical uses, from “removing a fish bone stuck in the throat” (vol. II, p.1437) to fragrant otions, dispelling heat and fever, etc.

 

 

Nardostachys jatamansi DC, Caprifoliaceae (Valerianaceae). Imported. Gansong甘宋 (focally Chinese Spikenard, N. chinensis); “Foreign” Chinese Spikenard Fangansong番甘松 (focally N. jatamansi); Sunbuli/Sunbuli筍卜黎.

 

Dioscorides: I-6, nardos, nard. Warming, drying. Stop various fluxes and nausea, flatulation, liver and kidney problems, etc. Applied for inflammation of vulva. Good for eyelids. Mixed in antidotes.

I-75, nardinon myron, nard ointment. A complex mix for unspecified uses, presumably those above.

 

Graziani: Sunbul. Used by Ibn Jazlah for swellings, sweat, brain strengthening relieving chest pain and palpitations, and for stomach. Today in India and Egypt for convulsions, hysteria, epilepsy; Iran and Iraq for nervous disorders.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: For stomach.

 

Lev and Amar: sunbul, nardin, nard. Hot and dry; opens obstructions in urinary tract, heats kidneys, arouses sexual desire, protects against miscarriage, regulates heartbeat, cleanses womb.  Also for headache, eyes, poisons, bites, stings, bladder, etc. Strengthens heart and stomach.

 

Kamal: nardin, sunbul-rumi, sunbul, sunbulat al-tayib, ith-khir, nardision. Root/rhizome stimulant, good for brain. Liver, spleen, kidneys. Nerve tonic, antiepileptic, digestive, sedative.

 

Madanapala: Māmsī. Cold. Good for alleviating excess of dosas; for blood, burning syndrome, erysipelas, skin.

 

Nadkarni: Root bitter, aromatic, antispasmodic, diuretic, emmenagogue, sedative, tonic, carminative, deobstruent. Unani uses: tonic for heart, liver and brain; removes obstructions; diuretic, emmenagogue, etc.

 

Dash: Bitter, cold, pungent, fragrant, cures poison and burning.

 

Li: Gansongxiang甘松香 (includes N. chinensis). Sweet, warm to balanced, nontoxic. Rhizome used. Various uses.

 

 

Nigella sativa L.  Ranunculaceae.  Seeds.  Shūnīz/Shaonizi少尼子; Xiangheizi香黑子, “Aromatic Black Seeds.”

 

Avicenna: Shūnīz. Hot and dry. Pungent, cleansing, gas relieving, purifying. Externally with rue for swellings of liver and other problems. Mouthwash; can add pine bark. Taken for breathing, asthma; liver; stomach relief; worms. Also for paralysis of face, so relevant to stroke treatment.

 

Levey: Shunīz. In salve for itching, and for insanity.

 

Lev and Amar: Shūnīz, qizḥ. Colds, worms, leprosy and othger skin problems, nose infections. Increases semen and sexual energy. Against poisons and stings, bites, etc. Hot and dry.  Insecticidal and good on skin. Treats paralysis and facial spasms.

 

Ghazanfar: Seeds for conjunctivitis (drops with rose oil); seeds eaten for stomach and breathing; with ginger and other plants on paralyzed limbs.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: Acne, topically with honey. Taken for asthma, childbirth (with milk etc.); sniffed for colds; oil with tea of anise, cumin, sugar and peppermint for colic (which would be very effective!). Coughs, diabetes, heart, kidney stones, nausea, rheumatism, stomachache, toothache. A Saudi Arabian cureall. Noted that modern medicine holds it effective as bronchodilator, antioxidant, etc.

 

Madanapala: Various names; none seems standard. Flatulence, vomiting, etc.

 

Nadkarni: Seeds armoatic, diuretic, diaphroetic, antibilious, stomachic, stimulant, carminative, digestive, antihelminthic, emmenagogue (in short, like all other medicinal seeds, Indian medicine uses this quite promiscuously).

 

Eisenman: Toothaches, gsatric and intestinal diseases, pains; diuretic, soporific, vermifuge.  Biomedically, some minor antibiotic effects; helps heart fiunction by increasing cardiac output, but other studies show it reduces heart rate. Wide range of bioactive compounds.

(Many plants in this family are extremly toxic to humans but have strong antibiotic and possibly other activity. The many chemicals in this species should be investigated.)

 

 

Ocimum basilicum L. Lamiaceae. Falanjamashk/Falanzhumoshiqi法闌朮謨失其; Siparham/Subueryan速補兒奄; Afaranj mushk/ Falanzhumoshiqi法闌朮謨失其;  Shāhsifaram/Shasufulin沙速福林; Baranjmushk/Polangjimushiqi抇朗吉木失乞. Hu: 1061

 

Dioscorides: III-50, akinos, O. pilosum (possibly a mistake for O. basilicum), basil. For stomach ache. Stops menstrual flow. Applied on skin.

I-59, okiminon, basil macerated in olive oil. Applied. Used like marjoram oil.

 

Avicenna:  Hot and dry. Cleansing, purging, relieves gas, thins blood, constricts tissues. Can be either laxative or constipating, because though it generally constipates it can purge. Wild basil expels yellow and black humors. Seeds stop black bile. Used, mostly the wild form, for a very wide range of items: uclers, gout, etc., and facial paralysis. Used for pains, eyes, heart, chest, sticky matter in stomach, piles, etc.

 

Levey: This sp. and probably others. Rheumatism, eyes.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: Bādrūj. Astringent, cathartic, resolvent, maturative, flatulent. Decays fast. Promotes bad humors (leading to dim eyes, etc.). Seeds used for mental derangement. External applications for inflammations, nosebleed, etc. On teeth for pain. Thyme can substitute, for at least some uses. Shāh safaram, apparently Persian name for same plant, for heat, headache, irritation; soporific; seeds against diarrhea.

 

Nasrallah: scent cheering (a belief still current and widespread).

 

Lev and Amar: rheumatism, eyes, etc. Maimonides: appetite, sexual aid, cleans breth, relieves depression. Many other uses from other authorities, including bleeding, stings, digestion, etc. Modern uses for skin, wounds, itch, scent, heart medicine, diuretic, etc. Brain, nose, hemorrhoids.

 

Kamal: Rayhan, huk, habaq. Stimulant, antispasmodic.

 

Bellakhdar et al: l-hbeq. Against mosquitoes. Used for sinusitis, tachycardia, hemorrhoids.

 

Ghazanfar: Reḥān. Cataracts, colds, abdominal pain, diarrhea. Keeps hair from turning gray (paste of leaves).  Topical uses of leaves on wounds etc. Aphrodisiac. Many cosmetic and social uses.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: Topically on ant bites and cuts, tea for colds and coughs, in formulas for indigestion and insomnia, tea for stress.

 

Madanapala: Vatapatrī. Hot, astringent; cures diseases of female genitalia. Seeds constipative.

 

Nadkarni: Usual herbal uses as carminative, stimulant, aphrodisiac, diuretic, etc.

 

Dash: Bitter and hot. Cures parasites, difficult skin diseases; relieves scorpion bite. O. sanctum for cough, hiccup, asthma, poison, skin.

 

Sun: Basil (Ocimum basilicum, luole羅勒): bitter, spicy, warm, balanced, astringent, and nonpoisonous. It eliminates the water remaining in the body (tingshui停水) and dispels poisonous qi. It cannot be frequently taken, or it will make the circulation of qi in the body difficult (se rongwei zhuqi澀榮衛諸氣).

 

Li:  Luole. Interestingly, in his volume on vegetables rather than among the herbs. Foliage or seed used. Various minor uses.

(The plant is rather uncommon in China, though fairly well known in the north and west. The enormous use and value of basils in west, south, and Southeast Asia forms a striking contrast to their trivial role in China. Basil is an effective stomach and sore throat treatment, widely used; many species are used, worldwide; the Native American peoples of Mexico have independently discovered the value of the local wild species, O. micrantha, and use it very widely.)

 

 

 

Olea europaea L.  Olive.  Oleaceae. Za’itūn/Zaitong宰桐, olive tree; the oil is zai’t/Zaiti宰體/Saidi賽的, and za’itūn just means “oil plant.”

 

Dioscorides: II-105. Oil, probably of the wild form (“O. oleaster”—not a valid scientific name), for eyes, erysipelas, herpes, carbuncles, ulcers, etc.

 

Levey: Leaves for sprue, gums, etc.

 

Avicenna: zaytūn. Oil from unripe olives is cold and dry, from from ripe is hot and moist (giving some clue to how the codings are determined—the green-olive oil is sour, astringent and biting, “drying,” while the ripe is fatty, lubricating and moistening). Wild olives make more medicinal oil. Used on all skin conditions. Enema for sciatica. Used for all the usual lubricating and soothing purposes. Leaves, in tea, used for sores, infections, teeth, eyes, etc.

 

Lev and Amar: zayt (the oil). Eye, skin, general external soothing (hair, head, bites, stings, wounds, teeth and gums, joints, burns, scratches, etc.). Internally for intestines, stomach, etc., and even for worms.

 

Ghazanfar: Itm. Resin, fruit, leaves, and bark all used, for many applications. Olives with salt and dates are made into a paste for broken bones. Leaves for poultice for boils. Juice of fruit for eyes. Leaves and bark for rashes. Ash of leaves on blisters and ulcers. Bark made into a tea for constipation. Twigs used for toothbrushes.

(Olive oil is, of course, unsurpassed for soothing and oiling the skin, and recently the extra-virgin oil has been found to have some heart and other beneficial effects from the antioxidant chemicals in the juice.)

 

 

Onopordum (Onopordon) macracanthum Schousb., Asteraceae. Shukā’āi /Shukeyi書可亦.

 

Avicennia: O. arabicum Strong and biting medicine. Mouthwash for toothache and sore uvula. Tea of root for excessive menstruation. Boiled down extract for suppository or bath for anal swellings.

The related O. acanthium of Europe and the Middle East is recorded in Wikipedia as having minor medical uses.

 

Eisenman:  O. acanthium, “used internally to treat inflammation of the bladder and urinary system, bronchial asthma, pertussis, scrofula,… colds, hemorrhoids, as a blood cleanser,” etc.  Infusion of top of stem in flowering drunk for nerves, colds, inflammation of respiratory system.  Put in baths for frightened children. Biomedically, cardiotonic, hemostatic, styptic, diuretic, and bacteriocidic properties and raises arterial pressure…tonic…”[101] and other uses.

(This rather little known thistle would seem like the perfect cureall, if Central Asian medicine is correct—but Wikipedia devotes much more attention to controlling its thorny, weedy presence.)

 

 

Opopanax chironium (L.) Koch. Apiaceae. Jawāshir /Zhawushier扎兀失兒/Zhawushier扎兀石而/ (Persian).

 

Dioscorides: III-55, panakes (panax) herakelion, Ferula opopanax or Opopanax hispidus [the figure looks more like Ferula]. Sap and roots; bitterest is best. Warming, mollifying, attenuating. Drunk, often with wine, good for agues, rigors, convulsions, rputures, pain in the side, coughs, gripes, dysuria, scabies. Like almost everything else Dioscorides uses, it is emmenagogue and abortifacient (also the root, topically) and is topically applied on all sorts of skin and eye conditions, including bites of mad dogs.

Seed taken with aristolochia or wormwood for menstruation, etc.

 

Levey: Jawāshīr. Rheumatism, phlegm, melancholy. Other uses in old sources for antispasmodic, emmenagogue, etc.

 

Lev and Amar: jāwshīr.  Eyes, convulsions, tetany, fevers, colic, penile erections, rheumatism, phlegm, black bile. Detersive. For abscesses.

 

Kamal: Gawshir (Farsi, “cows’milk”). Juice for pharyngitis, bronchitis, brain disease, paralysis.  Used on skin wounds.

 

Nadkarni: Gum stiumlant, antiseptic.

 

 

Origanum majorana L., Lamiaceae. Marzanjūsh/Maerzanggeshi馬而臧哥失/Maersangguoshi馬兒桑過失/ (Arabic and Persian; the general dried-herb name sa‘tar is used for this as well as thyme, etc.).

 

 

Origanum maru L., Lamiaceae. Marmaūz/Maermahuze馬而馬呼則/ Marmākhūr/馬兒馬乎兒/Mahuer馬乎兒[102]/Mahumaerguazi馬乎馬兒瓜子/Mailumahuer麥魯馬呼兒/Maermahuzi馬而馬胡子/Mulamahuer木剌馬乎兒

 

Theophrastus: II, p. 295, diktamnon, O. dictamnus. A great deal of lore on three different kinds of Cretan dittanies. Eases labor of women, and pain in general. Goats shot with arrows eat it and it makes the arrows fall out.

 

Dioscorides: III-32, origanos ‘erakleotike, Origanum vulgare. Warming. Tea for posionous bites and antidotes to poison hemlock, etc. Eaten with figs for convulsions, ruptures, coughs, etc.    Emmenagogue. Usual topical applications. With onions, sumac, etc., kept 40 days in burning summer heat, makes a medicine that brings on vomiting.

III-33, Origanum onitis?  O. sipyleum?; III-34, O. vulgare, wild; various confused drawings; all seem used more or less similarly; short, confused accounts.

III-37, diktamnon, O. dictamnus, dittany. Retails with evident disbelief a tale by Theophrastus about goats consuming it. Used for pain of spleen. Root hastens birth and helps with snakebite. Various other uses similar to above.

I-58, sampsychinon, an oil of this and many related herbs pounded and infused in olive oil. For drawing out menstruation and afterbirth, and abortifacient. Applied for pain relief.

 

Avicenna: O. majorana and O. vulgare (oregano): hot and dry. Usual all-purpose minor uses for sores, swellings, stomach, diuretic, emmenagogue. Also vermifuge. Avicenna mentions dittany, but here identified (perhaps wrongly) as Dictamnus albus, a completely different plant from O. dictamnus. Hot and dry. For pain, menstrual problems, urination. Abortifacient.

 

Levey: Marzanjush. Liver, stomach, spleen, kidneys; ear infections with suppuration. Eyes.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: Dittany, mishkatarā mashīr, occasional. O. maru, marw, seeds mentioned; marmāh.ūz, herb used; apparently Al-Samarqandī thought they were different plants, though the names are usually synonyms.

 

Graziani:  Marzanjūsh, mardaqush.  Headaches, constipation, scorpion stings (Ibn Jazlah).  Ibn Butlān used it for chest pains and cough.  Egypt today for vulnerary, nerve disease, cephalic, emmenagogue, sternutatory.

 

Lev and Amar: O. maru, O. syriaca, za’tar, sa’tar, for gynecological, kidney and urinary problems; for anemia; etc. Note that the general name za’tar (like the Hebrew ezov) also covers wild thyme and similar wild herbs, but Lev and Amar are confident that these Origanum species—primarily the latter—are the species called for in the Genizah documents. O. majorana, mardakūsh, marzanjūsh, for various women’s complains, kidneys, urinary tract.

 

Kamal: Bardaqush, marzangush, habq al fil-Ibn al-Baytar, a’bqar, etc. Stimulant, tonic, stomachic, sneezing, carminative, anti-inflammatory. O. vulgare, za-tar, antiseptic, antirheumatic, externally on ulcers etc., internally for worms and antisepsis. Includes thymol, which is powerfully antiseptic.

 

Bellakhdar et al: O. compactum, za’tar. For all diseases, gastro-intestinal antiseptic, mouth hygiene, antiacid. O. majorana, merdeddush, against chills and fevers.

 

Nadkarni: Plant stimulant, carminative, diaphoretic, emmenagogue, tonic. Oil used for stimulant, especially digestive.

 

Eisenman: O. tyttanthum, for appetite, digestion, inflammation of respiratory tract, nerves.  Externally in compresses for abscesses, bath for rickets and scrofula in children. Water extracts of plant for gastritis, bronchitis, pneumonia, etc. Tea for tympanites, lryngitis, stomatitis, angina, etc. Biomedically for hypertension, atherosclerosis, kidney, liiver, and epilepsy; sedative; expectorant; regulating intestinal action; diaphoretic tea, etc. O. vulgare, for the usual reasons, including insomnia, gastritis, etc.; as expectorant; as anti-spasmodic, antiseptic, anti-inflammatory. Essential oils do show antibiotic effect.

(Modern biomedicine agrees with the stimulant, carminative, and tonic parts of this. The plant is rich in volatile oils with medicinal effects.)

 

 

Oryza sativa L., Poaceae. Rice. Mi/米; Dao稻. One mention of rice husks, probably a Chinese substitution for some Near Eastern husk preparation.

 

Nadkarni: Pages of products and medicinal uses. Soothing, especially to stomach or rice-water as enema. Invalid food. Rice poultices are used for all sorts of purposes, being soothing, available and cheap. Nothing said about medicinal uses of husks.

 

Li: Vast range of broadly similar uses (soothing, poulticing, etc.). No medicinal use of husks.

Significantly, this basis of Chinese food is otherwise missing in the HHYF.

 

 

Osmanthus fragrans Lour., Oleaceae. Native. Kuihua葵花; Shukuihua蜀葵花 (“Sichuan四川” Kuihua)

 

(Not in Li, but, in modern China, the flowers are very commonly used to flavor tea or to make a tea by themselves, and now often considered cooling and otherwise medicinally valuable.)

 

 

Paeonia suffruticosa Andr. Paeoniaceae (Ranunculaceae). Native. Dudan杜丹; ‘ud fāwāniyā [Paeonia officinalis]/ Wudifayuna兀的法與納. Egypt Ubsalib, Iran Assalib.

 

Dioscorides: III-157, paionia arren, P. corallina; paionia theleia, P. officinalis. Dioscorides recognizes male and female varieties. Roots given to women after childbirth to eliminate afterbirths; also for menstruation (apparently both too much and too little) and cramps. Helps kidneys, stops diarrhea, etc. Black roots for nightmares and “suffocations of the womb.”[103]

 

Avicenna: Fāwāniā, from the Greek, is one name. Several others discussed. Treats epilepsy—by being hung around the neck or over him; Avicenna has seen this work. When the suspended plant was removed, the condition returned. Used as snuff for insanity and epilepsy, also. Also for gastric irritation, protecting stomach, jaundice, liver obstructions. Regulates discharge of menses and helps with placenta, etc., after birth. Good for kidney and abdominal pain. Can remove stones, at least in children. With honey wine for hysteria due to pain in uterus.

 

Kamal: P. officinalis, ‘anzarut, sarqoqola, etc. Powder for purulent conjunctivitis, wounds, ulcers.

 

Ghazanfar: P. officinalis, Aphrodisiac and tonic.

 

Li: Mudan. P. lactiflora and P. veitchii are shaoyao and are next to mudan in Li’s book. Cortex of former, root of latter, widely used for countless purposes.

 

 

Papaver somniferum L., Papaveraceae. Afiyūn/Afeirong阿肥榮/Afurong阿夫榮; Yumizi御米子; Yingsu罌粟; khaskhāsh/Hashihashi /哈失哈失      A FeiRong, LaLaHua, for the resin; ShaoNiZi for seeds; Ying-su-ke. Hu 973,

 

Manniche: Rather shakily identified in a tranquilizing remedy; seeds used.

 

Dioscorides: IV-64, mekon roias, P. rhoeas. Sleep, healing inflammations, etc.

IV-65, mekon agrios, mekon emeros, P. somniferum, opium poppy. Obvious use for sleep and pain, used internally or externally; also for inflammations and rashes, coughs, diarrhea, menorrhagia,

IV-66, mekon keratites, Glaucium luteum. Sciatica, liver, urinary problems (infections?), purging, etc. Externally on ulcers etc.

IV-67, mekon aphrodes, Silene inflata. Purges by causing vomiting.

IV-68, ypekoon, Hypecoum procumbens. Use similar to poppy.

 

Galen: seed produces lethargy. Not nutritious.

 

Levey: Used in combined medicine for insanity. Wild poppy, presumed P. rhoeas, nār-kīwā, provided an oil used in clyster for kidneys and for bringing back blood to face.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: Afiyūn: Detailed discussion of opium, used for the usual reasons. Khashkhāsh (the normal Arabic name for poppy): Cures cough. Opium-bearing kind narcotic to point of danger.

 

Avicenna: Notes many kinds. Khashkhāsh, seeds; afyūn, opium. Cooling and dry. Usual anaesthetic uses, but also seeds used for coughs, congestion, vomiting, stomach, etc.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: Usual uses; important.

 

Nasrallah: Black and white seeds known. Opium known and widely used; cold, dry, sdative, treats coughs and humidity and diarrhea.

 

Lev and Amar: afyūn. In addition to the obvious uses for sleep and diarrhea, used for jaundice, loss of teeth, etc., and in gargles and other preparations. Root of plant used for pains of thigh, liver, head. Seed for cough, liver, intestines.  (Glaucion corniculatum, māmīthā, for the usual minor matters:  eyes, pains, soothng, etc. Cold and dry.)

 

Kamal: khashkhas (the seeds), abu-al-nom. Sedative, anaesthetic, soporific. Fruiting head, cooked, for stomach ache, meteorism, pains, including toothache. A formulation by Mesue the Younger uses roses, gum arabic, starch, tragacanth, liquorice juice, spodium, and saffron with poppy syrup for tuberculosis, pleurisy, and the like (Kamal 1975:519).

 

Bellakhdar et al: P. rhoeas, belle’man, shqayeq n-ne-man, measles, children’s fevers. P. somniferum, korkasha, analgesic, children’s insomnia, hiccups.

 

Ghazanfar: Coughs and insomnia. Dried capsules ground and mixed with rose water, applied to forehead, for nervous tension.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: P. rhoeas, coughs.

 

Madanapala: Khasatila, seeds. Aphrodisiac, strengthening, constipative. Ahiphena, presumably gum or whole plant, constipative.

 

Nadkarni: usual narcotic and sedative uses. Causes constipation. For a vast range of purposes, in many preparations, but basically for sedative reasons.

 

Eisenman:  P. pavoninum, for heatstroke, eyes. Other poppies used for tea for coughs. These are not very close to the opium poppy.

 

Li: Yingzisu 嬰子粟. Seed sweet, plain, nontoxic; food and minor medical uses. Capsule and drug used for coughing and especially for diarrhea and dysentery (called “wonder drug” for this, and still is, in modern biomedicine). Narcotic uses not noted (not important in China in Li’s time).

(Opium remains as good a drug for treating some types of diarrhea as medicine can offer.  Causes constipation if much used.)

 

 

Pedicularis sp. Orobanchaceae (formerly Scrophulariaceae). Mavīzak /Maiyuza麥雨咱. Mentioned in Index; otherwise not in the HHYF. Species of this genus are used in folk medicine in various parts of the world.

 

 

Peganum harmala L., Zygophyllaceae. Isfand/Yixipandangdi亦西攀當的.

 

Dioscorides: III-53, peganon agrion, Peganum harmala. Seed beaten up for dullness of sight; applied with many other ingredients.

 

Levey: ḥarmal. Insanity, epilepsy, baldness, hemorrhoids, etc.

 

Avicenna: ḥarmal. Hot and dry. Minor uses, much like those of Ruta.

 

Lev and Amar: ḥarmal. Emetic, aphrodisiac, diuretic; for intestinal diseases, hemorrhoids, nerves, epilepsy, insanity, colic, sciatica, arthritis.

 

Bellakhdar et al: harmel. Toxic, hair-care, antihelminthic, antirheumatismal, antalgic, antidiarrheal; for bowels and nervous diseases.

 

Ghazanfar: H.armal. Leaves rubbed on joints for rheumatic pain. Tea antihelminthic. Tea of blossoms for stomach. Seeds for same, or topically with black pepper for joint pain. Seeds used as narcotic and for removing kidney stones.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: Alterative, purifying, aphrodisiac; seeds used. Also emmenagogue, diuretic, vomitive.

 

Nadkarni: Alterative, antiperiodic, stimulant, emmenagogue, abortifacient. Purifying, aphrodisiac, antihelminthic. Seeds narcotic, anodyne, emetic, emmenagogue.

(Important mind-altering drug in Iran and elsewhere; possibly one of the “soma” plants of the ancient Aryans.)

 

Eisenman: Decoction or infusion for “olds, malaria, fever, syphilis, neurasthenia, and epoilepsy, and…as a mouthwash… smoke…for headaches…epileptic diseases…mixed with chil pepper to treat syphilis, and it is used as a diuretic and diaphoretic.”[104] Biomedical uses as soporific; harmine alkaloid a strong nervous system drug, causing deperssion or hallucinations. Peganine has effectcs on cholesterol metabolism. Other chemicals await further study; contains many alkaloids.

(Well-known psychoactive plant, possibly the “soma” of the Aryans.”)

 

 

Penaea mucronata, sarcocolla. See Astragalus.

 

 

Petroselinum hortense (=P. crispum (Miller) Nym.), Apiaceae. Fu®rāsāliyūn/ Fadilasaliwen法的剌撒里溫; Jitejisalirong吉忒即撒里容; Fa®rā l’sāliyūn/Jidalasaliyun吉荅剌撒里云/Fatilasalirong法體剌撒里榮.

 

Dioscorides: III-76, oreoselinon, P. sativum (=P. crispum). Diuretic and emmenagogue.

 

Avicenna: Hot and dry. Dissolving. Cleanses ulcers and similar problems. Used for chest and lungs.

 

Graziani: Karafs. Ibn Butlān used it as diuretic, emmenagogue, anti-constipation.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: Today as carminative, aromatic, tonic. Seeds of this and related apiaceous plants noted by Al-Samarqandī as used for the usual reasons. Levey and Al-Khaledy mistakenly equate it with celery; the plants, uses and words and quite different.

 

Kamal: baqdunis. Roots sudorific, stimulant, diuretic, emmenagogue. Leaves as hot applications for inflammatory conditions, mastitis, haematomas.  Fruit carminative (effective, like almost all apiaceous spices). Active ingredient apiol, antipyretic and emmenagogue.

 

Bellakhdar et al: hypnotic.

 

Ghazanfar: Leaves and seeds for diarrhea and stomachache. (Effective.)

 

Nadkarni: Minor in India. Diuretic, etc.

 

 

Peucedanum ammoniacum H. Bn. (Dorema ammoniacum D. Don), Apiaceae. Ushaq/Wushaji兀沙吉/Wuzheji兀折吉Ushshaq; wushshaq/Wushaji兀沙吉; Wakhshīrk /瓦黑失失Gum ammoniac.

 

Dioscorides: III-92, peukedanon, P. officinale. Root sap anointed with vinegar and rose oil for lethargy, frenzy, vertigo, epilepsy, headaches, paralysis, convulsions, earaches, and so on.  Smelled for womb strangling and swoons. Drives away serpents. Root decoction drunk (and applied?) for ulcers, scales on bones, etc.

 

Avicenna: Ushaq. Hot and dry. Dissolving and drying. Opens vessels; laxative and absorbent.  Externally for wounds, tubercular lymph glands. In eyes for cleansing, etc. Internally for joint pain, asthma, labored breathing, ulcers of diaphragm, hardness of spleen and liver, worms, mesnstruation, abortifacient, and other minor uses.

 

Levey: Gum from this plant and Ferula marmarica. For fistulas, abscesses, eyes, insanity.

 

Avicenna: said it cools the blood, cleanses, helps with tumors. Modern uses as laxative, abortive, emollient, resolvent. Widely used in Persia.

 

Kamal: P. oreoselinum, atrilal, “ibex parsley, devil’s carrot, crow’s leg.” Seeds used for leprosy.

 

Lev and Amar: Eyes, pains, worms, etc. Purgative. Hot and dry, but cools blood, etc. Disinfects.

 

Nadkarni: Used for liver and spleen; oil.

 

Li:  P. praeruptorum, P. decursivum, qianhu前胡. Root important. Various dispersing and regulating uses. P. japonicum, fangkui, much more important and highly regarded. Various uses from digestion to mania! In all species, commentators disagree about qualities, even toxic vs. nontoxic.

 

 

Phoenix dactylifera L., Arecaceae. Date. Traditionally dates are part of the confection sukk/Suqi速乞/Suqi速其mentioned in the HHYF.

 

The HHYF mentions something that seems to equate with sukk, an Arab medicine including date, but this is tentative enough that we have not seen fit to do a full search on dates. But, also, terms for jujube in the HHYF probably mean dates, and “ten-thousand-year jujube” certainly does.

 

Avicenna: Nakkhl (tree), raṭab (ripe fruit), other names for every part and aspect. Cold and dry.  Unripe dates cause indigention. Various medical uses for both flesh and kernel—ash of latter has many external uses.

 

Lev and Amar: Aphrodisiac and for diarrhea, but little used, though often mentioned, in Near East medicine.

 

Li: Wulouzi無漏子. (Also, in Chinese colloquial, various such as fan zao番棗“foreign jujube” and qian nian zao千年棗 “thousand-year jujube”—a neat reverse of the English name “Chinese date” for jujubes.)  Minor use as tonic.

 

 

Phyllanthus emblica L. (=Emblica officinalis Fr.), Euphorbiaceae. Āmala/Amila阿米剌. “Milk” of [Ar.] āmala/Amilaru阿米剌乳 . From Perso-Arabic amlaj, in turn from Sanskrit āmālaka.

 

Levey: Depression, breathing, stomach, liver, etc.; usually with musk or other items, in mixed medicinal preparations. For happiness and strengthening the heart.

 

Avicenna: Amlaj, suk. Hot. Cites Indian physician on this. Opening, dissolvent. Aphrodisiac.  Expels black bile and phlegm. Good on piles.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: Myrobalans are very important to Al-Samarqandī, but not well distinguished. This would have been major. The rise of myrobalans from early times to the HHYF indicates the rise of Indian influence. Belleric myrobalans with milk made a remedy used by Al-Samarqandī.

 

Madanapala: Āmalaka. Cold; aphrodisiac.

 

Nadkarni: Fruit refrigerant, diuretic, laxative. Carminative and stomachic. Dried, astringent.  Flowers cooling and aperient. Bark astringent. Unani uses as heart and brain tonic, and to prevent humors in stomach and intestines; for diarrhea, fevers.

 

Dash: Fevers, appetiser.

 

Li: Anluoguo 庵羅果. Barely known. One report of fruit and leaf for minor uses.

 

 

Picnomon acarna (L.) Cass., Asteraceae. Bādāward/Badiawaer把的阿瓦兒/Badiawaerdi把的阿瓦兒的; Bād-āvard/Badawaerdi八達洼而的 (Persian)

 

European/Near Eastern plant, not mentioned in our sources.

 

 

Pimpinella anisum L. Apiaceae. Anīsūn/Anisong阿你松

 

Dioscorides: III:56. Antidotes, headache, ears.

 

Galen: Diuretic, aphrodisiac, general antidote.

 

Levey; Levey and Al-Khaledy: In an electuary for liver, kidneys, etc; in eye medicine; stomachic; for rheums. Current uses as stomachic, carminative, stimulant, emmenagogue.

 

Avicenna: anīsūn. Hot and dry. Opening, biting, acrid. Relieves stomach ache and gas. Relieves headache (smoke of seeds); powder with rose oil in ear. Treats chronic eye problems.  Lactagogue, diuretic, aphrodisiac. Laxative for kidneys; stimulates uterus and helps women after blood loss (presumably vaginal hemorrhage). Treats chronic fevers.

 

Lev and Amar: Palpitations, eyes, inflammation, etc. Maimonides used it for heart strengthening. Brain, sexual medicine, emmenagogue, fever, etc. Hot and dry. Modern uses include stomachic and carminative (as in European folk medicine), emmenagogue, etc.

 

Ghazanfar: Anasīn. Fruit digestive. Mixed with cumin and fennel for women after childbirth, to increase milk and ease pains.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: Strengthens a mother following childbirth, along with fenugreek, nigella, wheat, dates. For colic. Chewed or in various formulas for cough, headache. Boiled and drunk for indigestion, stomachache, stress, toothache, and menstrual cramps. For insomnia.

 

Nadkarni: Usual apiaceous-seed uses as stimulant, carminative, diuretic, stomachic.

(Still used widely, throughout the world, for coughs and as carminative and stomachic; very effective.)

 

 

Pinellia ternata (Thunb.) Breit., Araceae. Native. Panxia/Banxia半夏.

 

Li: Banxia. Tuber. Pungent, cool to warm (depending in part on processing), toxic. Several pages of uses, many for phlegm and respiratory affections, but also digestive and some other uses.

 

 

Pinus koraiensis Sieb. Et Zucc., Pinaceae. Native. Songziren松子仁; Songzi松子Songshuzi松樹子.

 

Li: Haisong海松. Seeds used. Sweet, warm to hot, nontoxic. The uses center on nutritional value. Used classically as a food to prolong life; said to make one an immortal if eaten enough. Li notes that “Whenever Taoists talk about Songzi [pine kernels], they always mean Haisongzi.[105]

(The use for nutrition for longevity is partly sympathetic magic—pines live for centuries—but partly also because pine kernels are a concentrated source of high-quality protein, minerals, and unsaturated oils. They are a perfect supplement or, better, replacement for the dismal traditional North Chinese diet of grain and low-protein, low-mineral vegetables. Taoist and Buddhist adepts, especially, ate ascetic diets, and were at major risk for malnutrition. People living on such diets would indeed feel better and live much longer if they ate large quantities of pine kernels.)

 

See also the next entry.

 

 

Pinus spp. P.  massoniana Lamb. & spp.  Songzi松子Songshuzi松樹子. Lātyanaj/Lateyana剌忒牙納; Rātiyanaj/Lantiyanazhi闌體牙納只  Resin. JiFuTi.

 

Dioscorides: I-86, pitys, P. halepensis; peuke, P. maritima, P. cembra (and/or other evergreens?). Bark ground and eaten; binding (constipating; very effective, from fibre and tannins). Used for cataplasm for ulcers, sores, etc., or eaten for boils. Aids in childbirth.  Drunk, presumably in tea, it stops the belly and is diuretic. Leaves in cataplasm for inflammations and wounds; sodden in vinegar for toothache; leaves or cone drunk in a tea for liver. Soot for eyelids and eyes.  I-87, pityides, seeds; I-88, strobiloi, cones, ground, taken for coughs.

These species are closest to P. massoniana, except for P. cembra, which is closer to koraiensis.

(Gunther identifies IV-166, pityosa, as P. halepensis, but the description and picture cannot possibly apply to a pine. It has flowers, among other incompatible things!)

 

Galen: Pine cones eaten! But not well digested, unsurprisingly. (Green cones are edible, but normally only as a famine resource)

 

Levey: ṣanaubar. Various spp. Seed for electuary for throat. Rātinaj, resin of pines and other conifers. Ulcers.

 

Avicenna: P. gerardiana, ṣanūbar, pine; large pine seeds, ḥabb al-ṣanūbar. Resin is rātiyānaj.  Small seeds, jillauz. Resin hot and dry. Bark constricting. Resin, and dust of bark for wounds and sores. Seeds for lungs, pus, cough. Gargling with boiled-down bark evacuate phlegm. Pine smoke for falling eyelashes, etrc. Various internal uses, but bark irritates stomach. Seeds candied, for use in stomach and reprodiuctive health incliuding volume of semen. They cancause constipation; bark definitely does. Eating too many seeds can cause abedominal pain, but help with urination.

 

Lev and Amar: P. pinea, ṣanawber, bladder, kidneys, drying wetness, coughs, phlegm, paralysis, skin, spasms, jaundice, etc. Resin also used. Needles in a medication to strengthen the penis and constrict the glans.

 

Kamal: P. pinea, snonobar (snubar, snobar—this specifically means pine nuts). Resin for respiratory and dental conditions; diuretic.

 

Bellakhdar et al.: P. halepensis, tayda, dbag, for tuberculosis, skin abcesses. Pinus sp., u-mennas, er-rzina, cosmetic.

 

Madanapala: P. gerardiana, nikocaka, aphrodisiac, nourishing, for strength, etc. P. roxburghii, śrīvāsa, presumably seeds, for head and eyes; laxative.

 

Nadkarni: Various pines used. P. gerardiana seeds stimulant, nutritive, tonic, aphrodisiac.  Pinewood is aromatic, antiseptic, deodorant, stimuant, diaphoretic, refrigerant, rubefacient, carminative; sapwood, oil, resin of P. longifolia and presumably other species used.

 

Dash: P. roxburghii for earache, etc.

 

Li: Song, pine in general. P. massoniana is the common one of south China, replaced northward by P. tabuaeformis and others, westward by P. yunnanensis and others. (The very different P. koraiensis is found only in the far northeast, near Korea.)  Resin and foliage for various purposes. Seeds used, but very small and dry, not a food like those of P. koraiensis.

(Pine oils used medicinally as antiseptic, skin treatment, etc. well into modern times, worldwide. Anderson remembers them from his childhood. Seeds advocated throughout early Chinese history as the best food for longevity.)

 

 

Piper cubeba L., Piperaceae. Common import to China in Medieval times. Bidengjia蓽澄茄.

 

Avicenna: Kabābah. Fāghirā for the fruit alone. Opening, thinning. Dissolving, constricting.  Useful for mouth ulcers, etc. Laxative. Used for cold stomach and liver, and indigestion from coldness. Cleanses urinary tract, dissolves stones. “Coital pleasure in women is enhanced by the local use of saliva secreted by chewing cubeb.”[106]

 

Levey: Kabbābah. Gums, mouth, throat, teeth.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: Tanbūl. Astringent, tightens gums, desiccant, carminative. Chewed with areca nut.

 

Lev and Amar: kabāba, qūbība. For throat, mouth, diuretic, liver.

  1. betel, tānbūl, for teeth, gums, skin.

 

Kamal: kababah, kababa-sini, al-fulful thu al-thanab “tailed pepper,” hab al-arus. Stimulant, diuretic; for gonorrhea, leucorrhea, urethritis, etc. P. betel, tanbul, tamul, used as stimulant, appetizer, aphrodisiac.

 

Bellakhdar et al: kebbaba.  Bladder and uterus diseases, urinary disorders, aphrodisiac, calefacient.

 

Madanapala: Kankola. Hot. For heart disease.

 

Nadkarni: Stimulant, carminative, expectorant. P. betel used for these and many other purposes.

 

Dash: Pungent, bitter, hot. Appetiser. Cures bad taste and “sluggishness in the mouth.”

 

Li: Bidengjia. Pungent, bitter, warm, nontoxic.  Digestive for many purposes.  In mixes for several other conditions.

 

 

  1. longum L., Piperaceae. Baibibo 白蓽撥, “White Long pepper;” Bibo蓽撥; Falfalmūn[iya] /Falijialimeng法里賈里蒙. Hu 973.

 

Theophrastus: II, p. 315:  this and P. nigrum for heating; this one stronger.

 

Dioscorides: II-189, piperi, “long” noted as particularly sharp and biting, otherwise used like nigrum.

 

Levey: Dār filfil. In electuaries, eye powders, arthritis drug, etc. Stomachic.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: Dār-i-filfil. Cleans out uterus, etc.

 

Avicenna: Dār filfil. Hot and dry. Dissolvent. Heals cold diseases. For gout. With juice of roasted goat liver for day blindness (probably extreme sensitivity to light). Digestivve.  Aphrodisiac. Root for abdominal pain.

 

Lev and Amar: dār fulful and variants. Eyes, palpitation, purgation, tonic, indegestion, hemorrhoids, stomach, colic, sexual medicine, etc. Hot and dry (Maimonides).

 

Madanapala: Pippalī. Very hot. Aphrodisiac, rejuvenating, purgative. For dyspnoea, cough, fever, skin, urinary diseases, piles, abdominal conditions, spleen, colic, rheumatism.

 

Nadkarni:  Stimulant, carminative, alterative, aphrodisiac, diuretic, vermifuge, emmenagogue.

 

Dash: Cures cold diseases. Aphrodisiac, laxative. For asthma, cough, rejuvenation, etc. Root for a number of digestive conditions.

 

Li: Biba蓽苃 Pungent, very warm or hot, nontoxic. Digestive uses including cholera and other diarrheas; various other uses. P. betle, jujiang蒟醬, follows it in Li; root, leaf, spike all used; pungent, warm, nontoxic, for coughing, digestive purposes, other minor uses.

(This important medicinal plant, universally used in old Asia for its very “hot” and stimulant qualities, has fallen dramatically from favor since chile reached Asia. P. longum is “hotter” [more piquant] but less flavorful than black pepper, so chile replaced it almost totally in cooking, and to a great extent in medicine. Often, the very name was transferred to chile, its original meaning being forgotten, e.g. Malay/ Bahasa Indonesia lada.  Could lada be the source of or cognate with Chinese la, Cantonese laat, “piquant”?)

 

 

  1. nigrum L., Piperaceae. Hujiao/胡椒; Heihujiao黑胡椒. Hu 659

 

Dioscorides: II-189, piperi. Warming, dissolving, etc. Cleans eyes. Drunk or anointed for malarial attacks, poisonous bites, abortion. Pessary for birth control. Taken for chest, coughs, etc. Gripes, pains, etc. In sauces for provoking appetite. With pitch, applied for scrofulous conditions, and with nitre for white skin infections. Root warming.

 

Levey: Filfil. Pain of gum and throat, collyrium, happiness, stomachic.

 

Avicenna:  Filfil.  Hot and dry (very). Used for skin, tubercular lymph glands, eyes, coughs, sore throat, digestive, appetizer, diuretic; birth control; bowles.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: This and the other pepper spp. are important in Al-Samarqandī’s drugs, for the above reasons.

 

Lev and Amar: Filfil, fulful. Cureall: bladdertones, inflammations of tongue and gums, teeth, crying, laughing, cold, heat, paresis and weakenss of sexual organs, aphrodisiac, deafness, earache, hedche, joints, epilepsy, ulcer, colic, vision, etc. Hot and dry. Against insects. Topically on skin. Even said to prevent pregnancy. Basically a cureall.

 

Kamal: felfel aswad. Carminative, counterirritant, stimulant, antiperiodic, antipyretic, anthelminthic, aphrodisiac, rubefacient.

 

Bellakhdar et al: l-bzar lekhel, labzar labyed. Aphrodisiac, calefacient, reconstituant, antitussive. P. retrofractum, first 2 same.

 

Ghazanfar: Filfil. In honey for earache. Stomachic, jaundice cure, reduces phlegm. Tonic, stimulant. Topically for eyes, for vision.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: In mixed spice foods, especially for women after childbirth, where it appears to be a universal restorative.

 

Madanapala: Marica. Hot. Digestive stimulant. For colic, dyspnoea, parasites.

 

Nadkarni: Acrid, pungent, carminative, antiperiodic; externally, rubefacient, stimulant. Widely used in many preparations.

 

Dash: Digestive, for parasites. Cures cold diseases.

 

Li: Hujiao. Pungent, warm or hot, nontoxic. Digestive, respiratory, general heating uses.  Strongly heating rather than warming, so used with caution. In Li’s book, followed by cubeb pepper in the “fruits” section, while long and betel peppers are together in the “herbs” section, though the uses are similar and Li must have seen the relationships.

(Pungent, stimulant, carminative, and antiseptic value of volatile oils is widely known and still useful.)

 

 

Pistacia terebinthus L., Anacardiaceae and other spp. ‘Ilk al-anbā® [resin of the terebinth, Pistacia vera]/ Yiligulianbati亦里古里唵把提; ‘Ilku l-bu®mi [terebinth gum, from Pistacia terebinthus]/ Yilikulibutemi亦釐苦釐卜忒迷. Bu®m/Butemi卜忒迷

 

Dioscorides:  I-177, pistakia, P. lentiscus. Nuts eaten or ground and drunk with wine, for stomach and for snakebite.

 

Avicenna: P. terebinthus, buṭm. Several other names. Hot and dry, but changeable in degree, according to condition and part of the plant. Cleanses skin conditioins, treats paralysis. Oil for facial paralysis. Treats ear, eye, pains, other external uses. Internally for spleen and liver.  Diuretic and somewhat aphrodisiac. P. lentiscus, maṣṭakī. Hot and dry. Dissolving; dissolves tphlegm. Usual external uses for a hot, dry drug. Strengthens stomach and liver, restores appetite.  Strengthens kidneys, intestines. Used for diarrhea and dysentery. For coughing up blood, also prolapse of uterus and anus (its drying, constricting action). P. vera, fustuq (Persian pistah), laxative, good for stomach. Oil for liver pain.

 

Graziani: P. lentiscus, mastakā, Medieval uses as stomachic, obstructions, nausea.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: Mastic from P. lentiscus very important in Al-Samarqandī’s remedies.

 

Lev and Amar: P. lentiscus, maṣṭakā. Diet for weight increase. Diarrhea. Malaria, black bile, phlegm, obstruction, wind, pleurisy, trembling, eyes, etc. Constipative. Expectorant, analgesic, etc. Also used in food. P. atlantica, buṭm, ‘ilk (resin). Oil for kidneys, internal conditions, colds, birth pangs. Resin for various dressings. Hot and wet. Benefits stomach. P. vera, fustaq, fustuq, resin for same or similar uses.

 

Kamal: bottom [butm], fustuq, habbah khadra.  Fattening. Expectorant, diuretic. Galls used for ashthma and chest diseases. P. lentiscus for diarrhea, incontinence, moth conditions, etc. P. vera, food only.

 

Stol:[107] Nuts of P. terebinthus and P. vera eaten since ancient times in Iran and elsewhere in the Near East; mentioned in cuneiform texts (apparently P. terebinthus). Medicinal uses for terebinth resin also go back to cuneiform texts. Ancient Egypt also used resins from Pistacia spp. as aromatics.

 

Bellakhdar et al.:[108] Modern Moroccan use of P. atlanticus for stomach-ache, fever, cosmetics; P. lentiscus for oral hygeine and heart, emmenagogue, stomachic, diuretic, astringent.

 

Ghazanfar: P. lentiscus, mistakah, mustaka, resin for fevers; applied on wounds; chewed as breath freshener; taken for coughs and chest cramps. Topically on swellings.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: P. lentiscus mastic. Mastaka, etc. With, or instead of, other incense gums, as incense for drying up womb after childbirth.

 

Madanapala: P. vera, pistā, aphrodisiac, nourishing, etc.

 

Nadkarni: P. lentiscus, stimulant, diuretic. P. terebinthus, astringent, restorative; resin used.

 

Li: P. vera, ayuehunzi, seed, pungent, warm, astringent, nontoxic; for genitalia and thus used in sexual medicine (and pleasure). Also for dysentery, cold, general nutrition (the last of these explains the sexual value; most of the Chinese sexual nutraceuticals actually work by providing concentrated protein and mineral nutrition in an easily-digested form).

 

 

Plantago asiatica L. & P. psyllium. Plantaginaceae. Seeds. Native. Qa®ūnā/Huguna忽谷納; Bizr Qu®ūnā/Bazilihatuna八子里哈土納 (Leaf); Bazr l-qa®ūnā /八子里哈土納 (Seeds); Bazr-e qa®ūnā /八子里哈土納;  Cheqianzi車前子  Iran Barihang.

 

Dioscorides: II-153, arnoglosson, P. major; arnoglosson mikron, P. lagopus. Leaves drying and binding, so applied for essentially all types of wounds, sores, and skin conditions, up to and including dog bites and mouth sores. Taken or as clyster for dysentery, etc. Taken for epilepsy, tuberculosis and asthma. Taken or as pessary for womb conditions. Seeds taken to stop diarrhea and spitting blood.  Root for mouthwash, or chewed, for mouth sores and toothache.  Root and leaves for bladder and kidneys. “Some say” (generally a sure indicator that Dioscorides disbelieves what follows) that three roots in wine help tertian, four roots quartan, malaria, and that amulets help scrofulous conditions.

 

Avicenna: Lisān al-ḥamal. Cold and dry. External for the usual sores, ulcers, skin diseases, and pains. Treats earache and mouth. Treats epilepsy. Treats coughing up of blood. With lentils for asthma. For liver, kidney obstructions. Extract or enema for internal ulcers and cholera. Stop bleeding piles. For kidney and bladder pain.

 

Levey:  P. albicans L., shawīk. Scrofula, boils, ulcers, hemorrhoids, tooth care, wounds.

  1. psyllium, qaṭūnāa, for coughs, mouthwash, head, sciatica, back pains, rheumatism.

 

Avicenna: bazr qaṭūnā, P. ovata. Husk of seed used. Cold and moist. Causes constipation, so used for diarrhea. Put on swellings, herpes, inflammation, nerves, rheumatism, headaches, chest.  Used internally for bilious thirst.

 

Lev and Amar: P. afer, dūfus, other names. P. major, lisān al ḥamal. Crying in infants; kdney stones; women’s diseasese; eyes. Various minor conditions. Infection of large intestine; oedema.  Hot and dry.

 

Kamal: P. major, lisan al-hamal, mesis, massas, musas, zummarat al-Ra’i. Roots and leaves astringent, refrigerant, diuretic. P. psyllium, hashishet al-Garaghith, bizr qatuna, burghuthi ibn al-Baytar, hunayn-physilion. Seeds for poultices, dressings, fomentations, sedating drinks, inflammations, vomiting, urinary troubles, skin conditions, eyedrops. (Just about everything except the standard modern use for constipation!)

 

Bellakhdar et al. Plantago sp., messasa, for ripening of abcess, analgesic, local anti-inflammatory.

 

Ghazanfar: Seeds for diarrhea, dysentery, fevers, tonic. Leaves on ulcers and abscesses.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: P. major, laxative, and for dysentery and diarrhea. Poultices for boils. Seeds used.

 

Nadkarni: P. ispagula and other spp., including asiatica, but primarily ispagula: Seeds cooling, demulcent, emollient, laxative, diuretic. Mucilaginous seeds as laxative particularly important.

 

Eisenman:  P. lanceolata. Decoction diuretic and for cystitis, gastric conditions, tuberculosis, headaches, snake bites; antibiotic, anti-inflammatory, antispasmodic, expectorant, used to treat all sorts of ulcers, wounds, internal inflammation, malaria, etc. Biomedically, seems effective as hemostat and anti-inflammatory, antispasmodic, possibly other uses. Many chemicals isolated.  P. major, similar uses, and diarrhea, bladder inflammation, expectorant. Also has many compounds under investigation.

 

Li:  P. asiatica, P. depressa, cheqian車前. Seed, root, foliage; sweet, cold, nontoxic. Diuretic, laxative, cooling; other uses. Foliage has external uses for poultices etc.

(Seeds still a major laxative, especially those of P. psyllium.)

 

Meserve: P. major. “Leaves made into a plaster for ‘Siberian Sore.’”[109] Also to stanch blood, etc. She presents a great deal of comparative material.

 

 

Platycodon grandiflorum (Jacq.) A. DC., Campanulaceae.  Native. 桔梗, “Baloon flower”

 

Li: Jiegeng. Root cold, bitter, pungent.  General tonic with many uses; a major Chinese drug.

 

 

Plumbago sp.  Plumbaginaceae. Shī®araj/Shayitalazhi沙亦他剌只. Usually, and presumably in the HHYF, this Arabic name means Lepidium, q.v.  (Thus not scored.)

 

Madanapala: Citraka, P. zeylanica. Digestive, stimulant, carminative. For sprue, skin, edema, piles, parasites, cough.

 

Nadkarni: P. rosea alterative, gastric stimulant; P. zeylanica, root, same uses.

 

Dash: Same uses in Tibet as in Madanapala; he cites to the Tibetan sources, so the copying is presumably old.

 

 

Polygonum multiflorum Thunb., Polygonaceae. Native.Tuber. Bahman/Bahaman八哈蠻; ‘A©ā’ urrā’i [Polygonum bellardi]/ Asawulayi阿撒兀剌亦.

 

Dioscorides: IV-5, poygonon arren, P. aviculare, knotgrass.  Binding, refrigerating. Used for blood spitting, fluxes, choler, strangury. Helps with venomous bites and with malaria. Pessary for vaginal flow. Dropped in for earache. Applied with wine for ulcers of genitalia. Applied for wounds, inflammations, and related conditions.

II-191, ydropeperi, P. hydropiper. Leaves and seeds applied to destroy swellings and the like. Used to season food. Root useless.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: P. bistorta. Leaves for dog bites, ulcers, cankers, pustules, inflammations. P. hydropiper, zanjabīl, aphrodisiac, stomachic, dries out phlegm.

 

Avicenna: P. aviculare. Haft band, Narsiān dārū, etc. Poultices for many external purposes and for uterus and intestineal ulcers. Extract for ear worms, ear ulcers. Useful for coughing up of blood. Cooling. P. hydropiper, filfil al-ma‘. Warming, but not much use.

 

Kamal: P. bistorta, leflafah, godwar rokny. Root astringent; contains tannins; hemostatic, and for diarrhea, gonorrhea, angina, exudations.

 

Nadkarni: P. aviculare, expectorant, diuretic, tonic, astringent, antiseptic, antiperiodic; usually decoction of root used.

 

Eisenman: P. aviculare, for stomach spasms, intestinal infections, diarrhea, tonic, hemostat, etc.; decoction or infusion. Bath for skin infections and fungus, wounds, etc. Infusion on head for hair growth. In milk for convulsions. Biomedically, incresaes blood coagulation, decreases blood pressure, etc. Used as hemostat for women. P. coriarium, astringent, tea for diarrhea.  Biomedically seems to be effective.

 

Li: Heshouwu 何首烏. Bitter, astringent, slightly warm, nontoxic. Wide range of uses.

Fully a dozen other species are mentioned in Li, and this certainly does not exhaust the range of species used in China. The dozen have different uses and names. The genus has long been very important as food, spice, and medicine throughout eastern Asia.

In the HHYF, bahman—normally a word for Centaurea behen—is identified in the Chinese text as this species.

 

 

Polypodium vulgare L., Polypodiaceae. Basbāyij/Basibanizhi把思把你知/Bosibanizhi伯思八你知/Bosibaya伯思八牙/ Bosibanazhi 伯思把那知/Baxifayizhi八西法亦只; Basfāyij/八西法亦只  (Persian).

 

Dioscorides: IV-188, polypodion. Root for purging, with foods, or powdered. Also for phlegm and choler. Root applied for certain sores.

 

Levey: Basbāyij. Teeth. Modern uses noted as aperient, alterative, deobstruent, etc.

 

Lev and Amar: basbāyaj, basfāyaj. Roots cleanse intestines, liver, spleen; reduce swseelings.  Teeth. Purifies blood and gall bladder. Asthma. Can cause diarrhea. Reduces swellings. Said to be hot and dry.

 

Nadkarni: Minor use of P. quercifolium for fevers and diseases and P. vulgare for aperient and alterative.

 

 

Polyporus officinalis Fr., Polyporaceae, and/or Boletus purgans Gmel, Boletaceae. Ghārīqūn/Alihun阿里渾/Aligong阿里 公. Probably the former sp. here.

 

Kamal: P. fomentarius, soffan. Powder astringent for bleeding.

 

Nadkarni: P. officinalis, astringent, emetic, purgative.

 

Li: P. umbellatus, zhuling豬苓. Sweet, plain, nontoxic. Important for several serious conditions from fevers to leukorrhea. (Still an important medicine in 21st century China; astringent and drying qualities.)

 

 

Poria cocos (Schw.) Wolf (Wolfiporia cocos), Polyporaceae. Native. Baifuling白茯苓.

 

Li: Fuling茯苓. Sweet, balanced, nontoxic. Many forms, preparations, and uses; a very important, versatile medicine.

 

 

Prunus amygdalus Batsch., Rosaceae. Badam (Persian). Bādām/Badan把躭 Persian); Lauz/Liwazhi里瓦知.

 

Dioscorides: I-176, amygdale, almond. Root or nut of bitter var. mashed, applied to face, for sunburn. Applied (nuts?) also for menstruation, headaches, etc., with vinegar and rose; with wine, for ulcers etc.; with honey for dog bites. General for soothing:  chest, kidneys, etc.  Diuretic; for stone; etc. Keeps off drunkenness, eaten before drinking. Nut kills foxes. Gum for binding and heating; drunk for many of above conditions. The sweet almond is much less medicinal than the bitter. Green almonds eaten to dry up stomach (they are extremely high in tannin).

 

Galen: Cleaning, thinning.

 

Avicenna: Sweet is moist (neutral) but bitter is hot and dry. Almond, mostly bitter, used for liver, spleen, internal organs. Sprains and uclers  treated with the oil. “Bitter almond dissolves kidney stones.”[110] Many uses of both, and oil, for poultices, etc.

Levey and Al-Khaledy:. Oil for stomach and intestines.

 

Lev and Amar: Gaining weight; oil—cold and moist—for heart, stress, fevers, cancer, erysipelas, inflammations. Bitter almond for stones in bladder, stomachic, liver, spleen, ears, etc., and aborting dead fetus; in prescriptions for headaches, pain, and indeed almost everything, up to and including dog bites. This accords with modern uses in the Near East and China as an all-purpose emollient, soothing agent, lubricant, etc. (I can confirm this from experience).

 

Kamal: no uses noted, but peach (P. persica, khokh, durraq) used for laxative.

 

Bellakhdar et al: P. amygdalus var. amara, luz harr, hypoglycemiant, tonic.

 

Nadkarni:  Demulcent, stimulant, tonic, emollient.  Bitter almonds add laxative quality.

 

Li: Badanxing badanxing 巴旦杏 (lit. “the badan type of apricot kernel”—badan being the Persian name of the almond). Account follows the account of the true apricot.  Li knew the almond came from the Middle East, but noted it is now grown in China. Sweet, warm, balanced, nontoxic. For coughs and digestive problems.

 

 

Prunus armeniaca L., Rosaceae. Native. Xingzi 杏子; Xing 杏.

 

Dioscorides: I-165, armeniaca, apricot. For stomach.

 

Avicenna: Cold, moist. Drink; made into soothing syrup, with honey, etc. Seed oil on piles.  Water in which fruit (this with others) is boiled was used for fever.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: Used by Al-Samarqandī for syrups, etc., largely as a vehicle for giving other medicines.

 

Lev and Amar: barqūq (the source of the English word, via Spanish albaricoque), mishmish.  Leaves for mouth sores, tonsils, throat. Fruit for itching stinging, thirst, burns, stomach, skin, ains, swellings, worms. Maimonides thought it was a bad food.

 

Kamal: mishmish. Oil noted but not for medicinal use.

 

Bellakhdar et al: ‘elk meshmash. Aphrodisiac.

 

Nadkarni: Fruit minor use as tonic, locally.

 

Sun: Apricot kernel (xingheren杏核仁): sweet, bitter, warm, cool, good laxative, diuretic (li利), poisonous [from hydrocyanates]. It is important for treating rising breath caused by coughing, thundering in intestines (changzhong leiming腸中雷鳴), the swollen throat (houbi喉痹), intestinal gas (xiaqi下氣), ulcer caused by giving birth or cutting (chanrujinchuang產乳金瘡), the illness of a cold heart running like a pig (presumably a heart beating with a fast, erratic rhythm like a running pig;  hanxin bentun寒心奔豚), fright illness (jingxian驚癇), anxiety and heat under the heart (xinxia fanre心下煩熱), the illness of the wind qi coming and going (fengqi qulai風氣去來), and chronic headache (shixing toutong時行頭痛). It also relieves hunger (jieji解肌)[111] and anxiety under the heart (xiao xinxia ji消心下急). It rids toxins from dog bites (shagoudu殺狗毒). It should be picked in the fifth month [when apricots are ripe]. If there are two kernels in one pit, they hurt people and should be discarded. When the apricot is still unripe, it is very sour. The kernel in it is not hard. Collect it and expose it in the sun till it is dry. Eat the dry kernel and it is very effective for ceasing thirst and ridding poisons of cool or hot nature. Bianque 扁鵲said, “Apricot kernels cannot be taken over a long time. Otherwise, it will make the person blind, cause his eyebrows or hair fall, and arouse all kinds of chronic illnesses. ”  [This would be due to the hydrocyanic acid liberated by chewing them; chewing releases an enzyme that acts on hydrocyanic glycogens in the seed. The seeds are still an extremely common medicine in China, used for throat and respiratory conditions among other things. They are usually powdered and cooked to eliminate the poison.]

 

Li: Xing. Usually the seeds (xingren or xingheren “apricot seed kernels”) used, though minor uses for fruit. Kernels, ground, are the sovereign remedy for coughs. Many other uses, even for epilepsy. Many other Prunus species are discussed at length in Li.

(Today the kernels, powdered, are used in milk, with sugar, especially for children, to treat cough, sore throat, and the like; ENA shamelessly used this milk drink all the time in East Asia, in spite of its identification with child culture, because it works so well for the purposes.)

 

 

Prunus domestica L., P. salicina Lindl., Rosaceae. Resin. Native. Li李; Ālūchah [plum, Prunus instititia].

Dioscorides: kokkymfelia, P. domestica, damson. Laxative, but a Syrian plum has the reverse effect. (Presumably a local high-tannin fruit of some kind.) Leaves or fruit gargled for mouth sores. Gum breakes stone if drunk with wine. Anointed with vinegar for skin eruptions of children.

 

Levey: Ijjās. P. domestica or possibly apricot and pear. Infusions.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: Plums in general; laxative. Enormous detail about local varieties.

 

Avicenna: P. domestica, ijjāṣ. Cold and moist. Gum mixed with vinegar for sores and ringworm.  Minor uses; expels yellow bile. Wild plums very constricting.

 

Lev and Amar:  P. domestica. ‘ijjāṣ. Constricting fruits. Mild. Cold and moist. Cathartic. Resi for various binding and resolving and skin conditions. Plum fruit relieves headache, throat pains, nausea, vomiting, blockages, etc. Leaves eliminate worms (they have enough cyanide, tannin and fibre that this might work).

 

Kamal: P. domestica, laxative.

 

Madanapala: Āruka. Digestion, urinary problems, plies.

 

Eisenman: P. sogdiana, a Central Asian plum close to P. cerasifera, above-ground parts used; laxative, stimulant to appetite and digestion. Gum for coughs. Roots and bark for diaphoretic, anti-pyretic, and anti-inflammatory use. Not tested biomedically.

 

Sun: Plum kernel (liheren李核仁): bitter, balanced, nonpoisonous. It mainly treats the symptom of falling down dead (jiangpuji僵僕躋), gores, and bone ache. Its fruit (plum) is bitter, sour, a little bit warm, astringent, non-poisonous. It rids obstinate heat (gure固熱), harmonizes the Middle Jiao, and is good for the heart. It cannot be eaten too much. Otherwise, it will make the person weak. The Yellow Emperor said, “Plums cannot be taken with white honey (baimi白蜜). That will erode the five internal organs (wunei五內).”

 

Li:  P. salicina. Li. (Yes, our herbalist is named Plum! It is, in fact, one of the commonest surnames in east Asia.) First of fruits, coming just before the apricot. Many, but minor, uses for all parts of the plant and fruit.

(Laxative effects of prunes are well known worldwide, and the tannins in the leaves and bark are very effective on minor skin conditions.)

 

 

Prunus mahaleb L., Rosaceae.  Mahaleb cherry. Mahlab/Muhalabi木哈剌必/Mahalabi馬哈剌必.

 

Avicenna: Miḥlab.  Hot and dry. Cleansing, dissolvent. Sour cherry with honey water for brief loss of consciousness (this app. refers to P. cerasus).

 

Lev and Amar. Maḥlab. Hot and dry. Minor uses.

 

Nadkarni: Tonic, stomachic, diuretic.

 

Eisenman: P. padus, Eurasian bird cherry, fruits astringent, for diarrhea etc. Bark, leaves, flowers also used. All contain glycosides.

(The kernel of this wild cherry is an important medicinal food in the Near East; tonic, stomachic, soothing, as for Nadkarni; oddly missing from our Arabic sources.)

 

 

 

Pterocarpus indicus Willd. and/or P. marsupium Roxb., Fabaceae.

 

Nadkarni: Gum (kino) astringent; for digestion, toothache, etc. Bark powdered for same. Leaves externally used as paste on boils, sores, skin diseases. Wood of P. santolinum astringent, cooling, tonic.

 

 

Punica granatum L. Punicaceae. Introduced; common cultivated plant, but usually for the flowers rather than the fruit. Nārmishk/Naermushiqi那兒木失乞/ Naermoshiqi納而謨失其/Naermushiqi那兒木實乞 [wild pomegranate flower]; Nārdān/Naerdang納尒當; Nār/Naer拿兒; Mughāth/Minghada名哈荅/Muaxi木阿西 [pomegranate root]; Rummān/Luman魯蠻; Jullinār /Gulinaer古里拏而/Gulinaer谷里納而; Ghūli/Guli谷里; Shiliu石榴, “stone willow,” i.e. “seedy willow,” in standard Chinese.

 

Dioscorides: I-151, rhoa, pomegranate. Good for stomach. Seed of sharpest (which are the most medicinal) ground and sprinkled on food for stomach looseness. In rain water for blood-spitting, or as bath for dysentery and childbirth problems. Juice for sores of many kinds.

I-152, kytinoi, pomegranate flowers. Similar uses. Binding and drying. Put on teeth and gums for problems. “Somme relate” (i.e., do not believe what follows) that taking three flowers prevents eye griefs for a year.[112]

 

Levey: Jullinār (this is the familiar “Golnar” or “Gulnar” so common in Iranian writings, often as a girl’s name). Flower. Liver, stomach, pains in spleen, and variously for limbs, throat, abscesses, teeth, gums.

 

Avicenna: rummān. Julnār is wild pomegranate. Persian, anār. Cold and dry, but wild is hot and moist. Syrup for yellow bile. Seeds with honey on malignant ulcers. Flowers on wounds. Wild form in poiultices for sprains, fractures, etc. Pomegranate with honey for toothaches, earaches, nose. Powdered seeds with honey on oral inflammations, ulcers. Many minor uses for eyes, chest, throatt, stomach, etc.

 

Lev and Amar: rummān. Flowers jullanār. Syrup used for various soothinguses. Oil of flower in water for eyes. Flowers in gargling and rinsing solution. Juice for diarrhea (tea of the skin works better). Juice also for fevers, cancer, erysipelas, sweelings, elephantiasis, etc. Peels and seeds used but no specifics survive. More generally, juice or fruit for thirst, stomach aches, liver.  Maimonides notes the peel for wounds, stopping diarrhea; cold and dry, though sweet is hot and dry.

 

Kamal: rumman. Rind for diarrhea, leucorrhea, hemorrhage, pharynx. Root starch powdered, cooked in milk, for tonic for weak or syphilitic patients.

 

Bellakhdar et al: qshur romman. Antiulcer, vaginal antiseptic, hypoglycemiant (presumably modern use). For gastro-intestinal disorders.

 

Ghazanfar. Fruit, especially rind, antihelminthic, and for diarrhea, jaundice; topically for skin rashes and vision.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: Rumman. Usual uses for stomach and topically on burns and skin problems; also taken for diabetes, heart, sinus. Value as antioxidant and astringent, and possibly for cancer, noted from recent medical literature.

 

Madanapala: Dādimī. Alleviates dosa problems.

 

Nadkarni: Astringent, antihelminthic.

 

Dash: All stomach diseases; digestion; cold conditions. Cardiac.

 

Sun: Pomegranate (anshiliu安石榴): sweet, sour, astringent, and nonpoisonous. It ends hotness and thirst in the pharynx. It cannot be eaten too much. Otherwise it hurts the lung.

 

Li: Anshiliu. Sweet and/or sour, warm, astringent, nontoxic. Used, especially the rind of sour fruits, as a cure for diarrhea and dysentery. Powdered rind or flower stanches wounds and otherwise useful. Various minor indications, including flower decoction to turn graying hair black. (This would work if some iron got in the mix; the tannins in the plant would make a black dye with iron.)

(The universal old-time use against diarrhea is still standard, and biomedically verified; the tannins stop diarrhea and seem to kill dysentery germs. The fruit is very high in antioxidants and is now recommended for all sorts of conditions; evidence is slim but suggestive. Modern Near Eastern and Chinese uses of flower, rind, and root bark, as in HHYF, for vermifuge, etc. Here as in HHYF it is used for almost anything where a strongly astringent herbal would help.)

 

 

Quercus infectoria Oliv. Fagaceae. Galls made by Cynips gallae-tinctoriae. mushizi木實子; Māzū/Mazu馬祖in Iran.

 

Dioscorides: I-146, kekides, oak galls. Binding, and used for any condition needing that. Put on swellings, gum diseases, ulcers, toothaches, wounds, etc. Dye hair black when macerated in vinegar or water. Sitz bath for women for vulvar discharges. Good for dysentery, etc.

Also oak uses: I-142, drys, Q. aegilops, dyer’s oak. All parts astringent; inner bark best. Acorn cup lining is good. For dysentery, blood-spitting, etc., and as pessary for leucorrhea and/or similar condition.

I-143, balanoi, acorns. Same uses. Also eaten for venomous bites. On wounds and sores.

I-144, phegos, Q. aesculus; prinos, Q. coccifera, kermes oak. Root bark dyes hair black. Leaves help swellings.

 

Lev and Amar: Various minor purposes for powder; gargling, etc. Hemorrhoids, skin, teeth, sores, wounds, drying in general. Maimonides notes sexual medicine uses for constricting vagin (the tannin would do this), hardening penis, increasing sperm.

 

Bellakhdar et al: Q. suber, Q. ilex, hair-care (the tannin adds much to a hair wash), bowel and colon infections.

 

Nadkarni: Galls for obvious astringent uses.

 

Li: Galls of this and other oaks, wushizi, bitter, warm, nontoxic, powdered for use for dysentery, external conditions, and black dye; the tannins make it effective for all these.

Several other oak species are used similarly, the acorns in particular being employed.

(Very concentrated tannins in the galls make them extremely effective for the above uses involving drying, constricting, washing.)

 

 

Raphanus sativus L. Brassicaceae. Native. Luobo蘿蔔. Hu 659 seeds, roots

 

Dioscorides: II-137, raphanis, radish. Root for vomiting, etc. Cataplasm for spleen. Various external applications. Seed for several minor conditions, used externally or internally.

I-45, oil of seed for skin conditions.

 

Galen: With fish sauce as purgative. Root usually eaten; leaves sometimes.

 

Avicenna: Fujl. Wild radish is. Roots hot, seeds hotter. Oil hot and dry. Usual minor external and internal uses, but bad as a food because it causes belching and is laxative.

 

Lev and Amar: fujl. Mouth, throat, skin, deafness and earache, headache, fever, skin conditions, poison. Maimonides notes use of seeds for sexual health—strengthens, heats, increases activity. Hot and dry.

 

Kamal: fugl, figl. Stomachic. Diuretic, galactagogue. Oil from seeds used in ear. Juice for dissolving gallstones. Eaten for scurvy.

 

Bellakhdar et al: Calefacient.

 

Ghazanfar: Leaves with salt and honey for ears. Ground seeds on skin for spots, pains, baldness.  Eating seeds for lactation and for kidneys. Root reduces phlegm; eaten before breakfast.

 

Madanapala: Mūlaka. Hot. Appetite, voice, dyspnoea, throat, eyes, rhinitis.

 

Nadkarni:  Seeds and leaves diuretic, laxative; seeds emmenagogue. Seeds used for gonorrhea.

 

Dash: Constipative. Pungent, hot, can cure poison.

 

Li: Luobo. Many uses, including some fascinating folklore with songs and stories. Usually described as warm, though in modern China it is one of the coldest foods, used against heats of all kinds.

 

 

Rhamnus infectorius. Rhamnaceae. Òazaz/Haqiqi哈齊齊; Òu†a†/Hazaze哈咱則

 

Avicenna: Snuff for facial paralysis. Treats eyelid swellings.

 

Nadkarni: several species (not this one) for purgation and astringent uses.

 

Eisenman: R. cathartica, usual laxative uses. Infusion of fruits in vodka to treat rehumatism.  Decoction of branches for ulcers, and extern ally on wounds. Tea for catarrh.

(Rhamnus spp. are standard purgatives everywhere, holding their own even today. The Near Eastern species was no doubt used for that purpose, but is barely mentioned in HHYF.)

 

 

Rheum palmatum L. & other spp. Polygonaceae. Native. Dahuang大黃; Rāwand/Luoyina羅亦那/Liewandi列頑的

 

Dioscorides: III-2, ra, rha, R. rhaponticum, rhubarb. [Note the scientific name is “rha ponticum,” the “rha” plant from the Pontic area.] Root drunk for bloating, stomach conditions, pains, convulsions, and essentially any and all illnesses. Binding and heating.

 

Avicenna: Rheum ribes, R. officinale. Ribās, rīwand. Cold and dry. Used externally for bubonic plague. Massages and poultices for various external uses, including treatment of beatings.  Internally for disease of liver stomach, etc. Also for cholera.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: Long tradition of rhubarb as very important in Near Eastern medicine.

 

Lev and Amar: Rheum spp. probably including R. officinale. Rībās, rāwand (these often treated as two separate things, presumably different spp. of Rheum). Cathartic. For liver including jaundice. Strengthens stomach, helps with vomiting and regulating heartbeat and appetite. For hemorrhoids, smallpox, pains, internal ailments, internal organs, plague, eyes, etc.

 

Nadkarni: R. emodi, R. officinale, other spp. Stomachic, tonic, cathartic, purgative. Standard cure for constipation and bowel complaints.

 

Eisenman: Rheum maximowiczii, decoction for diarrhea. Juice used for malaria.Young petioles and stemps for tonic, antipyretic, etc., and to prevent anemia and detoxify. Inreases appetite, treats gastritis and liver and gallbladder, tuberculosis, hemorrhoids, constipation (as well as diarrhea!), etc. Biomedically, well-known astringent; said to be diuretic, improve liver function, etc.

 

Li: Dahuang. This and other species. Bitter, cold, nontoxic. This major drug has a vast range of uses for basic regulation of the system. (Its fame spread throughout Eurasia in premodern times, to the point that 18th-century Chinese strategists assumed it was necessary to Europeans and thus usable to get a purchase on them by manipulating availability). Purgative and digestive, in particular.

 

Meserve: R. undulatum, “cathartic” (Meserve 2004:80).

(“I have observed Rheum nanum gathered for medical use in Mongolia; it is a widely used herb there.” Anderson has also had this experience.)

 

 

Rhus coriaria, R. chinensis Mill. & other spp., Anacardiaceae. Includes galls from Melaphis chinensis (Bell) & spp.  Summāq /Sumahei速麻黑/Sumaji速麻吉; Wubeizi五倍子; Fuyan 夫烟. [Note that the word “sumac” is a straight Arabic loan into English.]

 

Dioscorides:  I-147, rous, Rhus coriaria, tanning sumac. Leaves binding, and dye hair black. Clyster for dysentery; also drunk or as sitz bath. Various external applications (where tannin would do good). Applied for leucorrhea and hemorrhoids.

 

Avicenna: Sumāq. Cold and dry. Minor uses; causes constipation; stops excessive menstrual flow, or any excessive bleeding.

 

Levey, Levey and Khaledy: Summāq. R. coriaria. Gum and moth, anti-miscarriage, sore throat, sprue, collyrium.

 

Lev and Amar: R. coriaria, summāq. Diarrhea, toothache, gum pains, swellings, stomach, liver, measles, smallpox. Hemorrhoids, eyes.

 

Kamal: Rhus spp., sumaq. Tonic, stimulant. For incontinence of urine, and hematuria.

 

Nadkarni: R. coriaria fruit astringent, tonic, diuretic, styptic. For dysentery, etc. In paste on ulcers and piles.

 

Li: Yanfuzi鹽麩子, etc. Various minor uses for fruit and bark.

(Strongly astringent and sour. Very common spice in the Middle East then and now.)

 

 

Ricinus communis L., Euphorbiaceae. Bimazi鹽麩子, Hu 659.

 

Manniche: already very well known in ancient Egypt as a purgative, laxative, emollient, disinfectant, etc.

 

Dioscorides: IV-164, kroton e kiki. Poisonous. Oil laxative. Vomitory also, but dangerous. Oil put on sunburn. Leaves with flour in paste for eyes, milk-swollen breasts, rash, etc.

 

Avicenna: qanqabīn, the plant; the oil is khrū‘. Leaves with barley flour for swellings. Oil on ulcers, swellings, headaches, earaches. Laxative. Masage good for “uterine orifice and hot anal swellings.”[113] Expels worms.

 

Levey: Hair oil; epilepsy, clyster.

 

Lev and Amar: On skin for all the usual uses; internally for convulsion, tetany, fever, colic, purging. Also spleen, liver, kidneys, teeth, malaria, dysenery, lungs, thigh sinew, cough, heart, paralysis, hardened skin, joint pains, etc. Enema.

 

Kamal: Oil laxative and emetic. Seed powdered for skin diseases. Oil on ulcers. Pulverized seeds drunk to purge phlegm and abdominal worms. This from Avicenna. Presumably the seeds were used in very small quantities, since they are deadly poison. Seed mashed for external conditions; antiseptic on them.

 

Bellakhdar et al: Laxative, tonic.

 

Ghazanfar: ‘Arash, kharwa, khirwa. Smoke for bad breath. Topically for blisters, ulcers, toothache, eyes. Purgative.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: For hair loss, indigestion, abdomen and liver.

 

Nadkarni: Usual purgative use of oil; used in an incredible range of illnesses. External applications for sores, soreness, skin conditions, etc.

 

Dash: Strong purgative. Red variety also cures colic, gout, various other digestive and abdominal conditions.

 

Li: Bima 鹽麩. Sweet, pungent, balanced, slightly toxic. Usual purgative uses, plus uses where its toxins would be effective externally, etc.

(Castor oil remained the laxative of choice for very stubborn cases until well into the 20th century, but it is too drastic for use now that better things are available.)

 

 

Rosa spp., Rosaceae. Jinyingzi金櫻子; Qiangwei 薔薇. Jull (=gul; [Arabized] Persian for “flower”), ward (standard Arabic name), lawarda (Persian; from Arabic?  Or possibly vice versa?).

 

Dioscorides: I-130, rhodon, Rosa spp. Kynosbaton, “dog thornbush, for dog rose (R. canina). Petals ground, in wine, externally applied for soothing all sorts of coinditions. Burned for eyelid makeup. Leaves can be used for the medicinal uses. The petal salve or extract is recommended in a very wide range of headings; it was used as a general carrier, emollient, or aid for herbal applications.

I-131, rhodides, pomanders (scent balls made up with myrrh and nard). For perfume, etc.

I-53, rhodinon, rosaceum oil. Various recipes for extracting rose petals in oil, with honey and/or other items. Resulting oil used internally for stomach, externally for boils, sores, toothache, etc.  Clyster for rectal problems. Applied to vulva for irritations. [Rose attar is in fact both highly soothing and fairly strongly antibiotic. Note, however, that Dioscorides is talking about roses macerated in olive oil, not rose attar, i.e. the oil actually extracted from the petals.] This rose oil is noted as used with other herbs in a very large number of Dioscorides’ entries. [The cultural importance of the rose in Greco-Roman culture guaranteed it a major place in all areas, including medicine. Conversely, some of the cultural importance is due to the medicinal value.]

Levey: ward, Rosa spp. Rose oil for hemorrhoids, ulcers, boils, ointments, poultices for liver; flower in poultices for stomach, liver, spleen, sore throat, mouth; electuary for jaundice and for f=phlegm. Excellent for perfumery. Notes names including Akkadian murdinnu, Egyptian wrt, Hebrew wered, Aramaic wordā. Today astringent, etc. [The soothing and antiseptic values of rose are also well known, as they have been for millennia.]

 

Al-Bīrūnī: ward, Rosa spp. Gives the “Roman” (i.e. Rumi, Byzantine) as “anthūs,” i.e. Greek anthos “flower.” Flowers/buds used. Perfumes for women; desiccatory, refrigerant, astringent; good for liver and stomach. Iran is major source. An Iraqi variety was so big it could not be fully contained in two cupped hands. Rose oil distilled from many varieties.

 

Avicenna: Ward, Rosa damascena.  Persian gūl-i-surkh. Cold. Drying; constricting and astringent. Laxative, cleansing. On ulcers, sores, skin. Inhaled for headaches, and to make one sneeze (the oil). Rose water for loss of consciousness. Various uses for stomach, often preserved in honey (rose jam in sugar or honey is still a very common Middle Eastern medicine). Nasrīn, R. canina. Hot and dry. Purifying. Kills ear worms and used for ringing eaer and for toothaches. Used on forehead for headaches. Useful—presumably as tea—for sore throat and tonsillitis. Four-dram dose (of petals, fruit…?)—stops vomiting and hiccups.

 

Nasrallah: Cooling, dry, astringent.

 

Lev and Amar: nasrīn, ward (the later is the usual Arabic word). Various uses for liver, eyes, headaches, purging, and even lice. Used in a vast range of recipes for every purpose from babies’ navels to black bile and phlegm. Seeds fom fruit for diarrhea. Rose syrup (presumably the modern type: rosewater cooked down with sugar) often used; sometimes rose oil, mostly topically for almost any and every purpose from ear problems to stings. Rose leaves for coughs and colds. Rose rubb mentioned (and may be the rose-petal jam now common in the Middle East). Rosewater mentioned in recipes for diarrhea, headache, salivation, colds, giddiness, stomach ache, eyes, etc. Also spleen, fevers, etc.

 

Graziani: ward, R. gallica. Ibn Jazlah used rose oil as stomachic, for headache and spleen, for eye and ear illnesses, for dressing wounds. Al-Kindī used it for ulcers, boils, hemorrhoids, stomach, liver, spleen, and in mixes for sore throat and mouth. Samarqandī used it in lozenges for fever, phlegm, jaundice, heart palpitation, cold liver, etc. Today, in Egypt for stomachic; in Iran and Iraq as astringent for colic and diarrhea. (Many of these uses are found in Latin America today, ultimately from Arab medicine.)

 

Kamal: R. canina, nisrin, gul-nisrin (from Farsi). Astringent. Root used to treat rabies, hence name of plant. R. gallica, ward (in Arabic), influsions astringent, for throat and rectum.  Bellakhdar et al:  l-werd, R. damascena, R. centifolia. Laxative, against headache, cosmetic.  (These spp. universal for throat, cough, etc. in Hispanic countries now.)

 

Ghazanfar: Rosa sp.  Flowers for skin, coughs, tonic.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: R. damascena, ward. Tea with cinnamon for childbirth. In eyes for care.  For stomach, heart, insomnia.  On skin for general care (this worldwide use is oddly lacking in the other sources, but historical evidence shows it was extremely well known in the Mediterranean and Near East from time immemorial; so much for the completeness of the sources!)

 

Madanapala: R. moschata kubjakā, R. centifolia śatapatrī. Cardiac tonic, constipative, for semen, complexion, dosas, etc. Cold.

 

Nadkarni: Mildly astringent, aperient, carminative, refrigerant, tonic. Several spp. used.

 

Eisenman: Decoction of petals, leaves, branches, roots for rheumatism, stomach, heart. Tea of hips for scurvy, colds, diuretic. Decoction of roots for liver and gastrointestinal tract. Tea of hips also for astringent uses, including fevers, intestines, hemostat for uterine bleeding, and mouthwash. Seeds diuretic and for kidneys. Powdered leaves on wounds and skin ulcers.  Biomedically, various local uses, but potential apparently not well explored. R. fedtschenkoana, similar uses; remedy for scurvy; hips with honey for coulds and coiughs. Oil of rose used to treat cracked and injured breasts of nursing women. Also bed sores and other wounds and sores. Less successful uses of hips for tuberculosis, diphtheria, scarlet fever, flu. Biomedically, hips are a rich vitamin source.

 

Li: R. multiflora, yingshi, and R. chinensis, yuejihua 月季花. Range of minor uses, mostly for the former. Seeds and root. (Red rose is medicinal today for many internal purposes. The external uses are not traditional in eastern Asia.) Rosa laevigata Michx. Native. This is called “Cherokee rose” in the United States, because of its garden popularity and subsequent rapid spread in the south, but it is from China. Hip, jinyingzi (mistranslated “fruit” in Li 2003) sour, astringent, balanced, nontoxic. Male sexual tonic. Flower stops dysentery, makes a black hair dye, and kills worms (none of these seem biomedically very effective). More hopeful are several uses, external or digestive.

 

Meserve: R. acicularis, possibly various uses including diluent for infectious material in smallpox nasal inoculation.

 

(The rose was the Near East’s dream plant: both aesthetic and genuinely medicinal. The standard of beauty and sweet-scentedness, symbol of love and pleasure, and symbol of romance from earliest times, it was also known to be antiseptic, soothing both externally and internally, and effective against throat ailments—all of which it actually is, in biomedical terms. Rose oil is powerfully antiseptic. Rose-petal or roseleaf tea is extremely soothing to the throat. The preparations with sugar—syrup, rose jam—dilute the medical action too much to be more than symptomatically soothing, but they are so delightful that the Near Eastern belief that God made healing pleasant makes them inevitable parts of treatment. The high tannin content explains the widespread use of leaves and of tea of the plant for wounds, throat, skin, etc. By contrast, the more sober and pragmatic Chinese never used roses much in medicine, though the use of roseleaf tea for throat and stomach was well known and well established, giving us the English name “Chinese tea rose.” The place of the rose flower in romantic symbolism was taken by its relatives the peach and apricot. Nonsoothing items like ginseng and atractylis had the medical reputation. There is obviously an important and interesting cultural difference here. Rose hips are a source of vitamins, but there is a huge range in concentration; commercial roses have almost no vitamin value, whereas the rugosa rose of Japan is so rich in vitamin C that it is a regular commercial source thereof, and some other species, including R. fedtschenkoana as noted above, have high vitamin values.

Several HHYF recipes for treating wounds call for “rose dew.”  In modern Chinese, this is distilled liquor (baijiu) in which roses or rose oil has been infused to give a powerful damask-rose flavor.  In the HHYF it probably means the same, but just possibly could mean attar of roses, i.e. pure rose oil, usually water-extracted.

A minor rose mystery is the association with dogs of the small Eurasian wild roses: Dioscorides’ kynosbaton, Latin rosa canina, English “dog rose,” Mongolian noxoin xoshuu “dog snout,” etc. Explanations for this usage are inadequate.)

 

 

Rubia cordifolia L. Rubiaceae. Root. Native. Qiangen茜根; Rūnās/Luniyasi魯你牙思. Morocco, Fuwa.

 

Dioscorides: III-160, erythrodanon, Rubia tinctorum, madder. Root diuretic, abortifacient, emmenagogue, helps expel afterbirth. Helps with paralysis, venomous beast bites, etc. In short, a typical Dioscorides drug.

 

Avicenna: R. tinctoria. ‘Ushr.  Hot and dry. Constricting. Used on pains, ringworm, and internally for inflammations of spleen, clearing liver, diuretic, etc.—usual minor uses of hot and dry drugs.

 

Lev and Amar: R. tinctoria. Fūwa. Pains, hemorrhoids, childbirth pangs, etc. Eases childbirth, whitens teeth, cleases spleen and liver, cures leprosy, induces urine, etc. Hot and dry.

 

Kamal: R. tinctoria, fowah, fowat al-sabbaghin. Roots for emmenagogue, diuretic, childbirth.  Powder for rickets.

 

Bellakhdar et al: R. tinctoria, R. peregrina. Fuwa, tarubya. Aphrodisiac, antidiarrheal, antianemic, analeptic, for liver pain.

 

Ghazanfar: Fauwa. Root for irregular menstruation, with Salvadora persica and mulberries.  Crushed root as tonic after childbirth.

 

Nadkarni: Emmenagogue, astringent, diuretic, etc.

 

Eisenman: R. tinctoria, rickets, constipation, jaundice, joints, rheumatism in back etc. For kidney stones, gallstones, gout, diuretic, laxative. Roots mixed with honey for jaundice, memory improvement, diuretic. Biomedical activity as antibiotic.

 

Li: Qiancao茜草. Root used. Astonishing disagreement on its humoral qualities. Range of uses, from pain to bleeding to red dye.

 

 

Rumex spp. In China, mainly R. japonicus Houtt. Polygonaceae. Yangtigen羊蹄根; ummā©/Heimaxi黑馬西 [Rumex, sorrel]; Òimād/Hunmazi渾馬子 [Rumex, Sourwood, Sorreltree, Oxydendron arboreum]; Chokrī/Chukuli出枯哩 [dock, Rumex acetosa]. Root mostly used.

 

Dioscorides: II-140, lapathon, R. patientia, dock. Plant or seed boiled for stomach. Seed in water and wine for dysentery, scorpion stings, stomach and intestinal complaints. Leaves and/or roots externally for a wide range of conditions, from leprosy and impetigo to earache and toothache.

 

Galen: Also lapathon, R. patientia. Juice irritates stomach. Oxylapathon (“sour dock,” presumably R. acetosella), not good to eat.

 

Avicenna: ḥummāḍ, R. crispus. Cold and dry. Various poultices for tubecular glands, etc.  Mouthwash. With wine for black jaundice. Seeds cause constipation but leaves may be laxative. Minor internal uses.

 

Lev and Amar, Rumex sp., ḥummād. Minor uses including depressing sexual function.

 

Kamal: R. acetosa, hammad, hummayd. Diuretic (root). R. patientia, ‘rq. mushel, rawand barri.  Root infusion sudorific, and on skin and scabies. Leaves astringent.

 

Bellakhdar et al: Rumex sp., zerri’at l-hummida, laxative, for liver disorders.

 

Ghazanfar: R. vesicarius, ḥamid., leaves and seeds eaten for scorpion stings.

 

Nadkarni: R. crispus, Astringent, sedative.

 

Dash: R. acetosella and R. vesicarius. Alleviate dosas. Appetiser.

 

Eisenman: R. caesius, various diseases from scabies to scurvy; astringent for diarrhea.  Decoction of roots and leaves for skin conditions and wounds. Biomedically, astringent, purgative, and many intestinal conditions; vermifuge. R. tianschanicus, on abscesses.

 

Li: Yangti羊蹄 (can cover other species too). Range of uses, including root as vermifuge and antifungal. R. acetosa, suanmo, next in Li after this sp., sour, cold, nontoxic, for pain, scabies, tinea, dystentery, etc.

 

 

Ruta spp. (R. graveolens is the usual domestic species), Rutaceae. Rue, sādhab, is called for in the HHYF, but always glossed as “field mint,” and one can only assume the gloss is correct here, and that the rue actually used in the Near Eastern originals found a local substitute in field mint.  Either the Chinese did not have rue (but they do, now, and use it medicinally) or the translators were confused. Thus, see Mentha. However, in the HHYF Table of Contents, rue frequently appears, unglossed. Yunxiang雲香; Sadhāb/Sadabu撒荅不.

 

Dioscorides: III: 45: peganon to oreion (“mountain rue”). Pain in sides and breasts, asthma, coughs, lungs, joints, uterus, worms, ear trouble, itching, etc.

 

Levey: Various plants for pains in boys. Modern uses for diuretic, emmenagogue, abortive, etc.

 

Avicenna: Sadhāb, Ruta graveolens. Hot and dry. Pounded with salt for hot swellings. Used on tubercular lymph glands. Used for paralysis, pain, sciatica, arthritis; orally or poultice with honey. Usual minor uses of nose, eyes, chest. Used with fig as poultice for “watery swellings throughout the body.”[114] For abdominal pain. Internally or externally for fevers and chills.

 

Lev and Amar: sadhāb (wild rue), fayjān (cultivated). Diarrhea, wind, warts, dysuria, dysmenorrhea, hard swellings, aphasia, spasms, tension, shaking, palsy, baldness, fever, bile, phlegm. Rue oil specifically for convulsion and tetany, fevers, colic; seeds for eyelids; etc. Used with othe medications for anything and everything from sexual therapy to sore armpits. Hot and dry.

 

Kamal[115] translates Avicenna on rue; the account is very long and detailed. The plant is breaks up and resolves or soothes various conditions, clears vessels, etc. It is good on skin conditions for odor of garlic and onion, for tumors and pustules, for wounds and ulcers, for headaches and head conditions, for various eye, chest, and stomach conditions, and so on; it helps with fever and resists poisons. He gives formulations for all these purposes. Significantly, he says nothing about magical uses, though these were rampant in the west—at least later, and presumably in his time. The plant is, in modern biomedical terms, slightly antiseptic and quite soothing to the stomach, but not much else. Large quantities of it, made up as he recommends, would probably have action in most of the ways Avicenna mentions, though not necessarily very much action.

 

Meserve[116] lists R. sahurica as a Mongol medicine for nerves and possibly other uses, though there are problems with identification.

(Significant here is the thoroughly scientific and empirical way Avicenna treats the plant and its uses. He brought together an incredible amount of material that was obviously based on close observation and recording. Interestingly, rue never made it to East Asia in early times. It is very commonly grown as a folk medicine today, however. Li does not mention any Ruta sp. Possibly the easy availability of the closely related and similarly effective Citrus spp. account for this. Rue is extremely effective as an antiseptic [especially the oil], soothing and digestive agent, etc., but dangerous in overdose.)

 

 

Saccharum officinarum L., S. sinensis Roxb., Poaceae. Sugarcane. There is no sugarcane as such in the HHYF but hundreds of references to sugar in various forms. Shatang 沙糖/ shatang砂糖/Baishatang白沙糖/ Tang糖; Baishami白砂蜜; Zar nabāt/ Saernabate/撒兒那把忒; Fanīdh/Fanidi法尼的.

 

Dioscorides: II-104, sakcharon, sugar (from S. officinarum). Drunk for stomach, and pains of bladder and kidneys. Applied to eyes.

 

Levey: Sugar in various preparations, as a modifier. In clysters.

 

Avicenna: Hot and somewhat moist, but dry after aging. White sugar candy is moist. Laxative, cleansing, washing; the candy is especially laxative. Softens chest. Candy treats coughs. Cane for yellow bile. Various minor uses.

 

Lev and Amar: Cough, colds, heartbeat. Ash used for this and even malaria. Much more widespread was the use of sugar as the vehicle for carrying drugs; almost anything could be given in a syrup, rob (rubb), sugar pill, etc.

 

Ghazanfar: S. officinarum, juice for cough and diuretic, also in eyes for pain.

 

Madanapala: S. spontaneum, kāśa, cold; cures bronchitis, dysuria, stone, bleeding, consumption.  Other spp. noted.

 

Nadkarni: S. officinarum preservative, demulcent, antiseptic, cooling, laxative, diuretic. Juice used. Sugar for antiseptic and demulcent uses.

 

Dash: Sweet, cold. Promotes corpulence and virility. Laxative. S. spontaneum similar; also for thirst, cough, bleeding.

 

Sun: Sugar cane (ganzhe甘蔗): sweet, balanced, astringent, nonpoisonous. It helps the qi move downwards and harmonizes the Middle Jiao (hezhong和中) and nourishes the qi of spleen. It is good for the large intestine. It stops thirst and rids anxiety. It also treats intoxication caused by alcohol.

 

Li: Ganzhe (=S. officinarum, S. spontaneum, also). Sweet, balanced to cold, astringent, nontoxic. Minor uses including soothing stomach.

 

 

Salix babylonica L., Salicaceae. LiuBīd/ Biedi別的.

 

Dioscorides:  I-74, itea, Salix sp., willow. Leaves ground, taken as contraceptive; drunk with pepper and wine for colic. Fruit (seed) or bark tea, drunk for spitting blood. Various external applications.

 

Avicenna: Bahrāmaj, khilāf, ṣafṣāf (various species). Several external uses, including poultice for bone wounds. Fruits for gases in head. Smelling of leaves is good. Flowers and juice in ears for aches. Juice for liver and jaundice. Somewhat laxative. (Interestingly, the painkilling effects are not mentioned.)

 

Lev and Amar: Salix spp. S. aegyptica, khilāf, etc. Eyes, fever, colic, stomach-ache.

 

Kamal: S. alba, root for antirheumatic and antipyretic uses. S. nigra, sexual disturbances. S. babylonica not used medicinally.

 

Nadkarni: Antihelminthic, antiseptic, astringent, tonic. Several other spp. used similarly.

 

Dash: Cures aggravated heat in lungs and heart.

 

Li: Liu (“willow” in general; this sp. is the usual garden one in China). Bitter, cold, nontoxic.  For fever, of course, but also a variety of other internal and external uses, the external ones related to tannin values.

  1. purpurea, shiuyang水楊, twig and fruit for a number of internal and external uses related to strong tannin value.

(Willows are one of the most concentrated sources of salicylic acid, the natural “aspirin,” though the latter drug was actually discovered by the Bayer chemists in a Spiraea, of which the word “aspirin” is an anagram. Cultures around the world have learned to use willow leaf or bark tea, or simply chew the leaves, for fevers, headaches and inflammations.)

 

 

Santalum album L., Santalaceae. Sandalwood. Tan/ 檀. Hu 540.

 

Graziani: Ibn Jazlah used it for palpitation, headache, liver ailments; modern Iranian use for antiseptic action in genito-urinary tract. White sandalwood in Egypt against gonorrhea and other genito-urinary complaints.

 

Levey: ṣandal. Liver, spleen, erysipelas, etc.

 

Avicenna: ṣandal. Cold and dry. Dissolves hot swellings; used on inflammation. For headaches, fevers, weak stomach.

 

Lev and Amar: ṣandal. Black bile, phlegm, malaria, diarrhea, liver, ulcers, teeth, erysipelas, heart, etc.

 

Kamal: Sandal. Oil sudorific, heart tonic, cure for gonorrhea.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: used in India for treating acute swellings, as well as for making useful objects (that would then be scented), etc.[117]

 

Bellakhkdar et al: sendal. “Magic,” whatever that may be.

 

Madanapala: Candana. Cold. Cardiac tonic. For complexion, poison, thirst, bleeding, burning syndrome.

 

Nadkarni: Wood bitter, cooling, sedative, astringent. Oil used as disinfectant for membranes.

 

Li:  Tan, a name used also for Dalbergia hupeana. Root-bark balanced, pungent, nontoxic, good for external parasites. The gum, tanxiang (sandalwood fragrance/incense), warm, pungent, nontoxic, few minor uses including the same external ones and a stomachic use.

(This is, of course, also the most important Chinese incense, so important that it gave its name to Hong Kong [xianggang 香港, “incense port,” because sandalwood was once shipped from there; mistranslated “fragrant harbor” all too often] and the Hawaiian Islands (tanxiangshan 檀香山, “sandalwood mountains,” in Chinese, because they once produced this root-parasitic tree). As a sacred incense, its smell defines sacred space in Chinese culture. Its major medicinal importance, then, lies in its magical or religious function. Its scent when burned pleases the gods and spirits and makes them help and heal the worshipers.)

 

 

Satureja thymbra L., Lamiaceae. Savory. ßa’tar/Satela撒忒剌; hāshā/Hasha哈沙

 

Dioscorides: III-45, thymbra, Satureia thymbra, savory. Used like thyme.

 

Lev and Amar: za‘tar (sa‘tar) fārisī. Kidney pains and stones, urine flow, ears, eyes, intestines, growths on neck, emmenagogue, diuretic, stomach, etc.

 

 

Saussurea lappa C. B. Clarke, Asteraceae. Introduced to China as cultivated medicinal. Muxiang木香; Guang-mu-xiang. Hu 100.

 

Avicenna: Qusṭ (from the Greek kostos). Hot and dry. Various external uses; also for lethargy, chest pains, menstruation, worms, etc. Aphrodisiac but abortifacient. Treats bites; with wine and absinthe for snake bites. (Interesting that Avicenna is the only western source to go into much detail on this widely distributed and chemically active plant—a major Chinese medicine.)

 

Madanapala: Kustha. Pungent, sweet, bitter. Promotes semen. Cures gout, erysipelas, bleeding, cough.

 

Nadkarni: Carminative, antiseptic, disinfectant.

 

Dash: Bitter, pungent, hot, alleviates dosas, cures thirst, erysipelas, poison, fungus, skin conditions.

 

Li: Muxiang. Root pungent, warm, nontoxic. Dispels problems in general, even nightmares and weak will. General tonic and toner of system, with wide functions.

 

 

Scolopendrium vulgare Swartz, Polypodiaceae. As-saqūlūfandariun/Yisigulufandilirong亦思古魯凡的里榮.

 

Dioscorides: III-121, phyllitis. Leaves with wine for snakebite and the like, and dysentery and diarrhea.

 

 

Sedum sarmentosum.  Chuipencao垂盆草. Possibly a mistaken identification in sources.

However, Lev and Amar report use of possible Sedum sp., ḥayy al-’ālam, for nerves, lungs, bleeding, pains. Not scored.

 

 

Semecarpus anacardium L., Anacardiaceae. Balādur/Biladier必剌的兒/Baladuerdi八剌都而的; Anqardiyā/Anjiaerdiya安家兒的牙/ Anaqardiyā /Anhaerdiya安哈而的牙. Oriental cashew nut.

 

Presumably the cashews mentioned in HHYF is this sp.

 

Avicenna: Balādur. Hot and dry. On ulcers, inflammation, warts, vitiligo. Eliminates tattoo marks. Relieves baldness. Treats “coldness and laxity of nerves caused by paralysis and facial paralysis.”[118] May stir up melancholia. Snuffing it dries piles. Poisonous.

 

Madanapala: Astringent, sweet, hot.  Promotes semen. Cures abdominal diseases, constipation, skin including leprosy, piles, fever, ulcers, parasites, etc.

 

Nadkarni: Very important; many major uses. Antiseptic, stimulant, digestive, etc. Modern studies confirm effects; several active ingredients noted.

Powerful vesicant, rash producing, but oil highly antiseptic and cholagogue. “Ripe fruits are regarded as stimulant, digestive, nervine and escharotic…gastro-intestinal irritant. Kernel edible, digestive, carminatice. Cardiac and respiratory tonic.[119] Several pages of uses; very important in India, especially for skin and digestion.

 

Dash: Hot; digestive.

 

 

 

Sesamum indicum  DC., Pedaliaceae. Oil.  Introduced crop in China. Zhima芝麻; Ma 麻; Mazi痲子; Huma胡麻. In the HHYF, sesame oil is often confused with flax or cotton oil.

 

Dioscorides: II-121, sesamon, sesame. Hurts stomach. Causes bad breath if the seeds stick in the teeth. Gets rid of thickness of nerves (whatever that is), helps with fractures, inflammations, burns (evidently externally applied), and (presumably internally) for colon, etc. Used with rose oil on head. Herb in wine for the same and for eyes. Use of oil mentioned, but apparently it is not medicinal.

 

Galen: Warm, oily, not a good food.

 

Levey: Simsim. Ear, leprosy; oil general carrier for all sorts of poultices, clysters, etc.

 

Avicenna: Simsim. Hot and moist. Laxative. Soothing. Seeds on burns. Poultice for nerves.  With rose oil on head for headaches. For difficult breathing; seeds taken. Emmenagogue and abortifacient.

 

Lev and Amar: simsim. Oil is shīraj. Oil used in preparations for various topical purposes; part of a medicine for babies’ umbilical hernia and incessant crying that apparently included all the favorite curealls in the Genizah. Also for convulsion, tetany, fevers, colic, breast swellings, ears, headache, leprosy, lungs, abscesses, toothaches, cough, instanity, etc. Apparently always the oil.

 

Graziani: Simsim. Used by Ibn Jazlah for blood, hair, relaxation, snakebite. Fattening but makes thirst and slows digestion. Used today in Middle East to increase milk, for stomach and pulmonary diseases, emmenagogue, even abortifacient.

 

Kamal: semsem, simsim. Seeds for poultices.

 

Bellakhdar et al.: jenjlan. Hypnotic for children. Stimulant, including for lactation (a very widespread use in the Mediterranean and elsewhere).

 

Ghazanfar: Zait simsim (the oil). Seed oil for dysentery, colds, urinary problems. Seeds used as aphrodisiac.

 

Nadkarni: Seeds laxative, emollient, demulcent, diuretic, latagogue, emmenagogue. Leaves demulcent.

 

Sun: Sesame (huma胡麻): sweet, balanced, nonpoisonous. It especially treats hurt Middle Jiao (shangzhong傷中) and weakness (xulei虚羸). It is nutritious to the five internal organs. It enhances the qi and strength. It builds muscles. It fills the head with brains. It strengthens tendons and bones. It cures cutting wounds and relieves pain. It treats the striking cold (shanghan傷寒) and the illness in which at first the patient has fever and then feels cold (wennue溫瘧). It treats the feeling of weak, heat, and tiredness after excessive vomiting and diarrhea (datuxia hou xure kunfa大吐下後虛熱困乏). If one has taken it for a long time, his weight will be lessened and he will not get old [presumably “old” means “senile” here]. It is helpful to hearing and eyesight. It helps people resist cold and heat. It elongates one’s lifespan. Its oil is mildly cold. It particularly helps the large intestines (li dachang利大腸). It deals with the problem when a lying-in woman has difficulty pushing out the afterbirth (chanfu baoyi bu luo產婦胞衣不落). It will let hair grow on a bald head. One can use raw sesame to rub a wound or swelling (chuangzhong瘡腫). It eliminates wandering wind (youfeng遊風) on head and face. It has other names: jusheng巨勝, goushi狗虱, fangjing方莖, or hongzhi鴻芷. Its leaves are called qingxiang青蘘. It treats the striking heat (shure暑熱). Its flowers especially treat loss of hair. On the seventh day, pick those growing on the top (zuishang piaotou最上摽頭) and dry them in the shade for future use. [The nutritional uses stressed above are perfectly practical; the high content of protein, oil, vitamins and minerals in sesame seed has made it a valuable nutritional source for thousands of years.]

 

Li: hu ma (“Iranian hemp”—the seeds, not the fibre, being similar to hemp) or you ma油麻or zhima (“oil hemp”; the last of these is the modern term). Li reports it was introduced to China by Zhang Qian張騫in the Han Dynasty; he is credited with many introductions from the west). Stem, oil, leaves used, but mostly the seeds, with black seeds having a different nutritional and medical value than white/yellow ones. (Black seeds are now considered more nourishing and warming.)

(Sesame oil is an excellent skin oil, also nutritious, and a good vehicle for other drugs, but has no special biomedical value.)

 

 

Seseli tortuosa L., Apiaceae. Sisāliyūs/Xisaliyuxi西撒里欲西/Xisaliyusi西撒里雨思/Xisaliyuxi 西撒里玉西.

 

Dioscorides: Kagchru, possibly this sp. Warming, drying. For eyes. Dioscorides’ “seseli” is identified as Echinophora tenuifolia (seseli massaleotikon, III-60) and Bupleurum fruticosum (seseli aithiopikon, III-61). These were used—seed and root—for diuretic, emmenagogue, and abortifacient purposes and general internal complaints, from coughs and gripes to fevers.

 

Nadkarni: S. indicum, seeds stimulant, carminative, stomachic.

 

 

Solanum melongena L., Solanaceae. Eggplant. Wagdh/Wenda溫荅; Jiazi茄子. Mentioned as a food in the Index.

 

Avicenna: Bādhinjān. Produces black bile. Hot and dry. Minor uses but most of the entry consists of warnings: harms clomplexion, causes headaches, causes liver problems unless cooked with vinegar, etc.

 

Lev and Amar: Strengthens stomach, dispels nausea. Hot and dry. Improves smells of body, increases urine, blackens the hair, removes white spots and tears from eyes, et. Thorns used for hemorrhoids and the like.

 

Ghazanfar: Regulates cholesterol.

 

Nadkarni: hypnotic, antiphlegmatic, alleviate wind, etc. Ash used. Leaves narcotic, seeds stimulant. Fruit fried for toothache. Fruit good for liver.

 

Li: Sweet, cold, nontoxic. Not a particularly good food. Useful for poultices; stem burned for ash for aphtha. A large number of specialized medical uses, some magical: hang up an eggplant, gaze at it day after day; as it withers the disease withers. Many small, intensely flavorful eggplant species exist in south China and neighboring Southeast Asia. Li calls them “bitter eggplant,” kujia苦茄, probably lumping several species, and recommends them for a wash for carbuncle and swelling.  Some are used in local and Tibetan medicine (e.g. Dash, S. indica).

(Major food in the Middle East, where any eggplant dish is likely to be called Būrūniyā from the extreme fondness that an early ‘Abbasid Princess Burun was said to have for the fruit (sober history does not record this, however). This has given us “boronia,” “alboronia” and the like in various European languages. Converted Moors carried it to Mexico. Sometimes the dishes are made with green beans or other substitutes instead of eggplant.)

 

 

Solanum nigrum L., Solanaceae. ‘Inab ath-Tha’lab/Yinabusalabi亦拏卜撒剌必/Yegouputao野狗蒲萄 (“Wild dog grape”)

 

Theophrastus: II, p. 311, strykhnos, possibly not this species; makes one mad.

 

Dioscorides: IV-71, strychnos kepaios, garden nightshade. Leaves edible, cooling, applied for a very wide range of external conditions.

 

Galen: Medicine; extremely astringent, cold.

 

Levey: Rūzbāraj. In nasal ointment and for liver and stomach, hemorrhoids, etc. Also as ‘inab ath-tha’lab, for erysipelas.

 

Avicenna: ṭiqāqawāūn (enchanter’s nightshade). Many other names. Cold and dry. Usual uses in poultices; unusual is one with white lead and rose oil, for diffuse inflammation. Sedative. Used in eyes, for stomach and kidneys, cleansing. Primarily an anaesthetic or sedative.

 

Lev and Amar: eggplant, S. melongena, stoach, nausea, diuretic, etc. Hot and dry.

 

Kamal: ‘inab al-th’eb. Leaves for poultices and vaginal treatments. S. melongena leaves for fomentations for burns and leprosy; juice of fruit (eggplant) diuretic.

 

Bellakhdar et al: S. sodomaeum, limun n-nsara, quras l-jenn, antiepileptic.

 

Ghazanfar: Plant used as expectorant; for fevers, gonorrhea, kidney, bladder, stomach; on ulcers.

Madanapala:  Kākamācī. Hot. Cardiac tonic, rejuvenating, promotes voice and semen. For odema, skin, leprosy, piles, fever, urinary diseases. Several other Solanum spp. discussed.

 

Nadkarni: Not this, but several other spp. used, some narcotic; most very different in nature and effect from S. nigrum, however.

 

Dash: Hot, laxative. Promotes voice and virility and alleviates dosas. Cures skin. Can be poisonous.

 

Li: Longkui 龍葵. Bitter, slightly sweet, slippery and nontoxic (!). All parts used; a few minor uses including external uses on boils and the like.

Several other Solanum species used, including eggplants S. melongena and relatives for an astonishing variety of uses, including poultice on frostbite.

(Solanum nigrum sometimes contains dangerous alkaloids, giving it the name “deadly nightshade.”)

 

 

Spartium junceum L., Fabaceae. Badāshghān/Badashihan八達失韓Badashqan.

 

Dioscorides: IV-158, spartion, broom. Seeds purgative. Drunk or clyster for lower parts.

(Arab/Persian name obscure; very likely applies to a different species of broom, as in the case of the hairy thorn-broom above. But it is not in the Middle East sources under any name.)

 

 

Stellaria dichotoma L. var lanceolata Bge., Caryophyllaceae. Yincihu 銀紫胡 [?].

 

Sun: Chickweed (Stellaria media, perhaps including the above sp.; fanlou蘩蔞): sour, balanced, nonpoisonous. It treats especially the deteriorative ulcer that exist for years, and hemorrhoids that cannot be cured. Pick it at noon, the fifth day of the fifth month. It is also called zicao滋草, or jichangcao雞腸草. Dry and burn it. Use the parched ashes for medication. Bian Que扁䳍 said, “If a man has a deteriorative ulcer, or his glans (yintou陰頭) and penis have ulcers and are festered, and the pain is intolerable and the ulcer cannot be healed up for a long time, take one part ashes to two parts mud recently excreted by an earthworm. Add water and fully blend them. Make a paste like the dough that is used to make a pancake before it is fried. Apply the paste on the ulcer and change it when it is dry. Do not consume alcohol, flour food, the five spices (wuxin五辛), or hot food (reshi熱食).” The Yellow Emperor said, “When fanlou is taken alongside with (?zha[鱼旦]鲊), it will arouse the illness of losing weight and being thirsty and make the person forgetful.” There is another species, growing in warm and wet location, for instance a place close to the aqueduct. It grows in the winter and its shape is like coriander (husui胡荽). It is also called jichangcao雞腸草. It can be used to cure hemorrhoids. It has another name, tianhusui天胡荽.

 

Li: Fanlü繁縷. Trivial uses,

 

 

Strychnos sp. (S.  pierriana?), Loganiaceae. Jawz [al-]qāyi/Guoerji過兒吉… [Transcription incomplete]

 

 

Dash: S. nux-vomica L. bitter and astringent; cures parasites. Usable for rat-poison.

The fact that only Tibetan medicine seems to use this plant, among our sources, does not mean we have a Tibetan influence here. Note the Arabic name and the fact that S. nux-vomica is known all over the Old World, but mostly as a poison rather than a medicine.

 

 

Styrax benzoin Dryand., Styracaceae. Resin.  Anxixiang安息香. Hu 659.

 

Dioscorides:  I-79, styrax, S. officinalis. Gum used. Warming, softening. Cures coughs and other respiratory conditions. Drunk or applied for vulva and as emmenagogue. Soot also used.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: Usshaq, usshaj. Deeobstruent, haemorrhagic, resolvent, purgative. With vinegar and tar for scrofula, sclerosis, enlargements, cleaning away bad flesh, etc. With honey and barley for arthritis and uralgic problems, and joint pain in general. Al-Bīrūnī  records some controversy over exactly what plant is meant.

 

Avicenna: S. officinalis, aṣṭarak; lubni for liquid. Hot and dry. Usual minor uses for hot dry drugs.

 

Kamal: gawi. Inhalations for cheat disease and throat inflammations. Resin stimulant, expectorant, astringent; cough sedative, dries expectoration. Antiseptic dressing powder for wounds.

 

Bellakhdar et al: jawi. Ripening of abscesses.

 

Nadkarni: Antiseptic, disinfectant, stimulant, expectorant. Gum. Used as incense.

 

Li: Anxixiang. (Identified in Li 2003 as S. tonkinensis, but Li notes it may have come from Anxi in central Asia, and had a Sanskrit name, so S. benzoin is surely included.) Gum pungent, bitter, plain, and nontoxic. A number of uses, most of them, unusually, psychological; it dispels nightmares, unnatural sexual dreams, fright, visions of ghosts, evil, and devils, and the like. This is the only plant in this canon that the hard-headed Li uses primarily for such purposes.

 

 

Syzygium aromaticum (L.) Merr. et Perry (Eugenia caryophyllata Thunb.), Myrtaceae. Imported. Dingpi丁皮; Dingxiang丁香 (“nail aromatic,” cf. English “clove” from French clou “nail.” Hu 973. Flower bud, dried, becomes clove.

 

Avicenna: Qaranful. Hot and dry. Strengthens stomach and liver.Treat vomiting and nausea.  Can help eyes, also epilepsy.

 

Levey, Levey and Al-Khaledy: Qaranful. In electuaries, dentifrice, collyrium, and for breathing and stomachic.

 

Lev and Amar: Qaranful. Heat, dryess, black and red bile, coughs, colds.  Freshens breath, treats gums and stomach. Hysteria, epilepsy, etc., and for sexual medicine (Maimonides). For nausea.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: Qaranful, mismar. Coughs, colds, cuts, eyes, hair loss, headaches, menstruation, nauseal and vomiting, sore throat, toothache, and childbirth (cinnamon, cloves, honeyu, dates during labor). Antiseptic and antifungal activity noted here.

 

Nadkarni: Dried buds stomachic, carminative, stimulant, aromatic, antispasmodic. Oil antiseptic, local anaesthetic, rubefacient. (These uses are all well documented by modern biomedicine; the volatile oils are responsible.)

 

Dash: Cold. Cardiac, promotes eyesight and virility, cures poisons.

 

Li: Dingxiang.Pungent, warm, nontoxic.Topical for mouth and nose. Cures gum disease, bad breath, etc. Digestive. Some minor uses. Used since very ancient times.

(Clove is highly effective, still in some medical use, and perhaps the most effective in biomedical terms of anything mentioned in the HHYF. Its volatile oil is strongly antiseptic, antifungal, carminative, stomachic. It has been used since time immemorial for toothache, since it not only kills at least a few bacteria but also has some numbing or pain-relieving effect; treats gums, sweetens breath.  Still almost universally used, worldwide, in folk medicine.)

 

 

Tamarindus indicus L., Fabaceaae.  Tamarind. Bādranjabuyah/Badilangjiboye把的朗吉波也; khurmā’ Hindī/ Huermaxindu忽而麻忻都; Òumar/ Huerma胡而麻. Mentioned only a few times including in the table of contents volume.

 

Avicenna: Cold and dry. Laxative.  Treats vomiting, thirst from fever, yellow bile, and effects of excessive vomiting.

 

Lev and Amar: Astringent. For menorrhagia, jaundice, laxative, purgative, cooling; in modern Egypt as mouthwash for thrush; seeds for plaster; for nausea, fever, etc.

 

Nadkarni: Pulp contains tartaric, citric, malic, ascorbic, and acetic acids, as well as oter useful items.  Cooling, carminative, digestive, laxative. Antibilious. Leaves and seeds strongly astringent. Two pages of fine print on local uses.

(Oddly not in Li. A very popular cooling drink throughout much of the Mediterranean world, and its extension into Hispanic America, is prepared from the pulp, and no one who has tried it can fail to be impressed by the cooling effect of the astringent but sweet pulp rich in vitamins and minerals.)

 

 

Taxus baccata L., Taxaceae. Zarnab/Zhaernabu札而拿卜

 

Levey: Zarnab. Uncertain identification as yew. Good for spirits and happiness.

 

Avicenna: Hot and dry; minor uses typical of hot dry drugs.

 

Lev and Amar: zarnab. Disinfectant. For bad smells. Softens voice, dissolves phlegm, improves digestion, diuretic, etc.

 

Nadkarni: Leaves and fruits emmenagogue, sedative, antispasmodic.

 

Li: Torreya grandis, feishi榧實, seed, sweet, balanced, astringent, nontoxic. Vermifuge, mouth sores, sore throat (still standard in the 21st century for this; the nuts are roasted and eaten.)

(Berries of Taxus are highly toxic.)

 

 

Terminalia bellerica (Gaertn.) Roxb., Combretaceae. Balīlaj/Balila八里剌.

 

Avicenna: balīlaj. Cold and dry. Cleansing. Oxidizing, assimilative. Maturing for stomach.  Laxative. (Note this is another of the many Indian medicines not mentioned by Islamic authorities other than Avicenna.)

 

Madanapala: Bibhītaka. Astringent, purgative, for eyes, cough, etc.

 

Nadkarni: Astringent, tonic, expectorant, laxative; yunani use as cold and dry tonic for stomach etc., used also for headache, hemorrhoids, diarrhea.

 

Dash: Cures all diseases caused by either heat or cold!  Pungent, hot, corrosive. Cures abdominal diseases.

It would seem highly likely that this drug got into HHYF practice via Tibet.

 

 

Terminalia chebula Retz.,Combretaceae. Hozi訶子; Hawm al -majūs /呼木麥乎思/Humumaishuzi呼木麥朮思; Halĩlaj/Halila哈里剌. Hu ds659

 

Levey: Halīlaj. Loose uvula; ears; throat; mouth; preventing miscarriage. Levey notes its wide use in Asia, giving even a Tokharian word for it (arirāk).

 

Avicenna: halīlaj. Cold and dry. Internal pains. Digestive. Evacuates black bile and phlegm. Laxative. Good for memory, sense organs, intellect.

 

Lev and Amar. Terminalia spp. ‘amlaj, halīlaj, etc. Various kinds used but hard to sort out in the Genizah material—which has a very great deal about them. As in India, they tend to have been curealls. Eyes, stomach, cough, cold, pains, and most other minor ailments.

 

Bellakhdar et al: astringent; also for liver, stomach and bowel disorders.

 

Ghazanfar: Leaves on skin rashes. Enema from crushed fruit with other substances. For childbirth.

 

Nadkarni: Astringent, purgative, etc. Myrobalans—this, T. bellerica, and Emblica—are standard Indian medicines, universally used.

 

Dash: Root cures bone diseases, trunk for muscles, branches for vessels and tendons, bark for skin, leaves for hollow viscera, flowers for sense organs, fruits for solid viscera—a wonderful bit of correspondence theory, obviously influenced by the Chinese (note the classification of viscera). Stimulant, appetiser, laxative.

 

Li: Helile, hezi, the former explained by Li as Sanskrit for “coming of the heavenly god”!  (Note that it is actually a transcription of the Arabic name.) Very wide range of uses, but most cluster around respiratory and digestive. Myrobalans, from India, have a long history in China.

 

 

Teucrium chamaedrys L. Lamiaceae. Kamāduriyūs /Kemadiyusi可馬的雨思/Kemadieryusi可馬的兒雨思; Kamādariyūs /Kemadaeryuxi可馬達而玉西/Kemafeixixi可馬肥徙西 (Gr).

 

Kamal: Kamadrios, ballat al-ard. Used for tuberculosis; antipyretic, anti-gout. T. maritimum, kamadrios al-bihhar; tonic, astringent, dissolvient. For nasal polypi.

 

Nadkarni: Tonic, diuretic, sudorific.

 

 

Teucrium leucocladum Boiss. and Teucrium polium L., Lamiaceae. Ju’dah /Zhuwuda主兀荅/Shuwuda述兀荅; Sādhaj/Sada撒荅.

 

The former is a local Middle Eastern plant. All sources probably trace back to Dioscorides’ comments on T. polium, possibly including T. chamaedrys, a European plant still widely used medicinally including in the HHYF. See above.

 

Dioscorides: III-124, polion, T. polium; Goodyer Englishes it as hulwort. Bites, dropsy, jaundice, spleen. Purgative, emmenagogue. Bad for stomach.

 

Avicenna: A range of germander species are treated. All are hot and dry. Most are opening and diluting. They have the usual range of uses for hot and dry herbs.

 

Lev and Amar: T. capitatum, ja‘da, kamādriyūs. Wounds abscesses, spleen swellings, fevers, stings, diuretic, purgative, emmenagogue. Hot and dry. Dropsy, jaundice, spleen, etc.

 

Bellakhdar et alj’idiya. Against chill, oedema, liver pain [a folk category]. Blood-cleansing.

 

Ghazanfar: Ja’ada and other names. Leaves boiled and drunk for pain, jaundice, fever; topically on bites and abscesses; for childbirth. T. mascatense for colic, diabetes, stomach pain, fever.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: Diabetes, rheumatism, swellings, purgation, stomach. Leaf influsion used. Effective, but toxic, so inadvisable.

 

Mandaville: Mention (ja’dah) but no medicinal use reported.

 

Nadkarni: Arab knowledge noted. No Indian use.

 

 

  1. scordium L., Lamiaceae. Asqūdūriyūn /Sugudierrong速古的兒榮; Suqurdiyun; Saqūrdiyūn/Suguerdiyun速古兒的云

 

Dioscorides: III-125, skordion, T. scordioides [or possibly scordium?], water germander. Herb warming. Diuretic. Snakebites, poisons, dystentery, old coughs, convulsions. Applied in vinegar or water to gout. Aplied for emmenagogue and for wounds. Various external uses.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: Shaqardiyūn. Astringent, bitter, sharp. Purifies organs. Diuretic and emmenagogue.  For pains from obstruction and coldness. Granulates gaping wounds. Antitoxin. With wine for stomach, intestines, strangury. Cleansing. Dry for coughs and cramps. With medicine with oil and wax, reduces iflammation and pain. Pessary, emmenagogue. Detergent for wounds; generates new skin, removes hard dried flesh. Extract for pains. Most of this from Galen.

 

Kamal: T. scordioides, water chamaedrys; al-thom al-barri, magl al-safsaf. For preservative.

 

Nadkarni: Antiputrefactive. Antiseptic, diaphoretic, stimulant.

 

 

Thapsia sp. (e.g. T. garganica L.), Apiaceae. Not. Thāfsiyā/Tafuxiya他福西牙 (Persian).

 

Dioscorides: IV-157, thapsia, T. garganica. Root or sap for purging. This helps not only with stomach pains but for asthma, etc. Applied to sunburns, eruptions, etc. Noted that “it behoves him that takes ye liquor not to stand against ye wind, but rather to doe it in still weather. For it puffs up ye face mightily, & ye naked parts are blistered by the sharpness…”[120]  In other words, it, like some relatives, contains furanocoumarins that sensitize the skin to ultraviolet radiation, causing massive sunburn.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: Tāfsiyā. Vesicant, very heating.

 

Bellakhdar et al: Analeptic, antirheumatic, revulsive

 

 

Thuja orientalis L. and other Cupressaceae. Some native. Unclear what species is or are mentioned in the HHYF. Bozi柏子

 

Al-Bīrūnī: Juniperus, one name being ‘ar‘ar (see below), cited to Rāzī as emenagogue and treatment of “foetal disorders.”

 

Avicenna: rīs for tree; abhal for the berry; ‘ar‘ar for the tree and berry; sandrūs for gum.  Hot and dry. Fruit roasted in sesame oil for ear drops. Fumes help respiratory ailments. Fruits for chest pain and cough. Gum—sandarac—for palpitations, asthma, etc. Berry cleansing, laxative; sandarac taken for inflamed spleen. Berry diuretic. Berry and oil a famous abortifacient. Gum used for diarrhea; fumes of it on piles.

 

Nasrallah: hot, dry, purging, diuretic. Antihelminthic. Emmenagogue, abortifacient.

 

Lev and Amar: ‘ar‘ar.  Hot and dry. “Regulates” menstruation, treats fractures, skin, heart, eyes.

 

Kamal: T. articulata, leaves diuretic and anticatarrhal, sedative for reumatic pains. Wood sudorific; for syphilis.

 

Bellakhdar et al: Juniperus phoenicia for urinary antiseptic, emmenagogue, stomach pains; Tetraclinis articulata, ‘ar‘ar, a native Moroccan juniper-like plant similar to Thuja, as antidiarrheal, antipyretic, antivertigo, anti-headache, astringent.

(The fame of juniper oil as abortifacient is widespread; it is dangerous, not infrequently fatal, but very effective.)

 

 

  1. vulgarus. (generic thyme) Òāshā’/Hasha哈沙; ©a’tar/Sadala撒荅剌/Satela撒忒剌; Dijiao地椒

 

Dioscorides III-44, thymos, Cretan thyme. Loosens and drives out phlegm, helps with asthma, expels worms. Not surprisingly by now, it is diuretic, emmenagogue, abortifacient, clears out afterbirths. The usual variety of minor external uses. Eaten with food, helps the sight.

 

Graziani: “Wild thyme,” nammām, used by Ibn Jazlah, unspecified use. Ordinary thyme and marjoram, sa’tār, use (unspecified) by Ibn Jazlah who gives other names. Note that the general term sa’tar or za’tar covers both thyme and marjoram, and sometimes other wild herbs too.

 

 

Thymus serpyllum L.  Lamiaceae. Native?  Dijiao地椒 [Thymus serpyllum and T. mongolicus]

 

Levey: Ḥāshā’, T. vulgaris (which is almost the same as T. serpyllum). Liver, stomach, spleen.  ṣa’tar, various thymes and thyme relatives; erysipelas, stomach, neck pustules. Notes the asses’ thyme, ṣa’tar al-ḥamīr, possibly T. capitatus. See below.

 

Avicenna: T. praecox, nammām, thūmūn (evidently from Greek). Hot and dry. Kills lice and dissolves warts. Externally on cold swellings, hard inflammations, etc. “Boiled down in vinegar and used with rose oil on the head, it is useful in treating amnesia, mental confusionk, sluggishness, irritation and swelling…of the brain and headache”[121] (a very useful plant, if it worked). Internally for weakness of nerves, eyesight, chest, digestion, worms. Expels dead foetus, menstrual discharge, etc.  Diuretic and emmenagogue.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: hashā (totally different transcription from that in Levey 1966!). T. vulgaris. Al-Samarqandī uses this and zatar (wild thyme) for, presumably, the usual purposes.

 

Nasrallah: Thyme in general, hot, stomachic, good for liver, relieves nausea and toothache, cures gum diseases, etc.

 

Kamal: T. vulgaris, hashā, za’tar al-hamir, i.e. asses’ thyme. Stimulant, diuretic, emmenagogue. Cooked in honey to ease breathing and asthma. Anihelminthic.

 

Bellakhdar et al.: Thymus spp. z’itra, za’ter, tazukenni. For all diseases. Gastro-intestinal antiseptic.

 

Ghazanfar: T. vulgaris, za’ater. Taken for colic, kidneys, bronchitis, cough.  Leaves boiled and tea massaged on breasts to bring down milk. Mixed with salt and water to wash vaginal area after childbirth.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: T. vulgaris, za’tar etc., for colds, coughs, diarrhea, fatigue, stomach, liver, memory.

 

Nadkarni: Antiseptic. Very minor in India.

 

Eisenman: T. marschallianus, tea for stomatitis and toothaches, also fevers, headaches.   Decoction in milk for acute respiratory infections, amenorrhea. Biomedically, expectorant and antibiotic.

 

Li:  Dijiao. Includes also T. mongolicus. Relieves pain and swelling. Insecticide.

(Thyme is a well-recognized stimulant and antiseptic. Thyme oil is still the antiseptic of choice when all else fails, used e.g. for sterilizing areas contaminated by multiple-drug-resistant staphylococcus and streptococcus.)

 

 

Tragopogon pratensis L., Asteraceae. Badi (Yemenite).

Probable misidentification. Liyatu [al-] Taysi/Lihayitutaisi里哈亦土台思

 

Nadkarni:  bare mention.

 

 

Tribulus terrestris L. Zygophyllaceae. Native. Òasak/Hasaqi哈撒其Ḥasak (Arabic); Jili蒺藜.

 

Dioscorides: IV-15, tribolos. Binding, cooling. Various external applications, including mouth sores, mouth ulcers, gums, tonsillitis. Applied to eyes. Seed brewed for stone. Made into tea for snakebite.

 

Avicenna: Hot and dry, but only slightly. Swellings, ulcers, etc.

 

Ghazanfar: Diuretic and for kidney stones. T. longipetalus diuretic, aphrodisiac.

 

Madanapala: Gokshura. Urinary diseases, asthma, cough, blood, heart.

 

Nadkarni: Plant and fruit cooling, demulcent, diuretic, tonic, aphrodisiac; powdered.

 

Dash: As in Madanapala, also arthritis, kidneys.

 

Eisenman: Many uses including malaria and energizing. Biomedically, used for scerotic conditions, worms, fungus and yeast infections; possible anti-cancer activity.

 

Li: Jili. Bitter, warm, nontoxic. Disperses Cold and Heat, etc.

(An infamous worldwide pest, widely used but apparently ineffective as medicine.)

 

 

Trigonella foenum-graecum L., Fabaceae. Huluba葫蘆芭/Huluba葫蘆巴 (Òulba);

 

Manniche: Helps in childbirth. Ointment (oil cooked out of ground seeds) to make the old look and feel younger [the description of the process makes one think the old would have had to work so hard they would have gotten healthful exercise, at least]. “It is a million times efficientk”[122] (translating from Edwin Smith papyrus of ca. 1500 BC; the hypertrophe is typical—no false modesty in the Smith papyrus).

 

Dioscorides: II-124, telis, fenugreek. Seed meals applied for inflammations. Sitz bath for women’s conditions (vulvar inflammations, etc.), and applied with goose-grease to soften and dilate the womb. Grens in vinegar for ulcers, etc. Tea for dysentery. In oil with myrtle for cleansing genitalia and treating scarring there.

I-57, telinon, seed oil. For all external conditions.

 

Galen: Warming. With fish sauce for laxative, cleaning out intestines.

 

Levey: Ḥulba. Swellings, phlegm, kidneys, ulcers.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: Hulbah. Bran with natron for spleen. Sitz bath for women prepared from the plant. Used on wounds. With duck fat to cure scirrhus of the uterus. Note this is straight out of Dioscorides.

 

Avicenna: Ḥulbah. Hot, dry, but only to first degree. Discharges pus; laxative. Cleansing and drying. Used externally (oil) for hair, scars, skin disease, eye conditions, ruptures, freckles, ulcers, etc. Poultice on swellings. With rose oil on burns. Internally for voice, lungs, chest, throat, cough and asthma. Especially good for these when boiled down with honey, dates, figs.  (This would indeed work well.) Mix with dates and honey, heated over coals, taken before meals, is particularly good. Used with sodium nitrate for spleen; with vinegar for stomach, gastric ulcers, etc. and to make one vomit. For uterus, taken or as hip bath, boiled down.  Vaerious uses for diarrhea, anal swellings, intestines, many other related conditions.

 

Graziani: Hubbah; food.

 

Lev and Amar: ḥulba. Heats, cures cough and ailments of lung and womb. For bites and stings.  Swellings, headaches, stomach ulcers, and kidneys. Infections, intestinal problems skin, hair, women’s diseases, etc.

 

Kamal: hulbah, fariqah. Hot fomentations, sedative. Seeds stomachic, antihelminthic, sedative for cough and asthma, used for emphysema, and said to be aphrodisiac. (Because of the stomachic qualities, which are very real in biomedical terms, it is added in large quantities to many Arabic dishes, especially in Yemen where it is a major food ingredient.)

 

Bellakhdar et al: l-helba, reconstituant, hair-care, hypoglycemiant, blood-cleansing, and for aortic palpitations.

 

Ghazanfar: ḥelba, ḥilba. Powdered for colic, fruits for bronchitis, cough. Topically (seeds ground) on sprains. Seeds boiled, mixed with egg, given to new mother for 7 days after birth.  Enema for new mother to strengthen her back. (The cultural importance of fenugreek in Ghazanfar’s native south Arabia is enormous; it is used in vast quantities in Yemeni cooking as well as medicine.)

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: Externally for bleeding, headache, breast abscesses and mastitis; liver, eaten for diabetes, bones, menstrual cramps, stomachaches. Very many uses in childbirth; eaten during and after delivery, especially as one of the spice foods used for recovery from childbirth.  Also used for babies—presumably in tea, but also put on fontanel (presumably to prevent it falling).

 

Nadkarni: Seeds mucilagionous, demulcent, diuretic, tonic, carminative, emmenagogue, astringent, emollient, aphrodisiac.

 

Li:  Huluba (from the Arabic—one of very few common Chinese words that is a straight Arabic transliteration). Bitter, very warm, nontoxic.  Important heating drug, against various results of Cold.

 

 

Triticum spp.  “T. spelta” L., Poaceae. Maizi麥子; Xiaomai 小麥. Khandarūs /Handaluxi罕荅魯西 (Greek orig).  There is no such sp. as “T. romanum,” and T. spelta is not a valid species either, being merely a variety of T. x aestivum, itself a complex hybrid of T. dicoccoides and Aegilops squarrosa.)

 

Manniche:  T. dicoccum water (grains boiled in water, which is then strained and drunk) for “heart,” i.e. internal complaints, and constipation. Also eaten in cake for cough, etc.

 

Dioscorides: II-107, pyroi, T. vulgare [of which spelta is actually just a variety]. Wheat. Eaten raw (soft new kernel, evidently), causes roundworms. Chewed, applied to mad dog bites. Bread from it is nourishing. Meal with Hyoscyamus juice applied to fluxes of the nerves, puffing of bowels, etc. Bran also used as carrier in cataplasms. Made up with rue for breasts, bites, gripes, etc.  In general the meal is obviously just a carrier vehicle for the medicinal herbs. Leaven warming and extracting; reduces calluses; ripens boils and the like. Taken for blood-spitting, and with mint and butter for coughs and blod. Various other external applications. Old dry bread constipating.

 

Galen: Under wheats, long discussions given of types of bread, the whiter being the more digestible and better for health. Only peasants can digest the very coarse (wholemeal) breads, and even they only because they sleep so well (digestion going on during rest). Better-baked breads are better for digestion. Notes gruel is good but simple boiled wheat almost indigestible.

 

Avicenna: ḥinṭah (bran), sawīq (roasted, or flour), harīsat (wheat preparation), etc. Hot and somewhat moist but slightly drying also. Mostly a food, but flour for face, bran for swellings, other minor mostly external uses.

 

Lev and Amar: Triticum sp. (probably mostly T. aestivum), ḥinṭa, burr, ḥabba, qamh. (flour). Skin, wounds, minor pains.

 

Kamal: T. vulgare, infused in vinegar for pains.

 

Nadkarni: various uses, mostly flour pastes for external conditions.

 

Sun: Wheat (T. vulgare, xiaomai小麥): sweet, mildly cold, nonpoisonous. It nourishes the qi of the liver. It rids fever caused by invading qi (kere客熱). It terminates anxiety and thirst. It treats dry throat. It helps discharge urine. It stops loss of blood (louxue漏血) or blood in slaver (tuoxue唾血). It helps women become pregnant. It can easily be made into leaven, which, if made in the sixth month, is warm and nonpoisonous. It treats especially children’s epilepsy (xiao’erxian小兒癇) and helps digest food. It rids the Five Hemorrhoids (wuzhichong五痔蟲).[123] It pacifies qi in the stomach. It helps digest grains and stops diarrhea. Its powder is warm and nonpoisonous. It cannot eliminate fever or anxiety. It cannot be frequently taken. Otherwise, it will aggravate chronic diseases, and enhance “stranger qi” (keqi客氣), which is difficult to cure.

 

Li: T. aestivum, mai 麥, grains, flour, bran, leaves, shoots, straw ash, ferments, and other preparations, for a vast range of ills; often for the nutrition value or value as carrier for other drugs, but often in its own right.

Leaven (from wheat among other things), qu, also important.

 

 

Urtica. There are several mentions of generalized Urtica spp. in the text under the generic Anjrah/ Anzhila安知剌/Anzhula安諸剌 (also specifically U. dioica).

 

Avicenna: U. dioica, qurayḍ; seed, falanjah. Hot and dry. Used inpoultices, for nerves, for nose when can’t smell, and usual minor uses. Seeds aphrodisiac.

 

Nadkarni: U. dioica L. Used for laxative and diuretic vegetable and as antiscorbutic (works for all these). Also for catarrh, leucorrhea, hemorrages, etc. Syrup used for these and said very successful against uterine hemorrhage. Tincture on burns. Dried leaves powdered and inhaled to relieve asthma and bronchial troubles.

 

Li:  U. cannabina L. and U. angustifolia Fisch. ex Hornem., xunma, pungent, bitter, cold, very toxic; causes vomiting and diarrhea. Pounded for snakebite; juice applied to rash in rubella.

(Nobody in our sources, or to my knowledge anyone else, uses the tiny seeds, making it almost certain that the HHYF reference is not to Urtica. Possibly the HHYF intends some sort of hemp plant—very likely marijuana.)

 

 

Valeriana dioscorides Sibth. (=V. officinalis L.), V. celtica, Caprifoliaceae (Valerianaceae).  Nārdīn/Naerding納尒丁/ Naerding納而丁 [Nard, Valeriana celtica]; Fū/ Fu福 [valerian, Valeriana phu or V. dioscoridis]

 

Dioscorides: I-7, nardos keltike, V. celtica, valerian. Little stalks and roots ground, made into balls. Diuretic. For stomach, inflammations, jaundice, bloating, spleen, bladder, kidneys.  For venomous bites. For ointments.

I-8, nardos oreine, Valeriana tuberosa, mountain nard. Same uses.

 

Levey: V. celtica, nārdīn. Bladder, kidneys.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: V. celtica, Celtic nard, nārdīn. Similar to spikenard. Roots used.

 

Avicenna: . Hot and dry. Warming, laxative, pain-relieving. Treats opaque cornea, inflamed chest, etc. Boiled for emmenagogue.

 

Kamal: Waleriana. Stem and root oil relaxing and antipyretic.

 

Nadkarni: V. officinalis antispasmodic, stimulant. V. wallichii, similar uses, nervine, calming, etc.

 

Eisenman: V. officinalis sedative, carminative, vermifuge, and for psychological conditions from hypochondria and hysteria to epilepsy and insomnia. Used for pains, heart, anxiety.  Biomedically, well-known sedative, calming to nervous system and heart; treats insomnia, overactive cardiovascular system, spasms.

(Strongly active on nervous system and thus not a safe remedy, but very widely used.)

 

 

Veratrum album L., Melanthiaceae (Liliaceae). Hellebore. Kharbaq/ Haliji哈里吉/ Haerbaji哈而八吉. See Helleborus niger for black hellebore. (Veratrum is often called “false hellebore,” but it is not “false”—it has always been called hellebore. Apparently the similar activity, including toxic effect, is what mattered to the ancients who named them.)

 

Dioscorides: IV-150, ‘elleboros, Veratrum album, white hellebore. Roots for purging by vomiting. In eyes with collyrium for sight. Emmenagogue and abortifacient, to the point where planting it near grapevines makes the wine abortifacient (V-77).[124] For choking. Poison; kills mice.

 

Levey: Purgative, vermifuge, etc. Toxic.

 

Avicenna: kharbaq abyaḍ. Hot and dry. Poisonous; used to kill rats, dogs, wild pigs; Avicenna even warns that chickens have died from pecking the excrement of humans who use it. Externally on wounds, joints, ears, etes; internally to produce vomiting, but this is very dangerous, and a range of antidotes and diluents must be kept on hand and instantly used if suffocation (i.e., breathing cessation or incipient heart stoppage) appears. Expels black and yellow bile and phlegm.

 

Lev and Amar: Possible confusion with Helleborus albus, q.v.

 

Eisenman: V. lobelianum, on eczema, rheumatism, neuralgia; internally for mental illness. Biomedically, an insecticide and miticide. Analgesic and hypotensive. Highly toxic.

(Powerful heart stimulant and dangerous drug. Native Americans of the west coast of North America use V. viride for heart conditions, notably dropsy, and for other conditions in which stimulation is appropriate; but with extreme caution. It is sometimes called “mountain onion” in Chinese, and some at least of the HHYF recipes call for “mountain onion” to treat what looks like stroke or heart attack; in these cases Veratrum might be appropriate as a substitute, or at least would be seen to have a strong effect.)

 

 

Vicia ervilia Willd., Fabaceae. Kasnā/ Kexini可西尼; Karsana / Kelaxina可剌西納/ kirsinnah/kelexina可剌西納 /Kexini可西尼 (Persian); bāqqilā/Baheili八黑黎  [Vicia faba].

 

Dioscorides: II-131, orobos, vetch. Meal used [presumably cooked] for belly. Diuretic. Causes pain and bleeding if overeaten. External for almost everything imaginable from dog and human bites to griping. Presumably the soothing quality is all that matters; there is no medicinal value.

II-127, kyamos hellenikos, Vicia faba, fava bean. Ground for a vast range of external uses, mostly the same as above; a unique one is to delay growth of pubic hair in children.

 

Galen: Cleans thick fluids from chest and lungs. Drying and laxative.

 

Avicenna: Broad bean cold, cleansing (weakly), produces gas, etc. Poultices for external conditions.  Poultice with honey for eyes. Good for chest, coughs, etc.; poultice on throat for laryngitis, tonsillitis. Treats diarrhea.

 

Levey: Karsanah. Salve for skin and cankers. Widely used for various minor functions; cleansing, etc.

 

Lev and Amar: V. ervilia for cough, heart, skin, leprosy, blood in urine, spitting blood; skin diseases, cancer. Seed flour hot and dry to Maimonides, who used it for burns distinfecting, cleansing. Diuretic (plant, not seeds), cleans urinary tract. Overeating causes headaches. Seed powder on wounds, bites, (including human), stings, etc. V. faba (Arabic fūl) for soothing inflammations and skin irritation, mixed with egg white, oil, etc. Purgative, digestive, anti-constipation, etc.; for ears, muscles, swellings, various external uses. (It provides bulk in the diet, and the powder mixed with other things would indeed be soothing, but otherwise this would be largely a “mother’s chicken soup” sort of remedy.) A version of the Egyptian national dish fūl medames (cooked broad beans, now eaten with garlic, olive oil and lemon juice) is noted in one Genizah fragment.

Lentil, ‘adas, for toothache, head, reducing urine, stanching blood.

 

Eisenman: V. cracca, demulcent, hemostatic, healing on wounds. Tincture to treat diarrhea, and as diuretic. Poultice for rectal prolapse and hemorrhoids. Used on abscesses. Antibacterial.

 

Li: V. hirsuta, qiaoyao翹搖; V. sativa, wei薇.  Minor uses.

 

 

Vigna spp. incl. V.  radiata (L.) and Vigna mungo, Fabaceae. Native. Lūbiyā/ Luobiya羅必牙 [?]. There is also a reference to a “small white eyebrow bean (Baixiaomeidou白小眉豆),” probably V. unguiculata.

 

Manniche: Vigna sinensis (which is now V. unguiculata): meal for constipation, in enema. Used in various unguents, etc.

 

Levey: V. sinensis, lūbiyāh, possibly the one used for freckles (cf. Dolichos lablab); “Phaseolus mungo” (=V. radiata), māsh, again for skin discolorations, also for lips, hemorrhoids, scrofula.  It would seem to be a soothing vehicle for medicines.

 

Avicenna: Lūbiya. Treats chest and lung, often in poiultice or paste with more obviously medicinal items. Produce thick humor (indigestion), remedied by mustard or wine.  Emmenagogue with nard oil.

 

Graziani: V. mungo, mash, maj; Ibn Jazlah used with sumac for cough, and with myrtle for pain.  Weakens teeth. Ibn Sīnā cosidered it aphrodisiac Rāzī gave it as a refresher.

 

Kamal: Lobia (lubiya), fasolia, dagar. Nutritious.

 

Bellakhdar et al: V. sinensis, hair-care, pulmonary infections.

 

Li: Lüdou綠豆 (V. mungo). Cold. Minor cooling and detoxifying uses. (Green bean soup is a standard modern cooling medication.) V. cylindrica, baidou白豆, minor uses.  V. sinensis, jiangdou豇豆, sweet, salty, balanced, nontoxic. General regulating and detoxifying value.

 

 

Viola sp., Violaceae. Violet. Two mentions as such as Banafshah/Bunafusha不納福沙 (V. odorata). The “purple flower” widely called for in the HHYF is probably V. yedoensis Makino, important in Chinese medicine as is V. odorata L. in the west.

 

Avicenna: Banafsaj, V. odorata. Hot and dry. Usual minor uses; also for kidney pain, and diuretic.

 

Lev and Amar: V. odorata, banafsaj. Like many other soothing and medicinally active flowers, it is recommended for essentially everything, from mumps and toothache to splitting hair and backache. Oil often used. (The plant does not produce significant quantities of oil, so one assumes the flowers were steeped, though possibly an incredible number was gathered and soaked in hot water which was then skimmed, as with roses.)

 

Nadkarni: “Flowers are astringent, demulcent, diaphroetic, diuretic and aperient.”[125] For “bilious affections” lungs, uterus, cough, liver, etc. Syrup usual. Mixed with almond oil (possibly a hint to how Lev and Amar’s oil was made). The Hindi name banafsha is an obvious borrowing from Arabic.

 

Eisenman: V. suavis. Syrup diuretic, anti-inflammatory, expectorant, diaphoretic, choleretic.  Decoction for coughs, colds, eyes, throat, stomach. Roots for emetic and laxative use. Decoction of flowers with sugar to treat heart illnessses.

 

Li: V. yedoensis (V. philippica) Makino, zihuadiding 紫花地丁. Bitter, pungent, cold and nontoxic.  Carbuncles, boils, scrofula, skin infections, sore gums, sores, etc., mostly as extermal application but sometimes internal. Plant with root usually used.

 

 

Vitex sp., possibly intended for Vitex agnus-castus L. or V. negundo L. Verbenaceae. Manjing蔓菁/蔓精, Seashore Vitex (Vitex trifolia or V. rotundifolia)

 

Avicenna: Dissolving, diluting, relieving. Hot and dry, somewhat. Relieves suffocation feelings, and melancholia. Increases bresatmilk but decreases semen. Opens obstructions to liver and spleen. For swellings, piles, etc.

 

Nadkarni: V. agnus-castus: Berries stimulant, diuretic, alterative. For liver, spleen, dropsy. Also hiccups. Several other spp. of Vitex widely used, esp. V. negundo, used for inflammations incluiding rheumatism and arthritis, sprains, bites, etc., often as poultice or pillow or smoke. Juice of leaves for external uses including sores, etc. Oil also.

 

Li: V. negundo, Mujing牡荊. As medicine, bitter, warm and nontoxic. Disperses cold and heat in joints (clearly derived from the Indian usage!), facilitates stomach qi flow, stops coughing, etc. Many prescriptions given. V. rotundifolia and V. trifolia, both manjing, similar uses; dispels heat and cold, helps teeth and orifices, kills tapeworm, makes happiness, treats eyes, etc.

(Used for female complaints throughout European history; Lewis and Elvin-Lewis 2003:523.  Legendary use as anti-aphrodisiac explains the names “chaste-tree” in English and agnus-castus, chaste lamb, in Latin.)

                                

Vitis vinifera L., Vitaceae. Grape; wine. Putao葡萄; Putaojiu葡萄酒/putaojiu葡萄酒.

 

Manniche: in laxatives and other remedies. Wine to stimulate appetite. Wine was used as a vehicle for various drugs, as it has been throughout time.

 

Dioscorides:  V-1, ampelos oinophoros, Vitis vinifera, grapevine.  Applied for headaches, inflammations, stomach, etc.  Juice for dysentery, blood-spotting, stomach, and “women that lust.”[126] Various other external applications.

V-2, ampelos agria, V. sylvestris, wild vine. Similar uses.

V-3, staphyle, grape. Green grapes disturb the stomach and bloat it. Ripe or dry they are good for the stomach, improve appetite, etc. Usual variety of external applications, especially for women, as clyster, sitzbath, fomentation. Seeds used for binding stomach, etc.

V-4, staphis, raisins. Various external applications [one of those external curealls].

V-5, oinanthe, fruit of wild vine. Dried. Binding. Tea for stomach; diuretic but stops diarrhea and blood-spoitting. Usual vast range of external applications.

V-6, omphacion, juice of unripe grapes. Tonsils, uvula, mouth sores, gums, ears, fistulas, ulcers, etc. Clyster for dysentery and women’s problems.

V-7-83, various kinds of wine, each with long list of virtues; irrelevant to the present work.  Most involve brewing grapes with herbs; rose wine (V-35), for instance, involves added rose petals to the fermenting grapes. There is even an abortion wine (V-77), but it is made by planting abortifacient plants by the grapevines; the vines supposedly [but not really] take up the chemicals.

IV-183, ampelos agria? wild Vitis vinifera, or possibly another Vitacea or even a Cucurbitacea.  Root for purging, dropsy. New shoots eaten.

Wine is used in a vast number of preparations with other herbs.

 

Galen: Acid or sour ones bad for health. Wine good for many conditions.

 

Levey: ‘inab, grapes, for jelly for stiff neck.

 

Avicenna: cold, dry peels, but flesh hot and moist. Unripe grapes sour, acrid. Help with gas, etc.  Pulp on wounds; juice for skin conditions. Ash for pinched nerves. Poultice for eye, with barley flour. Extract of leaves for coughing up blood; fruit can help with this. Leaves and tendrils in barley-flour poultice for abdominal pain. Fruit for nausea and stomach ache. Wine and water, boiled down, expectorant. Resin for internal pains and problems. Fruit slightly laxative. Leaves for dysentery, etc. Ash with vinegar for piles. Wine used for wounds, to clean them; white wine diuretic; Honey wine useful for birth pains. Old wine an antidote against insect bites. Many recommendations to drink sparingly.

 

Lev and Amar: The usual list of eyes, headaches, aphrodisiac (raisins), topical, muscle pains and swellings (vinegar), etc. Wine was used for sexual therapy and aphrodisiac function, as well as bites and stings, variouis diseases, etc. Vinegar was used for diarrhea, stomach in general, teeth, headache, head cold, fevers, and so on. The vinegar-and-honey mix so well known from ancient Greece up to today was used by Maimonides and others for many reasons. Grapes and raisins had further minor uses, including liver. Leaves for poultices, roots for swellings. Grape juice concentrate (dibs, also used for date and carob syrups; considered at the time a subtype of ‘asal, honeys and syrups; further concentrated, this became rubb, very thick syrup, English “rob”), hot and moist, for obesity, blood, jaundice, heart disease, depression, epilepsy. Grape juice for neck pains. Vine resin for skin diseases.

Wine was, of course, forbidden to Muslims, but—quite apart from the fact that this prohibition was often taken quite lightly in medieval Islam—health and survival made for exceptions.

 

Kamal:  karm, ‘enab (ripe grape), zabib (raisin), hosrom (unripe fruit), kashalmish, keshmesh.  Fruit laxative; for liver. Raisin for bronchitis. Naturally, the Arabs do not use wine medicinally, especially in modern times when Islamic rules have grown stricter.

 

Ghazanfar: ‘anab, ‘eneb.  Raisins boiled for drink for coughs. Grape juice with honey in ears for earache.

 

Madanapala: Drāksā. Cold. For thirst, fever, dyspnoea, vomiting, gout, jaundice, dysuria, bleeding, burning, consumption, etc. Fruit for alcoholism [hair of the dog?].

 

Nadkarni: Grapes demulcent, laxative, refrigerant, stomachic, diuretic, cooling. Raisins similar; attentuant, suppurative, blood-purifying. Juice astringent.

 

Dash: Cures fever and diseases of lungs. Other uses as above.

 

Sun: Grape (putao蒲桃): sweet, spicy, balanced (ping平), and nonpoisonous. Its major effects are to cure the illness caused by wetness (shibi濕痹) in tendons and bones. It is good for qi (yiqi益氣), enhances one’s strength as much as severalfold (beili倍力), and strengthens one’s memory (qiangzhi強志). It will make people strong and healthy, capable of enduring hunger, wind and cold. If one keeps taking it, his body will be lightened and he will not get old [presumably meaning something like “senile” here]. It elongates life. It also helps with the water in intestines (changjianshui腸間水), nourishes the Middle Jiao (tiaozhong調中).[127] It can be used to make wine, which is good for health if one keeps having it. It would drain water (zhushui逐水) and is diuretic (li xiaobian利小便). [The west Asian grape was still something of an exotic plant in China in Sun’s time, which may explain the preposterous claims made for it here.]

 

Li: V. vinifera, putao.  Sweet, balanced or warm, astringent, nontoxic. Many minor uses.

 

 

Vladimiria souliei. Muxiang 木香. Probably “muxiang” means Saussurea (q.v.) more often than not in the HHYF but both species share the name.

 

 

Zingiber officinale Rosc., Zingiberaceae. Native. Zanjabīl/Zanzhebili贊者必厘; Jiang薑.

 

Dioscorides: II-190, zingiberi, ginger. Warming, softening, good for stomach and eyes.

 

Levey: Zanjabīl ṣīnī. In collyrium for sight; in drugs for sore throat, earache, arthritis, stomachic.

 

Avicenna: Zanjabīl. Hot and dry. Warming. Laxative and digestive; relieves gas, and coldness of stomach and liver. Oil used on skin for mites, etc. Enriches memory.

 

Lev and Amar: zanjabīl. Extensively used for the usual range of things: stomach, aphrodisiac, kidneys, black bile, phlegm, eyes, etc. Stimulates sexual desire.

 

Graziani: Zanjabil. Ibn Jazlah used it for headache, sight, liver, stomach, and reducing swellings.  Antidote.

 

Kamal: Stimulant, cardiac tonic, aphrodisiac. Added to other medications to improve taste.

 

Bellakhdar et al: skenjbir, skenjabil. Calefacient, antirheumatismal, antitussive, stomachic.

 

Ghazanfar: zingībīl. Rhizome for bronchitis, carminative, for coughs, stomach. Juice in eyes for cataracts.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: Rubbed on woman giving birth. Eaten after delivery. Used for colds, coughs, diarrhea, eyes, headaches, mentrual pain, sore throat, stomach. Effectiveness for stomach, vomiting, etc. noted.

 

Madanapala: Śunthī (dry ginger). Pungent, hot, sweet; treats rheumatism, constipation, vomiting, dyspnoea, cough, colic, heart, edema, piles, other abdominal conditions. Green ginger (ārdraka) is purgative, aphrodisiac, and cures most of the same conditions as dry.

 

Nadkarni: Aromatic, carminative, stimulant, stomachic. Externally, stimulant and rubefacient.  Unani uses as hot and dry drug for above plus aphrodisiac, sedative, memory-strengthening, and other uses.

 

Dash: Sweet, hot. Appetiser, digestive, tonic.

 

Sun: Dry ginger (ganjiang幹薑): spicy, hot, and nonpoisonous. It is especially valuable for treating fullness in the chest and vomiting caused by coughing, and rising qi. It also warms up the Middle Jiao and terminates continuous bleeding (louxue漏血). It heals sweating. It heals paralysis caused by the feng and wetness. It treats the liquid remaining in the intestines and diarrhea (changpi xiali腸澼下利). It cures coldness and stomachache. It treats the illness of being attacked by the noxious qi. It cures cholera. It treats fullness in the stomach (zhangman脹滿). It treats noxious winds and every kind of poison. It treats the blockage of the qi (jieqi結氣) in the skins. It treats the illness of spitting blood (tuoxue唾血). When it is raw, it is better.

 

Ginger (fresh; shengjiang生薑): spicy, mildly warm, nonpoisonous. The spiciness will go to the five internal organs. It mainly treats spells of cold (febrile conditions; shanghan傷寒) and headache. It also eliminates phlegm and helps the qi move downward. It helps sweat break out (tonghan通汗). It breaks through blockage in the nose. It treats vomiting caused by coughing, and rising qi. It stops vomiting. It dispels the bad qi above the midriff (xiongge胸膈). It lets the spirit free (tong shenming通神明). The Yellow Emperor said, “In the eighth and ninth month, do not eat ginger. It will hurt the spirit and shorten the lifespan.” Hermit Hu (hujushi胡居士) said, “Ginger kills the long worms in the abdomen. If one has taken it frequently, it will lessen his memory and wisdom and make his temper worse.”

 

Li: Jiang (fresh ginger, shengjiang). Pungent, warm, nontoxic. Noted as accompanying every meal. General dispersing function.

(In modern China, one of the commonest strongly heating drugs, used in large quantities for Cold conditions generally. It is well known in modern practice as a stimulant, rubefacient, digestive, and carminative. As a tonic, stimulant, stomachic, etc., it is used today throughout the world. The aphrodisiac reputation survives in colloquial English:  “gingery,” “the ginger man,” etc.)

 

 

Zingiber zerumbet (L.) Rosc., Zingiberaceae.

See Curcuma zerumbet.

 

 

Zizyphus spp., Rhamnaceae. Jujubes. Several mentions, but this word probably (and certainly in some cases) refers in many of them to dates (Phoenix dactylifera L, Arecaceae), which are routinely confused with jujubes in China (dates being called “foreign jujubes,” just as jujubes are called “Chinese dates” in colloquial English). However, nothing as important to Chinese medicine as jujubes can be completely ignored here. Zao 棗; Wannien zao 萬年棗, “Ten-thousand year jujubes” (Z. jujuba);

 

Avicenna: ‘unnāb, other names—“different people call it by different names depending on their language.”[128] Moist and cold but with dry propertiews also. Fruit used; sometimes its flour, or vapor from cooking it. For hot blood. Constricting. Avicenna does not think it is blood-purifying. Various minor uses, but Avicenna does not seem to think much of it.

 

Eisenman: Z. jujuba, fruit for catarrh, fever, intestinal infections. Root bark stimulant. Decoction of fruit for “anemia, chest pains, asthma, coughs, smallpox, diarrhea, and as an analgesic for diseases of the liver, kidneys, and intestines…hypotensive” (271). Biomedically, the fruit and leaf infusion seems to work as a huypotensive and diuretic tea.

 

Li: Z. jujubaZao. “It is sweet, pungent, hot and nontoxic. Overeating of it causes chills and fever. An emaciated and wek person should not have it.”[129] Usual wide mix of minor uses. (Used more recently to strengthen body and blood; black ones best for body, red for blood, sympathetic magic being obvious, but also the fruit contains some iron and vitamin C, enough to make a difference if nothing else is available. This has been, in modern times at least, one of the very favorite “nutraceuticals” in the Chinese repertoire, being used for weaning babies, restoring strength to new mothers after childbirth, treating invalids, etc. It is used in soup or congee, as opposed to the more ordinary method of simply eating the fresh or dried fruit, which is excellent.)

(The fruit has a high vitamin value, especially for vitamin C, and has some iron; it has probably saved many a Chinese child from malnutrition.)

 

Zollikofera angustifolia Coss. et Dur.,  Saliyy.

Obsolete name for Launaea angustifolia, q.v.

 

 

Animals

 

A few other animals are mentioned in the Table of Contents, but data on them is lost.

 

Accipiter sp.?, Accipitridae. Hawk mentioned in one recipe in the HHYF; too unspecific to identify. Ying鷹; Qa®āmī/Qiandamu箝達木 [sparrow hawk, etc.].

 

 

Anser spp. and probably other geese would be expected. Anatidae. There is one reference to Yan雁. “Wild goose,” to make a comparison, and once to Rakham/lahama剌哈麻, probably as a medicinal food.

 

Li: E 鵝 (tame goose Anser domestica and domesticated strains of A. cygnoides), yan (wild goose A. albifrons, A. fabalis, wild A. cygnoides; when birds are recognizable in classical Chinese paintings, tame geese are A. cygnoides, wild usually A. fabalis).

Sweet and plain, but arguments over toxin. He says: “I have witnessed cases of toxins being activated by the eating of goose meat.” (Recall that “toxic” said of animal meat means that it brings out toxins in the system, not that it is itself poisonous.) Some say white geese are safe but gray are toxic, others that young are toxic but old are not. Goose fat is soothing—a good skin tonic. Goose, and goose blood, can help with certain worms, according to at leas one tradition. Gall used medinally, also eggs, feathers, and even saliva. Wild geese: fat used; soothing on hair and skin, including for boils and sores; medicinal when eaten, for deafness among other things. Bones, feathers, and even dung used (the last on sores).

 

 

Apis cerana Fabricius, Apidae.  Native. Used in China in place of Apis mellifera, which is the species referred to in the western herbals. Feng 蜂, one direct reference but feng can also be wasp. There is also a reference to honey bees, Mifeng蜜蜂, more specific.

The products of bees are far more common. Honey (Mi 蜜), also ’Asali/Asali阿撒里/suali速阿里/Suwali速洼里/Suoali璅阿里/Asali阿撒力, and “yellow wax (Huangla 黃蠟),” obviously beeswax from the indications, is used very widely in the HHYF; honey is the universal vehicle for medicines and beeswax is used in many, if not most, poultices etc. Honey is in fact the second most often mentioned item in what we have of the HHYF.

 

Dioscorides: II-101, meli, honey. II-102, 103, different kinds. Various external applications, mostly as a soothing agent, often as a carrier for herbal medicines.

  1. mellifera important in medieval Near East, honey being used for skin, throat, eye and stomach conditions, and wax for hemorrhoids, burns and wounds, sore throat, etc.[130] A. cerana is the east Asian equivalent. Doubtless A. mellifera is actually meant in the recipes that served as originals for the HHYF.

 

Levey; Levey and Al-Khaledy: ‘asal. Honey. In many recipes as carrier and sweetener.

 

Avicenna: Hot and dry. Cleansing. Dissolvent. In addition to the universal carrier and demulcent values, it is used externally to prevent lice and kill their eggs; with ginger for freckles; with salt for bruises (odd but effective); for cleaning deep ulcers. Boiled down for wounds; fosters healing. With dill for ringworm. Beeswax used for softening scabs, but pollutes ulcers (it would be very difficult to maintain it sterile).  Relaxes nerves, cleansees ear, cures dim vision. Rubbed on palate for suffocation and pains. Ointment on chest. Cane sugar “honey” laxative (this would be the unrefined juice); refined sugar or boiled-down honey do not do this. Honey is taken with rose oil for insect bites; also for opium addiction. Various anti-toxic uses. Honey wine (ūnūmālī, from Greek oinomeli) hot and moist; used for ulcerative itches and rheumatism, and internally for purging bile, etc.

 

Lev and Amar: ‘asal, ‘asal nah.l. They note that ‘asal also covers fruit syrup concentrates. Bee honey used for eyes, headache, brain, diarrhea, wind, wars, urine, dysmenorrhea, hard sweelings, crying of infants, fever, black bile, phlegm, sciatica, varicose veins and venesection, paralysis, trembling, wind, facial lotion, and so on—any imaginable soothing purpose. Often the base or carrier of other medicines, but its sweetness and healthiness made it valued for itself too.  Oxymel—the classic vinegar-honey drink of folk medicine—used for stings, etc. Wax for ulcers with fever, and other skin applications. Also legs, nails, sciatica, varicose veins, convulsion, tetany, fever, colic. Oxymel (honey and vinegar mix) for colds, coughs, spleen, liver, bowels, malaria, black bile, hematuria, bites, cold sweat, baldness, etc.

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: Honey used on burns, cuts, wounds, etc.; taken for fatigue and general health, and more specifically for heart, indigestion, insomnia, sore throat, stomach; taken after childbirth, by itself or as vehicle for the spice foods used at that time.

 

Sun: Honey (shimi石蜜) is sweet, balanced, mildly cold, and nonpoisonous. It treats especially the evil qi in the heart and abdomen. It cures fits caused by fright and characterized by twitching (jingxianjing驚癇痙). It pacifies the five internal organs. It cures every kind of incompleteness (buzu不足). It enhances the qi and compensates the Middle Burner. It kills stomachache. It detoxicates every kind of toxin in medicines. It dispels various kinds of diseases. It can be used to make dozens of medicines. It nourishes spleen qi. It extinguishes the feeling of being vexed (xinfan心煩). It treats the problem of being unable to eat or drink (shiyin buxia食飲不下). It stops the illness characterized by the liquid remaining in the intestines (changpi腸澼). It expels the pain in muscles. It cures ulcers in the mouth (kouchuang口瘡). It enhances the hearing and eyesight. If one has taken it for a long time, it will solidify his memory, lessen his weight, help him resist hunger and aging, elongate his lifespan, and help him become an immortal. It is also referred to as shiyi石飴. [Honey] that is as white as fat is good, which is found in the mountain and cliff. Black-red honey (qingchimi青赤蜜) is sour. If one swallows it, it will make him feel vexed. The bee is black, like a horsefly (meng虻; this is probably one of the local Apis species of east Asia, different from the domestic A. mellifera). The Yellow Emperor said, “In the seventh month, do not eat raw honey. It will cause serous diarrhea (baoxia暴下). It will cause cholera.” Beeswax (mila蜜蠟) is sweet, mildly warm, and nonpoisonous. It mainly treats diarrhea and pyaemia (nongxue膿血). It compensates the middle burner. It heals wounds involving severed body parts, and cut-wounds (jinchuang金瘡). It enhances qi and strength. It helps resist hunger and aging. White wax (baila白蠟) mainly treats the patient that has long suffered diarrhea and just recovers from it, and then is found bleeding (jiu xiepi chaihou chongjian xue久泄澼瘥後重見血). It compensates [for damage done by] wounds involving severed body parts. It is beneficial to children. If one has taken it for a long time, it will lessen his weight and help him resist hunger. It grows in the honeycomb or on a rock or lumber. It [the bee, presumably] dislikes lilac daphne and lily (wuyuanhua baihe惡芫花百合). This is what we use nowadays.

 

Li: Mifeng (“honeysharp”). Minor uses, especially larvae. (Very widely used today in Chinese medicine for soothing, tonic, antiseptic, adjuvant, and other reasons.)

(Honey is mildly antiseptic, and certainly soothing, but does not have the many virtues given to it by folk medicine—in the United States as in the old Near East and China.)

 

 

Bat. One mention, in a magical-type recipe, of an unidentified bat. Bianfu蝙蝠.

 

Avicenna: Milk cleansing and used on benign growths in eye; oil has quasi-magical uses that Avicenna denies categorically; brain for cataract.

 

 

Bedbug. Fasāfis/Fasafeixi法撒肥西. Mentioned in contents as being in lost food section.

 

Avicenna: Expel leeches from pharynx. Vapor for hysteria. Treats painful urination (powder in appropriate openings). Swallowed for inset bites. “Swallowing seven bed bugs with broad beans” treats quartan fever.[131]

 

 

Bombyx mori. Bombycidae. Silkworm. Dūd-i qirmiz/ Dudiliheimiji都的里黑迷即. Mentioned in contents as being in a lost food section.

 

Avicenna: Chrysalis exhilarant. Some say silk clothing is less apt to carry lice.

 

Li: several recipes using its binding and blood-stopping/absorbing qualities, either really or by what appears to be sympathetic magic.

 

 

Bos taurus, Bovidae. Ox/cow. Niu 牛. Mentioned in HHYF Index in the section on food; presumably its value as a medicinal food was discussed. Specifically wild ox is also mentioned, and could be some other species. See also Butter (Suyou 酥油), Milk (Nai 妳; ruincluding human).

 

Li: many pages on medicinal values of all parts and products, from penis and marrow to urine and the material in the umbilicus of a newborn calf. Far too much to summarize. Meat warm, nontoxic, sweet.

 

Butter (butter oil, i.e. ghee, being usually called for): the Chinese aversion to dairy products seems to have influenced the HHYF. One would expect more butter; it abounded in Near Eastern and Indian medicine. It is barely mentioned in the HHYF.

 

Avicenna: Hot and moist. Discharges pus, dissolves, relaxes. Fumes drying and constricting. For swellings and wounds including in mouth. For cold dry coughs, “especially when given with almonds and sugar”[132] (I can second that recommendation). Treats yellow bile, etc.  Laxative, even purgative (evidently in huge amounts).

 

Lev and Amar: Soothing on skin etc.; strengthens penile erection (with milk).

 

Li: Niu you 牛油 (or you , oil, of other milk-giving animals). Several references from older literature, back to Tao Hongjing, summarized. Various soothing and moistening functions; detoxifying.

 

 

Callorhinus ursinus, Phocidae. Seal genitalia was extensively used in the Chinese medicine of the time but not apparently in the HHYF, at least not by name. There is only a single reference to what may be seal gall, Marāratu kalbi al-mā’i/ Malalatukelibilima馬剌剌土可里必里麻.

 

 

Camelus sp., Camelidae. Brain used in one magical recipe, the lung and the urine and even a camel tail. Milk also called for several times. Luotuo駱駝.

 

Madanapala: Ustra. Meat sweet and light; for eyes, dyspnoea, piles.

 

Dash: Similar.

 

The recipes presumably refer to dromedaries, but the Chinese would have known primarily Bactrian camels, which were then common in both wild and domestic forms. (A few dromedaries were used in the Silk Road trade from fairly early times, but did not thrive in the cold winters.  They later came to dominate, perhaps evolving to deal with local conditions; I have seen a camel caravan on a bitterly cold mountain pass well above timberline in the Hindu Kush).[133] Wild Bactrian camels survive in Northwest China and Mongolia, but fewer than 1000 are left. They are somewhat different genetically from domestic ones.[134]

 

Li: Tuo Sweet, warm, nontoxic. Various minor uses. Dromedary known but only by one report.  All medicinal references evidently to Bactrian camel.

 

 

Canis lupus, Canidae. Wolf. Lang 狼; Laolang 老狼. Wolf meat and fat and parts and even oil are used in HHYF recipes, some magical. Does not seem to be a traditional Near Eastern drug. “Old wolf” is mentioned along with just “wolf.”

 

 

Canis sp., jackal, zi’b/Zabuyi咱卜宜, mentioned in probably magical recipe context.

 

Li: Invigorates the Five Viscera and otherwise strengthens. Good-tasting; formerly much eaten.  Several magical uses, some of which are too much for the long-suffering Li, who doubts or frankly contradicts claims.

 

 

Canis lupus familiaris, dog. Gou狗. Probably a medicinal food in lost sections of the HHYF.

 

Except for numerous references to the bite of a “wind” or rabid dog, the dog is naturally absent from the Middle Eastern sources as meat, for example, the dog being unclean and avoided in the Near Eastern religions. Similarly, like most animal products other than dairy, it is absent from the Hindu and Buddhist sources.

 

Avicenna: Kalb. Rabid dog’s blood used for its own bite (compare the English “hair of the dog that bit you”).

 

Li: Many pages on various dog products. Every part has its own medical use. Dog meat is salty, sour, warm and nontoxic. Yellow dog meat usually preferred to black (the opposite of modern preference; Guinness named itself “black dog” in Chinese to sell its product).

 

 

Cantharides. Banmao 斑貓. Two references, one to Cantharides as being in the lost food section and another to a recipe.

 

Avicenna: usual uses.

 

 

Capra spp. Capridae. Goat. Shanyang山羊. Mention of tame and wild goats as food, probably with medicinal value. Horn and dung and blood also used.

 

Li: Does not diferentiate between domestic goat (C. hircus) and sheep. Meat is bitter, sweet, very hot and nontoxic. Countless medical uses and prescriptions. Blood detoxifies several chemical and heavy-metal poisons, with the interest side effect that it thus ruins attempts at manipulating one’s lifespan and health by Chinese “alchemy.” One should immediately drink about a pint. Milk is also ecommended for many purposes, from spider bite to aptha. Other body parts from horns to uvula all have their uses. The wool, for instance, treats twisted tendons: stew with vinegar, then wrap around the limb.

 

 

Castor fiber, beaver, Castoridae. Jandbādstar/Zhundibiedaxidaer肫的別荅西荅兒; Bidstar/ Biediasidaer別的阿思荅兒.

 

Avicenna: castoreum, “the testes of a water animal,”[135] diluting; “more potent than all substances that are hot and dry.”[136] Relieves gas. Absorbent.  Warming. Used on ulcers and swellings. Helps with headache. Vapor inhaled for inflammation of lung, etc. Several other minor uses.

 

Levey: Jundubādastur, castoreum. Nasal; head enlargement, swelling; clyster for urine; insantiy; electuary.

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: Important remedy. Al-Samarqandī thinks it needs opium to balance it.  Today a resolvent, antispasmodic, stimulant, antihysteric.

 

Lev and Amar: castoreum, qast.ūriyūn, for eyes, brain, fever, palpitation, sexual weakness; aphrodisiac. For nose, head, insanity, bites and stings, etc.—the usuals.

 

 

Cervus nippon Temminck, Cervidae. Possibly other deer spp. implied. Lu鹿; She麝, “musk deer;”

 

Li: Lu. horns for a large range of conditions, including nutrient tonic and male sexual health.

(As with seals, the heroic abilities of the adult male Cervus are recognized here.)

 

 

Chamaeleon. Òirbā’ /黑而八; Badhūr irbā’/ Bazuliheierba白祖里黑而八. Two mentions in list of foods in lower table of contents. Identifications and species uncertain.

 

Avicenna: blood used to prevent hair in eye; eggs poisonous.

 

 

Columba spp. (focally C. livia, domestic pigeon, a descendent of the wild Rock Pigeon).  Columbidae. Pigeons. Mentioned in lower Table of Contents for the section on food; presumably its value as a medicinal food was discussed. Boge 鵓鴿; Huojiu火鳩, “fire pigeon” or “fire turtledove.”

 

Li: Ge 鴿. Salty, plain, nontoxic. Detoxifying. Blood, feces also used. Li transmits some fascinating folklore: “Zhang Jiuling thought the pigeon could carry letters, os it is called Feinu 飛奴(…flying servant)….  All birds mate in such a way that the male is on top of the female. But for pigeons, the female is on top of the male. This shows that the pigeon is a very risqué fowl.”[137]  Interesting to note that carrier pigeons were barely known and not normally used. The “risqué” (a delightful translation for yin 淫, “lewd, debauched,” behavior is pure travellers’ tale; pigeons mate normally, as anyone can observe in any park on any spring day. Obviously birdwatching was not a major pastime of doctors.

 

 

Coral (?Corallium japonicum Kish.) Shanhu珊瑚; bussad/ busadi卜撒的.

 

Dioscorides: Some kind of coral for diarrhea, spleen, coooling, cleansing, hemorrhage.

 

Avicenna: Bussad. Cold and dry. Constricts. Drying; stops profuse bleeding (presumably powdered and put on the wound) and otherwise externally used for purposes of this sort. Stops coughing up blood; expectorant (presumably taken, powdered). Black coral is tonic for heart, especially when burnt and washed.

 

Lev and Amar: Eyes, teeth, breath. For wounds, bleeding, spleen, urinary tract, deafness, etc.  Strengthens heart. Maimonides used it for this and considered it cooling and drying. Many modern uses, mostly related to the above.

 

Madanapala: Pravāla. For nourishment, complexion, strength, semen.

 

Dash: Cold, laxative, cures poison and eye disorders.

 

Li: Shanhu. Minor functions include eyesight improvement.

 

 

Crane. Gruidae (?). Mentioned as being in the lost food section and also among those things raised perversely by people. He鹤.

 

Li: a wide range of cranes, each with its name and uses.

 

 

Crocodile. Crocodylus spp. ñimsāḤ/Tansahei嗿薩黑 (Arabic). One mention in list of foods and a reference to bites.

 

Avicenna: Excrement for eyes and to strengthen sexual desire (!). Its fat is used to relieve its bite (presumably because when it bit a person and was then killed, its fat was there at hand). Avicenna has a very long, detailed, interesting discussion of fish in general, discussing several kinds including the crocodile.

 

 

Cuttlefish. Sepia spp. “Ocean” (Hai 海) piaoshao螵蛸 [cuttle fish bone]. Unidentified species in a recipe.

 

 

Cygnus spp., Anatidae. Swan. Hu (mute swan, Cygnus cygnus; wild swans are “golden-necked wildgeese” in Chinese). Unidentified species mentioned in the section on food; presumably its value as a medicinal food was discussed. May actually be the cormorant. The term hee is Cu… 鷀… [Second character illegible]. Cormorant is Cu鷀 + a second character, 老+鳥.

 

Li:  Sweet, plain, nontoxic.  Fat used on sores.

 

 

Cynips gallae-tinctoriae Oliv. (on Quercus infectoria Oliv.), Cynipidae. Mushizi木實子; generally Māzū/Mazu馬祖.

 

Li:  Wushizi無食子, galls. As noted above under Quercus, a number of uses of galls turn on their high gallotannic content.

 

 

Cypraea moneta? Cypraeidae. Wada’/Wada瓦荅.

 

A rather indeterminate reference to cowrie or perhaps simply snail shells. Probably the former.

 

Madanapala, Dash: A number of shell drugs for all manner of reasons.

 

 

Dragonfly larvae.  Called for in a few recipes.

 

 

Earthworm (Allobophora, Lumbricus or similar spp.). Dilong地龍; Qiuyin蚯蚓.

 

Avicenna: Lumbricus and/or relatives, dūd, kharāṭīn. Cooling but drying. Used for various magical and quasi-magical uses.

 

Li: various minor medical, magical and alchemical uses. Long section.

 

 

Elephas sp. Ivory. Xiang 象.

 

 

Equus asinus. Equidae. Donkey. Luu驢. Minor products mentioned but including milk.

 

Avicenna: ḥimār. Ashes of flesh and liver for ruptures caused by cold, also tuberculous lymph swellings. Tetany treated with broth (external).  Roasted liver for epilepsy. Burnt hoof similarly used. Urine for kindney pain. Wild ass (a different sp., E. hemionus) for bladder stones.

 

Lev and Amar: ḥimār. Milk meat etc. strengthening. Modern uses include dung and urine, as in China.

 

Li: . Mule is luo騾. Minor uses of minor products. Meat sweet, cool, nontoxic. Several medical uses for various parts, including penis (nourishes sexual energy, of course). Meat of mule pungent, bitter, warm, slightly toxic. Gives names of some hybrids, including hybrids of donkey or horse with cattle! Again, observation was not a strong suit of some writers

 

Equus caballus. Equidae. Horse. Ma馬. Mentioned in Index in the section on food; presumably its value as a medicinal food was discussed. Milk frequently called for once. Interestingly little in view of the values the Mongols assign to it.

 

Avicenna: Rennet from horse for treating chronic diarrhea, intestinal ulcers, intestines.

 

Li: Pungent, bitter, cool and toxic to very toxic, though some disagree with this. White stallion best. Many uses, and more uses for parts of horse. Mare’s milk wine (i.e. kumys) mentioned. The keratin spot on the “knee” (foot joint) of the horse was considered a “night eye” allowing the horse to see at night; it was used for hiccups and toothaches and other purposes. Teeth, skullbone, hide, tail hair, etc. all used. The soil from the hoofprints of an eastbound horse, which, according to the normally more reasonable Tao Hongjing, was used to detect whether a wife is having an affair, and, according to the Huainanzi淮南子, to prepare a method for keeping a person lying down and unable to get up.

The old belief that horse liver is deadly poisonous is mentioned, but a more recent prescription indicates this belief may have faded. (ENA believes that the old story was based on fact; liver accumulates toxins, and horses can eat some plants poisonous to humans. It is interesting, however, that even the skeptical and realistic Li relates such a bizarre farrago of absurd folklore. For no other entry in the entire Bencao Gangmu is the ratio of folklore to serious medicine so high. Clearly there is something special about the horse.)

 

 

Erinaceus sp.  Hedgehog.  Raz /Zhulaji諸剌即. Mentioned in Index in the section on food; presumably its value as a medicinal food was discussed.

 

 

Eriocheir sinensis.  Pangxie 螃蟹Chinese mitten crab. Mentioned in the Index.

 

Avicenna: minor uses for unidentified crabs.
 

Felis catus L., Felidae. Cat. Qi®®a /Keta可塔 (female).

One mention in lower table of contents probably as medicinal food.

 

Li: Mao. Many uses. Meat sweet, sour, warm and nontoxic. As with other domestic animals, a vast range of uses for each part of body, many magical.

 

 

Fly. Mentioned in contents as being in lost food section. 班貓 (=banmao 班蝥);

 

 

Francolinus sp. Phasianidae. Francolin. Durrāj/Duerlazhi都而剌只

One mention as a food, in the Index.

 

 

Frog. Ha蝦+ nonstandard character (insect plus hemp) = Ma蟆; ¾ifdi’un / Jifudaxi即福達奚; Zefde’i-ye zardee/Jifudaxizaerdi即福達奚咱而的. Unidentified; food but also in medical recipes.

 

Avicenna: Ash for bleeding organs; boiled down for leprosy, mothwash, etc. Oral intake of blood causes swellings. Very minor item.

 

Li: Hamo蛤蟆 (rice frog, Rana limnocharis), xigou (unidentified frog), some others. Meat of rice frog pungent, cold, toxic (some say nontoxic). Removes pathogenic factors. Magical uses.

 

 

Gallus gallus/domesticus Brisson, Phasianidae. Chicken. Yuan鶢 (may not be a chicken); ji雞.

 

The universal panacea, chicken soup, was not missed by the medieval Near East, and it was already “Jewish penicillin.” The Jewish doctor Ya’qūb ibn Ishāq wrote around 1202: “if the strength is weak…there is nothing more appropriate for that than the right amount of chicken broth.”[138] The Genizah physicians also knew and loved it. [139]

 

Dioscorides:  eggs (species uncertain) for soothing and various related reasons; wounds, sunburn swellings.  Obviously topical.

 

Avicenna:  Chicken is dajāj; Persian murgh wa khurūs. Inevitable uses of chicken soup, including meat of yong hen to strengthen intellect. Various eggs of various birds used, but Gallus best. Yolk hot, white cold. Both moist. Constipating, especially fried yolk. Adhesive. White of egg for sunburn, etc. Yolk, cooked, with honey, for spots on skin. Eggs in general for ulcers, swellings, inflammations, etc. Stop bleeding from membranes. Whites used in eye for inflammation; yolk with saffron and rose oil, or with barley flour, for throbbing eye. Large number of internal and external uses, largely of a soothing nature, e.g. for displaced uterus. “All eggs are highly aphrodisiac, particularly the eggs of sparrows”[140] (the extreme sexual energy of sparrows was a watchword in Europe too).

 

Lev and Amar: Topical uses continued from Dioscorides. Nutrition. Sexual strengthener (eggs).

 

Madanapala: Kukkuta. Nourishing. Hot. Good for eyesight and semen.

 

Dash: Wild, for general nutrition. Domestic heavier for digestion.

 

Sun: (Very extensive entries on different colors, sexes, and growth stages—too much to quote or even summarize. The nutritional and tonic value stands out.)

 

Li: Ji. Many pages cover all sorts, colors, conditions, and parts (even to the membrane of the gizzzrd), all with different medical indications. Black roosters are famous tonic foods, and especially the black-boned chickens so common in northern Southeast Asia and southwest China.

Some birds described as “chickens” are not that; “wild chicken” or “mountain chicken” can mean “pheasant.” A “black chicken” mentioned in Juan 12 is a small songbird, not a chicken; it is described as being smaller than the “painted eyebrow bird” (huamei 畫眉), a common thrush-sized songbird.

(The nutritious value of chickens, and especially their easy digestibility and high iron content in the dark meat, has made them perhaps the most important of Chinese medicinal foods over the millennia. They are usually warming, especially the dark meat. Roosters are now often held to be toxic—not poisonous of themselves, but bringing out poisons in the eater—and are thus avoided by cancer patients and others.

Chicken soup has survived biomedical tests; it really is the best medicinal food for clearing the nose, providing easily digestible protein, etc.)

 

 

Gecko. al-Wazaghat/Aliwaeratu阿里瓦兒阿禿; wazaghah/Yizaya亦咱牙; Wazhaa洼札阿; Hehu 蝎虎; Saqanqūr/Saganhuer撒干胡兒; Sōsmār/Susimaer速思麻而

Several recipes in HHYF use geckos or lizards.

 

Avicenna: lizards, including probably geckos, minor uses.

 

Li: several species of lizards, including some geckos, for all sorts of uses, often magical.

 

 

Homo sapiens. Human dung, etc., in the more magical recipes. Ren人; Furen婦人

 

Avicenna:  semen for skin conditions including skin fungus. Urine for fever including deep-red inflammation in skin or mucous membranes. Ashes of hair for pimples. Semen and human milk with opium, wax and olive oil for gout. Rumen with honey in a copper vessel for conreal opacity.  Hair with lead oxide for scabies. Human milk for tuberculosis and for the bite of a sea rabbit (what this meant to Avicenna, living hundreds of miles from the sea, can only be conjectured). Milk diuretic and may be good for stomach. Menstrual blood used for uterus and to prevent contraception, but Avicenna is very skeptical of this. Various other uses, including human excrement on human bites—a use found in the HHYF (juan 34). Avicenna is aware that human bites are notably prone to infection.

 

Li: Similar dreckmedezin is found abundantly in Li. Humans may be second only to horses in the ratio of folk magic to Chinese medical tradition in Li’s book.

 

 

Kerria lacca (Laccifer lacca). Purple keng. Imported. Zikeng紫梗.

 

Lev and Amar: Weight loss, liver, etc. Opens obstructions and fortifies organs. Cough, asthma, swellings, etc. Helps lose weight.

 

 

Leech. Mentioned in contents as being in lost food section. Mahuang螞蟥 (here second, non-standard characters is insect +皇); Shuizhi水 insect +至.

 

Avicenna: usual use for bleeding.

 

 

Leptoptila sp. Ciconiidae. Haiqing海青Adjutant stork rather improbably mentioned in the food section of the index. Possible magical use. Neither Middle Eastern, nor Indian, nor Chinese medicine normally use this huge uncommon bird.

 

 

Lepus sp. Leporidae. Hare. Tu兔; Arnab barī/ Aernabibahali阿而拿必八哈黎 (steppe hare).

Mentioned in Index in the section on food; presumably its value as a medicinal food was discussed. Also the meat is found in one set of instruction.

 

Avicenna: Lepus trerrisi, brain for nervous complaints (sympathetic magic) and other rather magical uses. Rabbit also used.

 

Li: Not distinguished from rabbit.

 

 

Lizard. See under Gecko. Several terms mentioned. Not really identifiable. Avicenna has notes on some lizards, including monitor, waral (Varanus sp.).  Some minor, slightly magical uses there.

 

 

Milk, yogurt, cheese: Extremely important in Near Eastern medicine, these are little mentioned in the HHYF—in fact yogurt is not certainly mentioned at all, and cheese barely. Milk including human and other milks do turn up. Greek, gala (milk). Ru 乳; Nai妳; Rubing乳餅;

 

Avicenna: Milk, shīr, consists of water, cheese (i.e. protein solids), and fat. Camel’s milk is thinner than cow’s (an interesting observation; not true today, but cows have been bred for more watery milk). Ass’ milk is dilute, goat’s milk moderate, sheep milk thick and rich, cow even better. Horse milk very dilute (not true). “Human milk is best, especially when it is fresh and sucked directly form the breast.”[141] Whey is hot but yogurt is cold and dry. Very long account of milk as food. Medically, it relaxes bowels but the protein fraction is constipating.  Colostrum is thick and requires honey to make it good for humans. External uses on swellings, boils, fever-caused inflammations, skin diseases, scabies, ulcers, etc. Many soothing uses of skin and head and in eyes, often combined with actually medicinal items. Soothing salve of ilk, egg white and rose oil for bruises and the like. Various species’ milk recommended for every imaginable internal use. Used to treat poisoning of all sorts. In general, the soothing and nourishing value of milk, and its oil content that makes it good for skin and membranes, made it useful for virtually every purpose in medieval Islamic medicine.

Cheese is moist, but the cured salty cheese is hot and dry. Cleansing. Fresh cheeses nutritious, fattening. Eaten with honey. Stle cheese causes yellow bile; hot, purifying. Buttermilk is dissolvent. Cheeses used in poultices for all sorts of external conditions. Cheese is poor for the stomach. The whey expels yellow bile, however. Alkalinity noted, interestingly. Enema for diarrhea.

 

Levey: Leprosy, spleen, etc. Ass milk for collyrium for ophthalmia, scury, fistulas, etc. Good for eyes and teeth (Ibn Sīnā—right again).

 

Lev and Amar: Food values recognized. Poultices and similar uses of dairy products.

 

Li: Several minor uses for cream (tihu 醍醐). Pain, apoplexy, fever, runny nose, etc. Yogurt (rufu 乳腐) moistening, lubricant, benefits channels and stirs up qi, etc. Making of congealed yogurt, yogurt cooked down into a solid, etc. mentioned; the solid is cut up and mixed with flour for dysentery.

(The Yinshan Zhengyao also fails to say much about dairy products. Evidently, in spite of the Mongol dependence on these foods, they were not salient enough in the Yuan Chinese world to rate much attention.)

 

 

Moschus moschiferus. Cervidae. Musk. native. She麝; Shexiang麝香; muski/Mushiqi木失其; miski/ Misiqi迷思乞/ Misiqi密思乞.

 

Avicenna: Hot and dry. Tenuous, tonic. Sniffed for headaches. Strengthens eye and heart.  Exhilarant. Used for palpitations and restlessness.

 

Lev: Medieval Near East: musk purgative, and for eyes, headaches, potency, cold ailments generally.[142]

 

Levey and Al-Khaledy: Widely used for many purposes in Al-Samarqandī and other texts of the age.

 

Lev and Amar: misk. Headaches, brain disease, paresis, weakness of sex, aphrodisiac. Against flatulence, warts, dysuria, dysmenorrhea, sweelings, etc. Aborts dead fetus. For aphasia, muscle spasms, tension, shaking, palsy. Headache, eyes, limbs, etc. Hot, dry, stimulant.

 

Li: She. Musk, shexiang, used. Pungent, warm and nontoxic. Bitter. Good for sores, bites, worms, etc., and various psychological diseases including fright and convulsions.

 

 

Oryctolagus cuniculus. Leporidae. Tuer 兔兒.  Rabbit brain is used in a couple of recipes also other products.

 

Li: Similar species, various, native to China. Applied to frostbite; for childbirth (magical uses; presumably because rabbits breed so successfully); applied on chapped skin and sores. Other parts of the rabbit are also used.

 

 

Ostrea incl. local O. rivularis, Ostraeidae. Oysters. Bangge蚌蛤; Muli 牡蠣.

 

Avicenna: uses for shells.

 

Li: This and other spp. muli. Shell powdered and used for a variety of conditions, including some psychological ones. (Did calcium deficiency cause nervous affections?)

 

 

Ovis aries, Capridae. Sheep. Mentioned in Index in the section on food; presumably its value as a medicinal food was discussed. In the recipes tail fat frequently called for, also furs, sheep parts and dung, etc. Yang 羊.

 

Avicenna: gall bladder used.

 

Li: See under Goat. The fat-tailed sheep was recognized by Li but had no special medical values.  Some mythical creatures, one deriving from the “vegetable lamb” myth of Europe (which in turn was a garbled and highly colored account of cotton), are noted. One evolves from a 1,000-year-old tree.

 

 

Pavo spp. Pavidae. Peacock. Mentioned in Index in the section on food; presumably its value as a medicinal food was discussed.

 

Li: Meat salty, cool, slightly toxic or perhaps nontoxic. Detoxifying agent.

 

 

Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis (Blumenbach) native. Cormorant whole and gall bladder. Cilao [?] 鶿鳥+老

 

Li:  Luci 鸕鶿Meat sour, salty, cool, slightly toxic. For distended abdomen and similar conditions.  Quotes (with a straight face) a source that says one can dislodge a fishbone from the throat by repeating this bird’s name over and over. (Cormorants disgorge fish for their young, and in China for fishermen too.) Li has some other good stories about birds in this chapter.

 

 

Physeter catodon, Physeteridae. Ambergris. Longyan 龍涎; “black” ‘Anbar/ Anbaer安伯兒aromatic. Morocco, Anbarhorr. Hu 1228.

 

Avicenna: Hot and dry. Useful for elderly for mild warming. Scent cheeering. Musk used in womb for displaced uterus, swelling, menstruation, and general health.

Medieval Near East: Sore throat, heart diseases, paralysis.[143] Heating.[144]

 

Lev and Amar: ‘anbar. Aphasia, muscle spasms, tension, trembling, paralysis, brain, obstruction, wind, dirrhea, pleurisy, etc. Heart, joints, etc. Significantly, noted for hemi-paralysis of face, that condition so amply treated in what is left of the HHYF.

(Ambergris is a product of the intestines of the sperm whale.  It is found washed up on beaches.)

 

 

Pteria margaritifera and pearls in general. Zhenzhu 珍珠/ Zhenzhu 真珠.

 

Lev and Amar: lu’lu’. Treat gums, tonsils, teeth, uvula, throat, eyes, liver, depression. Presumably powdered. Powder specifically for depression, palpitations, hot temperament, stomach, liver.

 

Li:  Pearls, zhenzhu, from this and other bivalves. Salty, sweet, cold, nontoxic. In eye for cloudiness; on face to moisten and brighten the skin; helps with skin in general; etc. Pacifies mind and soul. Some other minor uses.

 

 

Quail. Sumānā /Sumana速馬納, focally Coturnix coturnix. Unidentified species mentioned in Index in the section on food; presumably its value as a medicinal food was discussed.

 

Li:  several species.

 

 

Rattus spp., Muridae. Rat. Shu鼠.

Meat and excrement used.

 

Li: Mouse and rat not distinguished. Many varieties described, most of them mythical; one has asbestos fur. Meat of real mice/rats is sweet, slightly warm, nontoxic. Only males used medicinally. Various poultice uses, also for convulsions, epilepsy, etc. Sympathetic magic in an ascription that since it is good at digging holes its meat is good for sores and fistulas. “This is based on the understanding that something having a certain function will work in the same way when it is used as medicine” (citing Liu Wansu劉完素; as neat a definition of sympathetic magic as exists in the literature).[145] Many other uses.

 

 

Scorpion. Mentioned in contents as being in lost food section. Jiehe解蝎; Hezi蝎子;

 

Avicenna: Burnt for dissolving hard masses in urinary tract, also kidney stones.

 

 

 

Shellfish. Unidentified “shellfish,” as well as oyster (species uncertain), mentioned. Shanj/ Shanji善吉.

 

Avicenna: shells for various reasons.

 

 

 

Snake. Unidentified snakes mentioned for medicinal or magical uses, also in terms of responding to specific snake bites. She蛇; Af’āyi/Afuaye 阿福阿耶; Af’āyi/Afuaye 阿福阿耶snake (She蛇); Habb al-āfā’ya/ Habuliafayu哈不里阿法與; Afuyuya阿夫雨牙; Wushao 烏稍Snake (She蛇); Kha®®āf /Hutafu忽他福Snake (She蛇); Bazzāqah/Buzaha卜咱哈Snake (She蛇); Muqrinah/ Muhulina木忽里納 Snake (She蛇); Adhariyus/Adaeryuxi阿荅而玉西Snake (She蛇); Mu’a®ishah/Muatisha木阿體沙 Snake (She蛇); Ballū®iyyah/Baludiya八盧的牙Snake (She蛇); Jāwarsiyyāh/Gewaerxiya各洼而西牙Snake (She蛇); Òayyah/ Hayiye哈亦也Snake (She蛇); Af’āyi/Afuaye 阿福阿耶 Snake (She蛇).

 

Avicenna: Again, various spp. for various minor and mostly magical uses.

 

Li: many species. Of course snakes are common medicinally in China for warming, poisonous ones being most effective.

 

 

Sparrow. Jiaque家雀; Queer雀兒. Unidentified species mentioned in Index in the section on food; presumably its value as a medicinal food was discussed. Also occurs in a recipe as food.

 

Li: the common Asian sparrow Passer montanus, Que, has many uses. Meat sweet, hot, nontoxic. Warming; sexually stimulating. Various prescriptions, and many parts and products used.

 

 

Spider. Zhiju蜘蛛; Xizhu 喜蛛; Biaoshao 螵蛸 [?]; Mentioned in contents as being in lost food section also call for in recipes including references to spider webs.

 

 

Struthio camelus, Struthidae. Ostrich. ḥalīm/ Zhalimu扎里木. Mentioned in Index in the section on food; presumably its value as a medicinal food was discussed.

 

 

Swallow. Yan燕; Alkha®ā®īf /Lihatatifu里哈他提福. Unidentified species mentioned in Index in the section on food; presumably its value as a medicinal food was discussed. Also called for in recipes.

 

 

Syrrhaptes paradoxus, Pteroclidae. Pallas’ sandgrouse. Shajier沙雞兒Mentioned in one HHYF recipe.

 

Li: Tujueque突厥雀. Sweet, hot, nontoxic.  Invigorates and warms.

 

 

Trimeresurus sp., Crotalidae. Viper. Af’āyi /Afuaye阿福阿耶Snake (She 蛇). See above under snakes.

 

Not in our sources. (Common today at least as a warming food in winter.)

 

 

Turtle. Bie鱉. Unidentified species mentioned in Index in the section on food; presumably its value as a medicinal food was discussed. Also occurs in a recipe.

 

Avicenna: Testudo elegans, Arabic sulḥafāt, two or three uses reported with obvious skepticism; magical.

 

Li: Many medicinal uses of many species of turtles.

 

 

Vulpes spp., Canidae. Fox. Huli狐狸; tha’labi/Salabi撒剌必. Unidentified species mentioned in Index in the section on food; presumably its value as a medicinal food was discussed. Elsewhere meat and testicle and dung called for.

 

Li: Red fox, V. vulpes, Hu 狐. Sweet, warm, nontoxic. Many uses for various parts. The countless folkloric beliefs about foxes are summarized ably. Most of the recipes have a magical tinge, in line with the demonic and shapeshifting nature of foxes in East Asian lore.

 

 

Vulture. Karkas/Keergexi 可而各西. Unidentified species mentioned in Index in the section on food; presumably its value as a medicinal food was discussed.

 

Avicenna: Rakhmah, Pseudogyps spp. Gall in ear, collyrium, etc.; basically magical uses.

 

 

Weasel. Huangshu 黃鼠; Shulang鼠狼Unidentified species mentioned in Index in the section on food; presumably its value as a medicinal food was discussed. Also mentioned in connection with treatment or problems presented by.

 

Li:  Siberian weasel, Mustela sibirica, youshu 鼬鼠, sweet, warm, slightly toxic, a few trivial uses.

 

 

Note: Al-Bīrūnī covers many animals.

A 14th-century zoologist, al-Damiri, described hundreds of animals, many medicinal.[146]

 

 

Minerals

 

Agate ‘Aqīq/Ajiji 阿吉吉; huihuihungmanao/ 回回紅瑪瑙.

 

Lev and Amar: ‘aqīq. Dispels fear, stops bleeding—mainly of women. For teeth, gums.

 

 

 

 

Alum. Baifan白礬; kuhongfan枯紅礬 (red potash alum).

 

Dioscorides: V-123, stypteria. Warming, binding, purging. All the expected external uses as styptic (after all, it is the source of the English word). Among other things, strengthens “wagging teeth.”[147] Also kills nits and lice. Deodorant. Alum from Melos was used as a contraceptive or abortifacient; applied to uterus before intercourse.

 

Avicenna: Constricting. Hot and dry. External, for ulcers, lice, body odor. Rubbed on teeth, including toothache. Styptic.

 

Levey: shabb. Tooth care.

 

Al-Bīrūnī: astringent. Hot. Clears eye, cures pustules on breasts etc. With honey to strengthen loose teeth and cure pustules of mouth. Also for ears. With grape leaves or honey on mange, wounds, itch, whitlow, nails, chapping of skin. With oak galls and vinegar lees for corrosion of flesh. Granulates chronic wounds with salt and water. With asphalt water (liquid asphalt?) for pustules. With water to kill lice and ticks. Antiphlogistic if applied externally. Uterine pessary to stop menstruation etc. Can be abortifacient. Cures body odor, gum swelling, inflammation of throat, mouth, cheeks; helps with pain in ears, uterus, testicles. Note close similarity to Dioscorides. Galen also cited. Rāzī adds that it clarifies impure water etc.

 

Lev and Amar: Minor uses including teeth. Mimonides notes it for stimulating sexual desire in men. Modern uses for eyes, gums and teeth, wounds and bleeding, lice, etc. (as in many areas).

 

Lebling and Pepperdine: Stops bleeding. Shrinks tissues after childbirth.

 

Li: Fanshi 礬石. Sour and nontoxic; various forms have different values. Huge range of uses.

 

 

Amber. Hupo琥珀; kharabā/Kehalaba可哈剌拔.

 

Li:  Hupo. Sweet, plain and nontoxic. Correct origin known. Various uses.

 

 

Armenian bole (“Armenian [Ārmānī] mud”). Aermainini阿而麥你泥/ Yiermainini亦兒麥你泥/ Aermainini阿而麥你尼; gel-e Armanī [subtext].

 

Avicenna: “Armenian stone” (usually lapis) purgative of black bile, but unsuitable for stomach. Notable for melancholic diseases; replaced black hellebore in Avicenna’s medicine. Armenian bole, cold and dry, constricting; minor uses; “wonderful healing effects on wounds.”[148] Good for respiratory tract including coughing up blood. Internally for intestinal ulcers, diarrhea, uterine bleeding. Good for fevers; live-saving.

 

Lev and Amar: Many kinds of clay are mentioned in the Genizah documents. This one, identified as oxidized iron in lime chalk, was used externally for skin diseases, burns, and pain; also eyes, breast swellings. Chalk itself is useful as soothing agent for eyes and swellings, usually with more active items.

(It would have a soothing action and might clear up some minor skin diseases.)

 

Borax, bauraq/Bola博剌; Jian鹼; Na®rūn/Natilong納體籠; Būra/Bola博剌.

 

Avicenna: Hot and dry. Cleansing. Disintegrates thick humors. For hair, complexion, skin (itchy eruptions), dog bites, beetle bites, dandruff, ears. Expels worms but is bad for stomach.

 

Levey: Dental medicine, swellings, itch, baldness. Lev and Amar give many uses.

 

 

Coal. Shihui石灰; Hui

 

Li:  Shitan 石炭.  Fuel; few medical uses.

 

 

Copper & copper powder. Mes/Misi迷思; Tong銅; Tongyuan銅緣 (copper rust, copper green, copper chloride); rōsakhtaj/luoyisoheida羅亦鎖黑達  (copper oxidants);

 

Dioscorides: V-87, khalkos kekymenos, burnt copper. Brass (not copper) burnt till it can be powdered. Binding, drying, repressing, cleansing.  Antibiotic for sores, “proud flesh,” eye problems, etc. Causes vomiting.

V-88, khalkou anthos, flower of copper. Scum on molten brass being refined. Similar uses; “mightily biting.”[149]

V-89, lepis, scales of copper. Brass flakes. Corroded in water. Similar uses, especially for eyes.

V-90, lepis stomomatos, smithy scales. Similar.

V-91, ios xystos, verdigris. Preparation explained in detail, but little medical use indicated; evidently as the previous.

V-92, ios skolex, corroded brass. Again various preparations explained. Binding, warming, wearing off or removing; for eyes, inflammations, ulcers, etc. Purgative.

V-114, khalkanthon, copperas-water. Binds, warms, kills tapeworms, causes vomiting and thus good for mushroom poisoning, etc.

V-115, khalkitis, copper ore. Various external uses.

V-117, misy, copperas.  Minor external use.

 

Levey: Burnt copper in collyrium for eyes. Also for itch.

 

Avicenna: nuḥās. Hot and dry. Copper oxide is more diluting than the metal. Constricting. Used to blacken hair, for malignant and creeping ulcers, for wounds, eyes, etc. With honey to massage hard and burning ulcers. With honey wine, taken to purge. Avicenna warns that one should not keep meat, oil, or salty, bitter, sour, sweet, or fatty items in copper containers, no rhould one drink from copper utensils. Red copper oxide, zahrah al-nuḥās, constricting; dries up ulcers.  Evacuates thick humors, etc. Dries up piles. Verdigris, zanjār, copper acetate, hot and dry (very), cleansing, piungent, corrosive. External uses to clean out ulcers and skin disesaes, including ascabies. Cleanses eyes; in colliyrium. For piles. No internal uses. Vitriols: various uses for the several forms.

 

Lev and Amar: Copper: nukhās, etc. Eyes, skin. Tūbāl (they translate “scoria” but explain it is a copper product). Mouth and teeth, eyes. Cuprite, rāsakht, rāsukht, for unknown uses (only a few mentions in the Genizah documents).

 

Madanapala: Tāmra. Cold.  Laxative, for anemia, skin, piles, edema, dyspnoea, cough.

 

Dash: As above. Apparently a cureall in Tibet.

 

Li: Tongqing 銅青, verdigris. Minor, mostly topical uses.

(Most users recognize the danger of these highly toxic metallic chemicals.)

 

 

Dung Fen 糞.

 

Sheep, goat, fox, wild ox, horse, donkey, pigeon, and other dungs are mentioned. Magical uses for these exist in Chinese medicine but this sort of dreckmedezin is not common in the Near East.  However, burned dung of herbivores is suggested in one list of things that can go into a poultice, and this would be perfectly reasonable; the burning would sterilize them and the high-fibre ash would be a good absorbent.

 

Li mentions various dungs. Dungs of all common animals were used.

 

 

Ferric oxide Tiexiu鐵鏽

 

Dioscorides: V-93, ios siderou, iron rust. Binding. In water, contraceptive. In vinegar for many external uses. Hot iron, quenched in water or wine: liquid drunk for dysentery and other digestive problems.

V-94, skoria siderou, iron slag. Similar uses; less force.

 

Li: tie 鐵, iron; teixiu, tieyi 鐵衣, ferric oxide; many other iron preparations. Vast range of uses.

Ferric oxide mostly external use, on sores etc.

 

 

Gold. Jin金; Jinzi金子; Jinsha針砂  (gold dust)

 

Avicenna: For blood diseases, eyesight, heartburn, talking to oneself pathologically.

 

Lev and Amar: Dhahab. Treated with vinegar, produces a preparation used for bad breath. Gold in eyes for sight. Heart and other problems.

 

Madanapala: Suvarna. Astringent, bitter, sweet, cold. Aphrodisiac, for strength, rejuvenating, for dosas, posions, insanity, fever, phthisis.

 

Li: Jin. Pungent, balanced, toxic or nontoxic (one source says crude is toxic, refined nontoxic; in fact gold is as poisonous as any other heavy metal, but normally so chemically resistant to digestive fluids that eating it is perfectly safe, in spite of the frequent literary device of suicide by swallowing gold in Chinese fiction). Minor topical uses, including an unusual one of absorbing mercury spilled on a person, which would otherwise be deadly.

 

 

Iron. Tie鐵 (Iron), occurring in various shapes and forms in the recipes; khabthu l-adīdi/Habasulihadidi哈八速里哈的的 (iron or steel shavings); Qalqadīs/ Halihadixi哈里哈的西 (red oxide of iron, iron pill); qalqa®ār/ Halihadaer 哈里哈達而 (burnt vitriol, impure iron sulfate).

 

Dioscorides: V-144, aimatites lithos, hematite. Binding and warming. Takes off scars and problems of eyes. With woman’s milk, or as collyrium, for eye conditions.  Drunk with wine as diuretic and against women’s fluxes, and with pomegranate juice for spitting blood.

V-145, schistos lithos, hematite; Spanish, less effective than above.

 

Levey:  Hematite, shādhanah, in collyria, etc.

 

Lev and Amar: Eyes, preventing nosebleeds (doctrine of signatures—hematite being red).  Maimonides held it cold and dry, and used it for hemorrhages, diarrhea, skin disease, swelling, wounds, worms, fractures.

 

Li: See above.

 

 

Jade. Yu玉.

 

One astonishing HHYF recipe combines jade with gold, silver, mica, petroleum salt, aluminum oxide (?), lapis lazuli (two kinds?), ivory and a whole range of valuable herbal ingredients.  Clearly some sort of magical effect involving all these extremely expensive items is intended.

 

Li: Yu. Superior drug. Many recipes, most alchemical or magical, plus a great deal of lore.

 

 

Lapis lazuli. Lāzward/ Lazhuwaerdi剌諸洼兒的; Òajar Armanī/ Hazhaeraermani 哈札而阿而馬尼/ Hazheleaermani哈者里阿而馬尼; Jinjingshi金精石; Òajar l-yahūdī/ Hazheluliyehudi 哈者盧黎野乎的.

 

Lev and Amar: lāzward, Eliminates warts, shapes lips, etc. Diuretic, cleansing. For kidneys, black bile, menstruation (stops excess), curls hair, treats leprosy and skin conditions, eyes, etc.; helps the mad and depressed. (Much, if not all, of this is purely magical.)

(Not used in Chinese medicine and almost unknown in China except as an ornamental stone.)

 

 

Lead oxide, lead peroxide. Huangdan黃丹 (minium); Mituoseng蜜陀僧 (litharge); Dingfen定粉 (white lead); Heixi黑錫 (“black tin,” lead).

 

Dioscorides: V-95-98, molybdos (lead) in several preparations. Various mostly-external uses; cooling, binding.

V-103, psimythios, white lead, cerussite. Cooling, pore-closing, molifying, filling, lowers swellings, helps scars develop, etc.

 

Levey: Several modern uses, similar to above.

 

Avicenna: various names for various lead salts. In general, cold and moist. A “red lead oxide is cold and dry.”[150] Black lead cold and moist. Zinc oxide cold and dry. Most of these salts stop bleeding, treat wounds and swellings, treat ulcers and tubercular lymph glands, etc. Red lead oxide on burns in ointment. Used in eyes. Used on bites and stings. Avicenna is aware that lead salts are poisonous and dangerous to use.

 

Lev and Amar: White lead for kohl (eye treatment), aphrodisiac, itch, children with umbilical hernia and incessant crying; various skin conditions, etc. Dressings to prevent orgasm. Stings, fleas, removes dead skin, etc. Red oxide of lead—minium—for abscesses, boils, lacerations.

 

Li: Qiandan 鉛丹. Pungent, slightly cold and nontoxic (!). Range of internal uses.

(This and other lead salts were amazingly common drugs in both the western world and old China, leading to many deaths. Some remained in use in modern biomedicine, for external purposes, within living memory.)

 

 

Litharge (lead oxide). See under Lead oxide.

 

Dioscorides: V-102, lithargyros. Binding, mollifying, fills hollowness, lowers swellings, helps with wounds and the like. Long and complex details on preparation.

 

Levey: Murtak, martak. External applications for scrofula, vitiligo alba, boils, abscesses, hemorrhoids, dirty wounds, eyes.

 

Avicenna: Murdāsanj. Dryish but fairly neutral. Constrictive and drying; cleansing.  Diluting.  Many external uses, especially on ulcers, wounds. Deadly poison, so not much used internally, but given to children for diarrhea and intestinal ulcers (this horribly dangerous usage persists in Mexico to this day, and poisoning from it occur in California’s Mexican-American communities occasionally).  Avicenna notes similar preparations of silver and, improbably, gold.

 

Lev and Amar: martak. Sores and skin conditions including boils, abscesses, dirty wounds.  Hemorrhoids. Eye diseases.

 

Li:  Mituoseng. Like other lead salts, which it follows in the book, this was used for a range of purposes, including dysentery, hemorrhoids, other intestinal conditions.

 

 

Melanterite. See under iron. qalqa®ār/ Halihadaer 哈里哈達而.

 

Li: Lüfan綠礬. Sour, cool, nontoxic. For inflammations, stagnation, dispelling phlegm, etc. Several pages of preparations.

 

 

Mica.  Jinxingshi金星石; Jinjingshi金精石;

 

 

Naft (naphta or crude oil). Naft Nafute納福忒/ Nafuti納福提. Mentioned in Lev and Amar[151]  but not in their texts. Local use in Arabian medicine. No significant use in Chinese medicine.

 

 

Orpiment. Cihuang雌黃.

 

Dioscorides: V-121, arsenikon. Binding. Strongly biting. Makes hair fall out.

 

Levey: Realgar, zarnīkh aḥmar, for ulcers; al-Kindī seems to confuse it with red lead.

 

Lev and Amar: Ulcers, teeth, gums, soap (presumably disinfectant), hair removal, poisoning lice and other vermin. The Arabic word is arsin (from the same Greek source as the English word, now used for the metal rather than this salt thereof). Modern uses include small does for most of the above purposes. Of course the poisonous effects of strong doses are and were known.

 

Madanapala: Haritāla (yellow arsenic). Hot. For poisoning (!), itch, skin, mouth, blood, hair, affliction by evil planets (!).

 

Dash: Pungent, astringent. For skin, mouith, ulcers, hair removal. Realgar adds repulsion of evil spirits.

 

Li: Cihuang. Pungent, balanced, toxic. Li cautiously recommends it largely for topical use, but does mention the internal uses for digestive conditions etc. Realgar, xionghuang, gets more uses and attention. Sources differ on its qualities, but agree it is toxic.

(These deadly drugs were much used in early medieval Chinese medicine, including immortality medicine; they caused brain poisoning and thus hallucinations, and then preserved the corpse, so the dying man seemed to see visions and the dead seemed not to have truly died. By Li’s time, such medicine was known to be pernicious.)

 

 

Salt(s). Fan 礬; namāki/ Nanaqi拏馬其; Yan鹽;

 

Dioscorides: V-126, ‘ales. Notes various types of sea and lake salt. Binding, cleansing, dissolving, repressing, etc. An even longer list than usual of external applications. Used in preparations with soothing ingredients for bites (including crocodile bites!), stings, boils, sores, etc.

 

Avicenna: milḥ. Persian namak. Hot and dry. Cleansing, dissolvling, constricting, drying; relieves gas. Burnt salt is more drying and dissolving. Anti-putrefaction. Used as rub for teeth and gums, in poultices of all sourts for various reasons, as corrosive for excssive flesh on wounds, on skin diseases, etc. Rub with pulp of colocynth for head. Ingredient of various rubs for chest, etc. Helps elimination. Many other uses, usually with other items.

 

Lev and Amar: In medications for most purposes, from eyes to bile. Dissolves phlegm, reduces weight, relieves poisons, treats diarrhea and hemorrhoids; topical uses on teeh, skin, stings, bites, etc.

 

Madanapala, Dash: several kinds of salt with various uses.

 

Li: Yan; shiyan 石鹽 (rock salt). Used in many preparations for varied reasons. .

 

 

Silver and silver residue. Yin銀.

 

Avicenna: Silver, fiḍḍah. Cooling and drying. Minor external uses.

 

Lev and Amar: fiḍḍa. Skin, heart, hemorrhoids, breath; diuretic.

 

Madanapala: Rūpya. Cold, sweet, laxative, rejuvenating. For aging, etc.

 

Dash: Happiness, cures gray hair, complexion, etc. Cures poisoning and several ailments.

 

Li: Yin. Pungent, balanced, toxic. Flakes usually used. For psychological conditions (fright, convusions, willpower, depression, mania) as well as a range of physical ones.

 

 

Soil (including mud from an altar, soil from a crossroad, etc.). Tu土.

 

Dioscorides V-170, ge. Cooling, stops pores. Various kinds; descriptions of many follow (171-181).

 

Avicenna: various minor uses.

 

Arabic sources, Li:  Many kinds of dirt used in various, usually magical ways.

 

 

Sulphur. Liuhuang硫黃; l-kibrīti/Qibuliti其卜黎提/ Qibiliya乞必里牙.

 

Dioscorides: V-124, theion. For coughs, asthma, spitting. External uses for infections and other conditions. Abortifacient. External use for jaundice (clearly sympathetic magic).

 

Avicenna: Kibrīt; Persian, gugard. Hot and dry (very; fourth degree). Diluting, cosmetic, effective for skin including scabies. External uses except vapor for colds.

 

Lev and Amar: kibrīt. Skin conditions, including bites and stings; paralysis, inflammation, leprosy (presumably on skin), even mental illness. Kills lice.

 

Madanapala: Gandhaka. Laxative; for skin, consumptioni, spleen.

 

Dash: Pungent, bitter, hot. Cures poisoning, itch, skin.

 

Li:  Sour, warm/hot, toxic. Many uses, mostly in formulations.

(Well-known skin medicine.)

 

 

Zinc oxide. Tōtiyā/ Tuotiya脫體牙 (zinc sulfate); Qalīmiyā/halimiya哈里米牙 (scoria).

 

Avicenna: sifīd āb; external uses for wounds, swellings.

 

Lev and Amar: tūtiyā. Eyes.

 

 

Several recipes refer to a an apparent burnt vitriol, “red potash alum” (a mix powder?). See also under Iron, qalqa®ār/ Halihadaer 哈里哈達而 (burnt vitriol, impure iron sulfate). Totally mysterious are reference to an andarūn (possibly for andarini, a form of salt) among things to put on blood vessel wounds (juan 34).

 

Lev and Amar have many uses for vitriol and related compounds.

 

 

Obscure

 

See also the Index list.

 

 

Hongjiezi紅芥子 (red mustard); Hong 紅 (“red”) [Pr.] Sipandān/Xipandan西盤丹; Isfandān/ Xipandang西攀當 (white mustard seeds).

 

 

Baijiezi 白芥子 (white mustard); Sipandān/ Xipandan 西盤丹. Egyp. Xardal.

 

 

Qūqīyā/ Gujiya古吉牙. Three recipe mentions Qūqīyā Pills apparently containing ivory; the dictionary gives “narwhal” which is more than improbable although not entirely since Narwhal ivory was being imported to Europe at the time from Greenland.

 

 

圓芥子的根 Yuan jiezi di gen (“root of round mustard seeds”). Dārshīsha’ān/ Daershishian荅而失實安/Daershishian荅兒失失安/Daershihiang荅兒失失昂. Not mustard some other plant. Uncertain.

 

 

Zihua紫花, “purple flower.” Frequent mentions, but there is no plant by this name in Chinese medicine. Probably the violet Viola yedoensis, although apparently the clear violet of the text , which occurs under the general term Banafshah/Bunafusha不納福沙 is probably Viola odorata.

 

 

Some drugs strangely absent from what we have of the HHYF:

 

Camellia sinensis. Tea was a cureall for al-Bīrūnī (as for the good Dutch Doctor Bontekoe in the 17th century).  Al-Bīrūnī knew that in China it was used to counteract alohol, help the stomach, purify the blood [i.e., help qi], etc. He even knew some of the Chinese folklore about the plant.

 

Li:  Cha, ming. Bitter, sweet, cold, nontoxic. Cureall, but uses for diarrhea/dysentery, stimulant effect including clearing head, and hydration stand out.

 

 

Lawsonia inermis. Henna. This plant, so widely used in the Middle East especially for external uses of all kinds, is strangely absent from the HHYF.

 

 

Salvia spp. These plants, widespread as medicines in Europe and west Asia, never seem to have made it to East Asia as significant herbal remedies, though Li mentions S. miltiorrhiza, danshen丹參, as a disperser of Cold, Heat, pathogenic factors, etc., and for many minor uses, including fright and evil.  It tranquilizes the spirit, stabilizes the willpower, etc.

Sage spp. are used in the west for stomach, pain, throat, general nutrition and tonic. Antiseptic and antioxidant properties well documented and effective.

 

 

Operculum: Snail opercula were a major drug in the Near East and common in China too. They contain substances that are highly aromatic when used as incense.Various species were used. These may be hidden under some other name among shells mentioned in the text.

 

Lev and Amar: az.fār t.īb. Used for skin, wounds, purgative, emetic, menstrual regulation, uterus, epilepsy, paralysis, etc.

 

 

 

 

Appendices:  Tables and Comparisons (items marked with * are not in the main text)/

 

Foods in Table of Contents; starred ones not mentioned in the main text that survives.

 

Humans

Camel

Horse

Domestic Ox

Wild Ox

Domestic Donkey

*Wild Donkey

Sheep

Goat

Mountain Goat

Dog

Wolf

Old Wolf [Unidentified]

Fox

[Ar.] Zi’b [Jackal]

*[Pr.] Nakhjīr [? unidentified]

Rabbit

*[Ar.] Arnab ba [Steppe Hare]

Rat

Weasel

Hedgehog

Male Chicken and Female Chicken

Duck

Pigeon

*Swallow

*[Ar.] Durrāj [Francolin]

*[Ar.] Rakham [kind of goose]

*[Ar.] Sumānā [Quail]

Sparrow

Sand Grouse

*[Ar.] Qi®®a Cat [female]

*Butterfly

Bat

Snake

[Ar.] Af’āyi Snake [Viper ?]

*[Ar.] Timsā  [Crocodile]

[Ar.] Òirbā’ [Chameleon]

*[Ar.] Sāmm ābras [Gekko]

Fish

Turtle

*Eriocheir sinensis

[Pr.] Jandbādstar [beaver]

* [Ar.] Saqanqūr [scincus lizard]

*[Pr.] Sōsmār [lizard]

Frog

Oyster

Earthworm

*[Ar.] Òirdhawn [a lizard]

*Ma-tse [insect + hemp] 蚱 [Unidentified]

*Dung Beetle

*[Ar.] Dūd [Worm, maggot, etc]

*[Pr.] Dūd-e qirmiz [silk worm]

Cantharides

*House Fly

Scorpion

Spider

Leech

*[Ar.] Fasāfis [Bedbug]

Peacock

Crane

*Swan

*Adjutant Stork [Leptoptilus javanicus]

*Xunhu [to smoke + bird] 鹕 [Unidentified]

*[Ar.] Gha®ghā® [Lapwing, Hoplopterus spinosus]

*[Ar.] ḥalīm [Ostrich]

*[Ar.] Mūghāli, “shrew mouse”]

[Ar.] Qa®āmī [sparrow hawk, kite, harrier, etc]

*[Pr.] Karkas [Vulture]

 

 

Division: Various Flowers, Fruits, and Vegetables for Treating Illness

 

Category: Various Fruits

 

“Foreign 10,000-year Jujubes” [dates]

Sweet Grapes

Fig

Sweet Pomegranate

Sour Chinese Quince [Chaenomeles sinensis = C. speciosa]

Southern Pears

Mulberry

Sour Apple

Plum

[Pr.] Badam [Almonds]

Seedless White Dried Grapes

Hazel Nuts

Nutmeg

Wild Indian Eggplant [Deadly Nightshade Fruits]

Pine Nuts

Hemp Seeds

Sesame

Opium Poppy Seeds

 

Category: Various Vegetables

 

Garlic chives

Coriander

[Ar.] Sadāb [Rue]

Basil [or mint]

*[Pr.] Mavīzak [Pedicularis ?resupinata]

*[Ar.] Bādrūj [Melissa officinalis, mountain balm]

[Ar.] Tarkhūn [Tarragon]

Lettuce

Seashore Vitex

Radish

Carrot

[Ar.] Lāfah [garlic mustard?]

[Pr.] Chugundur [Sugar Beet]

Garlic

Ampelopsis cantoniensis

Green Onions

*K’o-lan 可藍  [Unidentified]

Spinach

Eggplant

*Cimi 刺 [tree + without] [or mieh; unidentified]

*Lizijiao 李子膠 [Unidentified]

[Pr.] Chokrī [dock, Rumex acetosa]

*[Pr.] Zumārōg [a mushroom]

 

Category: Various Flowers

 

Violet

[Ar.] Shahsibargham [sweet basil]

Chinese Sacred Lily

*White ma-lan 馬藺 Flower [Unidentified]

[[Pr.] Mūrd [Myrtle]

*[Pr.] Āzargōn [autumn peony ?]

Lotus

*Red lo-san 羅傘 Flower [Unidentified]

[Ar.] za’farān [saffron]

[Pr.] marzanjūsh [Marjoram]

Rose

Willow

 

Some remedies from Al-Kindī:

 

Contents of the nosh-dārū electuary, labeled as Indian by Al-Kindī, which is intended to make one happy and to make sadness disappear:[152]

 

Red rose, sweet rush, clove, mastic, nard, wild nard, cinnamon [presumably cassia], Ceylon cinnamon, yew, saffron, sebesten, large cardamom, ordinary cardamom, walnut.

 

Contents of the longest formula in the book, a “black remedy” (presumably a nonstandard or somewhat magical one) for insanity:[153]

 

Nard, mastic, wild ginger, leopard’s-bane, opium, euphorbium, henbane, white pepper, soapwort, black Indian salt, red Indian salt, mandrake root, rhubarb root, pyrethrum, myrrh, aloe, sesame oil, frankincense, sweet flag, sagapenum, gum ammoniac, long birthwort, round mustard, blue bdellium, chicory root, castoreum, colocynth root, yellow sulfur, seed of rocket, chaste-tree, mountain raisin, opopanax, wild harmel seed, fennel flower, galbanum, saffron.

 

Stomachic and treatment for sexual overindugence:[154]

 

Cardamom, clove, walnut, ginger, pepper, long pepper, saffron, Chinese cinnamon (presumably cassia), ‘ūdnī, sukk (these unidentified), ganga, rocket seed, carrot seed, secacul (a carrot-like root, not certainly identified), small desert lizard.  (Note that most of these are indeed effective stimulants, carminatives, and stomach medicines.)

 

Maimonides on diet for the insane:  oxtongue drink (borage?); counterindicated coriander seed, fruit, and purgatives.

 

 

Plant Families Represented in the HHYF

 

Numbers refer to separate taxa in the HHYF, not to species, since it is unclear how many species are included in the vaguer taxa. There are, for instance, clear references to several different species of rose, but only “Rosa” is scored here (as one taxon).

 

Acoraceae, 1

Agaricaceae, 1

Agavaceae, 1

Alliacea, 3

Altingiaceae, 1

Amaryllidaceae, 1

Apiceae, 27

Apocynaceae (now in Asclepidaceae), 2

Araceae, 1

Araliaceae, 1

Arecaceae, 4

Aristolochiaceae, 2

Asparagaceae, 2

Asteraceae, 22

Avicenniaceae, 1

Berberidaceae, 1

Betulaceae, 1

Boraginaceae, 4

Brassicaceae, 7

Burseraceae, 5

Campanulaceae, 1

Cannabaceae, 1

Capparidaceae, 1

Caprifoliaceae, 2

Caryophyllaceae, 2

Chenopoodiaceae, 3

Cistaceae, 2

Clusiaceae, 1

Colchicaceae, 1

Combretaceae, 2

Convolvulaceae, 3

Cornaceae, 2

Crassulaceae, 1

Cucurbitaceae, 4

Cupressaceae, 1

Cyperaceae, 1

Dipterocarpaceae, 1

Dracaenaceae, 1

Ephedraceae, 1

Euphorbiaceae, 5

Fabaceae, 18

Fagaceae, 1

Gentianaceae, 1

Hypericaceae, 1

Iridaceae, 2

Juglandaceae, 1

Lamiaceae, 19

Lauraceae, 5

Linaceae, 1

Loganiaceae, 1

Loranthaceae, 1

Malvaceae, 4

Melanthiaceae, 1

Menispaermaceae, 1

Menyantheaceae, 1

Moraceae, 2

Moringaceae, 1

Myristicaceae, 1

Myrtaceae, 2

Oleaceae, 3

Onagraceae, 2

Orchidaceae, 1

Orobanchaceae, 1

Paeoniaceae, 1

Papaveraceae, 3

Parmeleaceae, 1

Pedaliaceae, 2

Pinaceae, 3

Piperaceae, 3

Plantaginaceae, 1

Poaceae, 8

Polypodiaceae, 3

Polyporacese, 2

Poygonaceae, 3

Primulaceae, 1

Primulaceae, 1

Punicaceae, 1

Ranunculaceae, 6

Rhamnaceae, 3

Rosaceae, 11

Rubiaceae, 1

Rutaceae, 6

Salicaceae, 2

Santalaceae, 1

Solanaceae, 5

Styracaceae, 1

Taxaceae, 1

Thymeleaceae, 2

Usneaceae, 1

Verbenaceae, 1

Violaceae, 1

Vitaceae, 2

Zingiberaceae, 8

Zygophyllaceae, 2

 

Lichen, 1

Moss, 1

 

 

It may be useful to compare this with total numbers of species in the major families in Central Asia. A. R. Mukhamejanov provides the following numbers:[155]

 

Asteraceae, 1351 spp. in the Central Asian region

Fabaceae, 927

Lamiaceae, 455

Apiaceae, 419

Poaceae, 415

Liliaceae, 396

Brassicaceae, 390

Caryophyllaceae, 286

Rosaceae, 264

Chenopodiaceae, 242

Boraginaceae, 230

Polygonaceae, 157

 

This includes over 70% of the total species for the region. Endemicity is high, 65-70%.

Of course this is only somewhat similar to the basically Mediterranean flora of the HHYF.

Mukhamejanov notes the existence of montane forests that are largely walnut, almond, apricot, pistachio, etc., with no pines, larches, oaks or similar large trees. Such forests are surely the result of human selective cutting (personal research, Afghanistan, ENA; cf Harlan[156]). Timber is cut, fruit trees preserved.

 

 

 

 

Places of Origin of Major Medicinal Items

 

This involves some arbitrary scoring. In the first place, many of the HHYF taxa, such as rose, poplar, rhubarb, dock, and willow, include several species, distributed all over Eurasia, with local species being medicinally used in China and western Eurasia.These have been coded as “All” below. Secondly, some individual species, such as apricot, sweetflag, and hemp, occurred throughout the Eurasian heartlands from very early times, and were used medicinally throughout their ranges. Third, some species, such as citron, barely reach China and were probably not known medicinally there, and seem to be treated as “western” plants in the HHYF. It is important to note that in all these cases the names given are Near Eastern ones, and the indicated uses tend to follow the Dioscorides-Galen traditions. We are thus dealing with western uses of the plants, however Chinese or universal the plants may be. Honey presents a special problem, since the domesticated bee Apis mellifera, was an introduction from the west, but the similar east Asian A. cerana was always known and used. Honey is regarded here as in the “widespread” category.

 

On the other hand, the HHYF does separate some groups, e.g. Artemisia and mints, into roughly species-level categories, and different species were used in east and west, so these can be scored more precisely.

 

In the second place, many medicinals were widespread in India, the Near East, and Europe long before the time of the HHYF. These have all been coded as “Western,” since this is a book of Near Eastern medicine. However, some are known to have come from India originally (most, however, were genuinely widespread). “India” thus becomes something of a residual category, for plants that clearly came from India and were not known, or at least not much used, in the western world much before the HHYF’s time. Even this presents maddening conundrums, like sugar, which we code as “India” though it was, in the 14th century, rather recently popularized in the west and China.

 

Similarly, some medicinals made it to China slightly before the HHYF’s time, but they have all been scored as “Western” here, because they were recent arrivals as of the 14th century and had not been well assimilated into Chinese culture. This, also, is obviously maddeningly ambiguous. We have scored grape as “Western,” for instance, though it was known in China since the 2nd century B.C.; it remained as of the 14th century an overwhelmingly western crop, though widely grown in western China (often or usually by Hui peoples). Walnut, probably native to China as to west Asia, scores western because it is “Iranian peach” in Chinese and the common large edible form is evidently an import.[157]

 

The Southeast Asian eleven are, similarly, plants that would have been seen at that time as rather exotic Southeast Asian items, though long known in India and China. They are mostly spices and incenses. Cloves are the extreme case here; they were still strictly an import, but the importation had started by 300-400 BC.

 

Note the importance of India even after it has “lost” many of its drugs to scoring as generically “Western.”

 

 

Plants:

 

Found in all regions, 31

Western, 152

India, 26

China, 38

Southeast Asia, 11

 

Total 258 taxa

 

Number of these mentioned in Dioscorides:  136

 

Mentioned in Li: 148 (as well as most of the animals and animal products)

 

The vast majority of these overlap, and many of the rest are obscure. The rest of the exceptions are several plants in Dioscorides that cannot grow away from the Mediterranean, and several native to East and South Asia were not known to Dioscorides.

 

In most cases, when the genera are the same, the species used by Li and slightly different from the one(s) used by Dioscorides. Rheum is one example.

 

This indicates a flow of knowledge from west to east. Since Dioscorides has priority, and since most of the overlap is in western-origin or Indian-origin plants, we can safely infer that the botanicals in question went in that direction.  However, in many cases—from Artemisia and Asparagus to Ricinus and Vicia—the genus, if not the species, is widely distributed and independent discovery is possible. When the plant has such obvious medical value that no one could miss it, as in Artemisia and Ricinus, independent discovery becomes probable.

 

The only clear and unmistakable western borrowings shared by the HHYF and Li are common foods and a few other products of early (often very ancient) presence in China:[158] ball onion (A. cepa), dill, celery, beet, frankincense, cabbage (B. oleracea, specifically said by Li to be western), safflower, myrrh, coriander, saffron, carrot, asafoetida, fig, fennel, barley, flax, basil, poppy, pistachio, almond, apricot, pomegranate, possibly sumac (but there are native sumacs in China), rosemary (Li says it came from the west in the Wei Dynasty), madder, sesame, styrax, fenugreek, wheat, and European grape (but there are also native Chinese grapes). This totals 30 species. Some, such as wheat and barley, go back to very ancient times in China. Others, such as grape and coriander, reached China in very early imperial times.

 

The only clear borrowings from India or southeast Asia are galingale, Aquilaria, Areca (its Chinese name is a loanword from Malay), turmeric, zedoary, Daemonorhops, Dryobalanops, nutmeg, Phyllanthus, the Piper species, sugarcane, clove, Terminalia chebula. Several other largely Southeast Asian species probably ranged into China in ancient times. Possibly even turmeric and zedoary did.

 

 

 

 

Analysis and Comparison

 

Plants mentioned in the Yinshan Zhengyao, a nutrition and dietary guide from the same decade

 

Starred ones occur, or their close congenerics do, in the HHYF.

 

 

Acanthopanax sp. Wujiapi五加皮. Bark liquor.

 

*Aconitum chinese. Chinese aconite

 

*A. carmichaeilii. Sichuan aconite

 

*Acorus calamus. Sweet rush, sweet flag. Root

 

*Aframomum sp. (more likely, in context, Amomum villosum). Grains-of-Paradise

 

*Agaricus spp.

 

*Allium cepa (and probably also A. fistulosum). Onion

 

  1. chinense. Chinese leek.

 

*A. sativum. Garlic

 

  1. tuberosum. Chinese chives

 

*Alpinia officinarum. Lesser galingale

 

Amaranthus sp. (possibly also Chenopodium sp.) Greens

 

*Amomum spp. (notably A. tsaoko, probably also A. villosum, A. xanthioides). Large cardamoms

 

*Angelica sinensis. Danggui當歸

 

*Aquilaria agallocha. Eaglewood, gharuwood

 

*Arctium lappa. Burdock

 

Asarum forbesii. Forbes’ wild ginger

 

*Asparagus cochin-chinensis, A. lucidus (possibly also Zizania caduciflora?). Chinese asparagus (“reed shoots’)

 

Atractylodes macrocephala. Baishu柏樹

 

Atractylodes spp. (A. lancea, A. chinensis, A. japonica). Cangshu 蒼朮

 

Auricularia auricula. Tree ear fungus

 

*Bambusa spp. etc. Bamboo shoots

 

Begonia sp.

 

Benincasa hispida. Winter melon

 

*Beta vulgaris. Beet, sugar beet, Swiss chard

 

Biota orientalis. Boshi

 

*Brassica campestris (including B. chinensis). Chinese cabbage, oil greens

 

*B. juncea (?). Mustard (possibly Sinapis sp.); mustard greens

 

*B. rapa (?). Rape-turnip

 

Camellia sinensis

 

*Canarium album

 

*Cannabis sativa. Hemp seeds

emHem

 

*Carduus crispus. Thistle root, feilian 蜚蠊

 

*Carthamus tinctorius. Safflower

Castanea mollissima. Chestnut
*Chaenomeles sinensis. Chinese quince

 

*Chrysanthemum coronarium. Edible chrysanthemum

 

Cicer arietinum. Chickpea

 

*Cinnamomum camphora. Camphor

 

*C.  cassia. Cassia, Chinese cinnamon

 

*C. zeylanicum (?). Cinnamon

 

Citrullus vulgaris. Watermelon

 

*Citrus reticulata and various hybrids and related spp. (taxonomy unclear)

 

*C. sinensis

 

Cnidium officinale

 

Coix lachrymae-jobi. Job’s tears

 

Colocasia esculenta. Taro

 

*Coptis chinensis. Goldenthread

 

*Coriandrum sativum. Coriander, cilantro

 

Corylus spp. (many present). Hazelnuts

 

*Croton tiglium (and possibly other spp.). Croton beans

 

*Crocus sativus. Saffron

 

*Cucumis melo. Melon. Var. conomon, Oriental picling melon.

 

  1. sativus. Cucumber

 

Cuminum cyminum. Cumin

 

*Curcuma longa (possibly also C. aromatica, etc.). Turmeric

 

Cynanchum sp.

 

*Daucus carota. Carrot

 

Dichroa febrifuga or Orixa japonica. Chinese quinine

 

Dimocarpus longan. Longan

 

*Dioscorea spp. Chinese yams

 

Diospyros kaki. Chinese persimmon

 

Elaeagnus angustifolia and possibly E. pungens. Russian olive fruits.

 

Eleocharis dulcis. Water chestnut

 

*Elettaria cardamomum. Small cardamom

 

Euryale ferox. Foxnut

 

Evodia sp.

 

Fagopyrum esculentum, F. tataricum. Buckwheat

 

*Ferula asafoetida. Asafoetida

 

*Foeniculum vulgare. Fennel

 

*Gardenia jasminoides

 

Ginkgo biloba

 

Gleditsia sinensis. Chinese honey-locust

 

Glycine max. Soybean

 

*Glycyrrhiza uralensis. Liquorice

 

Hordeum vulgare. Barley

 

Juglans regia. Walnut

 

*Lablab purpureus (formerly Dolichos lablab). Hyacinth bean

 

Lactuca sativa. Lettuce

 

*Lagenaria siceraria. Bottle gourd

 

*Ligusticum sinense. Chinese lovage

 

Lilium concolor and probably other spp.

 

Litchi chinensis (=Nephelium litchi). Lychee

 

*Lycium chinense. Chinese wolfthorn

 

Magnolia liliflora. Magnolia flower

 

*Malus spp. (=Pyrus subgenus Malus). Crabapples, Chinese apple

 

*Malva parvifolia complex. Mallow leaves

 

*Malva sp.? Musk mallow

 

*Mentha spp. Mints

 

Millettia lasiopetala. Baiyao 白藥

 

Morus alba. White mulberry

 

Myrica rubra

 

*Nardostachys chinensis. Chinese spikenard

 

Nelumbo nucifera. Lotus

 

?Ocimum spp. Basil  (uncertain)

 

Oenanthe javanica. Water celery

 

Orchidaceae sp. (or epidendrum?) Orchid

 

Orobanche sp. Broomrape

 

Oryza sativa. Rice

 

Osmanthus fragrans. Sweet olive, kueihua 桂花

 

*Paeonia sp. (probably P. suffruticosa). Tree peony

 

Panax ginseng. Ginseng

 

  1. japonicus? Korean ginseng

 

Panicum miliaceum. Panic millet

 

*Papaver somniferum. Poppy seeds

 

Perilla frutescens. Perilla, beefsteak plant

 

Phragmites communis. Reed. Juice

 

*Phyllanthus emblica? Myrobalans (type unclear)

 

Phytolacca acinosa. Chinese poke

 

Pinellia ternata. Banxia 半夏

 

*Pinus spp. (probably focally P. koraiensis for the nuts). Pine nuts; pine pollen; pine liquor, pine root

 

*Piper cubeba. Cubeb

 

*P. longum. Long pepper

 

*P. nigrum. Black pepper

 

*Pistacia vera. Pistachio nuts

 

Pisum sativum. Peas

 

*Platycodon grandiflorum

 

Pleurotus ortreatus. Fungus

 

Polygala sibirica. Chinese senega

 

Polygonatum spp. Solomon’s seal.

 

*Polygonum aviculare. Smartweed

 

*P. multiflorum. Chinese cornbind

 

*Poria cocos. China root

 

Portulaca oleracea. Purslane

 

Prinsepia uniflora. Prinsepia

 

*Prunus amygdalus. Almond

 

*P. armeniaca. Apricot. Kernels, fruit

 

*P. mume. Oriental flowering apricot

 

*P. persica. Peach

 

Prunus (subgenus Cerasus) spp. Cherries.

 

Pteris sp. Bracken fern

 

Pueraria lobata. Kudzu

 

*Punica granatum Pomegranate

 

Pyrus spp. Chinese pears

 

*Quercus spp. Acorns

 

*Raphanus sativus

 

Rehmannia glutinosa (possibly also Digitalis purpurea?). Chinese foxglove

 

*Rheum officinale and probably other spp. Rhubarb

 

Ribes rubrum. Red currant.

 

*Rosa spp. Flowers, attar, hips

 

*Saccharum officinale. Sugar

 

Sanguisorba sp? Burnet (?)

 

Santalum album. Sandalwood

 

Saussurea lappa (and possibly also Vladimiria souliei). Muxiang 木香

 

Schisandra spp. Schisandra fruits

 

Schizonepeta tenuifolia. (A small herb of the mint family)

 

*Sesamum indicum. Sesame

 

Setaria italica. Foxtail millet

 

Solanum melongena.  (Chinese) eggplant

 

Sonchus arvensis (and probably other spp.). Sow thistle. Greens.

 

Spinacia oleracea. Spinach

 

Spiraea media (or possibly Gentiana sp.). Tabilqa

 

Stachys sieboldii. Chinese “artichoke”

 

*Torreya grandis. Torreya nuts

 

Trapa bispinosa. Water caltrop

 

Tricholoma mongolicum. Mushroom

 

*Trigonella foenum-graecum. Fenugreek

 

*Triticum aestivum. Bread wheat

 

Tussilago farfara. Tussilago flower

 

Typha spp. Rhizomes, pollen, shoots

 

Ulmus macrocarpa. Stinking elm

 

  1. parvifolia, U. pumila (and/or relatives). Elm seeds

 

Urtica sp. Nettle

 

*Veratrum nigrum and/or V. maacki. False hellebore

 

*Vicia spp. (focally V. sativa). Vetch

 

*Vigna angustifolia. Adzuki beans

 

*V. mungo. Mung beans

 

Vitex trifolia. Seashore chaste-tree. Fruits.

 

*Vitis spp. Grapes; wine

 

Xanthium strumarium. Cocklebur

 

Zanthoxylum sp. Flower pepper

 

*Zingiber mioga. Chinese ginger, Japanese ginger

 

*Z. officinalis. Ginger

 

Zizyphus spp. Jujubes (various; mostly Z. jujuba)

 

 

Unidentified fungi

 

Total 173 taxa (not counting the unidentified fungi).

 

 

Some 85 are also in the HHYF. Many of these are native Chinese equivalents of western plants (Allium, for example) or western plants long established in China even before the HHYF (almond, saffron). Others, such as lesser galingale, cassia, sugar and ginger, are East/Southeast Asian in origin and spread west by early medieval times. Only 27 plants are clearly western species borrowed into China. Most are in the HHYF, but some (e.g. spinach, peach) are strictly foods with no special medicinal value, and are thus not mentioned in the HHYF. All these 27 are probably much older in China than Yuan.  Most of the rest are strictly Chinese remedies or foods.

 

 

Some Plants and Minerals with Real or Probable Medical Effect besides Low-level Stimulant and Soothing Values

 

Acacia (DMT release when brewed with harmala and maybe other plants)

 

Aconite (strongly toxic, can produce hallucinations or delusions; like other Solanaceae below, contains psychotropic tropane alkaloids)

 

Acorus (mental effects not well studied scientifically, but widely alleged in folk medicine worldwide; confirming evidence for at least some strains).[159]

 

Artemisia (toxic effects can include mental influences; active ingredient in absinthe)

 

Boswellia (mental effects alleged in sources, probably with considerable foundation; research shaky but there is evidence for antidepressant effect from inhaling the incense)

 

Cannabis (mental effects well known and well described in all early sources, Near Eastern and Chinese)

 

Saffron (mental effects real but little studied and rather minor; see species account above; at least some of the reported effects check with contemporary experience)

 

Ephedra (strong stimulant effects; used in Near East with other drugs for mental effects)

 

Hellebore (white and black; well-known producer of visions and other mental effects)

 

Hyoscyamus (henbane; notorious in witches’ brews and such for its psychotropic effects, which are reported to include visions of devils)

 

Hypericum (St. John’s wort; famous antidepressant)

 

Lavender (mental effects little studied, but undeniable; “broom of the brain” in Indian medicine; recent research confirms rather striking antidepressant and soothing value, even from simply inhaling the scent)

 

Lead, copper, and arsenic compounds

 

Lemon balm (antidepressant effect; needs confirmation)

 

Mint (stimulant, harmonizing, antidepressant effect from mint oil taken or sniffed; needs research)

 

Peganum harmala (harmal; major, very widely used psychedelic in Near East)

 

Soda and other alkaline minerals

 

Solanum nigrum (deadly nightshade; toxic effects include some mental ones)

 

Wine

 

 

References

 

Al-Bīrūnī (Abū Raihān Muhammad bin Ahmad Al-Bīrūnī).  1973. Al-Bīrūnī’s Book on Pharmacy and Materia Medica.”  Ed./tr. Hakim Mohammed Said.  Karachi:  Hamdard National Foundation.

 

Anthimus.  1996.  On the Observance of Foods.  Totnes, England:  Prospect Books.

 

Athenaeus.  1928-1941.  The Deipnosophists.  Tr. Charles Burton Gulick.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (Loeb Classics Series).

 

Avicenna.  2012.  The Canon of Medicine.  Vol. 2, Natural Pharmaceuticals.  Tr. Hamdard Delhi group, ed. Laleh Bakhtiar.  Chicago:  Great Books of the Islamic World, Inc., distrib. By KAZI Publications.

 

Bellakhdar, Jamal; Renée Claisse; Jacques Fleurentin; Chafique Younos.  1991.  “Repertory of Standard Herbal Drugs in the Moroccan Pharmacopoea.”  Journal of Ethnopharmacology 35:123-143.

 

Chipman, Leigh.  2010.  The World of Pharmacy and Pharmacists in Mamlūk Cairo.  Leiden:  Brill.

 

Chishti, Shaykh Hakim Moinuddin.  1985.  The Book of Sufi Healing.  New york:  Inner Traditions International.

 

Clifford, Terry.  1984.  Tibetan Buddhist Medicine and Psychiatry:  The Diamond Healing.  York Beach, ME:  Samuel Weiser.

 

Dash, Vaidya Bhagwan.  1994.  Materia Medica of Tibetan Medicine.  Delhi:  Sri Satgura Pubs.

 

—  with Ku. Kanchan Gupta.  1991.  Materia Medica of Ayurveda based on Madanapāla’s Nighantu.  New Delhi:  B. Jain.

 

— and Vaidya Laliteshkashyap.  1980.  Materia Medica of Ayurveda.  New Delhi:  Concept Pub Co.

 

Eisenman, Sasha W.; David E. Zaurov; Lena Struwe (eds.).  2013.  Medicinal Plants of Central Asia: Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.  Tr. David E. Zaurov, Sasha W. Eisenman, Dilmurad A. Yunusov, and Venera Isaeva; medicinal herb accounts by these authors and Igor V. Belolipov, Anvar G. Kurmukov, Ishenbay S. Sodombekov, Anarbek A. Akimaliev. New York: Springer.

 

Evelyn, John.  2012 [1699].  Acetaria: A Discourse of Sallets.  Lexington, KY:  High Quality Paperbacks; typescript from a publ by Brooklyn Botanic Garden, 1937.

 

Galen.  2003.  Galen on the Properties of Foodstuffs.  Tr./ed. by Owen Powell.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press.

 

Georgiu, Christina; Aikaterini Koutsaviti; Ioannis Bazos; Olga Tzakou.  2010.  Chemical Composition of Echinophora tenuifolia subsp. Sibthorpiana Essential Oil from Greece.

Records of Natural Products 4:167-170.

 

Ghazanfar, Shahina A.  1994.  Handbook of Arabian Medicinal Plants.  Boca Raton, FL:  CRC Press.

 

Graziani, Joseph Salvatore.  1980.  Arabic Medicine in the Elenventh Century as Represented in the Works of Ibn Jazlah.  Karachi:  Hamdard Foundation.

 

Gunther, Robert T.  1934.  The Greek Herbal of Dioscorides.  Oxford:  Oxford University Press.

 

Hamarneh, Sami K.  1973.  Origins of Pharmacy and Therapy in the Near East.  Tokyo:  Naito Foundation.

 

Harlan, Jack.  1992.  Crops and Man.  2nd edn.  Madison, WI:  American Society of Agronomy and Crop Science Society of America.

 

Harris, David R.  2010.  Origins of Agriculture in Western Central Asia:  An Environmental-Archaeological study.  Phildelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

 

Hsu, Elisabeth.  2010a.  “Plants in Medical Practice and Common Sense: On the Interface of Ethnobotany and Medical Anthropology.”  In Plants, Health and Healing: On the Interface of Ethnobotany and Medical Anthropology, Elisabeth Hsu and Stephen Harris (eds.).  New York:  Berghahn.  Pp. 1-48.

 

—  2010b.  Qing hao [chars], Herba Artemisiae annuae, in the Chinese Materia Medica.

In Plants, Health and Healing: On the Interface of Ethnobotany and Medical Anthropology, Elisabeth Hsu and Stephen Harris (eds.).  New York:  Berghahn.  Pp. 83-130.

 

Hu Shiu-ying.  2005.  Food Plants of China.  Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong Press.

 

Kamal, Hassan.  1975.  Encyclopedia of Islamic Medicine with a Greco-Roman Background. Cairo:  General Egyptian Book Organization.

 

Kong, Y. C.  1996.  Huihui Yaofang.  Hong Kong:  Y. C. Kong.

 

Laufer, Berthold.  1919.  Sino-Iranica.  Chicago:  Field Museum.

 

Lebling, Robert W., and Donna Pepperdine.  2006.  Natural Remedies of Arabia.  Riyadh and London:  Al-Turath and Stacey International.

 

Lev, Efraim.  2002.  Healing with Animals (Zootherapy) from Practical Medieval Medicine to Present-day Traditional Medicine in the Levant.  Ms.

 

Lev, Eraim, and Zohar Amar.  2008.  Practical Materia Medica of the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean According to the Cairo Genizah.  Leiden:  Brill.

 

Levey, Martin.  1966.  The Medical Formulary or Aqrābādhīn of Al-Kindī.  Madison:  University of Wisconsin Press.

 

Levey, Martin, and Noury Al-Khaledy.  1967.  The Medical Formulary of Al-Samarqandī.  Philadelphia:  University of Pennsylvania Press.

 

Li Shizhen.  2003.  Compendium of Materia Medica (Bencao Gangmu).  Beijing:  Foreign Languages Press.  Chinese original, 1593.

 

Liu, Fei-Hu; Xia Chen; Bo Long; Rui-Yan Shuai; Chen-Lin Long.  2011.  Historical and Botanical Evidence of Distribution, Cultivation and Utilization of Linum usitatissimum L. (flax) in China.  Vegetation History and Archaeobotany online, 10.1007/s00334-011-0311-5, retrieved Sept. 14, 2011.

 

Maimonides (Moses ben Maimon).  1974.  Moses Maimonides on the Causes of Symptoms.  Ed.-Tr. J. O. Leibowitz and S. Marcus.  Berkeley: University of California Press.

 

—  1979.  Moses Maimonides’ Glossary of Drug Names.  Tr. Fred Rosner from the French edn., ed./tr. by Max Meyerhof.

 

Mandaville, James.  1989.  The Flora of Eastern Saudi Arabia.  London:  Kegan Paul.

 

Mandaville, James. 2011.  Bedouin Ethnography: Plant Concepts and Uses in a Desert Pastoral World.  Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

 

Manniche, Lisa.  1989.  An Ancient Egyptian Herbal.  London:  British Museum.

 

Meserve, Ruth.  2004.  “A Mongolian Medicinal Plant List.”  Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 90:67-100.

Motley, Timothy. 1994.  “The ethnobotany of sweet flag, Acorus calamus.”  Economic Botany 48:397-412.

 

Nadkarni, K. M.  1976.  Indian Materia Medica.  Revised and enlarged by A. K. Nadkarni.  Bombay:  Popular Prakashan.

 

Nasrallah, Nawal.  2007.  Annals of the Caliphs’ Kitchens:  Ibn Sayyār al-Warrāq’s Tenth-Century Baghdadi Cookbook.  Leiden:  Brill.

 

Pormann, Peter E., and Emilie Savage-Smith.  2007.  Medieval Islamic Medicine.  Edinburgh:  Edinburgh University Press; Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

 

Rossetti, Chip.  2009.  “’Devil’s Dung’:  The World’s Smelliest Spice.”  Saudi Aramco World 60:4:36-43.

 

Schafer, Edward.  1963.  The Golden Peaches of Samarkand.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

 

Song Xian.  Huihui Yaofang.  Beijing:  Chinese Arts Press, 2000.

 

Stol, M.  1979.  On Trees, Mountains, and Millstones in the Ancient Near East.  Leiden: Ex Oriente Lux.

 

Sun Simiao.  2007.  Recipes Worth a Thousand Gold.  Tr. Sumei Yi.  Chinese original 654 A.D.

 

Theophrastus.  1926.  Enquiry into Plants.  Tr. A. F. Hort.  2 v.  Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press, Loeb Classics Series.

 

Tobyn, Graeme; Alison Denham; Margaret Whitelegg.  2011.  The Western Hernal Tradition: 2000 Years of Medicinal Plant Knowledge.

 

Uphof, J. C. Th.  1968.  Dictionary of economic Plants.  Lehre, Germany:  J. Cramer.

 

Walker, Matt.  2009.  “Wild Camels ‘Genetically Unique.’”  BBC Earth News Online, July 24.

 

Wallis, Faith (ed.).  2010.  Medieval Medicine:  A Reader.  Toronto:  University of Toronto Press.

 

Wang, C. K.; M. L. Colgrave; M. R. Gustafson; D. C. Ireland; U. Goranssen; D. J. Craik.  2008.  “Anti-HIV Cyclotides from the Chinese Herb Viola yedoensis.”  Journal of Natural Products 71:47-52.

 

White, N. J.  2008.  “Qinghaosu (Artemisinin):  The Price of Success.”  Science 320:330-334.

 

Wujastyk, Dominik.  2003.  The Roots of Ayurveda.  2nd edn.  London:  Penguin.

 

 

[1] Hu Shiu-ying, Food Plants of China, Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong Press, 2005.

[2] Wyjastyk 2003: xxxvii.

[3] Theophrastus 1926: II, 257.

[4] Pavord 2005: 146.

[5] Athenaeus, The Deipnosophists, tr. Charles Burton Gulick, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (Loeb Classics Series), 1928-41.

[6] Gunther 1934: 661-679.

[7] Galen 2003.

[8] See Anthimus, On the Observance of Foods, Totnes, England: Prospect Books, 1996.

[9]  Levey 1966.

[10] Jamal Bellakhdar, Renée Claisse, Jacques Fleurentin, and Chafique Younos, “Repertory of Standard Herbal Drugs in the Moroccan Pharmacopoea,” Journal of Ethnopharmacology 35 (1991):123-143.

[11] Al-Bīrūnī 1973.

[12] See Maimonides 1979 below.

[13] Avicenna 1999-2014, II.

[14] Avicenna 1999-2014, I.

[15] Nawal Nasrallah, Annals of the Caliphs’ Kitchens: Ibn Sayyār al-Warrāq’s Tenth-Century Baghdadi Cookbook,  Leiden: Brill, 2007.

[16] Joseph Salvatore Graziani, Arabic Medicine in the Eleventh Century as Represented in the Works of Ibn Jazlah, Karachi: Hamdard Foundation, 1980.

[17] Maimonides (Moses ben Maimon), Moses Maimonides on the Causes of Symptoms, ed. and tr. by J. O. Leibowitz and S. Marcus, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974.

[18] Maimonides 1979.

[19] Levey and Al-Khaledy 1967.

[20] Lev and Amar 2008.

[21] See Wallis 2010, passim.

[22] Kamal 1975.

[23] Kamal 1975: 117.

[24] Kamal 1975: 118.

[25] Kamal 1975: 164-189

[26] Bellakhadar et al. 1991.

[27] Shahina A. Ghazanfar,  Handbook of Arabian Medicinal Plants,  Boca Raton, FL:  CRC Press, 1994.

[28] Robert W. Lebling and Donna Pepperdine, Natural Remedies of Arabia, Riyadh and London: Al-Turath and Stacey International, 2006.

[29] James Mandaville, Bedouin Ethnography: Plant Concepts and Uses in a Desert Pastoral World, Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2011; See also his earlier work, James Mandaville, The Flora of Eastern Saudi Arabia,  London: Kegan Paul, 1989.

[30] Chishtiyya 1985.

[31] Vaidya Bhagwan Dash and K. Kanchan Gupta, Materia Medica of Ayurveda based on Madanapāla’s Nighantu, New Delhi: B. Jain, 1991.

[32] Nadkarni 1976.

[33] Dash and Laliteshkashyap 1980.

[34] Dash 1994.

[35] Dash 1994, xvi,

[36] Terry Clifford, Tibetan Buddhist Medicine and Psychiatry: The Diamond Healing, York Beach, ME:  Samuel Weiser, 1984. This overlaps with or is partially based on Dash 1994.

[37] Sasha W. Eisenman, David E. Zaurov, and Lena Struwe eds., Medicinal Plants of Central Asia: Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, tr. David E. Zaurov, Sasha W. Eisenman, Dilmurad A. Yunusov, and Venera Isaeva; New York: Springer, 2013. Medicinal herb accounts by the editors and Igor V. Belolipov, Anvar G. Kurmukov, Ishenbay S. Sodombekov, and Anarbek A. Akimaliev.

[38] Li Shizhen, Compendium of Materia Medica (Bencao Gangmu), tr. and ed. By Xiao Xiaoming, Li Zhenguo, and committee, 6 vols, Beijing:  Foreign Languages Press, 2003.

[39] Now available for consultation is Zhang Zhibin and Paul Unschuld, eds., Dictionary of the Ben cao gang mu, Volume 1: Chinese Historical Illness Terminology (Ben Cao Gang Mu Dictionary Project), Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2014.

[40] Sun Simiao, “Recipes Worth a Thousand Gold, ” trans. Sumei Yi, 2007, available by email from E. N. Anderson or on his website www.krazykioti.com.

[41] See Unschuld 1986 for their history.

[42] Ruth Meserve, “A Mongolian Medicinal Plant List,” Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 90 (2004): 67-100.

[43] Chipman 2010.

[44] J.C. Th. Uphof, J. C. Th., Dictionary of Economic Plants, Lehre, Germany:  J. Cramer, 1968.

[45] Graeme Tobyn, Alison Denham, and Margaret Whitelegg, The Western Herbal Tradition: 2000 Years of Medicinal Plant Knowledge, London: Singing Dragon, 2011.

[46] Gunther 1934: 527.

[47] Gunther 1934: 232

[48] Nunn also notes this. See John F. Nunn, Ancient Egyptian Medicine, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1996.

[49] Wujastyk 2003: 154-160.

[50] “I cannot find the compound [匿蟲] in the dictionary. It seems to be some kind of ulcer. ” (Note by Sumei Yi, translator of this passage.)

[51] Elisabeth Hsu, “Qing hao 青蒿, Herba Artemisiae annuae, in the Chinese Materia Medica,” in Elisabeth Hsu and Stephen Harris, eds., Plants, On the Interface of Ethnobotany and Medical Anthropology, New York:  Berghahn, 2010, 83-130 [2010b].

[52] See especially Hsu 2010b, 109-110, 116.

[53] Elisabeth Hsu, “Plants in Medical Practice and Common Sense: On the Interface of Ethnobotany and Medical Anthropology,” in Hsu and Harris 2010, 1-48. [Hsu 2010a].

 

[55] Nasrallah 2007: 672.

[56] Li 2003:1673.

[57] Bellakhdar et al. 1991: 126

[58] Li 2003: 1788.

[59] Chrysanthemum coronarium L. var spatiosum Bailey.

[60] Gunther 1934: 42.

[61] Gunther 1934: 43.

[62] Graziani 1980: 180-215.

[63] Shi is an important concept in Chinese medicine, which means the noxious qi proliferates so much that it fills certain parts of the body.

[64] Avicenna 1999-2014: II, 376.

[65] Avicenna 1999-2014: II, 284.

[66] Eisenman 2013: 83.

[67] Nasrallah 2007: 678.

[68] Ghazanfar 1994: 207.

[69] Lev and Amar 2008: 399.

[70] Avicenna 1999-2014: II, 804.

[71] Avicenna 1999-2014: II, 726.

[72] The ba in the transcription is clearly in the Arabic Script entry but the Chinese transcription leaves it out.

[73] Avicenna 1999-2014, II: 650.

[74] Levey 1966: 342.

[75] Zhong means zhongjiao, or the Middle Jiao or burner.

[76] Gunther 1934: 181.

[77] See Henry Koerper and A. L. Kolls.  1999. “The Silphium Motif Adorning Ancient Libyan Coinage: Marketing a Medicinal Plant,” Economic Botany 53: 133-143.

[78] Chip Rossetti, “‘Devil’s Dung’: The World’s Smelliest Spice,”Saudi Aramco World 60 (2009): 4: 36-43

 

[79] Gunther 1934: 91.

[80] Li 2003: 2819; the pollinator wasps’ young do emerge thus, from eggs laid in the fig.

[81] Levey and Khaledy 1967: 173.

[82] John Evelyn, Acetaria: A Discourse of Sallets, Lexington, KY:  High Quality Paperbacks; (typescript from a 1937 publication by Brooklyn Botanic Garden), 2012/1699: 22.

[83] Li 2003: 1229.

[84] Avicenna 1999-2014: II, 535.

[85] Kamal 1975: 86.

[86] Avicenna 1999-2014: II, 98.

[87] Eisenman et al. 2013: 138.

[88] Eisenman et al. 2013: 140.

[89] Lagenaria siceraria (Molina) Standl var. clavata Ser.

[90] Avicenna 1999-2014: II, 487.

[91] Levey and Al-Khaledy 1967: 191.

[92] Liu Fei-Hu, Xia Chen, Bo Long, Rui-Yan Shuai, and Chen-Lin Long, “Historical and Botanical Evidence of Distribution, Cultivation and Utilization of Linum usitatissimum L. (flax) in China,” Vegetation History and Archaeobotany online, 10.1007/s00334-011-0311-5, retrieved Sept. 14, 2011.

[93] Avicenna 1999-2014: II, 684.

[94] Gunther 1934: 72.

[95] Metaplexis japonica (Thunb.) Mak. The proverb rhymes in Chinese.

[96] It is caused by the liquid that remains in the body and cannot be excreted out of the body.

[97] Avicenna 1999-2014: II, 359.

[98] Avicenna 1999-2014: II, 743.

[99] Lev and Amar 2008: 356.

[100] Eisenman et al. 2013: 175.

[101] Eisenman et al. 2013: 178.

[102] Part of the transcription is missing.

[103] Gunther 1934: 383.

 

[104] Eisenman et al. 2013: 187.

[105] Li Shizhen 2003: 2804.

[106] Avicenna 1999-2014: II, 332.

[107] M. Stol, On Trees, Mountains, and Millstones in the Ancient Near East, Leiden: Ex Oriente Lux, 1979.

[108] Bellakhdar et al. 1991.

[109] Meserve 2004: 73.

[110] Avicenna 1999-2014: II, 26.

[111] The character ji肌 might be ji饑.

[112] Gunther 1934: 81.

[113] Avicenna 1999-2014: II, 207.

[114] Avicenna 1999-2014: II, 948.

[115] Kamal 1975: 433-436.

[116] Meserve 2004: 19.

[117] Hamarneh 1973: 87.

[118]

Avicenna 1999-2014: 707.

[119] Nadkarni 1978: 1120.

[120] Gunther 1934: 551.

[121] Avicenna 1999-2014: II, 753.

[122] Manniche 1989: 152.

[123] The character chong might be superfluous. The Five Hemorrhoids are male hemorrhoids (muzhi牡痔), female hemorrhoids (pinzhi牝痔), mai hemorrhoids (maizhi脈痔), intestine hemorrhoids (changzhi腸痔), and blood hemorrhoids (xuezhi血痔).

[124] Gunther 1934: 621.

[125] Nadkarni 1976: 1275.

[126] Gunther 1934: 601.

[127] Zhong means zhongjiao, or the Middle Jiao.

[128] Avicenna 1999-2014: II 603.

[129] Li 2003: 2703.

[130] Efraim Lev, “Healing with Animals (Zootherapy) from Practical Medieval Medicine to Present-day Traditional Medicine in the Levant,” Ms, 2002.

[131] Avicenna 1999-1214: II, 108.

[132] Avicenna 1999-2014: II, 170.

[133] David R. Harris, Origins of Agriculture in Western Central Asia: An Environmental-Archaeological study,  Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 2010, 81.

[134] Matt Walker, “Wild Camels ‘Genetically Unique,’” BBC Earth News Online, July 24, 2009.

[135] Avicenna 1999-2014: II, 208.

[136] Ibid.

[137] Li 2003: 3791.

[138] Pormann and Savage-Smith 2007: 49.

[139] Lev and Amar 2008: 142.

[140] Avicenna 1999-2014: II, 119.

[141] Avicenna 1999-2014: II, 728.

[142] Lev 2002.

[143] Lev 2002.

[144] Nasrallah 2007: 644.

[145] Li 2003: 4106-4107.

[146] Lev 2002.

[147] Gunther 1934: 643.

[148] Avicenna 1999-2014: II, 921.

[149] Gunther 1934: 628.

[150] Avicenna 1999-2014: II, 629.

[151] Lev and Amar 2008: 553.

[152] Levey 1966: 32-34.

[153] Levey 1966: 198-200.

[154] Levey 1966: 220.

[155] A. R. Mukhamejanov 2000: 275-276. [Full citation needed]

[156] Jack Harlan,  Crops and Man.  2nd edn., Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy and Crop Science Society of America, 1992.

 

[157] Berthold Laufer,  Sino-Iranica. Chicago:  Field Museum, 1919.

 

[158] Laufer 1919; Edward H. Schafer, The Golden Peaches of Samarkand, a Study of T’ang Exotics, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1963.

[159] Timothy Motley, Timothy, “The Ethnobotany of Sweet Flag, Acorus calamus,” Economic Botany 48 (1994): 397-412.

 

Genocide and Political Mass Killing in the World since 1900: Summary of Major Events

Tuesday, May 23rd, 2017

Genocide and Political Mass Killing in the World since 1900: Summary of Major Events

 

Genocide here refers to mass killing of citizens or subjects of a country, simply on the basis of their “race,” ethnicity, language, religion, or similar “essentialized” group identity.  It grades into politicide: mass killing based on political ideology or other broad and general identification with opposing factions (as opposed to actual participation in such factions).

Sources:  Otherwise unattributed figures are from Stanton 2010.  Further notes from Anderson and Anderson 2014; figures in that book were based largely on Rummel 1998 but with much updating from later sources.  Rummel is cited below where he is the last or best authority.  Some updating from general media since 2014.  Stanton’s figures are consistently higher than Rummel’s, reflecting better historical scholarship on these topics, and also more killing in many countries, since Rummel’s count, which ended in 1987.

N=100 countries, ca. 115 cases ranging from low-level ongoing politicide to full genocide.  These include 13 major genocides.  Many cases are ongoing murder with occasional  over long periods, notably settler wars in 19th-century US and 19th and 20th century Brazil.

Not all that is below is genocide.  Some cases, notably in the Middle East, are currently unclear.  We have no idea how much killing is cold-blooded murder by government of its own peaceable subjects (i.e. genocide) and how much is wartime massacre.  This makes comparison of the extent of genocide impossible in many, even most, cases.  Clear genocide blends into war.  To start with our first case, Afghanistan saw clear genocide of the Hazaras under the Taliban; mass killing of civilians for various reasons by them and by warlords; and a great deal of indiscriminate murder of anyone in the way of battle during the endemic wars.  Indonesia in 1965-66 saw genocide, rebellion, civil war, and mob violence, all going on in different places at the same time, or in the same place at different times, but with actual genocide clearly the major killer.  Sorting out numbers in such cases is impossible.  The same applies to other failed-state cases, including Libya, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, and many more.

Many had multiple cases of murderous autocracies, especially when fascist (or, in the USSR case, repressive tsarist) countries transitioned to communism, with murderous regimes both times (n=11; China, Cuba, USSR, east Europe).

Interesting is that the few Communist regimes remaining have proved the most durable and the most genocidal of the classes of dictatorship.  A close second is the theocracies.  These are currently all Muslim but have not always been so.  Christians carried out genocide in Lebanon in its civil war, and Christian genocide of Muslims was nipped in the bud in the Central African Republic in 2014.  Fascism is much less durable; there are currently no really genocidal fascist regimes, in spite of several elected fascist governments (including that of the US as well as Turkey, India, Hungary, and perhaps a few other cases).  These regimes may turn genocidal in time, however.  Military dictatorships are especially prone to fade away.  Myanmar’s is tenacious, but civic action led to the end of military rule in South Korea, Taiwan, and many other countries, and a rather chaotic alternation of militarism and civic government in Thailand.

“Democratically” elected regimes are starred.  Usually the democracy was far from perfect.  N=19.  Some of these, most famously Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini (and also Philippines under Marcos), declared dictatorship before starting the actual genocide.  Most, however, did not; they killed in spite of constitutional prohibitions.  They are sometimes called “imperfect” or otherwise suspect, but Hollie Nyseth Brehm (2015, 2017) points out that they may be especially high-risk simply because they are democracies—the government being insecure and subject to defeat in elections.  If they are consumed by exclusionary passions, they may move to killing.

Several brief episodes of terror in small nations are omitted here.

Major conclusion:  In all cases, regimes took power through conflict, or rarely through democratic election, but often directly and solely through whipping up hate.  Economic factors such as poverty, downward mobility, and local inequalities sometimes appear to be causative, but not reliably enough to predict anything.  Extremist political ideology is predictive.  So is chaotic conflict.

 

Afghanistan: 1978-present: “tens of thousands” when kingdom fell to communist government and it consolidated in and after 1978 (Totten and Bartrop 4); 228,000 by 1987 (Rummel); countless since.  Impossible to sort out genocide from ordinary war or to get accurate counts, but well over a million people have died violently, most of them noncombatants.  Massive persecution of Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, Monguors, and other specific groups at least sometimes count as genocidal, especially Taliban killings.  (The Taliban are largely Pashtun/Afghan.)  These include killing of 50,000 in 1996-2001 with apparent intent to exterminate the Hazaras or at least destroy their culture.

Albania: 1941-1945, ca. 50,000, during the fascist-dominated period, Jews and religious leaders, during wartime; later another 50,000 or more, under communism (especially during consolidation, but then ongoing under Enver Hoxha), when any and all dissidents were targeted.

Algeria: 1953-1963, French genocidal repression of independence movement, 160,000 (civil war as excuse, but mass terror quite typical);  subsequent genocide of secular elements by militant Islam 1991-2005 (largely in two separate episodes), 200,000 (some real combat here, and war deaths are included in this total, so actual genocide is substantially less though still serious).

Angola: 1961-1962: suppression of independence movements; 40,000, especially Kongo ethnics.  1975-2002, civil war for independence followed by random killing; about 500,000 Umbundu-Ovumbundu in genocidal suppression campaigns.  Civil wars with attendant genocides.

Argentina:  During the rule by the “Colonels,” 1976-1983: at least 20,000, probably 30,000; Jews, Communists, leftists, dissidents.  Ongoing and increasing repression characterized the period until the “Colonels” lost power.

Armenia: thousands of killings in war with Azerbaijan, 1988-1994; marginally genocide (largely ordinary warfare).  For the great Armenian genocide, see Turkey.

*Australia:  Aboriginals; small and uncertain numbers, but, as proportion of total, an enormous genocide.  Deliberate destruction of culture (banning of language, destroying hunting and foraging grounds, etc.) much more prevalent than killing, but plenty of killing in early decades.  This largely ended by 1930, but Aboriginals were not legally citizens till the 1970s.  Cultural destruction continues, but worse now is ecocide (Short 2016:127-158), though using Aboriginal lands as outright sacrifice zones is far less easy than once.

Austria: fascism in WWII; Jews and others; wartime; generally counted under the “six million” of the Nazi genocide, since Austria was part of Germany at the time.

Azerbaijan: 1988-1994:  some tens of thousands of Armenians; Armenian army reciprocated with some thousands of killings.  War situation, so the number of innocents killed solely for their identity is unknown.

Bangladesh: 1971-1975; non-Bengali Muslims, Hindus.  At least 25,000 (a very low estimate) in what was otherwise a war of independence for Bangladesh.  Many non-Bengali Muslims were driven out of the new nation in “ethnic cleansing” operations; many of these died of disease and malnutrition in refugee camps.  1980s (and to some extent ongoing), near-genocidal killings by the government of local hill peoples, largely to open their areas to wider exploitation (Levene 2010), making these a modern-day case of settler genocide.

Belgium:  Largely before our time frame but overlapping with it, King Leopold II oversaw the killing of perhaps as many as 8,000,000 in his empire from 1886 to 1908.

*Bosnia:  1992-1998: Ca. 100,000 killed, largely by Slobodan Milosevic’s Serbian government, also massacres by Croatians and Bosnians.  Muslims were singled out for “ethnic cleansing,” the euphemism (for genocide or expulsion) that was used in this case.  However, Catholics and other religious minorities (as opposed to the Eastern Orthodox dominant in Serbia) were also subjected to mass killing.  Related were thousands of deaths in Croatia, Serbia, and Macedonia as part of general conflict and Milosevic government action.  Situation of regime consolidation, but then simply genocide without any real trigger—a rather rare case.

*Brazil: throughout history, and ongoing, anti-Native American bias leads to regular genocide or genocidal treatment of Native American groups.  Sometimes expanded to local mixed-“race” people, as in the genocidal repression of the “backlands” rebellion of the late 19th century. Many separate episodes; about 300,000 killed in 1945-1964 under repressive military regimes.  Totals otherwise unknown and obscure, but many Indigenous tribes have simply vanished over the years.  Ecocide—massive deforestation, dam-building, and the like—has led to mass displacements and frequent deaths.

Bulgaria: 222,000 (Rummel).  Most deaths due to fascism in WWII.  There were, later, reactive massacres of Germans and others 1945-1948; Communism after that, largely during consolidation period.  Total probably too small.

Burundi: Tutsi purges of Hutu; 1959-62, 50,000; 1972, 150,000; 1988, 25,000; 1993-1995, 100,000, but this time the Hutus were strong enough to kill 50,000 Tutsi; 1996-present, continued unrest, 100,000 or more further deaths (both groups).  Regime consolidation and then simply continuing genocide.

Cambodia:  especially Khmer Rouge, from 1968, especially 1975-1979; a massive, almost indiscriminate genocide targeting all educated people, Vietnamese, Cham, opponents or suspected or conceivable opponents of the regime, and Buddhist clergy (90-95% killed by Khmer Rouge admission; Totten and Bartrop 2008:53); total of at least 1.75-2 million killed.  Before 1975, a few thousand Communists and Vietnamese had been eliminated.  After 1979, anti-Communists, Pol Pot loyalists, conceived opponents, few thousand (plus several tens of thousands in civil war 1979-80 and some following action).  Total deaths in Cambodia during the whole period probably 3,000,000, but some of that is war death, not genocide.  See details in Kiernan (2007) and sources cited there.  Consolidation moving into wartime situation.

Central African Republic: Under the Bokassa military dictatorship (“Central African Empire”): real and imagined opponents including whole local groups were targeted.  This was ongoing for some years.  “Not even approximate figures exist” (Anderson and Anderson 2015:162).  Much more recently (2010-2013), escalating conflict between Christians and Muslims was beginning to lead toward genocide, but was stopped by prompt action of other African states and international observers, in a very rare case of preventing genocide (Brown 2013).

Chad: 1965-1996, ca. 10,000 deaths in civil wars.  More serious genocide 2005-2010 from Sudanese army incursions and their Chadian collaborators, targeting Darfuri and related groups; several thousand; totals uncertain.

Chile:  Dictatorship of Pinochet, 1973-1989: 3000-10,000+ leftists, dissidents, protestors.  Consolidation, then ongoing repression.  Though small compared to most genocides, this one was cruel, bloody, and without even the pretense of excuse in rebellion or civil unrest, so it has become notorious.  Also, CIA involvement (Feierstein 2010), and support by conservative economists (such as Milton Freeman and Friedrich Hayek) for Augusto Pinochet, make it particularly embarrassing to the US on an international scale. Pinochet was forced out as dictator in 1989 but remained in control of the army until 1998.  Attempts to bring him to justice were beginning to look hopeful, but he died in 2006.

China:  Uncounted political murders in the troubled times of 1911-1937.  Then Japanese occupation and widespread genocide.  (In parts of China under full Japanese control, this was not war in a foreign country but simple genocide).  Possibly 4 to 6 million dead; 300,000 in the rape of Nanking (1937) alone (Totten and Bartrop 2008:69).  1948-present:  non-Communists, dissidents, protestors; religious persons, Uighur, Tibetans (at least 1,200,000 Tibetans, probably more); to some extent other non-Han.  Also religious repression; under Mao, all religions; more recently, only Falun Gong and locally Christians, but totals many thousand.  Several separate episodes.  Consolidation of the regime at first involved 3 million deaths (Totten and Bartrop 2008:269).  Famine in the Great Leap Forward killed another 45,000,000 (Dikotter 2010).  The Great Cultural Revolution, and further savage racist repression under Xi Jinping, killed perhaps as many again; numbers are dubious.  The full total from 1948 to 1976, under Mao, is unclear, but well over 50 million.  Since then deaths are uncounted and hard to classify, but at least many thousand.  See details in Anderson and Anderson 2014:163-164.

*Colombia:  Civil war, especially 1948-1958, but continuous since, flaring up after 1975, with peace finally achieved in 2016; totals at least 200,000, but impossible to sort out genocide, civil war, and sheer crime, since drug gangs did much of the killing and were often fused with government or anti-government militias.  Rummel (1998) est. 152,000 genocidal.  See Arturo Escobar’s great work Territories of Difference (2008) for an unexcelled account of the back story.

Congo (D. R.): Belgian cruelty and mass murder, especially under King Leopold in the early 20th century, led to complete chaos and almost continual mass killing since independence, but most is by local militias, not the government.  It is basically about ethnic hatreds potentiated by conflict for mineral resources such as col-tan (columbium and tantalum ore).  Around 5,000,000 dead in last 30 years; impossible to sort out genocide from civil war and simple massacre.  Relatively few deaths from classic genocide (government killing of peaceful people); most deaths from militia and foreign-army massacres of civilians, especially in the east.  (See McDoom 2010.)

Congo (Republic):  Violence around the continuing power of Denis Sassou-Nguesso has killed uncertain but small numbers of people since 1997.

Cote d’Ivoire:  few thousand over decades, political repression by strongman government, possibly not qualifying as genocide.  Most recently, political killings of a few dozen in 2013-2014 (World Almanac 2017:767).

*Croatia:  1991-1995: Milosevich era: some mass murder of Serbian Orthodox communities in reaction to Milosevich’s killings; genocide of Muslim communities in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina; killing of dissidents.  See under Serbia below.

Cuba: both the Bautista dictatorship and Castro’s Communist regime engaged in massive politicide.  Totals hard to find; estimates range from 73,000 to 141,000 for Castro (Anderson and Anderson 2014:164).  Full genocide only in early Castro regime (consolidation) against anti-Communists and supposed allies thereof.  Political hatreds of right and left the only real hate ideology here, but sufficient to produce much bloodshed, even in diaspora communities.

Czechoslovakia: Usual genocides in WWII under Hitler. Fascist to Communist transition period led to consolidation killings.  Totals perhaps 197,000, ranging from Jews killed by fascists, to Germans killed in the postwar era by Czechs, to dissidents of all sorts killed by Communists.

Dominican Republic: brutal dictatorship in mid-20th century; few thousand in political repression campaigns.  Haitian refugees/immigrants singled out for genocidal killing in the 1930s.

Egypt: regular purging of dissidents and political opponents through all modern history, but no actual genocide (several episodes, none by itself really huge, came close to turning genocidal).  The current military government is accused of many killings, but estimates diverge widely.

*El Salvador:  under Roberto d’Aubuisson, 1980-1992, some 75,000 leftists, centrists, any and all dissidents and protestors, and suspected personal enemies were eliminated.  This is a huge number for such a small country.  It involved regime consolidation and later repression.  Many more disappeared.  Merged into this were further massive killings—thousands—by drug gangs, which often were allied politically with one side or another.  Today El Salvador is run to a gtreat extent by these gangs, with murder routine in consequence.

Eritrea:  In war for independence, 1961-1991, some 750,000 Eritreans were killed by Ethiopia, largely in genocidal attacks.  Since independence, about 125,000 dead in constant wars with Ethiopia, but this seems to be ordinary war, not genocide, though there are the usual wartime massacres.

Equatorial Guinea:  1958-1979, ca. 50,000, by various governments suppressing dissidents; politicide, dubiously true genocide.

Ethiopia:  Under Emperor Haile Selassie, about 150,000 Oromo, Eritreans, and others killed in pacification campaigns that came close to, or were, genocide.  Under the Dergue, purge of anyone suspected of dissidence, including Oromo groups and Tigre; 750,000 in full-scale genocide.  Hundreds of thousands of additional deaths in government-caused famine then (and to a lesser extent since).  Since 2001, about 50,000 killed in pacification campaigns; again Oromo singled out, but Anuak and other groups hit hard.  Ethiopia has a violent history, and killings based on ethnicity go on almost continually (see review in de Waal 2010).  Famine is once again widespread as of 2017, with doubts about political management of aid and food relief.

Fiji: torture and killings after nativist coup in 2006; democracy returned in 2014 but killings still reported by human rights organizations.

France:  70,000 Jews and anti-fascists under the Vichy government, 1940-1944.  Later (1950s-1960s), murders of Algerian nationalists in Algeria’s war of independence reached genocidal levels.  France has a long history as one of the major developers and perpetrators of early genocide, from the Catharist crusade to Philip the Fair’s butchery of Catholic groups he claimed were “opposing” him.  Witchcraft and heretic trials, mass murder of Protestants (and some back-killing by Protestants in rare moments of power), and the Terror during the Revolution followed.  In 1793-1794 the Revolutionary government dealt with opposition from the Vendée region by genocidal murder and rapine there, leading to thousands of casualties.

*Germany, also involving Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, Rumania, Greece, Yugoslavia, Italy, France, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Finland, etc.: 1933-1945, Nazi killings.  The Dachau concentration camp was already in business in 1933 (Totten and Bartrop 2008:83).  Mass murder of Jews and others was well under way by 1938; a detailed history of the genocides is provided by Timothy Snyder in Black Earth (2015).   Hate propaganda was largely against Jews, but genocide involved Roma (including Sinti; at least a quarter million; Totten and Bartrop 2008:338), Slavs, handicapped persons of all sorts, homosexuals, dissidents, religious objectors to Nazism, and other groups, even to modern artists (“degenerate” art).  The main genocides were from 1941 to 1945, especially after Hitler began to realize the war was turning against him, in 1943. 1945-1949, subsequent revenge killings often turned into genocide of Germans and others in eastern Europe, especially Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary (many episodes).  The classic “six million” figure for outright genocide stands, for the 1933-1945 period.  There was more genocidal political killing in East Germany with Communist consolidation.  Rummel lists an oddly “accurate” figure of 20,946,000 for the whole period, but does not break it down very clearly.

Religious dissidents often saved Jews.  “In the Netherlands, where catholics were predominant in some disctricts and Protestants were in others, the Catholics tended to rescue Jews where Catholics were the minority, and Protestants tended to rescue Jews where Protestants were the minority” (Snyder 2015:290).

Germany had a long history of exterminating Jews and other religious dissidents, including burning witches, especially in the 15th and 16th centuries.  Germany was, of course, the origin point and main battleground in the Reformation religious wars that ultimately led an exhausted Europe to the formula cuius regio, eius religio (whoever rules, his religion) and then to religious freedom as concept and, soon, practice.  Many Germans were never comfortable with this.  Many others in the world, of course, are still uncomfortable with it.

Also, the Germans had perfected their genocide techniques in the Herero genocide of 1904-1907, a classic settler genocide.  The Herero rebelled against German rule; the Germans decided to exterminate them, by driving them into the desert and poisoning wells, or, significantly, by confining them to camps where they died of ill-treatment.  Some 60,000 or more noncombatant Herero and Nama died—80% of the Herero and 50% of the Nama (Totten and Bartrop 2008:266-267).

Germans suffered considerable revenge massacre in Poland, Hungary, and neighboring countries after WWII.  At least some of this should count as genocide.

Greece: 1922: Turkish communities, refugees; conflict with Turkey and consolidation of Greek authoritarian regime.  1941-45, Jews and other Nazi-targeted groups, under wartime fascist domination; killings forced by Hitler with little Greek support.   (Two separate episodes.)

*Guatemala: Rios Montt and followers, especially 1980s: Maya groups (especially Ixil), leftists, dissidents, randomly selected communities, teachers and professors, aid workers, political liberals, religious minorities, etc.  At least 200,000 in outright genocide, in consolidation and civil strife.  Otherwise, since 1950, countless killings in civil strife and local massacres.

Guinea:  Since 1958, many thousand deaths, totals unavailable, from various civil wars and guerrilla actions.  The only real genocide was spillover from Liberia-Sierra Leone conflicts in 2000-2003; several thousand deaths.

Haiti: dictatorships, often genocidal, most of 20th century, especially under “Papa Doc” Duvalier.

Honduras: political murders fairly numerous in 1980s; then few, but now reaching almost to genocide level since 2009

Hungary: fascism; Communism; *hypernationalist government currently in power has not carried out killing so far, but genocide is to be expected.  About 67,000 known deaths 1945-1987 (Rummel), but this does not count German occupation, and probably undercounts Communist killings.

*India: 1947-9: Muslims, some others; considerable random killing since; in recent with tacit government approval.  Hundreds of thousands; exact numbers hard to find; civil unrest more than actual genocide.

Indonesia:  1965-66, about 1,000,000 (some estimates run higher) following repression under Suharto until ca 2000: Chinese, Communists, leftists, traditionalists (locally), militant Islamists, breakaway groups in general, religious dissidents, foreigners in general (at times), ecological-environmental activists (many episodes).  Since 2000, several local massacres by Muslim extremists or by government pursuing them; few thousand.  (See Anderson and Anderson 2014:166-167 for details.)  Also uncounted thousands in West Irian, taken by Indonesia in a straightforward colonialist move, with the native inhabitants subjected to mass murder and expropriation (Deutsch 2008).  The failed attempt to take East Timor (Timor Leste) led to genocidal murder of perhaps 183,000 people (Deutsch 2008), some 20-25% of the total population.

Iran: 1953-1979:  26,000; Communists, leftists, dissidents.  Post-1979, 60,000, with truly genocidal targeting of Baha’i and Zoroastrians; mass killing of royalists and other dissidents; much targeting of Sunnis, lax Shi’a Muslims, and “moral” deviants.

Iraq: Saddam, 1963-2003, ca. 190,000, any dissident groups, but especially Kurds (“between fifty thousand and one hundred eight thousand” according to Totten and Bartrop 2008:198—an all too typical bit of uncertainty about genocidal killing) and the Ma’dan marsh Arabs (numbers unclear; Totten and Bartrop 2008:270).  Since then, chaos with mass killings routine (two regimes, several episodes), about 100,000 outside of actual war, but impossible to sort out war, genocide, and general violence, and figures vary greatly as to total deaths.

ISIS (Daesh):  Genocide of Yazidis, Christians, and to a lesser extent Shi’a Muslims in territories under their control, especially in and around Mosul; unknown total but certainly many tens of thousands.  The Anne Frank Center reports 5000 Yazidis killed as of 2017 (Facebook post, May 2017).  Fazil Moradi and Kjell Anderson (2017) have analyzed this case.  It was made worse by international indifference.  The world simply neglected the Yazidis.  Hannibal Travis (2017) has analyzed this horrible neglect in great detail, providing a model account of how the world allows genocide to happen simply because the group in question is obscure and receives little media attention.  It is oddly foreshadowed by the equally horrific and equally ignored fate of the Syriac Christians (see below, Turkey).

*Israel: slowly escalating attacks on Palestinians; outright genocidal threats and some actions under the government of Benjamin Netanyahu.  Threats of total extermination have been made by some of Netanyahu’s cabinet members.  Killings usually small and in retaliation for Palestinian or other action, but Israeli government massacres and specific targeting of civilians bring this close to genocide.  Back story: militant ethnicist Israeli politics was the creation of a small group of Polish Jews who emigrated to Israel in the 1930s, including Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin.  They had grown up in the nationalist environment of the day.  Netanyahu is the first of this group whose native language is not Polish (Snyder 2015:336).

*Italy: 1922-1945: political opponents, later Jews.  About 100,000 killed in Libya by the colonial regime in the 1920s when Libya was an Italian colony (Totten and Bartrop 2008:259).

Japan:  Imperial militarism, 1920s-1940; in Japan, Taiwan, Korea, China; leftists, dissidents, Koreans, Chinese, outsiders in general.  Rummel estimates 5,964,000-10,595,000.  Real figures may be far higher.  The Rape of Nanking (1937-1938) alone killed over 300,000 (Totten and Bartrop 2008:299).

Korea, North:  1,663,000 (Rummel est), 1948-1987.  Some since.  Political dissidents. 1949-1953 war led to about two million deaths, many of them government killings of own peaceful but dissident subjects; subsequent killings more obviously genocidal; one million died in government-caused famine in 1995-1997; uncounted thousands of other deaths.

Korea, South:  1946-53, 150,000, Communists and regime opponents; much war killing; genocidal killing hard to sort out.

Kyrgyzstan: post-USSR autocracy: regime opponents.  Few thousand deaths estimated.

Laos: 1945-60, French repression and civil war, few thousand; Pathet Lao, 1960-1975, 100,000, opponents and dissidents; since 1975, few thousand further dissidents.

*Lebanon: civil war:  1974-1991, 55,000, Christian-Muslim-Druze conflict, Christians guilty of most outright genocidal massacres.  Considerable subsequent killing, not clearly genocide.

Liberia: 1990-2003, 200,000 in massacres, genocides, and some actual war; especially under Sergeant Doe, then under Charles Taylor.

Libya: Murder of opponents, suspects, unfriendly tribals under Gaddafi; total chaos after Gaddafi.  Precise totals seem impossible to find.

Madagascar: 1947-1948, repression of independence movement by French, around 50,000; 2009-present, coup and subsequent murders of opponents, few thousand, but apparently not true genocide.

*Malaysia:  1950s-1960s, mass killing of Chinese and Communists—actually most of the Communists were ethnically Chinese in civil war.  1970-1972, thousands of deaths in tacitly-government-backed rioting.  1972-1980, some killing of ethnic Chinese and Communists—but, uniquely in this set, no genocide.

Mali:  1990-1993:  Tuareg, few thousand.  Some killing and civil strife since.

Mexico:  Occasional genocides of Native American groups had gone on since the Conquest.  Under the Porfirio Diaz government (the Porfiriato), 1890-1910, there was genocidal killing of Native American groups, protestors, dissidents;  some groups like the Seri and Yaqui were targeted for total extermination in the late 19th century, but, amazingly, outfought the Mexican army and survived.  1910-1921, civil war and general out-of-control killing—chaotic war rather than real genocide.  1,417,00 (Rummel), mostly war deaths.  Some killing of Native Americans has gone on throughout Mexico’s history, though now minor.

Mongolia: communism; political and religious repression.  Numbers unclear but small.

Mozambique: 194-1975, repression; independence faction fights, 1975-1994; over 1,000,000 killed in independence war, largely in outright massacres (genocide) by Portuguese forces and South Africans (of the old apartheid regime) sympathetic to white dominance, but also by leftist resistance (Finnegan 1992; Nordstrom 1997, 2004).

Myanmar: 1962-present:  Any and all minority groups, especially Chinese, Muslims; also hill tribes such as Shan; also political dissidents; well over 100,000 (Rummel counted 53,000 by 1987).  The military regime has been continually genocidal, targeting almost any minority.  Recently, the Rohingya Muslim community has been targeted.  Killings are numerous but uncounted; some 50,000 Rohingya have fled to Bangladesh (Bengali 2017).

Nepal, 1990s, few thousand, government repression of Communists and suspected Communist/Maoists

Nicaragua: 1970-79, about 30,000, killing of leftists (Sandinistas) and opponents under Somoza; *civil war and political killings after that (several episodes, though none very large), esp. 1980-1989, again ca. 30,000, largely Somoza loyalists.

Nigeria: genocide in Biafra War, 1966-1970, about 1,000,000 dead, largely Igbo (Ibo); 2010-on, genocidal killings by Boku Haram in northern Nigeria, where they have enough power since 2010 to count as the de facto government for purposes of classifying the killings as genocide; several thousands by direct murder, probably tens (possibly hundreds) of thousands by disruption of life leading to starvation and death from easily preventable disease; they have profoundly disrupted aid and medical care (Roberts 2017).  Estimates of total deaths run up to a million; reliable counts are hard to find.

Pakistan: 1948-9, non-Muslims; subsequently, non-Muslims and “deviant” Muslims; ca. 61,000.  Killing of breakaway Bengalis in the future Bengladesh by the Pakistani army, 1971, 1,500,000.  1973-present, local suppression of non-Muslims and non-Sunni, few thousand, not systematic; since 2003, repression of extremist Muslim groups, few thousands or tens of thousands; politicide rather than true genocide.

Paraguay:  1954-1989: Stroessner dictatorship: leftists, real and imagined opponents even to suspected possible opponents, Native Americans; uncounted thousands (at least 4000; Feierman 2010:493).  Some killings since.

*Peru: 1980-1992, especially under Fujimori:  Shining Path radicals, Quechua and other Indigenous activists; leftists; protestors; 69,000

*Philippines:  After Ferdinand Marcos was elected in 1965, he declared authoritarian rule in 1971 and began a genocidal campaign to eliminate Communists, protestors. Local massacres and killings at all times.  He fell from power in 1986.  Currently, again after free elections in 2016, Rodrigo Duterte began an extermination campaign of drug dealers and users (only small fry; big ones escape) which had killed 6000 as of the end of 2016.

Poland:  fascism, communism, recent hypernationalist right-wing dominance (from recent government, no killing reported), 1,585,000 1941-1944; 22,000 1948-1987 (Rummel).

Portugal: Under Antonio Salazar, fascist dictator from 1932 to 1968: leftists and similar elements.  Compared to other fascists he was a mild ruler.

Rumania: fascism; later, communism, 435,000 in the 1948-1987 period (Rummel); Communism from 1949 brought consolidation genocide; the dictatorship N. Ceaucescu (ruler 1967-1989) involved particularly bloody suppression.  All these regimes targeted Hungarian and German minorities, political dissidents, religious figures.

*Russia:  Under the Vladimir Putin regime since 1994: Muslims, especially Caucasus groups; 75,000 Chechen, several thousand Ingush.  Some, but very little, of this was in actual war.

Rwanda: 1959-1963, 1993, general killing of Tutsi (Straus 2006).  Then full genocide under the Interahamwe, 1994: over 800,000 Tutsi and suspected sympathizers, ultimately uncontrolled mass killing, with elimination of imagined opponents, general settling of scores, etc.  Since then, continual violence, often displaced into neighboring Congo; few thousand killed by militias.

Saudi Arabia: repression of dissidents and non-Wahhabi Muslims since 18th century.  Enough religious murders to count as what might be called a slow-motion genocide.

*Serbia:  Under Slobodan Milośevič (r. 1989-2000): Catholics/Croatians, Muslims.  200,000-225,000, combined figure for Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Sierra Leone: 1991-2003, 200,000: chaotic civil war, mostly spillover from Liberia, with massacres and government or de facto government involvement enough to meet the criteria for genocide

Somalia: total chaos since 1990s.  Since 1988, clan militias have killed around 100,000 people.  About 40,000 have died in chaotic fighting between extremist Islamist militias and government forces as well as Ethiopian armed units.  (See details in de Waal 2010.)

*South Africa:  mass murder of opponents to apartheid regime until its overthrow, esp . 1987-1996; several thousand at least; Rummel est. 6000 1934-1987.

South Sudan: Formerly part of Sudan; genocide, rebellion, and civil war killed some 2,000,000 (est.); independence in 2011 merely made things worse.  Killings are ongoing; totals unknown at present.

Spain: Francisco Franco regime, 1939-1975:  275,000 (Rummel). Communists, leftists, dissidents, minority activists.  Michael Mann counts only “over 100,000 people in cold blood” (Mann 2004:44; see also 343-344), the rest of the 275,000 being war deaths.

Sri Lanka: 1983-2009: civil war between government and Tamil Tigers led to outright genocide of Tamils by the government, at least 60,000 noncombatant Tamil being killed.  The civil war of which this was part killed somewhere between 100,000 and 318,000 (Short 2016:93), the spread indicating how poorly known was this bloody war.  Most deaths appear to be government massacre of noncombatants rather than actual conflict deaths.  Of interest is the point that this is one of the rare Buddhist genocides.  Buddhist prohibition against taking life has had some effect.  The Cambodian genociders were militantly atheistic; the Myanmar military dictators are not notably serious Buddhists; Sri Lanka is unique in that Buddhism was the essentialized ideology of the killers.  After peace was declared, Sinhalese have continued to appropriate Tamil land and resources (Short 2016:114-126).

Sudan: 1956-1972, “around 500,000” (Pinker 2011:340).  1980s-2000s: genocide in Darfur, ongoing (Anderson and Anderson 2012); genocidal war in South Sudan led to its breakaway (several episodes).  Total over 2,000,000 in South Sudan before and after its independence; 250,000+, possibly 400,000 (Totten and Bartrop 2008:97) in Darfur.  Some killing continues there.  The Nuba peoples of the Nuba Mountains were also subjected to genocide by Sudan, from the 1980s to 2005, numbers killed seem obscure (de Waal 2010; Totten and Bartrop 2008:310).  Sudan’s bloody history makes genocides only relatively worse than business as usual for the rival ethnic groups; the war between Dinka and Nuer in what is now South Sudan is a traditional enmity.

Syria:  Killing of dissidents and minorities since 1981 (and many episodes long before that, outside our time frame).  Total chaos since 2010. Basic conflict is Shi’a vs Sunni, complicated by ‘Alwaite, Christian, Druze, and other factions, and the extreme violence of the Salafi Sunnis.  Actual genocide—government mass killing of noncombatants—has certainly reached many thousands.  Totals unknown, let alone what percentage of total deaths fall into the genocide category.  The country has produced five million refugees, probably unparalleled in recent history as a percentage of the population.

Tajikstan: Post-USSR autocracy, 1991-1997: regime opponents; virtual civil war. Ca. 50,000.

Thailand: several cycles of authoritarian military governments since explicitly pro-Axis government in the 1930s began a militaristic tradition.  These alternate with democracy on a loosely cyclic basis.  The current government as of 2016-17 is military and autocratic.  When in power, the fascistic governments carry out considerable killing of dissidents (several episodes)

Timor Leste: 1965-2000, 200,000 locals killed, theoretically part of war—Indonesia tried to conquer and take Timor Leste—but largely in genocidal massacres by Indonesian army.  Some subsequent elimination of dissidents, especially 2007-2009.

Turkmenistan: post-USSR communism/autocracy: regime opponents.

Turkey: Under dying Empire (1894-1914, especially 1894-96) and especially under the Young Turks (1908-1916) and aftermath (1916-1918, with violence continuing to 1923), two to three million or more (see discussion in Anderson and Anderson 2014:172-173).  Most were Armenians, Greeks (some 350,000 in northern and western Turkey, possibly 950,000 in total over the whole period), Syriac Christians (a.k.a. Chaldeans, Assyrians; 250,000-275,000 killed; Atto 2017; Totten and Bartrop 2008:26; higher and lower figures have been quoted), other Christians; locally other groups; any and all dissidents.  The non-Armenian victims are little remembered, the Syriac Christians being a “forgotten genocide” (Atto 2017).  There were several episodes, but overwhelming majority of killings were under the Young Turks in 1915-16.  Current *Erdogan regime hate-based and looking genocidal, with many killings of Kurds.  Since 1984 some tens of thousands of Kurds have been killed by government action, with the Kurdish nationalist PKK party doing its share of revenge, but as often the government kills so many more, typically noncombatants, that the term genocide can be applied.

Uganda: Idi Amin, 1972-1979: almost randomly selected groups—any and all suspected opponents—but Acholi, Lango, Karimoja singled out; at least 300,000 dead, possibly 500,000 (Totten and Bartrop 2008:12).  Following regime killed about 250,000 Baganda, Banyarwanda, and others, 1980-1986.  Milton Obote, 1966-1971 and again 1980-1985:  Many more killed; confused period, numbers hard to find.  Joseph Komy’s lunatic-fringe “Lord’s Resistance Army” has operated since 1986, killing tens of thousands, displacing millions, and using child soldiers and slaves.  It has been shattered in Uganda but survives in Congo (DR).  (See McDoom 2010.)

*United Kingdom:  Northern Ireland, several thousand deaths in “Time of Troubles,” mostly 1964-2001; mutual massacres by Protestants and Catholics do not count as genocide, but British troops shot down many Catholics in what comes close to, if not actually being, genocide.

*USA:  Genocides of Native groups in 19th century, reaching into 20th.  Genocidal killing stopped when Native Americans became citizens in 1924, but cultural repression and occasional killing continued, and continues today, though much less than formerly.  US-backed, US-trained military men carried out the genocides in Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, and other places noted above.

USSR:  1917-ca. 1954: non-Communists, kulaks, Jews, Cossacks, Siberian minorities, religious practitioners, white Russian loyalists, German ethnics, Tatars, Kalmyks, dissidents in general, repatriated Russians after 1945, countless other groups (multiple episodes over decades). Among notable events were the extermination of 300,000-500,000 Cossacks and rich peasants in 1919-1920 (Totten and Bartrop 2008:89; ironically, the Cossacks had been among the worst murderers of Jews and Tatars), the anti-kulak and collectivization campaigns of the 1927-1931 period that killed perhaps six million (Totten and Bartrop 2008:105),  and the deliberately created famine in Ukraine 1932-1933 that killed 3.3 million (Snyder 2015:53).   The Great Terror under Stalin in the 1930s killed another half million (Totten and Bartrop 2008:174).  Also, in suppression of Polish identity in later-Polish parts of the USSR, “[m]ore than a hundred thousand [ethnically Polish] Soviet citizens were shot as ostensible Polish spies.  This was the largest peacetime ethnic shooting campaign in history” up to that point (Snyder 2015:57).   Throughout, the Soviets killed anyone dissident or “other” that the Germans missed, and vice versa.  It was in the stateless realms after Poland and the Baltics were destroyed and much of the USSR was taken by the Germans that genocide was worst (Snyder 2015).  1945-1989, estimated toll around 23,000,000.  Rummel’s spread of totals for the entire period 1917-1987 was 61,911,000-126,891,000, indicating a great deal remains unknown.

Part of the back story is the longstanding habit of massacring unpopular minorities, especially but not only Jews, as in the Chmielnicki Cossack rising of the 1600s and the Ukraine pogroms of the 19th and 20th century, including mass killings, apparently by all sides, in the civil war leading to Bolshevik takeover.  Russia and USSR had the expected high levels of settler genocides as the state moved to take and then consolidate hold over Siberia, though no sizable groups were actually exterminated.  Cultural repression (“cultural genocide,” “culturocide”) was extreme at times under the USSR; at other times the USSR supported local cultures.

Uzbekistan:  Since 1991, post-USSR autocracy: regime opponents; few thousand.

*Venezuela: various regimes, killing of political opponents in general, and genocide of Native American groups, throughout 20th century though much less after 1970; in first half of century, government explicitly wanted to exterminate Native American groups, or winked at or colluded with settler massacres.  Yanomami, Bari, and others targeted.

Vietnam, repression under French, several thousand; later, South Vietnam, 1954-1975, ca. 90,000 regime opponents; North Vietnam, 1954-1975, Communist:  non-Communists, to some extent Cambodians, tribal groups, dissidents, etc.; one million.  Unified Vietnam since 1975: several thousand regime opponents.

Yemen: frequent chaotic episodes, with genocidal killing in North/South Yemen wars, and since Houthi Rebellion (many episodes). 1962-1970, 150,000 in miscellaneous actions; 2014-present, Houthi and Saudi Arabian masssacres reaching locally genocidal levels, totals uncertain at this point.

Yugoslavia:  1941-1945, 750,000 in fascist genocides, ultimately part of Hitler’s program but carried out by local, largely Croatian, fascists.  1945-1987, est. 1,000,000 purged by Tito and Communists.

*Zimbabwe:  Robert Mugabe: 1982-1984, 20,000 Matabele and others; 1998-ca. 2014, few thousand general opponents of various groups—opponent families, groups, communities

 

 

Anderson, E. N., and Barbara A. Anderson.  2014.  Warning Signs of Genocide.  Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, imprint of Rowman and Littlefield.

 

Atto, Naures.  2016.  “What Could Not Be Written: A Study of the Oral Transmission of Sayfo Genocide Memory among Assyrians.”  Genocide Studies International 10:183-209.

 

Bengali, Shashank.  2017.  “Myanmar Admits Abuse of Villagers.”  Los Angeles Times, Jan. 3, A3.

 

Brown, Hayes.  2013.  “The Inside Story of How the U.S. Acted to Prevent Another Rwanda.”  ThinkProgress website, Dec. 20.

 

De Waal, Alex.  2010.  “Genocidal warfare in North-east Africa.”  In The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, David Bloxham and A. Dirk Moses, eds.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Pp. 529-549.

 

Deutsch, Anthony. 2008. “Survivors Detail Suharto-Era Massacres.” Associated Press story, retrieved from Yahoo! News website, Jan. 27.

 

Escobar, Arturo. 2008. Territories of Difference: Place, Movements, life, Redes. Durham: Duke University Press.

 

Finnegan, William.  1992.  A Complicated War: The Harrowing of Mozambique.  Berkeley: Univesity of California Press.

 

Levene, Mark.  2010.  “From Past to Future.”  In The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, David Bloxham and A. Dirk Moses, eds.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Pp. 638-659.

 

Mann, Michael.  2004.  Fascists.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

McDoom, Omar.  2010.  “War and Genocide in Africa’s Great Lakes Since Independence.”  In The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, David Bloxham and A. Dirk Moses, eds.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Pp. 550-575.

 

Moradi, Fazil, and Kjell Anderson.  2016.  “The Islamic State’s Ezidi Genocide in Iraq: The Sinjār Operations.”  Genocide Studies International 10:121-138.

 

Nordstrom, Carolyn. 1997. A Different Kind of War Story. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

 

— 2004. Shadows of War: Violence, Power, and International Profiteering in the Twenty-First Century. Berkeley: University of California Press.

 

Nyseth Brehm, Hollie.  2015.  “State Context and Exclusionary Ideologies.”  American Behavioral Scientist 2015:1-19.

 

—  2017.  “Re-examining Risk Factors of Genocide.”  Journal of Genocide Research 19:61-87.

 

Pinker, Stephen.   2011.  The Better Angels of Our Nature:  Why Violence Has Declined.  New York:  Viking.

 

Roberts, Leslie.  2017.  “Nigeria’s Invisible Crisis.”  Science 356:18-23.

 

Rummel, Rudolph.  1998.  Statistics of Democide.  Munich:  LIT.

 

Snyder, Timothy.  2015.  Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning.  New York: Tim Duggan Books.

 

Stanton, Gregory.  2010.  Genocides and Politicides Since 1945.  www.genocidewatch.com webpage, last checked Jan. 6, 2017.

 

Straus, Scott. 2006. The Order of Genocide: Race, Power, and War in Rwanda. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

 

Totten, Samuel, and Paul R. Bartrop.  2008.  Dictionary of Genocide.  Westport, CT: Greenwood.

 

Travis, Hannibal.  2016.  “Why Was Benghazi ‘Saved,’ but Sinjar Allowed to Be Lost?”  New Failures of Genocide Prevention, 2007-2015.”  Genocide Studies International 10:139-182.

Genocide in the United States: Probability and Prevention

Tuesday, May 23rd, 2017

 

Genocide in the United States: Probability and Prevention

 

Contents

  1. Trump and Fascism
  2. Fascism and the Republican Agenda
  3. Genocide Defined
  4. Historical Insights into Genocide
  5. Warnings: Leading Edges of Genocide
  6. Exclusionary Culture
  7. Psychology and Genocide
  8. Trump and…
  9. Stopping Genocide
  10. Reaffirming American Values

 

 

Introduction

This is the first draft of a book that my wife Barbara Anderson and I are writing.  We need to get this draft out in hopes of saving the country.  The final draft should take several months.

 

The United States is facing the possibility of genocide.

Thanks to advances in social science in the last 10 years, it is possible to predict quite accurately when and how genocide occurs.  It occurs when a highly exclusionary, negative ideology finds a charismatic leader who can win popular support, take over, and slowly erode democracy (or whatever traditional form he faced).  With autocracy—dictatorship or corrupted and compromised democracy—the leader will begin by consolidating his power through political killings.  Then, especially but not only if he is challenged by economic chaos or civil unrest or international war, he will resort to full-scale genocide.  This is the pattern seen in the rise of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Suharto in Indonesia, and dozens of other genocidal heads of state.  It is confirmed by independent analyses by several scholars working with different data.

The United States has now elected a classic charismatic “populist” on a platform consisting almost entirely of ethnic, class, and religious attacks.  Trump ran against Muslims, Mexicans, immigrants, poor people, students, refugees, China, NATO, liberals, feminists, and many other groups.  He had no positive planks in his platform at all, except the reasonable but hard-to-achieve goal of keeping jobs in America.  His cabinet and his performance as president fit perfectly with this platform.  This is a level of exclusionary ideology rarely seen even in genocidal leaders.

He is currently moving in ways that resemble the early behavior of Hitler, Mussolini, and others who took total power.  If he takes power, his economic policies will certainly bring major economic dislocation, and his foreign policies are not reassuring.  With consolidation of power in his hands, genocide becomes more and more probable.

At present, the likelihood appears to be about 25%.  If Trump (or someone following him) seizes autocratic power, the likelihood rises to 100%.  This is a prediction as confident as predicting the sun will rise in the morning.  There is no case in our database of well over 100 cases of a situation like this failing to lead to mass murder.

Thus, we need to unite to make sure that Trump or his followers do not take full power, and that the exclusionary ideology identified with his rise is repudiated by Americans.

 

 

Chapter 1.  TRUMP AND FASCISM

 

The Trump Election

 

We have to spend the next four years (or more) working as hard as we can on unity, solidarity, and reconciliation.

Donald Trump was elected president by a considerable minority of voters, but a majority of the Electoral College.  With him came Republican dominance of the House of Representatives, majority in the Senate, and governorship and control of the legislatures in most states.

Several studies confirm the obvious point that racism and sexism account for much more of the Trump vote than any economic factors do (Lopez 2017).  In general, traditional Republicans and many former Democrats voted for Trump.

There are more, and sadder, factors.  The counties that switched from voting Democratic to voting for Trump are, in most cases, also counties that have rapidly rising rates of suicide, drug addiction, and alcoholism among less educated whites (see Case and Deaton 2015).  There are now over 33,000 deaths a year from opioid overdoses, an estimated 467,000 heroin addicts, and rapid increases in opioid abuse and death (Weir 2017).  Methamphetamines and related hard drugs are also a huge problem.  All these are heavily concentrated in poor rural areas.  Decline of good jobs is the biggest problem, but declines of environment, folk society and community, and local supportive religion (as opposed to faceless radio shows and vast, bland storefront churches) make life much harsher and less rewarding and encouraging.

Bitter alienation, despair, and resentment characterize these regions.  The modern economy has passed them by.  This modern economy—globalization, hi-tech, and all—is identified to a substantial degree with the Democrats.  The Republicans are more identified with the old economy: industrial agribusiness, oil, coal, and other mining, and to an extent the oldest forms of manufacturing.  Older and less educated workers, being more identified with this older world than with the modern (or postmodern) one, resentfully vote Republican.  Indeed, the modern hi-tech economy directly threatens oil and coal, and leads to loss of old-time manufacturing jobs via automation (which is more important than job exporting).  The Democrats have, by and large, responded by appealing to educated, urban citizens rather than finding out how to reach the disaffected.

Ever since World War II, there has been a widening gap between the more backward-looking primary production sectors, especially oil, and the increasingly hi-tech, high-research, high-skill sectors, especially communications and electronics.  Giant industrial firms usually side with the dinosaurs, out of tradition or out of immediate self-interest (the long run is not so hopeful for them).  This split has affected voting and policy in the obvious ways.  As oil and coal see the threat from solar and wind power, the great oil and coal billionaires wax ever more extreme, anti-change, and anti-democratic, whether in the US, Saudi Arabia, Russia, or Sudan.

Trump exploited a form of defiance typical of alienated working-class white culture.  Traditionally, the segments of that demographic that upper-class people call “rednecks” and “poor white trash” (Isenberg 2016) talk about public events in the way Trump does: in exaggerated, confrontational style, with overstatements, outright lies, militant attacks, deliberately provocative racist and sexist rhetoric, and denial of uncomfortable truths.  Above all, this discourse style forbids admitting one’s own weakness or wrongness, and forbids giving any credit to opponents.  Any opponent has to be utterly contemptible.  Bullying, showing off, and being tough are high virtues.

This is a way of dealing with personal weakness.  The people that act this way are often on the bottom, and they know it.  The louder the noise, the more obviously they are trying to deal with both their own weakness and bottom-dog status.  Trump appealed with surgical precision to these voters, using their classic rhetorical styles.  Hillary Clinton and her core voters—highly educated, genteel, and often snobbish toward rural workers—had no clue how to deal with it.

The working-class whites, and most political observers, were fooled.  The real power has gone not to Trump or the workers, but to the giant oil corporations, lobbyists, and right-wing campaign donors.  Also, Trump is also in league with, and apparently to some extent a pawn, of, Vladimir Putin, who is using fascistic politics to weaken the west and especially to weaken NATO and other anti-Russian organizing (see thorough account in Foer 2016).

The success of voter suppression, without which the Republicans would not have won the presidency, may have emboldened them (Wolf 2017).  Attempts to block taking office by the Democratic governor-elect of North Carolina were followed by Trump’s rushing through Cabinet appointments on the day that Obama gave his farewell address.  The Republicans attempted to shut down the independent House ethics investigative body.  Republicans have shut down videotaping in Congress.  They have threatened Planned Parenthood workers at local and national levels.  They have threatened widespread use of the dangerously ill-defined label “terrorist organization”; there is nothing to keep them from labeling the Sierra Club or Planned Parenthood as terrorist organizations.  (One recalls that about ten years ago one George W. Bush appointee semi-seriously referred to the National Education Association as a terrorist organization.)

 

The New Administration

 

The “REINS” act, introduced in Congress as soon as Trump was inaugurated, proposes to make Congress vote on all federal regulations, even on rules blocking poisonous substances in the food supply (Pope 2017).  Several other moves indicate a direct program of undermining standard democratic (small-d) institutions.  The Senate has suspended filibustering on appointments, including the designation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court; this suspension of democratic (small-d) traditions indicates that the Republicans expect to have their way, and will ignore any ordinary procedures.  Their willingness to spend huge sums for security for Trump and his family and his hotels is part of that picture.

On the economic side, most Americans do not realize the enormous scale of direct and indirect subsidies, tax breaks, and other giveaways that go to big oil and other giant firms.  Direct subsidies to oil firms alone run over $37 billion a year.

Class still does matter.  Poverty in America is increasing, as wealth concentrates at the top.  In the 2% worst-off counties in the US (heavily nonwhite, outside of Appalachia where they are heavily white), median household income is $24,960.  In the richest 2% it is $89,723.  Smoking is twice as common in the poor ones, obesity 50% more prevalent.  Life expectancy for women is 75.9 years, for mean 69.8; corresponding figures for rich counties, 83 and 79.3.  Fortunately, relatively few people are in the poor counties: only 14,000, vs. 362,000 in the richest 2% (Kaplan 2016.)  All these poor counties are rural: Black in the deep south, Native American in the northern plains, Hispanic on the border, and lily white in Appalachia, where the very poorest and least healthy are concentrated.  Those Appalachian counties voted about 90% for Trump; the other poor counties were largely for Clinton.

An anonymous teacher calling herself “bkamr” (2017) writes from Kentucky about the desperation and pain in this heaviest of Trump-voting areas.  She points out, among other things, that no Democrats—not even the state legislator from the area—ever come near the place to help.  People desperately need the services that even the poor get in cities.  She explains the self-destructive anger born of hopelessness.

A related problem is the attack on labor.  The Republicans have long pushed for “right-to-work laws” that would make it hard to unionize.  They are now trying for a nationwide right-to-work law, as they have many times before.  They will probably refuse to recognize unions of federal workers and contractor firms.

The Republicans not only refuse to acknowledge or do anything about global warming; they now have weighed in to oppose regulating pesticides and pollutants.  They are trying to repeal the Wilderness Protection Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and the rest, and to sell off or give away the national lands.  The movement to privatize national lands is particularly long-lasting and powerful, including things like the “Sagebrush Rebellion” that has been ongoing since the 1970s.  Trump imposed a ban on speaking to the public by the EPA and USDA.  Fortunately, this attracted so much criticism that it was soon rescinded (but it may come again in more insidious form).  Most chilling of all is the long-standing Republican attempt to ban, or at least reduce to the vanishing point, class-action suits.

In the United States, white right-wingers are hoping they will take down nonwhites, women, and liberals such that white right-wingers will prosper, or at least go downhill less rapidly than they would otherwise.  In fact, Trump’s policies will ruin almost everyone except oil billionaires.  The reality is that the Trump voters, especially the less educated rural and working-class ones who really put him in, will almost all be terribly hurt financially and physically.  Their real hope appears to be to make the “others” hurt even worse.  (For full details on Trump and his cabinet, see John Bellamy Foster, “Neofascism in the White House,” 2017; it covers the new administration so well that we can be summary here.  See also Gerber 2017 for small clues that add up, showing Trump is moving rapidly toward autocracy.)

Trump ran an extremist campaign, and has picked the most extreme right-wingers in the United States for his cabinet.

Rex Tillerson, Trump’s Secretary of State, not only deals heavily with the Russians, but was CEO of ExxonMobil during its long period of denying there was any link between human action and greenhouse gases, while its own internal memos showed it knew perfectly well about the links.  Decisions made under Tillotson were clearly based on knowing that the world would warm.  Many deal with issues like the rapid decrease of ice in the Arctic Ocean, and similar global-warming issues.  Yet, through it all, ExxonMobil funded organizations denying climate change and attacking legitmate science (Wasserman 2017).

Jeff Sessions, Trump’s Attorney General, was regarded in his Senate years as to the right of any other senator.  He has a long record of racism, opposition to civil rights and to civil rights laws, and connection with extreme right-wing white-supremacist organizations.  His first moves as Attorney General were to stop six-year-long legal proceedings against Texas’ openly discriminatory voter suppression laws, and to stop all investigations of police killings of unarmed persons.

Full details of his personal closeness to Stephen Bannon, Trump’s openly neo-Nazi head of staff, are reported by Baker (2017).  Bannon and Sessions have expressed mutual admiration on many occasions, and Sessions has granted several exclusive interviews and other favors to Breitbart’s, later Bannon’s, Breitbart News.  These have involved expectable enthusiasm for Breitbart’s racist and anti-feminist reporting.

Scott Pruitt, now head of EPA, is an oil publicist.

Julie Kirchner, Trump’s head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, was executive director of the white-supremacist and anti-immigrant group FAIR, which opposed all immigration but especially “nonwhite” immigrants as inferior and prone to outbreed “whites” (Piggott 2017).

Elimination of public education and the defunding of a lot of science will cripple the US economically for the long term.  The new Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos (Tabachnik 2011) is the most visible of the extreme critics of public education—those that want to eliminate it completely.  It is probably safe to say that only a few Republicans actually want to eliminate public education entirely.  But she is not only opposed to public education, but is committed to a “Christian” education that countenances anti-evolutionist, anti-science, racist, anti-gay and similar teachings.  She advocates vouchers so parents can send children to private schools, but voucher-funded private schools provide very inferior education—much worse than public schools—where this program has been tried on any scale (Hiltzik 2017).  She is married to the heir of the classic pyramid scheme Amway, and her brother was the head of the notorious Blackwater firm that indulged in large-scale torture, killing of civilians, and other war crimes in Iraq in the Iraq War (see Edwards 2016).  Clearly she is connected to much more than just opposition to education.  Yet the future of the American economy over the long term may depend on her.

Trump’s voters were less educated than Clinton voters, and his cabinet is much less educated than Obama’s—only Ben Carson has a doctoral degree, and that in a field irrelevant to his charge. Formidably important in Trump’s victory was the plummeting level of public and popular culture in the last few decades.  Trump won and Clinton lost partly because he was a reality TV star and she was a policy wonk.

 

The Changing Republican Party

 

Part of the background is the shift of the Republican Party from one of small local businessmen and to a party based on a few big firms, largely representing what may be called the dinosaur economy—big oil, big coal, big agrochemical, and similar sunsetting industries.  They fight to prevent change and progress, since it would plow them under.  They thus oppose science and education across the board, as well as environmental protection.  They protect the enormous subsidies that keep them alive.  They get votes by ever more strident appeals to racism and religious bigotry.   This was the product of the “Southern Strategy,” developed by Lee Atwater and Karl Rove under Richard Nixon, and used with full success by Ronald Reagan.  Slowly, the racists and bigots took over, partly because small businesses and local firms declined relative to the power of giant centralized corporations.   The small businessman—often community-spirited, and pro-education—was replaced by dinosauric corporations appealing to a “base” of bigots.

Spending on education is a good tracker.  California built up its world-class university system under Republican governors.  Some Republican-dominated states still spend considerable money per student: Nebraska, Wyoming, Utah, and (to a lesser extent) a few other high-plains and western states.  Most, however, have devastated educational spending.  Kansas is the most extreme case (as of 2017).  In transition from Democratic to Republican governors, Kansas cut its education spending by an enormous amount.  Tennessee, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, and several other marginal-south states spend very little.  Others never spent much in the first place.

This shift on education can stand as a good proxy for attention to minorities, handicapped people, veterans, women—any population that can use some assistance.  Old-time Republicans took some care of these.  New ones cut assistance to the bone, or into the bone.

The US has shifted far to the right since the 1940s, especially since Nixon’s victory in 1968.  This has been reflected, for example, in falling or stagnant real wages, and steadily increasing tax cuts to the rich, many of whom (apparently including Trump) now pay no taxes at all.  Bill Clinton’s, and now Hillary Clinton’s, policies greatly resembled Eisenhower’s and Nixon’s; Trump’s are to the right even of Joseph McCarthy, Strom Thurmond, and other extreme right-wingers of the 1950s.

The Obama presidency brought out racism, which led to election of openly racist Republicans and drift toward racism of the whole party.  Finally, Trump’s campaign—based on racial, religious, nationalist, and gender hatred—was successful, and the rest of the Republicans quickly came to his support, with the exception of a few traditional conservatives such as John McCain.  The racism of Trump’s campaign greatly exacerbated by his campaign advisor and later chief of staff Stephen Bannon, openly neo-Nazi.  The combination of the Trump-Bannon campaign agenda with the party’s increasing drift toward corporatism has now produced full-scale fascism.

One major part of it is a shift from class politics—the old poor-Democrats, rich-Republicans model—to race, religion, and gender politics.  The center and left has, unfortunately, become narrowly focused on the racialization of politics, increasingly seeing politics as a fight between “whites” and others and between heterosexual males and others.  Of course, in the immediate future, we have to fight hatred and bigotry above all things, but we also have to get back to politics based on actual economic, environmental, and social issues, before politics in the US reaches the stage of actual race war and genocide.

The oldest stratagem in politics is to win by dividing the opposition.  The Republican oligarchy used that trick well in the election, and the Democrats and the left fell for it.  Sanders vs. Clinton, black vs. white, women vs. men, every imaginable division was exploited by the Republican high donorship.

The Sanders vs. Clinton war, waged largely by its followers (Sanders and Clinton remained solid in mutual support), was the worst.  There is a Chinese story of a heron that seized a clam.  The clam clamped its shell on the heron and trapped him.  Neither would let the other go.  A fisherman came and took them both.  That was the 2016 election.

The right is always solidary.  They closed ranks immediately and almost totally behind Trump the minute he was nominated.  The left never could get behind Clinton, and thus helped Trump instead.  The best advice now is to reach out to anybody and anybody, particularly if they are in the crosshairs of the right wing—gay, Muslim, black, transgender, or otherwise directly and immediately menaced.

Johan Galtung, a sociologist who coined the term “structural violence” and who correctly predicted the collapse of the USSR and other states from his research on empires, predicts the US will collapse now that Trump has won and begun his program (Galtung 2009; Gettys 2016 for his latest views).

 

World Rightward Shifts

 

Parallels from elsewhere continue to accumulate.  Hungary elected a fascist government recently, under the Trump-like Viktor Orbán.  Hostility to refugees, Muslims, Jews, Roma, and others has increased.  The government is now engaged in a massive suppression of the media, most recently a shutdown of the left-wing paper Nepszabadsag (Johnson 2016) and an attack on the Central European University funded by George Soros.  This follows Turkey’s increasingly savage crackdowns on media and academics, including firing of thousands of academics after a failed coup in 2016.  Turkey under Recep Erdogan has also been moving in a more and more openly fascist direction, whipping up more and more hatred against Kurds and non-Muslims.  As Ana Friedman (2016) put it after traveling in Europe recently, “popular support for liberal dermocracies around the world is on the decline—and support for autocratic alternatives is rising, even in many stable Western nations long thought to be beacons of freedom.”

Causes include dissatisfaction with globalization, but there is obviously much more to it.  Increasing devotion to extremist ideologies, from Chinese Communism to violent right-wing Islam and Narendra Modi’s reactionary Hinduism in India, is clearly involved.

The current wave of extremist right-wing electoral victories is very consistent.  Elected extremist regimes now rule the Philippines, India, Turkey, Hungary, Poland, England (and its Brexit vote), Venezuela, and a few other countries.  The elections were like those in the US: the rural, less educated, and economically backward sections of the populace elected the extremists, often with a plurality rather than a majority.  Moreover, in every case, the dinosauric sectors of the economy—oil, coal, mining, chemical-based large-scale agriculture—funded the extremists.

What is happening is a worldwide change from “progress” to ratfight.  In technical terms, we are seeing people shift from seeing politics and economics as at least potentially a positive-sum game to seeing them as a negative-sum game.  A positive-sum game is one in which everyone can win—in this case, political economy can produce a situation in which everyone gets better off.  A zero-sum game is a typical “game”:  One person or team wins, one loses.  A negative-sum game is one in which everyone loses.

Worldwide, it seems that negative-sum gaming is now the rule.  With populations rapidly rising and resources rapidly shrinking, this makes all too much sense.  It is, however, a strategy that will do nothing but destroy.

 

We—the rest of us, from radicals to conservatives—can deal with this only by having a clear vision of the alternative and a united front.  It is time for any real conservatives left in the US—that is, people who actually want small government, patriotism, and individual responsibility—to join with liberals against big government used to crush the weak, suspiciously close cooperation with Vladimir Putin, and refusal to take any responsibility or face any accountability.  Many factors lost the election for Clinton, but certainly one of the biggest was the failure of Sanders and Clinton partisans to unite, while the Republicans, after much initial resistance to Trump, united solidly and enthusiastically behind him.

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2.  FASCISM AND THE REPUBLICAN AGENDA

 

Fascism Defined

 

Fascism is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.”  Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism, retrieved Jan. 7, 2017) gives dozens of definitions, by fascists, Marxists, humanists, and others.  Benito Mussolini coined the term (at least for its modern use), and variously defined it; one classic definition reads “Fascism includes supremacy of the military, the need for perpetual war and a disdain for pacifism, a  merging of corporate and state power, dismantling the unions, indirect control of the media, national security and patriotism as a motivational tool for the masses, government corruption, candidates appointed by the party command, and an erosion of voter rights.” (Quoted by Rainer Bussmann on Facebook, 2016.)  Several amplifications are provided by Wikipedia.   Anti-woman and anti-gay bias is also characteristic.  It is anti-individual and devoted to the state, again in contrast to classic conservatism.  It practices strong, dominating, often totalitarian government as opposed to the small government of earlier conservative thinking in the United States.

The Republicans in the United States show this shift clearly.  The GOP was always “patriotic” and statist more than individualist, but now patriotism in the old sense is shifting toward creation of new autocratic governance, and sheer obedience to an autocratic leadership is demanded.  Trump demands, and the whole Republican establishment agrees, that he should be above the law—not accountable to laws, traditions, or rules.

Fascism is an authoritarian and anti-democratic system.  Over time, in Italy, Germany, and later other countries, it fused government with giant corporations.  Everywhere, it used ethnic and religious hate to persuade the masses to go along.  It could count on militant bigots to supply its goon squads, usually essential to its operation.  These are represented in the US by the Ku Klux Klan and similar organizations.  Fascist government acts through heavy subsidies and special favors from government to corporations, while the corporations set the policies on industry (including such issues as pollution and labor) for the government.

Fascism draws much more on ethnic, gender, and religious hate, much less on classism, than either conservatism (which favored the upper classes) or Marxism (which favored the working classes).  It is also characterised by militarism and war, strict and highly unequal law enforcement, and restriction of targeted minorities.  It is one expression of capitalism (many have seen it as a natural consequence thereof), but it differs from classic capitalism in that it is the antithesis of a free market.  Instead, it colludes with giant firms to dominate the economy.  This was the outcome of Hitler’s “national socialism” (national sozialismus).  Neoliberalism has an uneasy relationship with fascism; neoliberalism is supposed to be “free market” oriented, but its founder Ludwig von Mises supported Hitler, his disciple F. Hayek supported Pinochet in Chile, and Hayek’s definition of fascism (see Wikipedia, “Definitions of Fascism”) is notably sympathetic.

Hitler’s Nazi variant was extreme, but still an example of a general tendency in culture:  “National Socialism has no faith in society and partidularly not in its good will…. This is the first principle of National Socialist social organization.  The second principle is the atomization of the individual.  Such groups as the family and church, the solidarity arising from common work in plants, shops and offices and deliberately broken down” (Neumann 1944:400).

The word “fascism” derives from the Latin word for a bundle of sticks bound together.  Hiter attacked not only Jews but also Slavs, Roma, gays, liberals, socialists, and others, even to science done by Jews such as Einstein (“Jew physics”), and modern art (“degenerate”).  The dominance of hatred in the fascist ideology has persisted, with modern fascists and neo-Nazis generally identifying it with racism and religious exclusion.

 

Republican Fascism

The combination of indiscriminate hatred and giant-firm domination of government makes the new Republican Party fascist by this or almost any definition.  The alliance with giant primary-production firms is now well out into the open with Trump’s designation of oil millionaires and oil-related businesspersons for his cabinet.

Republicans in states that the party dominates have indulged in massive voter suppression, gerrymandering, commandism in such matters as reproductive health, and other anti-democratic acts, as well as massive favoring of large firms.  Republican states have posted many cases of police shootings of unarmed African-Americans who were doing no harm, the police being praised or at least let off unchallenged.  Legislation against women’s health has been general and has gone far beyond issues of abortion.

The real fascist nature of modern Republicanism, however, is shown in the combination of Trump’s campaign—little beyond hatred of minorities, Jews, gays, feminists, and many other categories—and the domination of the Republican Party by giant firms, largely oil, and especially the Koch brothers.  Trump ran against minorities, China, Mexico, and Islam; his stated plans to ‘make America great again” were largely limited to breaking the power of those groups.

Also classic fascist is the rapid defunding of anything and everything that could possibly improve lives—health care, arts, education, food stamps, public radio, museums, and all–and shifting the funds to war and to brutal crackdown on undocumented immigrants.  Deliberately singling out aid workers, teachers, and other doers of good was an earmark of the CIA-backed fascists in Guatemala and El Salvador in the 1980s, as well as of fascists from Hitler to the Argentine colonels.  It also characterized the Communist crackdowns by Stalin, Mao, and the Khmer Rouge.  It seems to be a well-known aspect of genocide, apparently taught deliberately at the School of the Americas (where the butchers of Guatemala, El Salvador, and other Latin American regimes of the 1980s were trained; cf. Stoll 1993, Timerman 2002).

Trump’s administration has actually been more extreme than any other regime outside of Hitler’s and Mao’s, in turning against science (all science) as well as the United Nations, international treaties, and the usual list of good things.  Trump’s deliberately conspicuous diversion of money to fund his getaways at Mar-a-Lago is in the grand tradition set by Roman emperors and perfected by Louis XIV:  crush the populace by rubbing into them the fact that the ruler is using their money for his personal glory.

The most reactionary of the giant corporations are always the real architects and backers of authoritarianism.  In the US, that means especially big oil.  “The big oil companies made over $135 billion in profits last year” (Storm Is Coming, Nov. 30, 2016).  The brothers Charles and David Koch, oilmen at heart though Koch Industries has become diversified, have recently been the most consistent and important leaders of the farthest right in the United States.  Other oil, coal, and chemical corporations are on board, as well as some financial and gambling interests.  Bernie Sanders revealed on his Facebook page that the top 25 hedge-fund CEO’s made 11.6 billion last year, while the total pay of all the kindergarten teachers in the US was 8.5 billion.

The rich backers of Republican fascism include, most notably, the right-wing billionaire Robert Merton as well as the Kochs.  High Country News looked at 236 leading early appointments and transition-team members and found 72 of them had ties to the Koch brothers, including most of the Cabinet appointees as well as Vice-President Pence (Gilpin 2017).  The Kochs are well known for their background; their father carried out major projects for Hitler, they were raised by a pro-Hitler nurse, and their agenda all their lives has been straight from that playbook (see Jane Mayer, Dark Money, 2016).  Their policies are allegedly free-market and libertarian, but actually they have backed (strategically or tactically) every right-wing extremist agenda from opposition to birth control and abortion to suppression of minority voting.  Their deepest interest, however, is in removing regulations that affect big oil—notably pollution controls—and winning support for government subsidy and backing of giant firms, especially oil firms.  Via the Tea Party, and their ALEC project, the Kochs have supported voter suppression, massively attacked labor unions, amd fought against all environmental protection and other restrictions on large-scale primary production.

The Koch brothers started the Tea Party, ALEC, and several other organizations, and became dominant in funding several more traditionally conservative venues.  George Monbiot (2016) has revealed the web of liars and lying thinktanks, mostly funded by the Koch brothers, behind the Republican political machine.  The article is sobering, to put it mildly.

In old-time fascism, there was always a split between militarists, who focused on a strong military and frequent deployment in local wars, and traditionalists, who were concerned with legislating morality in ways not always popular with other conservatives.  It is not solely the media stereotype of anti-Semitism and micromanaging.  This is no longer the case; today the militarists and bigots have fused, and traditionalists are either swept along or exiled from the movement.

The Republican administration is following a well-known, well-trodden path.  Trump started his presidency with an inaugural address written by two racists with strong neo-Nazi connections, Stephen Bannon and Stephen Miller.  It included the phrase “America First,” which was the slogan of pro-Hitler Americans in the 1930s and 1940s.  Trump’s group also made use of the phrase “lying press,” the same as Hitler’s lugenpresse.  Trump’s publicity director Kellyanne Conway retitled lies as “alternative facts,” giving a new name to Joseph Goebbels’ Big Lie.  Trump said he was in a “war” with the press: “As you know, I have a running war with the media” (Memoli and Bennett 2017:A1).  In this, he follows authoritarians from Hitler to Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan in declaring war on the media.  In all cases, this rhetoric from a head of state has been met with increasing suppression of the press, and indeed Trump has banished reporters from the White House and pulled back from press conferences.  Similarities to China’s dictatorship are evident (Langfitt 2017).  Even the right-wing obsession with eliminating birth control and banning abortion is shared with Hitler and the Nazis (Neumann 1944:148), not with Christianity, in spite of the claimed religious background.

This comes after far more sinister rhetoric in Trump’s campaign.  He demonized a wide range of group and nations: Muslims, liberals, gays and other LGBTQ people, the disabled, the poor, Mexico and Mexicans, Latinos in general, African-Americans, China, and many more.    Many of them—ranging from the Muslims to Mexicans to China—were blamed directly for the problems.  Since election, he has, among other things, blamed the Jews for the desecration of Jewish cemeteries and the burning of synagogues—they are supposedly “false flag” operations to get sympathy.  This is exactly Hitler’s tactic in the 1930s, and seems to be case of outright copying.

Republicans have shut down filibustering on more and more issues, and are trying to cut debate on issues to eight hours maximum.  Republican states are moving to ban public protests—clearly unconstitutional bans, but probably enforceable anyway, given the climate of the times.

The new Republicans “base” of far-right business interests, overwhelmingly dominated by Big Oil and their financiers, white supremacists; and the far-right-wing “Christian” elements has put the Republican leadership in a difficult position.  The white supremacists and religious extremists do not necessarily love big business.  The businessmen are aware that rule by the other two groups would ruin the economy, and as businessmen they are not enthusiastic about that.  The result seems to be, so far, accommodating all by giving in to their most extreme and damaging wants.  Since the most extreme wants of the racists and bigots are literal genocide, we are in danger.

Each group has a different opponent group: giant firms want to shut down opposition, especially scientific challenges; racists want to eliminate minorities (or at least minority leadership); right-wing religious groups have proposed exterminating gays, and giving the death penalty to doctors that perform abortion and even to the women themselves; these religious groups also oppose Islam, atheism, and other challengers, and have made threats.  The choice is clear:  big government crushing minorities and women, with minimal concern for the economy, and opposed to small government and economic priorities (see e.g. Michael 2016).

America’s fascist streak comes largely from the deep south, an area where support for Hitler was strong in the 1930s.  It traces back to the plantation system: rent-seeking owners using slave labor.  Southern fascist and racist politics expanded nationwide from the 1970s as actual business (including actually working for one’s money) was replaced by monopolies or oligopolies, and by rent-seeking in the form of lobbying for subsidies, tax cuts, and exemptions from laws and rules.  This change is the real driver of the whole shift to racial politics and the rise of fascism that led to Trump.

The eagerness of the Republican Party to embrace genocide is proved by their attitude to health care.  They are repealing the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”).  They plan to repeal or drastically scale back Medicare and Medicaid.  Finally, Trump, reinstating the famous “gag rule” that forbids US funding for NGO’s that talk about abortion, vastly expanded it, to extend not only to reproductive-health NGO’s but to all NGO’s—including, for instance, those that advise on HIV-AIDS (Goldberg 2017).  This expansion will lead to large increases in deaths from AIDS and from reproductive disorders and pathologies.  There will probably be more deaths than all the abortions that would have resulted from unfettered advice.  Also, Trump (though not all his appointees) has said he plans to bring back torture, hidden prisons, and the deaths involved in those war crimes.  Taken together, the Republican Party under Trump is already verging on genocidal.

As one case in point, Texas’ maternal mortality rate increased from around 17-18 to 33 per 100,000 births as a result of defunding pregnancy clinics as part of a war on abortion and birth control.  Most of the clinics providing pregnancy clinics in the state were forced to close.  Nationwide, not counting California (which reduced its rate) or Texas, the US rate increased from 18.8 to 23.8 from 2000 to 2014.  Texas shared in the national rate, around 18, until 2010, after which it closed the clinics and the maternal mortality rate soared.  Texas now has the highest rate in the developed world, comparable to some African states (Redden 2016).  By contrast, Iceland has had no maternal mortalities for decades.  Rates across Scandinavia are around 1 to 3.

The far-right Breitbart News has emerged as the voice of the Trump administration.  Ironically, the service nests in Westwood, a liberal part of a liberal urban area (Ng 2016).

 

Fascist Economics

 

The giant firms that back the Republicans depend heavily on direct and indirect subsidies.  From the average American’s taxes, $4000 go to subsidies, tax breaks, and giveaways, largely for primary-production corporations.  As noted above, big oil gets over $37 billion in subsidies, including money spent by the US government to clear up oil spills, and for roads, ports, rail, pipelines, etc., for big oil.  These firms also obtain tax writeoffs and special tax breaks, such as the oil depletion allowance, which are far greater than the direct subsidies.  The total cost of food stamps and US government welfare for the poor is $7.4 billion (American NewsX, Dec. 15, 2016).

The enormous profits earned with the help of these heavy subsidies are to a great extent either invested overseas, or simply hoarded there—banked in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Switzerland, and similar gopher holes for finance.  Most of this wandering money is not invested in the United States, if it is invested at all.  A great deal of it simply disappeared—taken out of circulation for the indefinite future, which is in practice the same as burning stacks of bills.

This is “low-velocity money”—in fact, it may have zero velocity.  Giant corporations are incentivized to invest in increasing efficiency, productivity, and even in production only when hoarding is taxed heavily.  Otherwise, they will be forced by immediate financial considerations to jack up prices for quick high profit, keep production minimal, and hoard the profits.  This freezes the money in numbered bank accounts, where it rarely, if ever, moves to productive investments.

By contrast, the fastest-velocity money—that which is most immediately spent and put in circulation in the economy—is money given to poor people for survival needs.  They have to spend it right away.  The places they spend it usually spend it immediately themselves—for instance, stores have to re-stock.  Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, all such income goes out into circulation and recirculation right away, or even before it arrives (thanks to buying on credit).  Much government transfer payment money goes to active workers who simply do not make enough to live on.  So it is a productive investment, even to those cold-blooded souls who do not see keeping old people and young children alive as productive.

The Republicans plan to give enormous tax cuts to the rich.  They plan to end whole categories of tax (such as inheritance taxes).  They plan to cut corporate taxes to effectively zero—to a level so low that normal deductions will bring effective rates to zero.  They plan to cut income taxes such that few rich would pay.  This will be made up for—partially—by ending the transfer payments.  Social Security taxes will go to the general fund.  Also, the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities are proposed for elimination—saving the average taxpayer $0.46 each per year.  The Corporation for Public Broadcasting—best known for NPR—is also slated to be defunded, saving the taxpayer $1.37.  Trump’s projected cuts to these and environmental, civil rights, and arts programs would save the average taxpayer only $22.36 per year; ending the home-ownership mortgage deduction, also proposed, would at least save more—some $296.29 (Tepper 2017).  And of course cutting oil subsidies would save another $11, and cutting waste by the Pentagon (which takes well over $500 of the average person’s taxes) would save hundreds.

Anyone doubting the effects may examine the recent history of oil-dominated countries from Saudi Arabia and Equatorial Guinea to Bahrain and Brunei.  Wealth is amassed and hoarded by the tiny oil-rich and rentier elite, while the people do poorly, and investment stagnates except in increasing oil production.  The governments are also free to indulge in harsh and cruel repression of whole sectors of their population, in ways that would be economically suicidal in a country that needed skilled labor.  Saudi Arabia, for instance, virtually removes women from the work force.

As has often been pointed out, racism, sexism, and similar bigotries are luxuries.  A working economy cannot afford them.  They are found where a rentier elite needs to keep large sections of the population crushed in order to maintain its own predation.  Slave economies like the old cotton south and sugar Caribbean, oil economies, and a few economies based on heavy industry are the economies that succeed that way.

The Republican “right-to-work” and other laws would virtually eliminate labor unions as significant forces.  Republicans are also moving to end workers’ protection of all sorts, from anti-discrimination to health and safety rules.  All this would reduce wages across the board.

Meanwhile, housing prices are rising in most of the US, insurance and health costs are rising, and people are being forced by current economic realities to buy all manner of electronic gadgets.  It is no longer possible to find public phones, so for emergencies we have to carry cellphones.  A house without a home computer is seriously handicapped in many ways.  Expenses for everyone are thus rising fast.  All this impacts consumption of all the goods and services that are not absolutely necessary.

The effect of falling wages, disappearing transfer payments, and “necessity creep” in a consumption-driven economy can easily be imagined: depression.

The Republicans will probably respond like most economically-illiterate regimes challenged with the bad results of their experiments: by printing money.  The resulting inflation will finish the job of wrecking the US economy.  It will never be able to recover; commitment to primary production in a world of rapidly depleting resources and rapidly rising temperatures is suicidal.

In short, we may be in for genocide in the service of an agenda more murderous than any genocide.  The Republicans will exterminate their oppoinents to allow them to pursue the repeal of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, all food aid, all environmental protection, and all support to science.  This would lead to literally hundreds of millions of deaths, since the effects of measures like permitting unlimited carbon emissions would spill over into the rest of the world.

Henry Giroux, in a very important article in Truthout (2017b), lists several characteristics of totalitarian regimes that are all visible in the Trump administration’s policies: a rhetoric of irresponsibility and violence; “survival-of-the-fittest discourse [that] provides a breeding ground for…hypermasculine behaviors and hypercompetitiveness”; alternative realities, the famous “alternative facts”; labeling whole groups as dispensible, criminal, and dangerous; ignorance and a positive value, with anti-intellectualism written into school policies; regarding the weak as worthless losers; a “language of borders and walls”; violence as the prime solution, with police and arrest as the solution for homelessness, drug addiction, and misfortune.; rejection of democracy (Trump avoids the word) and democratic institutions; opposition to public education and to everything that leads people to “think critically and act responsibly”; fears of others within society as an alternative to personal responsibility; ending of the welfare state and safety nets; increasing inequality; ultranationalism and militarism; oppression of mainstream media and control of them when possible.  One might add that any and all beauty and loveliness, from art to nature, is utter anathema, to be destroyed when possible.

Giroux has written several books on America’s problems, the latest being America at War with Itself (2017a).  This book recounts the Trump campaign with full details on its racist ideology, then contexts it in the history of racism, racist violence, and structural violence in general.  Giroux also looks at the militarism and idealization of guns in American culture.  The book is an excellent analysis of the whole background of right-wing hatred, violence, and hate ideology that permeates the current political climate.  Unfortuantely, like many others who examine such issues, he has little to say about cures.  He recommends teaching with “critical pedagogy.”  This is certainly a desirable thing (as he describes it: combatting lies and hate with facts and critical analysis, rather than with more lies and hate, as is too often the case).  But it is only one needed thing among many.

 

Wider Perspectives

 

A foretaste of the US under conservatives is provided by Guatemala and El Salvador.  The CIA installed dictators trained at the School of the Americas, the CIA’s secret school for autocratic rulers.  The leading ones were Efrain Rios Montt in Guatemala, who was responsible for a genocide that claimed 200,000 innocent lives, and Roberto d’Aubuisson in El Salvador, responsible for politicide that killed several tens of thousands.  A subsequent coup in Honduras in 2009 has added it to the club.  Since these regimes were installed, constant repression and countless further deaths have led to stalled economies with extreme poverty and unemployment, and domination of society by drug gangs, which now rule El Salvador almost totally.  This is the result of regimes installed by American conservatives and faithfully carrying out American conservative policies, including repression, closing of quality public education, repression of private education as well, reducing health care to the bare minimum, pulling back on law enforcement and civil society, and above all allowing giant multinational firms a free hand.

Recent histories of fascism, such as Michael Mann’s Fascists (Cambridge University Press, 2004) and Robert Paxton’s The Anatomy of Fascism (Knopf, 2004), provide background.  Both books define fascism very narrowly—basically as popular, militaristic movements with wide support across classes, and with paramilitary organizations that glorify, and use, violence.  This restricts the term to Germany, Italy, and a few neighboring countries in the 1930s and 1940s, though the authors are quick to see similarities with modern movements like Milosevic’s in Serbia in the 1990s.  Mussolini himself had a wider definition, emphasizing the corporate connections.  Hitler and Mussolini came rather slowly to make these, but depended on them once they were fully in power.

The rise of Mussolini and Hitler was exactly like the rise of Trump, with one major exception—so far:  The Republicans have not (yet) mobilized the KKK and other paramilitary groups to create violence.  Mussolini’s Blackshirts and Hitler’s Brownshirts were critically important to the rise of fascism in Europe, and were widely imitated.  Ironically, the KKK was the world’s first right-wing uniformed paramilitary group.  It could be—and may be starting to be—the source of a militia arm of the Republicans.

Yet these books also provide hope. Fascist movements did not win except when orthodox politicians were disunited.  Civil society in countries like Hungary and France prevented the rise of fascism until Hitler actually took them over.  Civil, peaceful protests have brought down many military and even fascist regimes since.

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3.  GENOCIDE DEFINED

 

Genocide may be the defining crime of the 20th century, and is maintaining itself in the 21st.   Not only genocide itself, but indifference to it by the international community, remains a huge problem for the world (Apsel and Verdeja 2013; Hinton 2005; Hirsch 2014; Power 2002; Totten 2012, 2014).

Recently Barbara Harff (2012) and E. N. Anderson and  Barbara A. Anderson constructed models for predicting genocide (see Anderson and Anderson 2012; Doughty 2015; Harff 2012; Heying 2013).  The Andersons’ book followed the original definition by Raphael Lemkin: “the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group” (Lemkin 1944:79; see Lemkin 2013).  He included cultural destruction through forced assimilation, and also partial or attempted genocide that did not totally succeed.  (Indeed, few totally succeed.)   He further defined genocide as murder by a government of its own citizens or subjects, when they are accused of nothing consequential other than belong to a particular demographic category.

Subsequent research on Lemkin’s papers, including the beginnings of a history of genocide (unfinished), show that he expanded his definition to include other defined groups, and came more and more to stress cultural destruction as well as physical, seeing them as part of the same process (Short 2016:20).  His stress on culture, and his concept of it, came from anthropology, especially from the writings of his fellow Pole, Bronislaw Malinowski (Moses 2010:24-25).

As he wrote. “genocide…is intended to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.  The objectses of suh a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups…” (Lemkin 1944;79; also quoted and discussed in Short 2016:23-24; Short’s is, at this writing, the most recent of many detailed and thoughtful discussions of the definition of genocide).  However, political extermination—genocide of “liberals” or “conservatives” or some other politically defined group—is now usually counted as genocide also, though it does not really aim at cultural extermination.  It is now often called “politicide.”

By Lemkin’s definition, at least 100 million and possibly more than 200 million people were killed by genocide in the 20th and early 21st centuries, in at least 67 countries (Anderson and Anderson 2012; De Dreu et al. 2010; Rummel 1994, 1998; Tilly 2003:55).  This makes it as potent a killer as malaria or tuberculosis.  Genocides and related mass murders “killed more than 210 million people during the twentieth century alone and since 2000 more than thirty thousand people have been killed by terrorists” (De Dreu et al. 2010:1408).  Wars probably killed about as many (de Waal 2005:5; Pinker 2011).

The category can be a religion or sect, a political philosophy, a “race” (however defined by the genociders), an ethnic group, or any other essentialized cultural category.  It is usually an existing one, but genociders have been known to invent categories.  They use their power to impose their definitions on the victims—often extending the “Jews” or “Tutsi” or “Indians” far beyond normal use of such labels (Short 2016:14).

Killing of actual enemies in declared war, however general and ruthless, does not count.  This means that Lemkin (at first) and we are using a quite different definition from some authors.  However, Lemkin later came to use the term for any mass murder of noncombatants, even enemy noncombatants in an active war (Moses 2010:26).  Since virtually all wars involve this, he studied war in general, throughout all history.

Ben Kiernan, in his magistral work Blood and Soil (2007), defines it as broadly.  He found that most involved “blood and soil”—descent groups, and land to appropriate, conquer, or loot.  Martin Shaw, in his recent book Genocide and International Relations (2013), also critiques much of the usage of the term for being too restrictive; like Kiernan, he would expand it to include almost any violence against defined groups, and also sees  it as typically an ongoing process.  Shaw provides an excellent and thoughtful discussion of the whole concept.

However, Kiernan’s and Shaw’s usages makes genocide virtually universal.  It eliminates the close link between genuine mass violence and dictatorial regimes based on exclusionary ideologies.  It eliminates the vitally important distinction between killing of enemy-side noncombatants in actual international war and killing of one’s own minorities.  The term “genocide” has also been loosely used for all manner of small-scale, though usually serious, killings and abuses (see Totten and Bartrop 2008:167).

These authors, and most of those in The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies (Bloxham and Moses 2010), give us two broad definitions of genocide that go well beyond Lemkin’s original one.  First, it can mean any mass killing of enemy civilians in time of war, in which case it is synonymous with war, since every consequential war in history—everything beyond the Soccer War and the War of Jenkin’s Ear—involves that.  For instance, the oft-cited Roman destruction of Carthage was simply normal warfare as practiced in the day.  By this standard, the US carpet-bombing of Dresden and Munich was as bad as—indeed, no different from—Hitler’s genocides.  A few pacifists and rather more neo-Nazis maintain that, but the vast majority of scholars see a basic difference.

Second, it can mean specific killing in wartime of enemy troops, prisoners, and civilians, with a deliberate intention of exterminating their ethnic or religious group.  This clearly blends into genocide by the stricter definition.  When a nation conquers an enemy and subjects the enemy population, what at first is simply killing enemies soon becomes killing one’s own (newly-acquired) subjects.  Then, it is impossible to draw a clear line between actual wartime killing and deliberate peacetime genocide.

This happened in many early religious wars, especially the various crusades.  In those wars, the intent was typically to exterminate as many of the “others” as possible, and mass murder of innocents—even in thoroughly conquered territory—was routine (see Runciman 1987; von Wees 2010).  The same thing happened very frequently in early American history when Native American tribes were conquered.  The Cherokee, for instance, put up a hot fight, but by the time Andrew Jackson sent them on the Trail of Tears, they were a conquered and subject population (Brown 1971; Debo 2013), and his policies were genocidal by the strictest definition.

These and the third, narrowly defined, type of genocide all have different predictors.  War is generally over land and resources or over ideology (religion or politics), less often over traditional ethnic animosity—hence Kiernan’s title Blood and Soil.   War with attendant massacre of civilians caught in the crossfire is almost universal among human societies.  Violence almost endless in many of them; the United States has been at war almost continually since 1776.  England, France, Spain and other countries have been at war more often than not.  Humans are violent animals.

Genocide of conquered enemies is frequently a matter of getting rid of them to clear the land for the conquerors, who want to take it and settle it; this is also a very important factor in peacetime genocides.  It motivated genocides as diverse as  Hitler’s clearances in Eastern Europe and the Anglo- and Latin-American extermination of Native Americans.  Sometimes such genocide is simply an extension of wartime hatreds.

Restricting genocide to murder of a government’s own, peaceful subjects is a different thing.  It indicates some degree of serious fear or hatred, or both.  A large, apparently inoffensive group of citizens or subjects has somehow scared the government into full-scale eradication.  It cannot be explained by need for land if the government already has the land.

Ideology remains a factor, and ethnicity or comparable identity is a factor by definition.  It is often precipitated by war, but often takes place in peacetime, sometimes out of what seems to be a clear blue sky.  As Michael Mann says: “Murderous cleansing has been modern. In earlier times it sometimes resulted when conquerors seized the land but did not require the labor of the natives, while monotheistic salvation religions later attempted forced conversions.  But the pace of murderous ethnic cleansing quickened greatly when modern people sought to establish rule by the people in bi-ethnic environments” (Mann 2005:502).  Indigenous people worldwide would surely object to the “sometimes”—they know settler genocides were more rule than exception—but Mann is broadly correct:  mass murder of one’s own peaceful subjects is largely a modern phenomenon.

The important thing here is that we can take steps to end this type of genocide.  Ending war is probably hopeless, but ending mass murder of innocent subjects is possible.

The strict definition eliminates most of Kiernan’s cases and many of Shaw’s.  It leaves us with two quite different types of genocide (both discussed by Kiernan, but a minor part of his huge sample):  Settler genocides (Wolfe 2006), and modern total genocide.  In the former, an ethnic group takes over an area and clears the land, once the people are subjected, by methodically exterminating them.  This occurred in the New World with many Native American groups (see e.g. Madley 2016), and in Australia with Aboriginal groups (Short 2016).  It differs from simple extermination of conquered people in that the people in question have already been conquered, made subjects, and frequently already deprived of their land.  They are killed out of desire to finish the land-clearance work permanently, or fear that they might rebel, or revenge for actual rebellion, or sheer hate.  These are invariably coupled with discrimination, often including dehumanization.

In modern total genocide, a government picks on long-established citizen or subject groups and exterminates them for what appear to outsiders to be arbitrary or inadequate reasons.  The classic case is Hitler’s extermination of Jews, Roma, homosexuals, handicapped and mentally ill persons, political dissenters, modern artists, and other categories.  Other well-studied examples include the massacre of Armenians and other Christian communities by the “Young Turk” government of Turkey (Akçam 2012) and the genocide in Cambodia in the 1970s (Frye 1989; Hinton 2002a, 2002b, 2005; Kiernan 2007).

It is critical to recognize that the victims are very often subjects who are not citizens.  Genocide of Native Americans in the United States was done when they were not citizens.  Citizen groups were spared.  Genocide stopped just about the time they became official citizens, in 1924.  Hitler killed many Germans, but the vast majority of his six million were in occupied lands in eastern Europe; here he had effectively destroyed the states or ceased recognizing state governments in occupied lands.  Anyone with a passport of an existing country could often escape, and faking passports was frequent.  Many other genocides are similar; people lose citizenship rights and can be killed at will (Snyder 2015:339).

Lemkin’s (initial) definition rules out, for instance, most of the extermination campaigns against Native Americans in the United States.  Most were either actual wars against genuinely combative enemies not under control of the United States Government, or were informal massacres carried out by local people without government authority.  Relatively few actual genocidal massacres had official government blessing.  Those few included the Cherokee Long March, a number of local campaigns in the 1850s, the Shoshone-Bannock “war” of the 1870s, the Sioux campaigns of the 1890s (Mooney 1896), and several other cases, but not, for instance, the mass murders committed in missionization and later de-missionization in California (which have often been called genocide).  Throughout the western hemisphere, the vast majority of deaths were from disease, and these were normally not intentional—indeed they were often much regretted.  However, sometimes the settlers deliberately infected Native populations with disease, or denied them aid and care during epidemics, and this blended into true genocide (Madley 2016; Robins 2010).

Intermittent campaigns that were genuinely genocidal did occur (Cameron et al. 2015; Robins 2010).  For instance, in California in the 19th century, Benajmin Madley finds that there were at least 3,000 killings in government campaigns of extermination, and 6,840 murders by unofficial but often covertly government-accepted settler groups bent on eliminating Native Americans (Madley 2012, 2016).  There were many more killings that were part of actual wars or were simply ordinary crimes; Madley, using the strict definition of genocide, does not count these.  Desperate attempts by Indigenous or enslaved people to fight back have been called “genocidal” (Robins 2010), but this clearly does not meet our definition here.  Random massacres by disorganized, and doomed, people driven to suicidal action is not even remotely comparable to systematically planned annihilation of the powerless by the powerful.

These settler genocides occur when an area occupied by one group is newly settled by another more powerful one.  They are common throughout history, but far more common since the rise of seaborne empires in the 16th century.

Slavery, too, is a different matter.  The slaving wars of the 17th and 18th centuries may have killed more people than all the genocides of the 20th century, but they were not about exterminating groups—quite the reverse.  The killings were an unfortunate by-product of the desperate attempts by colonial powers to get more people to work in their new lands.  On the other hand, slave-taking was an almost universal part of premodern genocides: the able-bodied men and the “useless” old people were killed, while the women and children were enslaved and forcibly acculturated into the conqueror’s society.  Slavery thus presents an ambiguous case (Johnassohn and Björnson 1998:20-22).  Significantly, no one proposed eliminating slavery until the 18th century, and significant moves to eliminate it appeared only in the 19th (Davis 1966,  1971; Pinker 2011).  Before that, it was accepted as part of life.  Christians pointed to Biblical acceptance, until the Quakers protested.

Lemkin was defining a real and extremely important type of killing, and one that vastly and explosively increased in the 20th century, making it exceedingly important as a factor in world history.  Overgeneralizing his term loses us a category that needs serious study.  The other forms of mass destruction, from ordinary international war to California missionization, deserve their own explanations and studies.  This is not to belittle them, but simply to say that they are different phenomena.  Genocide—murder of peaceful subjects by government, without any reason that would convince a bystander—is a special phenomenon, highly predictable as to occurrence, course, and results.

Genocide does include “wars” in which a vastly disproportionate percent of the killing was government extermination of innocent noncombatants, such as the Guatemalan terror of the 1980s, in which over 200,000 people died.  War (including civil war) is often defined as armed conflict with 1000 or more deaths, between recognizable sides, the sides being at least remotely close to equal and thus with at least five percent of deaths on each side (Collier 2007:18).  In Guatemala, the government called this a civil war, but the government was responsible for at least 95% and possibly 97% of the killings, and virtually none of those were combat deaths (see e.g. Stoll 1993, 1999).  Of course this means that there will always be boundary phenomena: things such as civil or national wars with killing just one-sided enough to be debatable as to whether they constitute genocides, and hot pursuit of hated ethnic groups across national boundaries (like the continuing Hutu-Tutsi war in Congo after Rwanda and Burundi are relatively pacified).

Taking people’s land and resources—what Amartya Sen calls “affordances”—without directly killing the people in question must also be seen as genocidal if it clearly leads directly to the death of the people in question.  Here again there are boundary phenomena: where does all-too-ordinary bureaucratic callousness—memorably termed “structural violence” by Johan Galtung (1969)—grade into deliberate mass murder?  In such cases, what matters is clear governmental intent to exterminate defined groups of peaceable people.  This is what we have examined from the point of view of prediction.

Damien Short (2016) links genocide and ecocide.  Ecocide usually means destroying nature or ecosystems, but Short is here referring to scorched-earth methods of destroying people.  He points out that this has been done by Israel in Palestine, with more than 1.5 million trees destroyed, most of them profitable olive trees that were the mainstay of the rural Palestinian economy, and with major damage to water resources (Short 2016:69-92).  Sri Lanka also devastated Tamil agriculture in its long war with its Tamil minority (Short 2016:93-126), and there are many attacks on Indigenus ecologies.  The destruction of the buffalo by white Americans in the 19th century was done partly to destroy Native American cultures and economies.

Governments invoke genocides, often coldly and with advance planning, but depend on mobilized citizenry to carry them out.  This requires creating a mood of extreme fear and/or hate of the people to be eliminated.  People after a genocide often recall feeling out of their minds—either crazed with blood lust or feeling like automatons (Anderson and Anderson 2012 review a long literature; see also Staub 1989, 2011).  From a considerable literature on evil and human hate, especially valuable are Scott Atran’s Talking to the Enemy (2010), Roy Baumeister’s Evil (1997), Aaron Beck’s Prisoners of Hate (1999), and Erwin Staub’s The Roots of Evil (1989).

An important point is made by S. I. Wilkinson, as quoted by Martin Shaw (2013:160):  “’…the constructivist insight that individuals have many ethnic and nonethnic identities with which they might identify politically.  The challenge for politicians is to ensure that the one that most favours their party is the one that is most salient in the minds of the majority of voters…in the run-up to an election’ (Wilkinson 2006:4).”  Shaw adds:  “By the same token, the challenge for activists mobilizing riots and other…violence is to stigmatize the ‘enemy’ through the most lethal combination of identities that can be ascribed to it” (Shaw 2013:160).  Trump in the United States appealed to white women who might otherwise have voted for a fellow woman (Clinton) and appealed to working-class whites who clearly voted against their economic self-interest.

 

 

Chapter 4.  HISTORICAL INSIGHTS INTO GENOCIDE

 

Genocidal Origins

 

Genocide on a vast, nationwide scale is relatively new, really beginning with the Turkish genocides of 1895 and 1915.  However, genocide has a long history.  Tribal groups throughout history exterminated each other.  That was usually done in war and was done to people eager to do the same to their opponents, so it is outside our definition here.  Sometimes, however, cold-blooded extermination of a group was carried out simply to get their land or to take slaves.

Empires routinely involved killing by the emperor or his group of anyone that opposed them, especially open rebels.  Typically, not only the individuals in question but their entire families were exterminated, since kinship loyalty forced any surviving family members to try for revenge.  Empires often suffered from succession wars, also.  In these, heirs fought each other for the throne, or one heir preemptively killed all the others (a practice routinized in the Turkish Empire).  These events were kin-structured, not ethnically or religiously or ideologically structured, and so are only somewhat comparable with modern genocides.

More comparable are the conflicts in old China between advocates of conflicting policies.  Sometimes the winning faction would persuade the Emperor to execute the membership of the opposing one, thus presaging modern politicide.

Small-scale massacres of one’s own, for religious and similar reasons, are recorded from early times.  The Bible includes several horrific descriptions of genocide, mostly in wartime but done to already-conquered people (for these and other cases see von Wees 2010).  The one most often cited is particularly notorious because God ordered the Israelites to be so cruel that they could not go through with it.  He ordered Saul to smite the Amalekites, not only all the humans but all the livestock.  The Israelites smote most of the humans, but kept the better livestock, for which God punished Saul (1 Samuel 15:2-28).

Closer to a modern genocide was the episode that made “shibboleth” a watchword today.  The word means “ear of grain,” but its significance here is that it was hard to pronounce for an unfortunate group who did not use the sh sound.  Jephthah, judge of Israel, and his Gileadites were at war with Ammon.  The Ephraimites refused to help, so Jephthah conquered them too, after which “…the Gileadites took the passages of Jordan before the Ephraimites: and it was so, that when those Ephraimites which were escaped said, Let me go over; that the men of Gilead said unto him, Art thou an Ephraimite? If he said, Nay; Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right.  Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand” (Judges 12:5-6; the number of slain is surely exaggerated).

In later times, Roman repression of Christians comes to mind, but was not as constant and serious as Christian traditions often allege (Gibbon 1995; Jonassohn and Björnson 1998:191-195).  In Rome and other early empires, only rarely was genocide in the modern sense practiced, though there were settler genocides and occasional exterminations of enemy populations.

 

Religion, Exclusion, and Genocide

 

Serious mass extermination campaigns of one’s own peaceful citizens may be said to begin with the rise of monotheistic religions, with their notorious intolerance of “heresy.”  Jews were targeted by Christians from the very first, with huge expulsion and extermination campaigns punctuating European history, especially in the west—the region that now, ironically, prides itself on being the birthplace of the Enlightenment.  It is doubly ironic that much of the thinking that led to the Enlightenment was done by Jews such as Spinoza.  Central and East Europe was usually more tolerant, except for pogrom-ridden Russia.  The Islamic world was far more tolerant, serving as the great refuge area for Jews expelled from Europe.  (Islamic intolerance and European tolerance are both relatively recent.)

The wars and suppression campaigns against heretics involved true genocide on modern scales.  The Catharist crusade in France in the 13th century became particularly famous for this, partly because at the siege of Béziers in 1209, the conquering French general, Simon de Montfort, wished to spare as many people as he could, and asked his Cistercian field chaplain Arnaut Amaury how to tell the heretics from the faithful.  Amaury reportedly replied caedete eos, novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius (Totten and Bartrop 2008:11), memorably translated as “kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out” (or in French, tuez les tous, Dieu reconnaîtra les siens).  It is not certain if those were his exact words, but in any case that is what happened, and the city was put to the sword (Anderson and Anderson 2012:91; O’Shea 2002:269; Roux-Perino and Brenon 2006).  Since it had fiercely resisted, this was more an act of war than actual genocide, but what matters here is that Amaury’s instructions were taken far beyond Béziers, and the Cathars were exterminated, even those who were peaceable shepherds and farmers.

After that, not only were other groups wiped out, but the witch craze gathered momentum in the 15th  and 16th centuries, and at least 40,000 to 60,000 innocent people—some estimates run as high as 100,000 to 200,000—were put to death as witches (Totten and Bartrop 2008:54).  Meanwhile, the Spanish Reconquista became more and more bloody, leading to outright genocide after the final fall of the last Muslim stronghold in 1492.  The Spanish crown consolidated power by driving out hundreds of thousands of Muslims and Jews, but then cracked down on survivors, and especially converts suspect of being insincere .  Thousands were killed, often by burning at the stake.  This was true genocide by the narrowest definition.  Techniques of genocide, from systematic insults, cultural destruction, child removal, and forced humiliation to torture, terrorization, and mass murder—were perfected in the Spanish Inquisition.  For one example, Jews and Muslims were forced to convert or die (or leave Spain) and were then forced to eat pork and were called marranos, “swine.”  Betrayal was encouraged and rewarded; goods were seized from suspected backsliders and sometimes given to the betrayers.

The Protestant Reformation and subsequent wars of religion in the 16th and 17th centuries led to hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocent noncombatants.  Also at this time, anti-Jewish pogroms spun out of control in Russia and east Europe.  The historic massacre of some 100,000 Jews under Bogdan Chmielnicki in the 1640s and 1650s (see Totten and Bartrop 2008:70) set the tone and became immortalized in Jewish lore.  (Isaac Bashevis Singer’s novel Satan in Goray, frequently reprinted, gives a dramatic picture of the period).  The Russian state winked at such massacres, if it was not in collusion, and thus set the stage for modern genocides.

The Treaty of Westphalia was signed in 1648, ending the age of religious wars and of dominance by the Pope over much of European politics.  Nation-states took their modern form.  The nation-state then set about insuring loyalty by force.  A final religious war but also a birthing war of the nation-state was the English civil war of 1642-1649, involving genocidal murder of Catholic Irish and of religious dissidents in general.

Other countries had their own religious massacres, including India’s multisided warfare of Vaishnavites, Shaivites, Sikhs, Muslims, Jains (Jonassohn and Björnson 1998:219), and others.  These gave rise to the ironic Indian story of the blind men and the elephant; the blind men are the religions of India, the elephant is God.  The fight between the blind men over their ridiculous misunderstandings of the elephant, and the acute embarrassment of the sighted spectators, was the wise thinker’s comment on religious war.  The Chinese had occasional campaigns against Buddhism and Daoism, but these were more political and economic than religious.  Some at least were shamelessly open ploys to seize the monasteries’ wealth.

 

Ethnic and Political Murder

 

By contrast to religion, extermination of ethnic groups was apparently rare until recently, except in settler genocides or actual wars.  The Mongols killed countless thousands of people, but (in most cases) only actual enemies.  They would often decimate conquered cities to prevent or punish rebellion.  Still, their bloody reputation has been exaggerated.  This was largely because they used a tactic known from ancient Mesopotamia to Inca Peru: they sent agents out to circulate vastly inflated stories of punishments to cities that resisted, scaring many cities into submitting without a fight (Buell 2008; Weatherford 2004).

Politicides were common, but usually structured along kinship lines.  Emperors and kings killed their individual enemies and the families thereof.  Princes killed each other—brother against brother, cousin against cousin—in succession wars, but such episodes are not genocide.  Now and then a paranoid or psychopathic leader of a successful revolution might kill vast numbers of conquered subjects without real cause, and this should count as genocide; in China, Zhu Yuanzhang at the start of Ming in the 1300s was one striking case (Mote 1999:576-578).  This was a true consolidation genocide, a type of genocide very common since 1900.

Tamerlane, the Mongol-Turkic warlord of the 15th century, was more murderous and cruel, obliterating whole populations with little excuse; his campaigns certainly verge on the genocidal by even the strictest defintion.  China’s expansion to the south and into central Asia often involved settler massacres of minority groups in the same way that Europeans overwhelmed and eliminated Indigenous peoples in the New World (see e.g. Perdue 2005 for western China; Wiens 1954 for the south).  Thai clearances of Cambodians from much of what is now east-central Thailand was at best “ethnic cleansing,” at worst genocidal.  There were many other cases of settler genocides; few expansions into previously occupied territory have ever been merciful.  Massacres by governments of their own established minorities are considerably fewer in the record.

Settler genocides accompanied the rise of modern seaborne colonial empires, which had really begun with the Portuguese and Spanish conquests in the 15th and 16th centuries.  England, the Netherlands, and France weighed in.  Seaborne empires exacerbated the age-old problem.  Especially in the New World, settlers cleared the land of Indigenous peoples.  Disease did most of the killing, but far from all of it; massacres were routine and appalling (see Anderson and Anderson 2012:95-100; Cameron et al. 2015; Hemming 1978; Las Casas 1992).  The Spanish, English, Dutch, and later other colonial powers unleashed mass extermination campaigns to clear the land (Kiernan 2007).  The Chinese in central Asia ocasionally did this too (Perdue 2007).

Labor shortage thus developed in newly conquered lands, driving the slave trade.  Colonial wars were at first about control of trade, especially the slave trade, which led to tens of millions of deaths over 300 years.  It was slowly shut down (though incompletely) in the 19th century.  It was not true genocide—the slaves were not from the slaver nations’ citizenry—but it certainly was mass murder of innocent people.  Treatment of enslaved people in the Colonies, and of escaped groups (“Maroons”), did reach genocidal levels on many occasions.  In the 18th century, planters were accused of not bothering to keep enslaved workers alive because it was cheaper to buy new ones (Watts 1990).

The lands and especially the home countries soon filled up, and by the 20th century the problem was excess labor power, not labor shortage.  This excess did not cause, but did allow, genocide.  In earlier centuries, no sane ruler would have killed millions of his own people without good reason; he could not have afforded the loss of workers and soldiers.  In the 20th century, with public health and high birth rates, finding jobs for the rapidly increasing workforce has been the key and chronic problem.  There is no incentive for a ruler to preserve all his subjects.  If he can consolidate his power by whipping up hate of one or another group, nothing stops him from doing it, and eventually acting on the hate.

 

The Rise of Exclusionary Ideologies

 

This, however, does not happen in most countries; it happens under only very specific circumstances.  One of them is the extremist exclusionary ideology mentioned earlier.  Very often, rich elites whip up hatred in order to consolidate their own position.  Often the hatred takes over, and the elites are harmed or even destroyed (along with many others) when the leaders of the hate agenda take over.  This happened most conspicuously in the case of Hitler’s Germany.  Hitler was put in power by the conservative political and economic elite of Germany.  They were ruined along with him.  The most motivated and emotionally driven will often win, in political battles, and in times of extremism that means the leaders of hate.  Hugh Gusterson (2007) pointed out that genocides tend to take on a life of their own, drifting from targeted groups to wider and wider circles of victims.

The long and sorry history of genocide in the 20th century has been told so often that there is no need to recapitulate it here (see especially Jones 2011, Kiernan 2007, and Mann 2005 for comparative analytic histories; also, among specially interesting and distinctive analyses are Charny 1994; Kuper 1983; Levene 2005; Rummel 1998; Semelis 207; Totten et al. 1997; many others).  The first genocide on a vast scale was that carried out by the Turkish government against the Armenians and other religious minorities, especially in 1915 (see Akçam 2012; G. Balakian 2009; P. Balakian 2007; Mann 2005; Hofmann 2015; Kaiser 2010; Smith 2015, introducing a whole journal issue on this genocide; other sources cited in Anderson and Anderson 2012).

Hitler’s Holocaust has been the subject of tens of thousands of books and articles, and the standard of scholarship has been high, from Franz Neumann’s great Behemoth (1944) and The Democratic and Authoritarian State (1957) through William Shirer’s classic The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1960) to Timothy Snyder’s brilliant Black Earth (2015).  Many have pointed out that the initial appeal of Hitler and Mussolini was surprisingly wide—not just the small businesspeople and better-off workers.  Many intellectuals and perhaps most academics were pro-fascist.  Poets from e.e. cummings to T. S. Eliot and William Butler Yeats were early sympathizers; Ezra Pound remained pro-Nazi all his life (on the wide appeal of fascism, see Mann 2004, 2005; Paxton 2004).  So did Martin Heidegger, the Nazi’s pet philosopher (Bourdieu 1991).  His philosophy of individual, will, and somewhat solipsistic perception of the world fit all too well with the thought of Hitler and Carl Schmitt.  D. H. Lawrence’s novel Kangaroo describes his flirtation with a fascist movement in Australia.

Stalin’s purges in the USSR have received less attention, but are still well covered, as are the major later genocides.  He resorted to deliberate starvation—at least three million died in the Ukraine famine of 1932-33 (Mann 2004)—as well as imprisonment in death camps, along with more ordinary methods of extermination.  Mao’s appalling death campaigns in China have received attention (e.g. Dikötter 2010, 2013, 2016).  Cambodia has inspired a particularly extensive and excellent literature (especially the work of Alexander Hinton 2005—an exemplary work—and Ben Kiernan 2004, 2008).  There seems little need to go over the detailed history of these well-documented cases.  These are only the most extreme of the Communist genocides; in fact all Communist regimes have resorted to mass murder in consolidating and maintaining control.  Communism adds itself to fascism as the two truly great exclusionary ideologies.

Since these early and enormous mass murders, genocide has become a routine tool of statecraft in authoritarian nations.  Among major ones are such disparate countries as Guatemala (Stoll 1993) , India (during the break with Pakistan), Indonesia, Nigeria, Rwanda (Dallaire 2003; Prunier 1995, 2007; Straus 2006), Serbia, and Sudan (Prunier 2007).  Dozens of smaller campaigns have occurred (see Appendix).

The effects of genocide on culture are permanent.  Christians still remember the persecution under the Romans.  Our Maya friends talk of the Spanish Conquest and the psychopathic murders by Bishop Diego de Landa as if these had happened last year instead of 500 years ago.  Other Native Americans have similar memories, and of course memories of slave days are fresh and bitter among formerly enslaved populations.  Armenians remain deeply traumatized by the Turkish genocide of 1915 (see Whitehorn n.d. for some particularly evocative evidence).  Jews have certainly not forgotten the Holocaust.  We need every memorial, book, and symbol that we can find, to remind people how terrible genocide is.  Never again is a watchword that has, alas, not worked so far.  We need to take that charge seriously.

 

 

Chapter 5.  LEADING EDGES OF GENOCIDES

Genocide Preconditions

 

As we have seen, modern genocide was predicted by 1) authoritarian government; 2) a major challenging situation to it, almost always either consolidation after it just seized power, or civil or international war in which loss by the government was very likely.  Often there is a “trigger” (Totten and Bartrop 2008:429): a single event that sets off, or provides an excuse for, government crackdown and genocide.  This can be an assassination, a coup attempt, or an external or internal attack.  The great genocides of the Young Turks, Pol Pot, and others emerged in wartime conditions.  Minor civil war or unrest triggered others, as in Guatemala, Sudan, and Peru.  On the other hand, the great genocides of Stalin in the USSR and Mao in China, and many lesser genocides, came out of a fairly clear sky with little triggering.  Mao’s Great Leap Forward and Great Cultural Revolution, in particular, were without real provoking incidents. Hitler’s genocide began by 1938 (Snyder 2015), though it grew much worse after he went to war in 1939.

The oft-mentioned link of genocide and war is based on the wide definition of genocide, which makes it universal in wartime.  By our narrow definitions, genocide occurs in peacetime or only slightly disturbed times as often as it does during war.  Communist regimes usually do it in peacetime, to consolidate control.  The genocides under Milosevic in former Yugoslavia, under the Interahamwe in Rwanda, under the Dergue in Ethiopia, and universally in Latin America in the bloody 1970s and 1980s (Feierstein 2010), all came in peacetime or in times of trivial civil disturbance.

Settler genocides, and conquest genocides if they are similar, are not so dependent on triggers, though they often follow killings by target (victim) populations.  Settler genocides are always expected when a government of settlers (conquerors) is consolidating control, and has reduced the conquered people to subjects but is still afraid of rebellion or outbreak.

Barbara Harff (2012), a student of conflict and civil unrest, developed this model, and it was independently found by Anderson and Anderson (2012) and later Hollie Nyseth Brehm (2017).  Harff and her husband Ted Gurr were leading authorities on conflict and on risk assessment for conflict (Harff and Gurr 2005).  Gurr had identified “risk factors” for conflict in general, including “salience of group identity…group incentives for collective action…group capacity for collective action…domestic opportunities…and international opportunities” (Totten and Bartrop 2008:369).  Summing up, Timothy Snyder noted that “social scientists have shown that ethnic cleansing and genocide tend to follow state collapse, regime changes, and civil war” (Snyder 2015:339).

Harff used Lemkin’s definition.  She followed the United Nations definition, elaborated from (and partly by) Lemkin (but she and we follow Lemkin and not the UN where they differ, basically in Lemkin’s inclusion of political-ideological massacres).  She defines genocide as governmental attempt “to destroy, in whole or in part, a communal, political, or politicized ethnic group” (Harff 2003:58, her italics).  She does not make a point of noncombatant status, but she sympathetically cites others who do; she does not deal with the possibility that religion, gender identity, or modern art could be definers, but they sometimes or often are.  She specifically includes politics, thus including “politicide,” a term she coined (see also Tilly 2003).  Her sample in 2003 was genocides from 1955 to 1997 (Anderson and Anderson’s was 1900 to 2007).

In her predictive model of genocide, Harff (2003, 2012) summarized the direct correlates of genocide succinctly: “almost all genocides of the last half-century occurred during or in the immediate aftermath of internal wars, revolutions, and regime collapse”  (2003:57).  Ben Kiernan, in spite of his far wider definition of genocide, is aware of the same phenomenon:  “By 1910…a new phenomenon emerged: genocides perpetrated by national chauvinist dictatorships that had seized control of tottering, shrinking, or new empires…” (Kiernan 2007:393)—difficult to define but similar to Harff’s findings.

Consolidation of power by a totalitarian regime almost always includes political killing, and often goes into full-scale genocide almost immediately, as in Cambodia, Rwanda, and other modern cases.  Otherwise, wars and political unrest are often precipitating events.  Economic disruptions can be triggers also.  However, many genocides have no obvious triggers.  Timothy Snyder’s recent history, Black Earth (2015), painstakingly records the rise of murder of Jews, Poles and other Slavs, Roma, disabled persons, and other categories; murders began by 1938, and were moving into six-figure totals by the time Hitler was fully engaged in war in 1939.  Similar rapid onset of mass murder is seen in many other cases.  In China’s Cultural Revolution in the 1960s, in spite of a lack of trigger event, mass murder broke out almost immediately once the campaign was under way.

Harff also, and perhaps more importantly, identified the critical role of exclusionary ideologies (Harff  2003, 2012).  Hollie Nyseth Brehm, in a major recent paper (2015), uses this term and finds it inseparable from genocide.  Gregory Stanton (2013) and others write of progressive dehumanization, and others (Anderson and Anderson 2012; Beck 1999; Staub 1989, 2003, 2011) talk more bluntly of  hate ideologies, hatred, and evil.  Helen Fein, another leading theorist and generalist in this field, has referred to more extreme forms of such ideologies as “ideological genocide”; this refers to the extreme case in which “religious traditions of contempt and collective defamation, stereotypes, and derogatory metaphor” treat subjects as “inferior, sub-human (animals, insects, germs, viruses),..Satanic,…” and so on (Fein 1990:27).  Fein has also evaluated revolutionary and antirevolutionary ideologies as frequent contributors to genocide.  Ideological genocide would certainly include Donald Trump’s continual outpourings on the subjects of Muslims and Mexicans, especially if he does indeed begin mass killing, as seems likely.

The key principle of exclusionary ideology is rejection of some groups on the basis of imagined essential badness.  They are differentially judged; they are inferior, unworthy, beneath consideration (see Sen 1982, 1984, 1992).  In a relatively mild form, this is seen when certain populations are displaced to make way for projects that benefit other, “more deserving” populations; the classic case is displacing poor rural people to make way for dams and reservoirs that benefit rich urban people (Scudder 2005).   Far more serious is denial of health care to the poor, and the subsequent “death gap” (Angell 2017).  As such exclusionary ideology becomes more serious and hateful, it leads to killing, and eventually, at worst, to genocide.

The progress is the same: regimes that come to power through exclusionary ideology get trapped by their own rhetoric and forced to deliver.  When they face serious challenge, they respond by launching mass killings of targeted groups.

Ideologies of this type, however, are not confined to genocides or genocidal leaders.  They are widespread, and create much killing outside of actual wars or genocides.  Harff points out that all genocides must have, underlying them, some ideology that not only legitimates mass murder, but makes it seem like a noble cause.  Leaders manipulate existing hatreds, and must make the murders seem necessary and virtuous.  (This will be examined in the following chapter.)

Broadly similar ideas have recently surfaced in genocide scholarship (see e.g. Aijmer and Abbink 2000;  Charny 2016; Jones 2011; Lewy 2012; Mann 2005; Meierhenrich 2014; Stanton 2013; an anonymous posting on Motherboard, 2015, notes that the use of words like “cockroaches,” long known to be associated with genocide, are actually predictive of it).

Harff stresses the role of autocratic governments, and also “political upheaval” (Harff 2003:62; her italics) as the near-invariable immediate cause.  She emphasizes the frequency of prior genocides in a nation’s record.  Anderson and Anderson did not find this, due to working with a larger sample over a longer period of time, which washed out this variable by including almost all the period of modern genocides.  She discusses the existence of “ethnic and religious cleavages” Harff 2003:63) and found no correlation; all nations have diversity but only some have genocide.

“Low economic development” (Harff 2003:64; cf. Harff 2005, 2008) also bought her little variance, and again the Andersons’ wider sample confirms this, indeed to the point of destroying any correlation.  Major genociders included Germany at a time when it was one of the three or four richest countries in the world, and within her time frame there were genocides in middle-income Argentina, Chile, China, Serbia, and elsewhere, as she notes.  More recently, Israel has engaged in genocidal activities in Palestine (Short 2016:68-92), with calls by major government figures for outright extermination of Palestinians (Robinson 2014; Short 2016:75).  Several other affluent nations have hovered on the brink.

There is no correlation between genocide and environmental problems and very little relationship with poverty (Anderson and Anderson 2012; Harff 2012).  Even today, claims that genocide follows geography are not unknown.  Alexis Alvarez has recently analyzed possible genocide due to climate change in the future, when  some 200 to 700 million people may be refugees from climate change.  He notes that conflict over resources is inevitable and conflict typically accompanies genocide: “In point of fact, genocide scholars have long identified tough times as one common factor leading up to the genocidal impulse” (Alvarez 2016:31).  However, the tough times accompanying genocide are civil or international war, not resource conflicts, which—if not exacerbated by pre-existing political tensions—are generally resolved by negotiation and treaties, not war (see e.g. Wolf 2007).  Several other false leads in explaining genocide have been address by Anderson and Anderson (2012:67-78).  Warlike nations are at no special risk; “agrarianism” is totally unrelated; many other “causes” are genociders’ excuses, not actual causes.

An important recent article by Hollie Nyseth Brehm (2017), based on a study of fully 150 nations, finds that “economic upheaval…does not influence the odds of genocide.  Instead, political upheaval that enables a repressive leader to come to power (including coups, assassinations, civil wars, and successful revolutions) and political upheaval that directly threatens those in power (including coup attempts, campaigns against the state, unsuccessful revolutions and civil wars that do not coincide with regime change) have the strongest influence on the onset of genocide.”  Her research also “highlights the role of discrimination and exclusion” (Nyseth Brehm 2017:61), but notably fails to find other risk factors important.  This all fits perfectly with the Harff and Anderson models.

Ecological damage is not closely correlated.  Poverty is closely tied to civil war (Collier 2003; Collier and Sambanis 2005), and thus has some link to genocide, which often results from civil war.  Yet poverty is not predictive of genocide.  Rich nations kill too.

Wealth derived from primary commodities, especially fossil fuels, minerals, and plantation agriculture, is associated with violence, mass killing, and genocide, though it is not predictive.  The reasons have been well analyzed.  Basic is the fact that these primary-production industries involve simple extraction of crude materials from a generally rural context.  This makes them easy to control.  Dictators tend to emerge in such situations, and maintain their power by rent-seeking coupled with brutality (see Anderson and Anderson 2012:79-82; Bunker and Cicantell 2005, an excellent review; Collier 2007, 2010; Collier and Bannon 2003; Juhasz 2008; Ross 2012).  Wealth from such sources is also associated with hate ideologies, ranging from militant Islam to fascism, and thus contributes indirectly to genocide.  Wealth from oil, gems, and other minerals naturally fits well with kleptocratic or frankly psychopathic dictators, contributing to genocides in Chile, China, Congo (D. R.), Indonesia, Iraq, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Sudan, and many other countries.  This has led to references to the “resource curse” and the “oil curse” (Ross 2012).  This said, many genocides took place in countries with diversified and modernized economies.

Daniel Chirot and Clark McCauley (2006) showed in detail that trade, capitalism, and mercantile action are not preventive or even particularly related.  The great bugaboos of modern leftists, “capitalism” and “neoliberalism,” are problematically related.  The greatest genocides—those of Stalin and Mao—took place under communism.  The greatest genocide in terms of percentage of population killed—that in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge—did also.  Hitler’s fascism was a distinctive economic form, “national socialism,” that was capitalist in a very inclusive sense, but not in a strict one.  (The state controlled too much of the means of production to make it fit Marx’ model of capitalism.)  Conversely, many genocides were carried out by militant champions of capitalism and neoliberalism, attempting to exterminate socialists; this was the case in Chile, Guatemala, Indonesia, Peru, and many other countries.  One can only conclude that a hate-driven dictator will use any economic excuse that presents itself.  Thus fixing “capitalism,” whatever it is, will not stop genocide.  Nor is capitalism exonerated from blame for genocide.  It was involved as a key ideological claim in many of them.  But so were fascism, communism, religion, and any other available ideology that could be commandeered for hate.  Exclusion, not specific philosophy, is what matters.

Harff found that recent genocides are more likely in countries that were relatively isolated or independent of the world-system (Harff 2003:65).  Again this does not hold for older genocides.  Even in her sample, it is difficult to defend.  For instance, China’s genocides have recently been in remote western areas (Tibet, Xinjiang), but China was thoroughly open to the world at the time (Harff 2003:69).

Her final result (2003:66) was that autocratic government and prior genocides were both correlated at .9 with genocides that occurred.  Autocracy has also existed in countries without genocide, but only very rarely in the last 100 years; most autocratic governments kill.  Prior genocide is somewhat predictive, but Germany is only the most obvious of a large number of exceptions.  Other political upheaval correlated only .47, but “exclusionary ideologies” and rule by members of a self-conscious ethnic minority both correlated .69.  Openness to trade, a proxy for world-system incorporation, correlated .7.  She admits that the model did not predict genocides in rich, trade-involved countries (e.g. Chile), or even poor but trade-involved ones (Philippines, El Salvador, several others).

In 2012 she reaffirmed her risk factors, and predicted serious troubles in several countries.  First on the list was Myanmar, which in fact has had genocidal attacks on Rohingya Muslims since she wrote.  As she pointed out, it was rather a simple prediction, since the country was a military dictatorship with almost continual war against minorities.  Second was Syria, and we know what has happened there.  Third was China, and indeed the Uighur genocide has come up since she wrote.  Fourth was Sudan, but the breakaway of South Sudan damaged the government so much that it has not had the energy to do much more than harass Darfur and Nuba, though that long-running bloody action continues.  Meanwhile, South Sudan has had genocides of its own.  Less successful predictions were the next few:  Pakistan, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, and Iran, though the first two have had a great deal of violence and repression.  Then comes a partial hit, D. R. Congo; violence was already ongoing there when she wrote, and the rampant ethnic killings there have not been government-sanctioned.  A number of lower-risk countries follow, of which only Central African Republic has had a genocide, and there—for once—the international community moved fast to damp it down (Brown 2013).  The others include very stable countries like Saudi Arabia.

Anderson and Anderson’s and Nyseth Brehm’s models have the advantage of breaking regime consolidation out from response to disruption, and also noting that economic and military disruptions are causative and predictive.  One may also add that the presence of specific militias or guard units for carrying out the exclusionary ideology are a very significant warning sign (see Paxton 2004 on European fascism).

Harff and others have independently come to stress more and more the ideological side.  Governments that live and maintain themselves by mobilizing hatreds are almost always forced sooner or later to exterminate the people they say they hate.

The level and indiscriminateness of hatred is highly predictive of the level of genocide.  The extreme hatred ideology of Hitler was associated with far greater killing than the much less hate-driven fascism of Franco or Mussolini.  Pinochet in Chile was brutal enough, but did not single out whole groups; Efrain Rios Montt in Guatemala killed far more people, in a smaller country, because he targeted whole groups, ranging from aid workers to Mayan Indigenous groups.  Fidel Castro in Cuba displayed less hateful rhetoric than Stalin, and accordingly killed fewer people.  Great genociders are men of their word in one way:  they promise to exterminate their citizens on a vast scale, and they do it.

In one well-studied case, exclusionary rhetoric did not lead to genocide: Mahathir bin Muhamad’s Malaysia in the 1970s (see Mahathir bin Muhamad 1970—a particularly neat and concise statement of extreme exclusionary ideology).  That case may be instructive.  Mahathir was elected Prime Minister on a ticket of hatred and suppression of the Chinese, after several years of ethnic rioting and violence in which Bumiputera (Malays) and Chinese battled (E. N. Anderson, personal research and observation during and after residence in Malaysia in 1970-71).  Under Mahathir, the Chinese gave as little cause as they could for actual repression, tolerated a great deal of impact, and meanwhile they and other Malaysians worked terribly hard to build up the economy and make sure Mahathir and his group were beneficiaries of this.  His position softened in direct proportion to his own and his political group’s economic success.  Thus hate ideologies are real and dangerous, but enough economic success may convince haters to be more quiet.  Critical was Mahathir’s failure to close down democracy.  Malaysia remained relatively democratic through it all, inhibiting any killing that Mahathir might have intended.

It is noteworthy that the neighboring nations of Thailand and Singapore were also free from genocide, in spite of multiethnic populations and fairly authoritarian regimes.  Similarly, in Africa, multinational countries with histories of communal violence, such as Cote d’Ivoire and Mali, avoided genocide by avoiding extreme exclusionary rhetoric and ideology in government (Straus 2015).

A list of steps toward genocide is found in “The Ten Stages of Genocide,” posted by Gregory Stanton (2013) on his Genocide Watch website—a very useful resource.  The ten stages are classification, symbolization, discrimination, dehumanization, organization, polarization, preparation, persecution, extermination and denial.  They are indeed stages to watch for, and Stanton gives quick definitions and suggests countermeasures, including things for governments and the United Nations to do.  Dr. Stanton maintains on his website a list and map of countries that are genocidal or threatening to become so: http://genocidewatch.net/alerts-2/new-alerts/.  The assessments are similar to Barbara Harff’s (whom he cites).  His earlier posting, “Twelve Ways to Deny a Genocide” (2005), neatly summarizes that unpleasant aspect of mass murder.

With Harff and Stanton actively predicting risks and advocating preventive measures, and with other new work summarized below, knowledge about genocide prevention has been revolutionized.  One hopes that this will translate into action, but continued fecklessness of the world community in the face of ISIS and Boku Haram indicate that the lessons are not being learned.

Umberto Eco listed 14 points that, to him, identified a fascist leader; as an Italian, his experience was largely Mussolini.  The fourteen, as recently listed in AlterNet, include:  cult of tradition; rejection of modernism; cult of action for action’s sake; opposition to analytical criticism—disagreement is treason; exacerbating natural fear of difference; appeal to frustrated middle class; obsession with plots; permanent warfare as natural; sexual aggressiveness.  All fourteen seem relevant to Trump (Holloway 2016).

Samuel Totten, veteran student of genocide and especially of mass murder of Indigenous minorities, has added his own more immediate warning signs—signs that genocide is ongoing, not just that it is potential:

–A specific groups is “demeaned, ostracized, marginalized, segregated, excluded, or isolated”;

–“mass deportations and forcible transfer”;

–Government forces “kill unarmed civilians at will” [hardly a warning sign—it is really the genocide itself!];

–“test massacres are carried out”;

–“mass rape and enforced pregnancy are taking place.”  (Totten 2014:24).

Totten takes a long view, stressing hatred and ideology.  He states: “There is no single set of preconditions that always and definitely leads to the perpetration of genocide” (Totten and Bartrop 2008:340).  But he is referring only to the ideological back story, not to a direct set of triggers such as Harff and others identified.  This entry continues with a discussion of “radical racist ideology…cleavages…extreme nationalism…a group targeted…tribal power…struggles for power; and consolidation of despotic power.”  These do form the back story to genocide, but indeed do not predict it.  When they combine, however—when extreme ethnic hate leads to a regime based on hatred and exclusionary ideology taking totalitarian power and consolidating it under challenge—they always lead to genocide.  There are no exceptions in recorded history.

Ambiguity occurs when a regime is only partly hate-based, or has autocratic but not totalitarian power; such regimes may or may not commit genocide, based on contingent factors, especially the level of hate among the leaders at the time.

This is perhaps most clearly shown in the erratic genocides of Native Americans in the 19th century in the United States.  A theoretically “democratic” government—but one in which the Native Americans were not citizens and were governed in an autocratic manner, without real civil rights—committed genocide when the President (Andrew Jackson, for one) or the state governors or the generals (notably under Grant’s presidency) had extreme racial views.  Mexico had a similarly mixed record, but the worst genocides were under Porfirio Diaz’ dictatorship.

 

Genocide Typologies and Questions

Helen Fein has created some typologies of genocide (Fein 1990, 2007).  She recognized “developmental,” i.e. settler genocide; “despotic,” basically political; “ideological”; and “retributive,” going after perceived enemies.  Most modern genocides could well be fitted under all the last four heads.

Some other typologies of genocide are listed in Samuel Totten and Paul Bartrop’s Dictionary of Genocide (2008:433-434).  They report that Leo Kuper noted ethnic, terrorizing, and ideological genocides, with decolonialization and secession or independence as frequent factors.  Roger Smith recognized ideological, monopolistic, institutional, and utilitarian (settler) genocides.  Vahakn Dadrian noted cultural, retributive and, again, utilitarian, as well as what he sardonically called “optimal,” i.e. total extermination.  Again, it is hard to imagine classifying the great genocides (Germany, Turkey, Cambodia, and so on) under only one or even two or three heads.  A concept of “utopian genocide” has been added (Totten and Bartrop 2008:452), for the perverse grand visions of men like Hitler and Pol Pot.  Most genocides have a utopian component, if only the notorious desire to “purify” that runs through almost all of them.

Kristin Doughty (2015) identified several needs for future work.  These include “the political and moral economy in which violence and humanitarianism occur,” and looking more at “recent anthropological work on violence, the state, collective belonging, and human rights” (Doughty 2015:175).  She notes that when genocide is defined as state murder of its own citizens, there may also be genocidal pursuit of people across national boundaries.  (This is also noted by Martin Shaw, 2013).  This occurred most notably in Hitler’s massacre of the Jews and others; he murdered all he found in any country under his control.  It is seen more recently in the hot pursuit by Tutsi and Hutu of each other into the D.R. Congo.  She asks “how the act of labeling violence is political and…mobilized within specific historical trajectories of global configurations of power” (Doughty 2015:175).  Ben Kiernan, Taner Aksam, and others have dealt with this issue at length.

Much more serious is her other question: “What are the warning signs that the human tendency toward group hate is being exploited by powerful people for violent ends?”  (Doughty 2015:175).  The appalling failure of the world at large to spot this in Hitler’s early speeches, the Koch brothers’ manipulation of the Tea Party (Mayer 2016), the Saudi Arabian manipulation of extremist Islam over many decades, the oil industry’s machinations in Nigeria, Sudan, and several other countries (Juhasz 2008; Ross 2012), and many other individuals’ and governments’ exploitation of hate shows this is indeed a particularly pressing problem.  It remains the most troubling question for the future.

Civil war is quite different from genocide, epidemiologically and otherwise.  Economics is clearly associated with civil war (Collier and Sambanis 2005).  In contrast, genocide is countereconomic; eliminating a large percentage of one’s workers and taxpayers cannot really be beneficial.  Civil war usually occurs when a region feels oppressed and wishes to break away, or when a huge rebellion seriously threatens a regime (Collier and Sambanis 2005); genocide occurs when the regime preempts such situations by exterminating the groups that might so act.  A link with newly independent nations that arise from the collapse of empires has been traced for civil war (Wimmer and Min 2006), and holds for genocide also; the two tend to merge into each other in such situations.

 

The Progress of Genocides

 

In modern genocides, the progress is typical:  A leader seizes total power, abolishing or suspending the constitution or equivalent, and almost immediately begins killing those who opposed him.  (All genocidal leaders in our sample are male.)  Consolidation genocides are well recognized in scholarship, and are essentially universal in totalitarian societies.  They have a long history; political killing of potential opponents was normal when new dynasties took over in the Roman Empire, imperial China, the Ottoman Empire, and other early societies.

If the leader was democratically elected—as Hitler and Mussolini were, and later many other genociders—he always starts by demonizing the free media and the political opposition, and cracks down increasingly on them.  He also demonizes minority groups that are vulnerable and unpopular.  He then begins arresting leaders in the media and in the minority groups.  By this time, his policies—generally ill-conceived—have hurt the economy or at least failed to grow it, and he escalates blame of his political foes.  Hitler’s increasingly strident demonization of the Jews, whom he blamed for everything from communism to diseases, is only the best-known case of a universal practice.  Stalin blamed the rich peasants (among others), Mao blamed the landlords and intellectuals, the Interahamwe in Rwanda blamed the Tutsi, Slobodan Milośevič in Serbia blamed the Muslims, and so it went, throughout history.

Once in power, a totalitarian leader will almost invariably launch a genocide when threatened seriously by civil war, rebellion, or international war.  Sometimes, mere economic and social problems are enough.  Then the level of killing is dependent on several factors, but the most important one seems to be the level of indiscriminate hatreds the leader invoked in his campaigns.  Leaders like Trump, who attack any and every available group, are rare in the historical record.  Particularly dangerous is a situation in which the leader is backed into a corner by inability to deliver on promises of economic progress or military might.  At this point he increases his rhetoric against the “others,” seizes dictatorial power, and begins killing opponents.  If challenged by violent conflict, he escalates the killing into large-scale mass murder.

The key moment is the time when an autocratic rulers sees his best chance of getting or consolidating rule as coming through whipping up fear and hate.

Once in office, the persons who deployed the campaign consolidate power by promising security and prosperity if repression of the hated groups is increased.  Often the regime consolidates power at this point by massive political killings.  Finally, a crisis—economic or military or both—makes it impossible to deliver on that promise.  Very often, this is a civil war, since the temptation to exterminate the “other” side is great; civil wars and local guerrilla outbreaks have been the breeding grounds of many modern genocides (Anderson and Anderson 2012; Totten and Bartrop 2008:73).

The regime seizes total power and begins genocide as the only way they see clear to maintain power and deliver on their promises.  It makes little or no difference whether the regime was democratically elected (like Hitler in Germany and Efrain Rios Montt in Guatemala) or seized power in a coup (like Pinochet in Chile) or won a war or revolution (like Franco in Spain and Mao in China).  A serious hate-based ideology, combined with autocratic power, always leads to genocide.

 

A final note on cause is another epidemiological one: how genocide spreads.  Rudolph Rummel (1998) documented in great detail how it spread with Leninist-Stalinist Communism, occurring in essentially all countries that adopted that particular form of Marxism. (Marx himself did not, of course, advise any such thing, however much he may have counseled the elimination of ruling-class elements.)  Rummel also documented the spread of genocide under fascism, especially, of course, Hitler’s particular form of fascist doctrine.

A point somewhat missed by Rummel was the degree to which the United States spread genocide, via its CIA operations in Latin America, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia.  How much this was foreseen—let alone deliberately planned—is controversial.  However, genocide followed CIA-backed takeovers in Chile, El Salvador, and Guatemala.  Mass killing of dissident followed coups by covertly CIA-supported military men in Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay, and several other countries (Feierstein 2010).  Worst of all was the true genocide committed under Argentina’s military dictatorship  from 1976 to 1983, which eliminated at least 30,000 people and probably more.  It was, however, less directly related to United States initiatives.

Often, the genociders had been trained at the School of the Americas operated by the U.S. Department of Defense.  It began in Panama in 1946, but was ejected from there as a destabilizing force, and relocated in Fort Benning, Georgia.  It was renamed as “Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation” in 2000, and its mandate reduced, but it continues.  This school trained Rios Montt of Guatemala and Roberto D’Aubuisson of El Salvador, as well as participants in the genocides in Haiti and Argentina (AlJazeera 2012; Feierstein 2010). It taught a range of techniques and established a values system based on exterminating perceived enemies of military regimes.

The Guatemalan and Argentine armies it trained and allied with had long-standing relationships with Hitlerian fascism; the Guatemalan army had been trained in the 1930s and 1940s by pro-Hitler Germans, and Mein Kampf was required reading for Argentine military officers in the years before the genocide of the 1970s there (see e.g. Lewis 2001; Timerman 2002).  In some countries, including Paraguay, actual ex-Nazis who had served under Hitler were recruited to organize mass murder (Feierstein 2010).  Thus, many of the 20th century genocides can be traced to three origin points and to a very few men.

 

 

 

Chapter 6.  EXCLUSIONARY CULTURE

 

Back Story: The Rise of Exclusionary Ideology

 

“Genocide has two phases, one, the destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor” (Lemkin 1944:xi, quoted by Shaw 2013:55).

This quote reminds us that genocide is definitely about culture; it is about the elimination of a lifeway as well as a people.  The most extreme form of exclusionary ideology, when open extermination of the group is advocated, has been called “eliminationism” in Daniel Goldhagen’s intense history of genocide (2009).  Jacques Sémelin has written a very sensitive history of extreme ideology, using Foucault among other sources, under the significant title Purify and Destroy (2007).

Exclusionary ideologies are those that teach that society is a bundle of contending groups, in conflict or competition with each other, such that one group benefits only by keeping another down or forcing it down.  Society becomes a zero-sum or negative-sum game.  This is not a rational matter: it is inevitably highly emotional.  It mobilizes people’s deepest fears and hates.

The common exclusionary ideologies are extremist religion, fascism (Neumann 1944, 1957), racism (Sussman 2014), and the more extreme and radical forms of communism.  These ideologies are defined simply: they all advocate indiscriminate violence to eliminate or terrify by mass killing some particular large group of people, defined such that men, women, children, old people, the sick, and noncombatants in general are all equally targeted.  The roots of all these in religious killings have been explored (Rubinstein 2004).

Exclusionary ideological movements are generally splinter movements within splinter movements.  Radical terrorist Islam, for instance, is an extreme offshoot of Wahhabism and Salafism, themselves extreme offshoots of Hanbali Sunni, which is itself the most rigid and narrowly legalistic of the Muslim law interpretation schools.  The terrorist form is almost universally condemned by Muslims and Muslim scholars and religious figures (see e.g. Schewitz 2015); even the arch-advocate of Salafism, Sayyid Qutb, repeatedly condemned murder of noncombatant women, children, and old people (Sayyid Qutb 2007, passim).

The extremist Christianity that leads to murdering abortion clinic workers, gays, and Muslims is similarly far from the teachings of Jesus.  Stalinist-Maoist communism is extreme by communist standards.  Fascism, by definition, is a murderous hate ideology, but there has been considerable variation in how bloody the fascist regimes have been.  Hitler was far more murderous than Franco, for instance.  Much more general ideologies, like “socialism,” “religion” (in general), and “capitalism,” are even less relevant.  Blaming such grand generalities for the murderous behavior of ISIS or the anti-abortion bombers and murderers is no more accurate than blaming democracy, or, for that matter, blaming bread (the staple food of the relevant groups).

Hollie Nyseth Brehm (2015) studied the history of 159 nations from 1955 to 2009 to find correlates of the rise of exclusionary ideologies—ethnic privileging (as in South Africa under apartheid), Stalin-Maoism, radical Islam, and similar movements.  She scored 1537 country-years as having been spent under such rules.  “Irregular regime change”—coups and revolutions—was particularly dangerous.  Exclusionary ideologues rise to the top in violently unsettled times, following the common principle that in a ratfight the most vicious rat wins.  Alternatively, a civil war often precipitates not only genocide but the rise of exclusionary ideologies on all sides.

Decolonialization was also dangerous, specifically in countries where the colonial powers had resorted to divide-and-rule strategies, favoring some groups over others to maintain control.  The longer a country was a colony, the worse the odds.  This, of course, works for the United States in its much earlier case, as well as for post-1955 cases like Indonesia.

Oddly, and paralleling Mann’s (2005) findings on earlier regimes, democratization was dangerous; the transition from authority to democracy was often aborted by an exclusionary group taking over, or an autocratic-leaning “democratic” regime showing its true colors.  Even so, democracy is usually protective, and even exclusionary ideologues may be softened and neutralized by democracy, as in Malaysia.  Large drops in income can be dangerous.

In general, these countries took off-the-shelf ideologies: Stalin-Mao communism, Hitlerian fascism, extreme Wahhabi or similar Islam, or military dictatorship (albeit sometimes “democratic” on paper) based on ethnicity or political crackdown.  Working out new ideologies seems rare.  On the other hand, working out particularly violent and ruthless variants of the traditional ones is seen in Khmer Rouge Cambodia, Rwanda under the Interahamwe, and a few other cases.  Iran’s murderous regime is based on Shi’a Islam, rather than the Hanbali Sunni of Wahhabism, and represents an extreme form of Shi’a militance. Venezuela’s current unique brand of “socialism” is now moving toward genocide, as is Duterte’s Philippines, and these might represent relatively original forms of exclusionary thought.

            The clear theme in all this is direct threat to a shaky but autocratic regime.

An important point made by surprisingly few students of such movements is that they cannot promise only hate (or exclusion) and gratification of hate.  They cannot succeed if they simply call for indiscriminate mass murder.  They need some professed high ideals.  Most often, these are the most exalted ideals of all: those of world religions.  Secular ideologies, however, must have equivalents.  Fascism and racism promise purity, prosperity, and safety from hordes of criminal and inferior minorities. Communism professed ideals of equality, progress, social justice, and welfare that it did indeed deliver in some of its milder manifestations, but failed to deliver when it drifted into genocidal extremism, as in Stalin’s USSR and Mao’s China.  Genocidal movements in Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda and elsewhere promised prosperity, peace, homogenous societies, and similar benefits if the enemy ethnic groups were eliminated (Shaw 2012).  These were essentially the same promises Trump made in connection with deporting Mexican immigrants and preventing Muslim immigration.  He would “make America great again” by crushing Latinos, Chinese, Muslims, immigrants, refugees, gays, liberals, and on through a long list.

This provides the key step in developing exclusionary ideology: it makes it moral to hate.  Normal people in normal life have plenty of angers, frustrations, and even hatreds, but they know that acting on those always brings trouble and rarely brings benefit.  They know that “a house divided against itself cannot stand”—turning a nation into a mutual-destruction game hurts everyone.  If, however, they are convinced by their leaders that hatred of certain groups is a moral duty, they will usually accommodate.  Many otherwise decent human beings in the United States hate homosexuals simply because preachers tell them to and they believe it to be a genuine religious duty.  British and French felt it necessary to hate, or at least scorn, each other for hundreds of years, because of national rivalry and “patriotism.”  Studies of terrorism routinely show that terrorists are usually fairly ordinary people swept up in a moral but violent cause (Atran 2003, 2010; Horgan and Kazak 2017, passim).  They may be more often disturbed psychologically than the general population, but the difference is not striking (Gill and Corner 2007).

Morality not only justifies the hate; it makes it worse.  It lays guilt on individuals, making them feel they should be ever more hateful.  It makes them hate opponent groups for being “immoral” as well as different or competitive.  It makes people feel good about themselves when they do the moral act of taking down an opponent-group member.

This provides a simple, direct place to attack potential genocide:  Exclusionary ideology.  If it is shot down, ordinary social controls—cultural conventions for normal civility—will take care of ordinary hatreds.

As pointed out by Ben Kiernan in Blood and Soil (2007), similar ideologies animated settlers taking over land from Indigenous peoples; they would have peace and prosperity if they could take over the land, eliminating its rightful owners in the process.  Concepts like “Manifest Destiny” were created to justify this.  However warped and twisted all these benefits may seem in retrospect, they provided excuses for eliminating or decimating vast numbers of ethnic groups worldwide.

Thus, a hate ideology must have more than hate going for it.  Even Hitler managed to promise progress, purity, virtue, superiority, and other goods, promises still associated with fascist leanings in some parts of German society (Voigtländer and Voth 2015).

Rios Montt’s fascist rule in Guatemala may have failed to eliminate the targeted groups partly because of his failure to tell a convincing story.  In spite of his deployment of evangelical Christianity, he provided thin promises.  Christians in Guatemala were not convinced that mass murder of innocent people is a Christian act; the evangelical churches there are not (on average at least) as right-wing as United States ones.  Partly because of this, Rios Montt and other rulers of the country could not mount as effective a genocide as they apparently wanted (Shepherd 2016).  He has been judged guilty of genocide (Fausset 2014; Sanford 2013) but the judgment was annulled, and many Guatemalans still yearn for a mano dura (“firm hand”) rule (Torres 2016).

By contrast, ISIS sells itself by offering the revival of the Caliphate and the glories of Islam.  Its publicists can sound downright utopian.  Scott Atran and other investigators have found that it is these utopian calls, not the murder and bloodshed, that attract young Muslims, especially those facing prejudice and discrimination in Europe and America (Atran 2015a, 2015b).

On the other hand, direct, unsubtle hate appears to be necessary to make people torture and kill.  Subtlety does not work well in hate ideologies when they play out on the ground.  Kteily, Bruneau et al. (2015) found that hate ideologies tend to compare people either to disgusting animals (rats, cockroaches) or to unfeeling machines (robots).  These can be ideologically represented, and always seem to be in hate ideologies, especially the animal comparisons.  The authors noted a tendency for richer groups to be “robots,” poorer minorities to be compared to animals, but there was substantial overlap, especially in the animal insults.  Following up on this, Kteily, Hodson and Bruneau (2016) found that these stereotypes get mutually applied: stigmatized groups return the favor by dehumanizing their oppressors, and a vicious cycle emerges in which groups demonize each other more and more.  This has occurred over the years in the Israeli-Palestine conflict.  It now appears in the widespread mutual dehumanization of each other by Muslims and right-wing Europeans and Americans.   It leads to escalation of terrorist bombing by extremist Muslim groups, and that in turn leads to indiscriminate air strikes by European powers and the United States in Iraq and Syria.

Dehumanization, however, is only one part of a continuum that extends from simple dislike and devaluing to contempt, callousness, deliberate irresponsibility, bigotry, and ultimately real hatred.  The common theme is rejecting people as people.  Structural violence (Galtung 1969) can be as bloody and total as genocide.  Corporations that simply take no notice of pollution-caused deaths, dam-builders that do not plan to resettle displaced persons, and oil companies that allow local militias to “protect” company operations by indiscriminate violence are on a very slippery slope toward genocide (Anderson 2010; Ross 2012).  It is possible that this type of murder-by-neglect has actually killed as many people as genocide in the last 100 years, since famines are now essentially all due to government action, not to natural disasters (Sen 1982).  The Bengal famine of 1942-43, the Chinese famine of the Great Leap Forward, the Ethiopian famine of the 1970s, and other such government-created events each killed tens of millions.

Hatred ideologies win over countries through military coups, elections (Hitler was democratically elected—by a bare plurality; see also Nyseth Brehm 2017), or outright revolutions.  Sometimes an already authoritarian state turning suddenly more extreme, almost always when challenged by stresses, but sometimes simply through normal succession practices that happen to bring a brutal ruler to power, as has happened today in Xi Jinping’s China.

 

Funding Exclusion

 

Someone has to fund extremist ideology.  Hitler had his giant corporations: Krupp, Volkswagen, I. G. Farben and others.  Farben, Krupp, and Bayer (of aspirin fame) used Nazi prisoners as slave labor (Totten and Bartrop 2008:396-397).  Elie Wiesel, among others, was incarcerated in the Monowitz concentration camp and forced to work for Farben (Totten and Bartrop 2008:143, 289).  Mussolini had corporate backing. ISIS lives by selling oil on black or gray markets, with added income from looting anquities and from selling Yazidis and Christians into slavery.  Fascism and similar military dictatorship in many African countries, from Sudan to Nigeria (in the 1970s) to Equatorial Guinea, has been funded and supported by the giant multinational oil corporations.  The right-wing genociders in Guatemala were beholden to United Fruit.

Of course, big firms do not explain communist genocides, or such ethnic outbreaks as the genocides in Rwanda and Burundi.  Nor—contra a widespread belief—was Hitler actually put in power partly by the giant firms (Mann 2004, Paxton 2004).  Mussolini, similarly, got the giant firms on his side only after seizing power and shifting well to the right in his politics (Mann 2004).  Both leaders were economically and ideologically eclectic, glorying in individualism and arbitrary responses.

On the other hand, Hitler and Mussolini quickly formed close links with giant firms.  Hitler developed a whole fascist economics, based on government collaboration with cartels, which Neumann (1944:261) described as “totalitarian monopoly capitalism.”  The extremely authoritarian structure of giant conglomerate corporations was eminently friendly to fascism (Neumann 1944:284-288).  The government interfered in the economy, but not with the thoroughness and care that the United States government does via subsidies and tax breaks.  Government promises of free market were highly qualified by government linkage with, or even creation of, giant oil firms and the like.

Neumann translates an editorial from a 1941 source on the oil economy (Neumann 1944:356-358) which is chillingly close to current oil policies in the United States, especially when one remenbers that the father of the oil millionaires Charles and David Koch was a contractor for Hitler at the time.  Neumann’s summary is:  “Four distinct groups are thus represented in the German ruling class: big industry, the party, the bureaucracy, and the armed forces” (Neumann 1944:361).  These were theoretically fused, but the situation was evolving rapidly when war struck.  Fascism created monopoly capitalism, in which law was almost irrelevant, partly because of the concentration of power, partly because the regime simply acted arbitrarily.  “The…legal system is nothing but a technique of mass manipulation by terror” (Neumann 1944:458).  The US Supreme Court under Trump appears to be moving in that direction.

Neumann’s description of this economy remains necessary to an understanding of fascism.  It is ominous for the United States, since the fusion of giant oil and banking firms with government, and the primacy of the military within government, under Donald Trump have re-created Hitler’s economy.  The Nazi background of the Koch brothers make it highly unlikely that this resemblance is merely fortuitous.

Also, the US subsidy and tax structure has been carefully engineered by the giant oil, coal, chemical, and agribusiness firms (among others) to benefit them at the expense of their competition.  This is a major factor in American politics, since these firms donate heavily to politicians who support them and keep the subsidies high, while working against politicians who in any way inhibit oil, coal, agribusiness, and other older industries.  These firms are primary producers of bulk commodities, often those rendered obsolete by modern research and development.  They are what we may call the paleoeconomy, as opposed to a neoeconomy of sustainable farming, renewable energy, hi-tech, high efficiency, and the like.

The psychological effects of increasing domination by giant firms are profound.  They not only dominate economic life; they control most congresspersons, they control much of Trump’s white house, and they control the media and thus popular culture.  The steady and rapid deterioration of popular culture. from Mozart to gangsta rap over the last couple of centuries, is hard to miss, and of clear origin.  Psychologically, people are weakened and infantilized by the sheer lack of control and the aridity of popular cultural forms.

In the last analysis, exclusionary ideologies, not giant firms, make genocide, but giant firms are all too often happy to have their critics and challengers exterminated, so firms can almost always be found to back genocide.

The costs of genocide are enormous.  Wars—mostly genocidal—cost Africa an estimated $284 billion from 1990 to 2006 (Bengali 2007).  One can only imagine the costs of greater genocides.  One aspect of this is that educated people are often singled out for elimination, as in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge and Guatemala under Rios Montt.

The linkage of giant firms and hate ideologies must be broken.  We need laws to prevent corporations from deliberately stirring up hate.  We need to be vigilant and always call them on it, never allowing it to hide in the shadows.  Hate plus greed cause genocide—always, if they are both strong. Greed can serve good causes; we need to convince the corporate elites that they can only lose, in the end, from fascism.

In particular, the paleoeconomy—the dying, unsustainable economy of fossil fuels, industrial farming, big mining, and deforestation, with cooperation from certain financial firms—has been the major source of funding and political effort for the extreme right.  This economy must be cut adrift to die, rather than subsidized and supported.  Above all, its influence in politics must be countered by all legal means.  It is the real root source of our trouble.

We have to strengthen and enforce antitrust laws.  Tax and financial laws must be changed to end subsidies to giant corporations, to tax them at full and fair rates without special breaks or favors, and to ban them utterly and completely from offshoring capital in tax havens or designating headquarters outside the United States.  Doing those things must be criminalized, with the CEOs and CFOs jailed for such behavior.  Also, pollution laws must be strengthened and enforced, with—again—CEOs bearing full responsibility for endangering public health by massive release of dangerous pollutants.  As long as giant firms are rewarded for antisocial and dangerous behavior, they will fund fascism.  The economic order of fascism must be broken.  Evil firms always reinvent it otherwise.  Simply dealing with hatred is not enough.

Everybody except the right-wing rich seems to agree that their tax breaks and special favors are a bad thing.  Extreme inequality is bad enough in itself, but it also gives very disproportionate political power to the rich, especially in this post-Citizens-United world.  Indeed, overturning the Citizens United ruling and getting sane regulations on campaign spending should be another immediate priority.

            “Neoliberalism,” in the United States, is a misleading term.  It originally referred to the extreme laissez-faire economic teachings of Ludwig von Mises, Franz Hayek, and Milton Friedman, especially as applied by autocratic politicians in the 1980s.  Those three economists already flirted with fascism.  True neoliberalism persists as basic policy in the UK, where it regularly denounced by The Guardian.  It flourishes in some other countries.

It is part of Trump’s economic agenda.  However, it has been largely replaced in the United States by fully fascist economics: government cooperation to the point of fusion with giant right-wing firms, and repression or discriminatory policies against other businesses.  The Trump administration is basically ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs, Koch Industries, and the Mercer combine writ large, along with Trump’s own business empire and a few collaborators.  These firms have become part of government.  Koch Industries dominates politics in several states, including Wisconsin and Kansas.  All these firms are de facto parastatals.  They run the government for their benefit, via subsidies, tax breaks, giveaways, and special policies.  Innovative technologies are targeted for demolition, and small business is cut adrift.  This is the extreme antithesis of laissez-faire.  Even communist economies (except perhaps North Korea’s) are less driven by government interference and autocratic meddling.  China, for instance, has giant state firms very comparable to our government-favored firms, and a good deal of government meddling in other firms, but apparently not the extreme distortion of the economy that we see here.  At least, their private sector continues to flourish.

David Harvey has recognized the general phenomenon, and redefined neoliberalism in his recent works (see Harvey 2007), to include government collusion.  However, this and other redefinitions have left the word so general that it lacks meaning.   Attacking neoliberalism deflects attention from the real problems.

The ideal mix of government and free enterprise has not yet been found (nor is it likely to be), but a very good mix has been achieved by Scandinavian countries, as shown by their stunning economic and social success.  Compared to the United States, they have single-payer government-managed health care, more investment in public education, higher taxes on corporations, and other trappings of “socialism,” but the real difference from the US seems to be that their free-enterprise sector actually is free enterprise, rather than a creation of intense government meddling to favor a few giant firms at the expense of everyone else.

 

 

 

Chapter 7.  PSYCHOLOGY AND GENOCIDE

 

Human Unreason

 

The challenge to social science in these models is clear.  Social science has overwhelmingly assumed that people were rational, and acted in their rational self-interest.  Such is clearly not the case; humans are often creatures of irrational hate (on emotion, including fear and hate in politics, see Marcus 2002; Westen 2007).  Many are psychopaths, out of the reach of normal economic or social restraints.

The Harff, Totten, and other models have extremely high success in predicting and explaining behavior based on two assumptions–implicit in Harff and Gurr, explicit in the Anderson model.  First humans are primarily social.  Second, they are primarily creatures of emotion, not reason; in the words of David Hume, “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them”  (A Treatise of Human Nature, p. 462).  Third, since ignoring a threat can be deadly, the emotion of fear tends to get priority.

Fear, if not dealt with by rational means, often leads to hate.  When it does, and fear and hatred combine, there is no amount of self-interest that people will not abandon to kill their rivals, and even their friends and neighbors.  The entire history of war and suicidal terrorism proves that people will happily sacrifice their lives if they can take a few enemies with them.

Fear comes most often and most seriously from social threat—from attacks by valued members of one’s social world.  Fear also comes from threats to life and livelihood, to future benefits, and to well-being.  Many people fear more for their loved ones than for themselves; extremist leaders often find that followers who refuse to kill for their own benefit will do anything in defense of family, home, and community.

Social science will have to start over from the ground up.  Rational material self-interest has very little explanatory power—certainly nothing like the explanatory power granted to it in most social science models.  Fear and hate are far more prevalent.  Love and solidarity also occur, to say nothing of unreasonable levels of greed, power-madness, and desperate need for control.  Rational self-interest certainly does occur, but usually in the service of one of these emotions.  People are wholly rational about their war planning, suicide bombing, and genociding.  As Captain Ahab put it, “all my means are sane, my motive and my object mad” (Melville 2001:202).

One other area of exploration is the connection of genocidal ideology with individual crises.  Loss of personal control—self-efficacy in a broad sense—is evidently associated in many cases with individuals taking up extreme and hateful belief systems (Baumeister 1997; Beck 1999; cf. Bandura 1982, 1986 on self-efficacy in general).  On the other hand, too much can be made of this.  Scott Atran’s work shows that many reasonably well-adjusted young people can be captured by radical suicide-bomber ideologies, especially if they have lost family members or otherwise been traumatized.  It would appear, however, that such traumatization manifests the sort of uncontrolled situation that might lead to individuals falling into a psychological space of the sort that precipitates hate and violence.

Fascism and genocide in the 20th and 21st centuries tracked conflict between highly traditional societies (including their authority structures) and new ones: democratic, postcolonial, technocratic, and other new and rising social fractions.  Traditional social fractions facing rapid change and erosion were the sponsors:  old white males in today’s US; comparable groups in 1930s Europe; farmers and aristocrats in 1930s Japan; ethnic groups losing from decolonialization in 1970s-2000s Africa; fast-changing traditional fractions in today’s India and Turkey; etc.  The traditional fractions are both losing their former stability and cohesiveness, and losing out economically and politically to newer fractions.  National cycles, immediate crises, and other possible alternative structural causes do not predict fascist movements or genocidal ideation.

 

Basic Psychology of Mass Killing

 

This allows us to examine the back story in human psychology.  Israel Charny, a veteran psychologist of genocide, lists the foundations as projection and scapegoating, need for power and addiction to it, dehumanizing others, doing what is expected or what everyone does, “going with the flow,” being a bystander, conforming for acceptance or adulation, enjoying a controlling role, “total commitment to a divine call of ideology,” sacrificing others, denial, and self-delusion (Charny 2016:32-33).  He is particularly thorough and analytic in dissecting the role of going along with others—conforming, getting caught up in a collective agenda, and being passive in the face of horror (Charny 2016:71-103).

These are too often minimized or unconsidered in analyses of genocide.  Genocidal policies are usually invoked by a single leader or a small extreme movement; they use extreme exclusionary ideologies to whip up mob hate; but then the enormous force of social conformity, going along with it all, passivity, and fear of being different take over.

Timothy Snyder documents this at length in Black Earth (2015).  The vast majority not only of Germans but of Poles, Hungarians, Russians, Lithuanians, and every other nationality went along with exterminating Jews and also killing their own co-ethnics over trivial political matters.  The Nazis ordered it; the people did it.  The few exceptions, Snyder notes, were typically nonconformists (Snyder 2015:250-297).  Similar findings are virtually universal in genocide research.  The Hutu in Rwanda described being caught up in national hysteria.  Otherwise mild, tolerant Cambodians and Indonesians reported the same thing after genocides.  Indeed, it seems likely that the ordinary perpetrators of genocide are usually brought into it by conformity and obedience to authority, and then by communal hysteria or breakdown, rather than by sheer hatred (Anderson and Anderson 2012; Charny 2016; Shaw 2013; many other sources).

The famous experiments of Philip Zimbardo, which had to be terminated after only a few days, involved students playing prison guard and others playing prisoner.  Even in a tightly supervised role-playing situation, violence and cruelty got out of hand within days (Zimbardo 2008).  Zimbardo, a normally decent person, was horrified, and has spent years trying to deal personally and professionally with what he found.

Charny reports the same thing on a mass scale: prison guards who were perfectly decent people and still are when not in their role, doctors who do what they are told even when it involves torture, soldiers who are at first literally nauseated by their killing and later find it “just a job.”  All accounts of genocide agree that these are the typical genociders; they do what their leaders tell them, even when the leaders are clearly demented.

This is especially true if there are real dangers in nonconformity.  Being denounced and given over to the torturers and death camps is a feature of all the more extreme genocidal societies.  Speaking out requires more and more courage as the process accelerates.  Today, many commentators after Trump’s election warned of the danger of “normalizing” him.

We have already noted that all well-reported genocides were presaged and accompanied by a great deal of name-calling.  The victims are “cockroaches” (this seems the favorite worldwide), “germs,” “cancers,” “insects,” “savages,” and so on for pages of documentation (Charny 2016:64; Totten and Bartrop 2008:103-104).  Ethnic slur terms are routinely used.  Victim groups are accused of being liars, cheats, criminals, thugs, rapists, and so on.  Trump in his campaign used a whole dictionary-worth of such terms to describe Mexicans and Muslims.  Conversely, genociders refer to their own activities with euphemisms (Totten and Bartrop 2008:137-138).

Another important point Charny makes is the degree to which people get sucked into these extreme movements by emotional appeals, charismatic leaders, media hype, and general social pressure (Charny 2016:112-124).  Many of these movements are specifically religious, incliuding, of course, the original genocides—persecution of heretics and dissidents in ancient and medieval times.  Today, extremist Muslim terrorism, Buddhist persecution of Hindus in Sri Lanka (Short 2016) and Muslims in Myanmar, Jewish calls for genocide of Palestinians, and Trump’s evangelical “Christian” support indicate that religion is far from dead as a factor.

However, they are put in the shade by the religion-like ideologies of fascism and Leninist Communism.  As Charny says:  “many scholars regard Nazism as a secular religion with ‘religious’ pinciples that included blood, race, land, and nation.  At least three Communist regimes (Soviet, Chinese, and Cambodian) adopted similarly quasi-religious forms.  Interestingly, although all three of these regimes were Communist, they did not necessarily emulate one another.  Rather, each underwent individual processes that developed ideologies that were like religions in their totality and absolutism” (Charny 2016:116).

The resemblances to religion are the total commitment required, the degree to which these are total social forms and ideologies with their own moral codes, and the degree to which they whip up emotions to get the public involved in the ideology.

Just as people get swept up into killing, they get more and more swept up into extremist ideologies.  Trump’s movement grew like a snowball.  He eventually convinced virtually all Republicans, as well as many Democrats and independents, to vote for him—in spite of early doubts.  Accounts of full genocides, such as in Rwanda and China, regularly involve long quotes from people who were initially cold to the movement but got increasingly caught up in it and eventually committed violence.

We are also all too familiar with the phenomenon of the sweet old lady who loves her pet cat and her porcelain figurines but who wound up voting for Trump—or, earlier, for Hitler, or Mussolini, or Rios Montt, or other elected genociders—because she feared the “others.”  People who are otherwise not only good, but exceptionally good, are not at all immune to the rhetoric, because they are fearful.  Their very goodness may make them especially worried about their loved ones, or their country, or their faith.

There is a sad record (noted above) of literary and cultural figures who espouse extremism.  Fascism in Europe was viewed with favor, and even enthusiasm, by people such as T. S. Eliot and W. B. Yeats, though they quickly cooled.  Stalwarts like Ezra Pound and Martin Heidegger remained fascists all their lives.  Similar support for communism  by leading figures is well known.

Perhaps the most horrifying, in retrospect, were the truly dedicated and devoted social activists who wound up defending genocidal regimes.  Stalin had diehard defenders in the west. Another example is found in the “two-hundred-percenters”:  The foreign non-Chinese apologists for Mao’s Communism, who wrote passionately in favor of it even when it drifted into genocide that was insane and uncontrolled even by other genocides’ standards.  The peaceable, socially idealistic New Zealanders Rewi Alley and H. W Youren (a politically moderate farmer) make fascinating cases—they were model citizens, lovers of social justice  They supported the early Mao for the best of reasons, and got caught up in denial once Mao turned pathological (Beattie and Bullen 2014).  They, like many others, were ultimately disillusioned and regretful.

Few, if any, good people sympathized with Rios Montt or the Rwanda Interahamwe, but the point is made:  even the best people can get swept up in even the worst genocide.

Denial is also well known.  We still have countless Americans that deny the Holocaust happened.  Turkey still denies the Armenian genocide.  This being the case, it is easy to see how Trump supporters can walk back on his inflammatory remarks, and how Republicans can deny the mass murder implicit in their across-the-board repeal of health care, food for the poor, and even Meals on Wheels and similar programs.

Hate is fed by lies, the bigger and more obvious the better.  This is Joseph Goebbels’ famous Big Lie technique, not his invention but certainly perfected by him, and used by many since.  Trump has fed white racism, and also a wider white backlash against “political correctness” and perceived favoring of nonwhites by media and liberal Democrats (see e.g Kaleem 2016).

Exclusionary ideologies everywhere depend on divide-and-conquer strategies, splitting people by race, ethnicity, language, religion, class, occupation, place of origin, political opinions, anything—if one divider fails, exclusionists will simply turn to another set.  There is no way to combat all these hatreds one by one.  We have to preach overall tolerance.  Exclusionists also love violence, oppression and bullying, so violent protests tend to bring a more violent return, and merely make things worse.

 

Human Innate Aggression?
To this psychological back story, there is an even further back story: the question of how violent and hateful humans are.  This has been debated since long before history (see, again, Pinker 2011).  The most obvious point is that humans vary from incredibly murderous to incredibly peaceful.  There are societies where killing is almost unknown, and societies that almost or quite exterminated themselves through violence.  There are people who seem irredeemably violent—psychopaths—and others who never hurt a fly.  Over history, there seems a tendency for alternating peace and war in most societies, but this is often due to one or two warlike societies (such as the Germans in Europe, the Turks in Asia) forcing others societies to defend themselves.  The vast majority of societies have faced war rather often (Bowles 2008, 2009; Guilaine and Zammit 2001; Keeley 1996; LeBlanc and Register 2002), but there is plenty of evidence for usual peacefulness and preference for peace; the Hobbesian picture of humans does not stand (Dentan 1966, 2008; Gusterson 2007; Robarchek 1989a, 1989b; Robarchek and Robarchek 1998; Roscoe 2007).

Humans are naturally cooperative (Bowles and Gintis 2011), with altruism and mutual aid typical.  Such traits, rare in nature, evolved in a world of shared hunting and defense.  This usually makes for peace, but when the group is threatened, violence in its defense is common.   Humans probably evolved in groups of 50 to 150 (see e.g. Dunbar 1993, 2004; Van Vugt  et al. 2008).  These may have warred from the start (Bowles 2006).  In any case, they compete.  Within the group, people usually display loyalty and solidarity, but large groups are apt to break up.  Both contingencies can set the stage for tribal massacres, and in modern times—when groups are far larger—for genocide.

In particular, segmentary bonding and segmentary breakdown is a continual source of problems.  It is captured in the Arab proverb “I against my brother, my brother and I against our cousin, our cousin, brother and I against the village, and our village against the world.”  (Scott Atran, 2010:256, gives an Afghan variant.)  Classically, uniting against a common enemy has been the easiest way to unite people (Arrow, 2007; Bowles 2006; Choi and Bowles 2007; Nowak 2006).

People also routinely misperceive risks (Beck 1992; Douglas and Wildavsky 1982).  They overemphasize large, dramatic risks over ordinary ones.  They displace fears, especially social fears, onto inappropriate topics—such as harmless minority groups.  They scapegoat these.

Violence, in general, is controllable, is getting less (over the long term), and is not a universal trait of humans (not even of young men).  Genocide is not explained by human nature.  It is explained, to some degree, but the tendency of psychopaths to rise in the system.  They lead; people follow in so far as the psychopathic leaders are charismatic, persuasive, and good at touching on deep fears.  Leaders of genocidal regimes seem to fall into four types: outright psychopaths, religious zealots, Communist extremists, and cold, brutal, bullying military men.  However, more studies of actual leaders are needed; no one seems to have stepped forward to evaluate them comparatively.

Aggression, when it occurs, is always socially controlled and manipulated (Geen and Donnerstein 1998).  It is not some free-floating, inevitable part of human nature.  It is structured and culturally managed.  Young men tend to be relatively violent, but it is older men and women that instigate genocide, and, usually, war.  Genocide, above all, is a calculated policy, not a random outbreak (Anderson and Anderson 2012).

We can thus assume that people are basically “good,” in the sense that they want warm, supportive sociability as well as some independence and control of their lives.  The problems come when those two basic drives come into conflict—when sociability causes stress and fear of rejection and ostracism, or when the need for control makes people too independent and defiant.  Fear, weakness, and threat then produce defensiveness.  Defensiveness with still further fear typically makes people lash out irrationally.  Alternatively, it can scare them into passivity and conformity, including following orders to exterminate “threats.”

In war, it is reported that four out of five soldiers in combat never fire their weapons (Pinker 2011).  Steven Pinker (2011) holds that people have been getting progressively less violent over time, as civilization moves to higher moral levels.  This has been strongly questioned (Fry 2013); Pinker exaggerated the levels of pre-civilization war, and certainly understates the extent of killing in the last century.  Still, Pinker seems to have the best of it: the diminution has been much less than he thought, but it is there.

However, the biggest reason he is close to wrong is, in fact, genocide.  This crime has exploded in the last century and a half—from extermination of small local groups to get their land to extermination of entire populations for no sane reason at all.  Pinker counts the openly violent genocides, but ignores the structural violence that killed hundreds of millions of people over the last century through deliberately-invoked famines, displacement, denial of medical care, and the like.  When these were targeted at specific populations (like the Ukrainian famine of 1933 which killed 3.3 million people) they were genocidal.  Even when not so targeted, if food supplies or resettlement or medical care were deliberately withheld from one segment of the citizenry, we can talk of genocide.  The Great Leap Forward, for instance, led to about 45,000,000 excess deaths in China (Dikotter 2010).

On the other hand, the killing in the last century or two has been rather localized.  It has been common in empires—from imperialist and colonialist regimes to the USSR empire of 1917-1989.  Temporally, it had a huge peak from 1914 to 1945.  Clearly, people are not born killers, or we would not see the secular decline and local fluctuations.  Most people today, at least outside the Middle East, go through life without seeing much in the way of violence.  The truly violent are often obviously abnormal psychologically, in the sense that they are well outside the usual distribution of mental traits.  They are psychopaths or have trouble controlling aggression.

Unfortunately, they function all too well in society; studies hold that a very disproportionately high number of CEOs and politicians are psychopathic.  This makes society as a whole more violent.  The reason is simple: cutthroat competitiveness usually succeeds.  Rare is the competitive situation where one loses through having no morals and no conscience.  More typical is the success of fighting dirtier than anyone else.  It works poorly in marriage, but well in politics.

This is especially true when competition is zero-sum or negative-sum.  A positive-sum game, as business is supposed to be in a growing economy, can attract better souls and weed out the hard cases.  Politics is usually zero-sum: one party loses when another wins.  War is, of course, negative-sum in most cases; even if “we” win “their” land, we lost so many men and women and so much money in the process that we are worse off.  This is truer all the time, as wars get more expensive, and is one reason for international wars becoming less common.

Destructive competition feeds and fuels genocide.  Dominant groups must feel seriously threatened by the “others” for genocide to be truly popular.  Hitler had to work hard to make Germans believe that the Jews were keeping the Germans down and making them poor; the Great Depression helped Hitler in this.  The Interahamwe in Rwanda had a similar task convincing the Hutu that the Tutsi were the villains.  Mao could convince many Chinese that landlord elements were ruining the whole country.  Trump convinced millions of Americans that it was Mexicans, Asians, and gays that were causing America to suffer from a purely-imaginary crime wave and an equally unreal economic decline.

 

Basic Evil

 

There is a small but excellent literature on human evil.  The major titles are Simon Baron-Cohen,  Zero Degrees of Empathy (2011); Stephen Bartlett’s The Psychology of Man (2005); Roy Baumeister, Evil:  Inside Human Cruelty and Violence (1997); Aaron Beck, Prisoners of Hate (1999); Zimbardo’s book already noted; and above all Erwin Staub’s great trilogy The Roots of Evil (1989), The Psychology of Good and Evil  (2003); and Overcoming Evil (2011).  Amartya Sen’s Identity and Violence (2006) is important for showing how hate is copuled with identity.  Carolyn Nordstrom (1997) has applied many of these ideas to genocide and mass killing.  We have already discussed the psychological backgrounds of genocide in some detail elsewhere (Anderson and Anderson 2012).  All define evil more or less the same way: as gratuitous physical harm to people.

The main conclusion of these works is that anyone, anywhere, can be induced to be evil—to do perfectly horrible things in an indefensible cause.  All agree that the typical evil-doer is an ordinary person coerced by his military superiors, or genocidal government, or criminal gang, or religious body, or other such unit.

All these sources also agree that domestic violence, sexual abuse, torture, criminal gang activity, and genocide are all linked.  The exact nature of the links is unclear, but all are related to need for control in situations where loss of control is feared.  Men beat their wives because they fear being abandoned or cheated on; governments exterminate their minorities because they fear minority cultural power.

However, these are followers, coerced or ordered.  The actual instigators are a different case.  Some are psychopaths.  Some appear to have started as ordinary rabble-rousers and then gotten carried away with their own rhetoric.  Some are merciless military men whose training led to callousness and a belief that dealing with “enemies” meant extermination.  Some were motivated by hatred from the beginning; Hitler’s hysterical hate of Jews is evident from his earliest writings.  Many, however—possibly most—were swept away by hateful rhetoric, those “exclusionary ideologies” in their most direct manifestation.   We still lack full biographies of most genociders.

Also relevant is the literature on domestic violence (see B. Anderson et al. 2004), which shows striking similarities to genocide—it is, almost, genocide miniaturized, or, more accurately, genocide is domestic violence on a huge scale.  Domestic violence has everything to do with maintaining control when the perpetrator feels a desperate need to control family members and yet feels threatened and inadequate.  Dictators in similar situations act similarly, on a vast scale.  Challenges to one’s reference group brings out even worse behavior (Atran 2003).

Psychologists have long known that being raised in erratic, unpredictable, violent surroundings makes troubled children, as opposed to children raised in warm, stable homes (Werner 1989; Werner and Smith 1982).  Data on genociders is inadequate to tell whether leaders had problematic backgrounds.

One conclusion from all these works is that the concept of “dehumanization,” so often cited in regard to genocide, needs considerable unpacking.  Baumeister points out at length that victims of the worst evil are tortured psychologically and physically in ways that make sense only if the torturers realize the victims’ fully human nature, and know exactly how to make a human being suffer.  Calling people “lice,” “cockroaches,” “rats,” and other terms distances them somewhat, but no one designs extreme and carefully calculated tortures to kill insects or rodents.  One simply squashes them or traps them.  Barroom brawlers call each other “son of a bitch” to insult them, not dehumanize them; nobody calls a male dog a son of a bitch, though it would be the literal truth.  Works like David Livingston Smith’s Less Than Human (2011) undermine their own case.  Smith, and others, describe horrible tortures done to people who were first called by humiliating names.  However, the tortures are exactly and specifically those used by domestic abusers and brutal bullies on their victims, not things anyone would really do to a cockroach or rat.

On the other hand, structural violence—allowing millions to die simply out of bureaucratic callousness—does involve dehumanization.  However, the victims are not called cockroaches or rats; they are called “collateral damage” or “displaced” or are simply not mentioned at all.  The people displaced by large dam projects are notoriously invisible to developers, bureaucrats, aid workers, and others, though they die by the tens of thousands (Scudder 2005).  The same is true of victims of preventable famines and epidemics (Angell 2017).  These people are victims of genocide by many definitions.  However, within our narrow definition, genocide victims are fully human, and their oppressors know it.

 

Grounding All This in Common Humanity

 

Particularly valuable for understanding both good and less ideal human behavior is Albert Bandura’s Social Foundations of Thought and Action (1986).  Bandura has shown over decades that people’s sense of self-efficacy is basic to their psychological functioning.  Knowing one can control one’s life, or at least some of it, is critically important to humans.  Knowing what can be done, especially about fears and threats, is most important of all.  People need a sense of control over their lives and surroundings (Langer 1983; Schulz 1976), and challenge to their control is one of the surest ways to make people violent.

From these and the sources on genocide we can construct a theory of hate and killing.   We have seen (with Israel Charny) that most perpetrators are driven by society and culture, but someone has to start the ball rolling.  Someone has to devise the hate ideology, declare the dictatorship, start the murders.

In short, weakness, or—more accurately and generally—perceived lack of self-efficacy in a situation, lead to overnegativism and overreaction.

Fear is critical in all this.  Fear is a normal human emotion (LeDoux 1996).  It must be prioritized, because threats can be deadly if not addressed immediately.  Fear leads to a fight-flight-freeze reaction that can easily slide over into violence.  Among mammals, humans seem particularly prone to violence when threatened or stressed.  Even humans are usually peaceable, solving problems as reasonably as possible, but can easily be moved to violent outbreaks.  This is especially true in social situations where the group is stressed.  When a majority is afraid of a minority, disaster is likely.  This is why genocides are often against minorities perceived as “rich” and “powerful”:  Jews in Germany, Tutsi in Rwanda, landlords in China.  On the other hand, most genocides, especially settler genocides, target the weak; this is often scapegoating and displacement.

Hatred is due to fear, threat, and stress—to real or dreaded harms.  There are many ways to deal with fear and threat; one can take rational steps, or run away, or fight directly against it.  Group hate and exclusionary ideologies are usually the result of a fourth coping strategy: displacing the anger onto a weak, vulnerable group.  In the 2016 elections, millions of genuinely suffering working people gave up trying to vote their class interest and simply voted against weaker groups: Latinos, Muslims, the poor.  There was a perception that these groups were “causing the problems,” but there was also a clear tendency to try to take down rival groups.

It is natural for people to defend their group; defend their place in the group; and defend their standing in the group.  If they are ordinarily strong and resilient, they will usually do that without resorting to hate crimes.  We can be proud of our groups and identities without cutting others down.  We can feel entitled to get what we deserve from society without letting entitlement turn into “white privilege” or other privilege or special favors.  However, vulnerable people with low self-efficacy often feel driven to desperation.  This emerges strongly from, for example, Scott Atran’s recorded narratives of Islamic terrorists.

At some level, taking this bully option requires a certain sense of one’s own weakness and vulnerability, and consequent defensiveness.  Abuse, hatred, and genocide are a weak person’s ways of defending his or her social place.  If one feels that control over one’s life is slipping away, one often becomes desperate.  This is where understanding of domestic violence becomes useful, since that is the key finding of domestic violence studies; typically, men very unsure of their worth and social position will try to control women by violence.

Another useful individual-level model is the extreme concern with personal “honor” found in certain societies (notably including the rural and southern United States; see Baumeister 1997; Henry 2009).  Individiuals are so concerned about their social standing that the slightest hint of disrespect will cause outbreaks of verbal or physical aggression.  Family “honor” leads to “honor killings” in many societies around the world.  As these grow in number during bad times, they begin to look more and more like genocide (on gender violence and genocide, see Totten 2008).

Prejudice (Allport 1954) and group hatred stem from these emotions.  Displacement of anger, prickly “honor,” fear of superiors, excessive concern for social place, and other aspects of social weakness and fear support hatred.  People hate opponent groups within their own societies.  They also worry about anyone within their own groups that is conspicuously “different” in thought or behavior (Pinto et al. 2010).  Even conspicuously good people are disliked (Parks and Stone 2010).  Envy of their goodness is part of it, just as envy of success is a problem for successful minorities such as the Jews in Europe.

 

The ultimate common sink of all these evils is essential rejection: regarding certain humans as beneath consideration simply because of what they are, rather than because of what they do.  Certain people are worthy only of being shoved out of the way: displaced, exiled, rounded up in reservations, and, ultimately, eliminated completely.  They are not so treated because they have done anything, but because they are poor, or different-looking, or different in religion, or different in lifestyle, or different in politics.  Simply being poor or rich, black or brown, Muslim or Christian means that they are to be moved out of the way by the most expedient means.

Feelings of entitlement often make this worse.  White supremacists feel threatened by the very existence of African-Americans, let alone their success.  Muslims and Christians each claim to have the exclusive truth, and see each other as a challenge to that.

This essential rejection—rejection because of essence, not because of action or behavior—usually comes from one of four things: weak fear, psychopathic hatred, sheer distancing (especially bureaucratic callousness), or longstanding enmity.  Usually “longstanding” here refers to many generations, not just a few years.  German anti-Semitism and Japanese antagonism toward China surfaced in WWII, but had a long prior history.

All four can be culturally constructed.  Weak fear is the most apt to be turned over time into a cultural thing.  It is the result of being genuinely frightened when one is in a position of low self-efficacy: personal weakness or loss of control.  Fear of Jews in Germany, African-Americans in the southern United States, Tibetans in China, Armenians in Turkey, and so on through the long list is coupled with guilt about how those groups were treated over time.  They are frightening because of what they might do, with full justification, if they could.  Guilt, shame, and regret can be mutated into scapegoating and bullying.  “I’m better than you” and “I’m worse than you” are bad enough, but the worst is “I’m worse than you so have to pretend I’m better, and if in power I have to bully you.”

Often revealing is the hatred of beauty, enjoyment, and good that we have noted before as a telltale sign of genocidal mentality in some autocrats.  Thus the decline of folk society with its traditional art forms, and the decline of arts in the schools and universities in recent years, are dangerous and unfortunate.

The opposite of rejection is acceptance—specifically, the moral decision to accept the world as it is, enjoy it as much as possible, and deal coolly and rationally with the rest.  Never just “bear”; if one cannot fix a problem, one can at least analyze it, try to understand it, and figure out what should be done if opportunity permits.

Cowardly defensiveness and cowardly aggression are behind the barroom-brawl attitude that seems so general among genociders, hateful leaders, and participants in cultures of exclusionary ideology.  Other corollaries of weak fear are failure to take or show responsibility, and failure to oppose leaders who are clearly on a wrong track. Most serious is a tendency to react negatively and irrationally to challenge or perceived threat.  Weak fear goes with unreason, and coolly rational response to challenge is the focal way to cope with it.  One explanation is that even small slights and personal cuts can be deadly to a weak person.  They not only hurt feelings, but can go with real threats that a weak person cannot handle.

On the other hand, weak fear is hard to combine with genocidal leadership, although the deep insecurities of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and others have been the subjects of much speculation.  Leaders have managed to turn what fears they have into open, vocal hate.  They are also apt to be more directly motivated by lust for power, self-absorption, culturally learned hatreds (like Hitler’s Austrian hate of Jews), and even outright psychopathy.

People can see that we are all in this together, and that long-term, wide-flung calculations of good must be invoked if we are to survive.  However, they naturally tend to more short-term, narrow calculus (see e.g. Kahneman 2011).  This can, and often does, lead to playing the world as a negative-sum game.

 

Hate Comes to Government

 

A government that claims total power, but is really facing a crisis that brings out its weaknesses, resorts to extreme violence.  Mass murderers who lasted long in office, such as Stalin and Mao, constantly reiterated their fears for the Revolution.  Always, some huge number of innocent people had to die, because the Revolution was under imminent threat from dark and frequently unknown forces.  On the right, Rios Montt in Guatemala constantly reiterated his claims that the nation was under constant attack from all manner of leftist elements that had to be utterly eradicated to preserve even mininal order.  The extreme intolerance of ISIS for even the most trivial differences within Islam, let alone for other religions, verges on (if it does not actually become) paranoia.

This frightened negativity is reflected also in the opposition to general humanistic values that characterize so many totalitarian regimes.  They outlaw or at best de-fund the arts.  They drastically curtail medical care.  They eliminate famine relief.  They deny science and invent their own “facts.”  Such regimes are characterized by a general fear, and consequent hate, of the creations of the human spirit.

Violence is especially likely if that is the one thing that the leaders are reasonably certain that they control.  Again, domestic violence is strikingly informative:  physical abusers tend to be those who are physically powerful and/or trained to fight using weapons, but who fear they are at a disadvantage in other ways.  Experience with schoolyard bullies is the same: physical abusers are “big kids” who have little but strength going for them; verbal abusers are physically less impressive but verbally fluent; and so it goes.  At the national scale, an elite confident of its ability to solve economic crises will not invoke genocide if the economy turns sour; that recourse is left to regimes that have military strength but no economic competence.

This leads to the prediction that totalitarian societies with poor perceived control over their citizens’ violence will be the most genocidal.  On the whole, this is the case.  It explains why genocides are so concentrated just after dictators take over and, again, when civil or international war occur.  Peacetime genocides are, however, common, and one must have recourse to the apparent paranoia of the dictators in those cases, with Stalin and Mao coming to mind once again.

Thus the real conflict in society is always tolerance, harmony, and getting along versus hate, intolerance, and rejection.  The extreme form of the latter is seen not only in Hitler’s Nazism, but in the bigotry and hysterical mob hate that dominated the 2016 election (and was not confined to the right wing).  Class differences are difficult enough, economics and rational economic concerns are serious enough and motivating enough—we cannot ignore them—but we have to work on them from an underlying platform of unity, solidarity, cooperation, accommodation, and mutual aid.

 

 

 

Chapter 8.  GENOCIDE PROSPECTS IN THE UNITED STATES

 

Donald Trump was elected by a coalition of three groups: Big Oil and their cooperating interests, the racist and sexist right, and the right-wing “Christians.”  The latter two are motivated by extreme hate, Big Oil only by ordinary everyday self-interest (“greed”).  If history holds, the racists and religious extremists will take over, and start a campaign of genocide that will devastate capitalist interests, including Big Oil.

In all history, very few political campaigns have consisted so strictly as Trump’s of demonizing so many opponents.  Those few always ended in huge genocides.  Hitler’s Germany is the obvious case, but the USSR under Stalin, China under Mao Zedong, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, Turkey under the Young Turks in 1915-1916, Ethiopia under the Dergue in the 1970s, and Indonesia under military rule in the 1960s provide other examples.  Even targeted hate campaigning, with only one or two groups demonized, has led to mass genocide in countries such as Serbia, Rwanda, and Burundi in the 1990s and Sudan in the 2000s.

How much Trump is consciously following the playbook is not clear, but Stephen Bannon at least is known to be well aware of Hitler’s steps to power, and appears to be copying them quite faithfully.

However, there is hope in the current situation.  Constant peaceful protest, and exposure of lies, will succeed against Trump if pressure is kept on but no violence is allowed in the process.  There are several cases of successful peaceful resistance—though disturbingly few—in the international record of the last century (Chenoweth and Stephan 2012).  There are even a few cases were autocratic regimes—generally relatively mild ones, but some quite murderous ones—were turned out by massive continued protest and international pressure, as in Chile, the Philippines (under Marcos), South Africa, South Korea, and Taiwan.  Depressingly, the great genocidal regimes usually ended only when forced out by war, though the most murderous country of all, the Soviet Union, slowly declined into relatively peaceful mildness in the 1950s, before collapsing completely in 1989.

Thus, applying prior experience to the United States, we can specify the especially frightening possibilities ahead.  First, armed militias—the Black Shirts and Brown Shirts—were instrumental in the rise of fascism in Italy and Germany, and comparable militias or armed groups (from the Red Guards to the Interahamwe) arose in virtually all other major genocides.  The United States has the Ku Klux Klan, the White Aryan Nation, and other groups, all of which militantly supported Trump and are ready to serve him.  If they are put into service, the risk of genocide goes sharply up.  Second, attacks on the mainstream media and academics are already daily events.  If they lead to actual imprisonment or other suppression, the risk is again much higher.  Third, demonization of the opposition by the hard-right is constant and becoming more strident.  Fourth, the current rush by the Republican Party to abolish or avoid traditional democratic institutions and balances appears to be a deliberate move toward authoritarian control.  Fifth, economic problems, threats of terrorism, and serious multifront war (currently focused in Syria) are providing excuses for crackdowns.  Finally, an actual coup, or suspension of the Constituion in a “state of emergency,” would make genocide virtually certain.

In short, all the danger signs that foretold prior genocides are already visible, but in early forms.  This progression can still be nipped in the bud.

The best way to predict a genocidal future is to see what was done by dictators trained, put in place, and instructed by the American right wing.  These range from Rios Montt in Guatemala to Pinochet in Chile.  Pinochet was relatively moderate, and confronted a well-developed civil society that eventually prevailed and forced him out; he killed a large number of opponents and suspected opponents, but no more than ten to twenty thousand.  Rios Montt took over a more troubled country with less civil society, and began a campaign of mass murder that targeted Maya Indigenous communities, teachers, aid workers, community organizers, and other good-doers, as well as political opponents.  His genocide claimed 200,000 lives—2% of the total population.

Given the extreme levels of hatred that the Republicans have aroused, a Republican genocide would probably kill at least 2%, six and a half million people.  This would be in a consolidation genocide: the initial campaign to insure control once dictatorship has been declared.  The next steps would lead to more.  A Republican government would eliminate corporate and estate taxes and cut all taxes for the rich.  If present trends are any indication, the resulting enormous infusion of cash to the rich would be banked in offshore accounts or invested in other countries—not invested in the United States.  It would be a huge drain on the economy.  Also, the Republicans currently propose to eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and indeed all transfer-payment programs, leading to extreme poverty in the US.  The resulting decline in consumer spending would devasstate the economy.  Resulting unemployment and disruption would lead to a further genocide to suppress dissent, probably eliminating another 2%.  Targeted groups of these genocides would be political opponents and Democrat leadership in general; minority leadership; feminist leadership; gays in general (many Republicans have called for exterminating them); and probably other groups.  Republicans are also proposing a new constitution for the United States, to eliminate the measure making any child a citizen if born in the US; such a new constitution would certainly eliminate the Bill of Rights (except the second amendment), the 14th Amendment, and other protections.

All historical genocides have moved very rapidly once started.  Killing escalates within months or days.  We will have no time to stop it if we do not start now.

A scenario for permanently eliminating Democrats from power is clearly taking shape in the GOP:  National right-to-work law and other measures to destroy labor unions, plus gerrymandering and voter suppression.  Unions are not only the biggest single source of Democrat funding and the way to mobilize the working class; they are also the main counterbalance to the rich urban liberals who want to restrict politics to debating “neoliberalism” and “intersectionality.”  We have to get back to uniting for economic justice and stop dividing over meaningless verbiage.  Only the workers can keep the Democrats on that track.

The United States, before Trump, was well placed to stop genocide, because it had evolved the exact opposite: a system based on liberal democracy.  Guaranteeing basic human and civil rights expanded fairly steadily up until 2016, and in spite of many obvious problems, the US had worked out a solid, well-constructed plan for fair treatment, justice, and inclusion.  That plan is now in ruins.  It can and must be restored and strengthened.

Our enemy is hate. It was the reason for the Trump vote—the sole real issue in his campaign.  It takes the forms of bigotry, bias, intolerance, exclusionary ideology, cowardly and fearful resistance, and irrational anger.  The outrageous amoral greed of Trump and his cronies succeeds only because their supporters and voters are motivated by hate to vote and act against their own self-interest.  Most of the hate was directed downward socioeconomically—to the pooor and to poor minorities—but intellectual elites and the Washington “establishment” came in for their share.

Trump supporters apparently think of the United States not as one country where people work together to move forward, but as a set of hopelessly antagonistic blocs, fighting each other in a declining economy, each one surviving only by taking down the others.  Unfortunately, this view is not confined to Republicans; many disaffected leftists hold it.

The counter is not to be angry or hateful toward Republicans.  The only counter is solidarity, reasonableness, mutual respect, and personal responsibility.

Trump’s victory shows that, unfortunately, people vote their hate—not really news to many political scientists, but apparently news to the Democratic Party.  Hatred is a far more important motive than any other, at least in politics.  There is a worldwide context, rooted in increasing resistance to democracy because it is associated with globalization and rising inequality everywhere (Fukuyama 2016).

This led to the sad fact that millions of otherwise perfectly good, decent, honorable people voted for Trump, simply because he tweaked their one spot and got them to vote against not only their economic self-interest but also against the 90% of their moral and emotional compass that was not hateful.  Democrats, and especially intolerant liberals, should remember this.  Hatred is no nicer in a liberal who rejects any and all Trump voters than in a “redneck” racist.

Hatred is also the cause of motivated belief in lies.  The astounding propagation of blatant, obvious lies—there is no global warming, all Muslims are terrorists, and so on, things that anyone could see were false—is explained by people believing anything that justifies and shores up their hates.  There is also cognitive dissonance to consider; the more one has personally invested in a belief, the more one believes it when it is disproved.  This will lead many to become even more hateful to minorities and Muslims when Trump’s presidency fails to deliver (as it certainly will).

We thus need a specific attack on the Great Lies—the ones that just go on and on and are apparently universally believed by the right wing:  Racism, religious bigotry (especially against Jews and Muslims), the nonexistence of global warming, and the unworthiness of the poor (the idea that the poor are all lazy—not working, and that because of laziness and stupidity).  Fake news, lies in general, and the Republican acceptance of lies is bad enough, but these four are really especially awful, and they never go away.

 

 

 

 

Chapter 9.  STOPPING GENOCIDE

 

The most ambitious plan for curing hate and genocide is Ervin Staub’s life work, epitomized in Overcoming Evil (2011).  This book summarizes all the causes of genocide and terrorism.  It then gives an extremely comprehensive and detailed account of what can be done by ordinary people to damp down the vicious cycles of hate and violence that lead to mass murder.  The methods range from getting people from the different sides to talk to each other and work out their problems (the classic group therapy techniques) to active-bystander intervention, and on up to political, media, and educational approaches.  The latter will certainly be needed, since encounter groups can never be comprehensive and widespread enough to do the job—though they are surely desirable, even necessary.  Staub emphasizes the need to see others as ourselves—to see that we are all in the same boat, all humans together (see summary point, p. 515).

Ultimately, and especially for those individuals low in self-efficacy who might otherwise be tempted by violence, the only cure is tolerance.  We must teach that, including valuing diversity and valuing solidarity and community.  This cannot be expected to do all the work, however.  Yugoslavia had a good program of teaching mutual tolerance and appreciation, because of the country’s bitter past of genocides and ethnic hatreds.  The program was not enough; the nation dissolved into warring and genocidal splinter countries in the 1990s.  Relative peace has now come, at the cost of tens of thousands dead, millions with shattered lives, and whole nations ruined.

Above all, we have to make hatred socially unacceptable, and confront hatred and bigotry directly.  Hate is an emotion that hugely dominates the human animal when it is aroused, and it can be dealt with only by patient, rational discourse kept up with constant pressure.  We have to teach ordinary egalitarian civility and politeness—not showing dislike of others, simply as a matter of decency.

That said, no really effective campaign of fighting hate has worked without giving people something to unify them.  Conquest worked in the bad old days, but the Mongol hordes are not an ideal model for today.  Defense sometimes works in a threatened country, as it did for the United States in WWII, but surprisingly often it fails to unify people against a common enemy.  Uniting to fix an economic mess saved the United States in the 1930s.  A charismatic, visionary leader is often necessary.

An ethic of helping people, not hurting them, is obviously an essential component to all the above.

Another, quite different, agenda is addressing the claims that the country, or the world, is getting steadily worse off, and that the Jews, gays, Latinos, Chinese, or other entities are to blame.  The surest cure to genocide may be convincing people that we are all getting better off, or could get better off, and that the way to do this is for us all to pull together.

In short, the cure for genocide is the realization that we are all in this together, and that we progress in so far as we all work for the good of all.

A major part of this is remembering the old American watchword:  My rights stop where yours start.  “Your freedom to swing your arm ends at my nose,” as folklore puts it.  One of the most deadly rhetorics in the modern United States is the idea that “religious freedom” means freedom for right-wing “Christians” to bully, oppress, and brutalize those who do not follow that faith.

Prevention of genocide and bringing genociders to justice have moved forward.  Governments are more aware of international sanctions.  Some years ago, John Heidenreich (2001) gave us a number of ways that diplomacy and political resolve could stop genocide.  Leo Kuper (1985) suggested a number of cultural methods and diplomatric initiatives to stop genocide.  Unfortunately, time has not been kind to these.  Laws, diplomacy, international courts, and other due process means have been unable to stop genocide or bring more than a very few genociders to justice.  Typically, the mills of justice grind so slowly that genociders die of old age before they can be convicted.  Notable cases include Slobodan Milosevic and August Pinochet.

Thus, Alex Bellamy (2010), among others, forthrightly states that only superior military force can stop genocide, at least once it is in progress.  Since he wrote, this has indeed been successfully done in the Central African Republic, where religious war between Muslims and Christians was nipped in the bud by an international force.  Conversely, genocides in Myanmar and elsewhere have gone on, unstopped by diplomacy in spite of international protests.  ISIS continues to exterminate Yazidis without much notice (Travis 2016), though liberation of some ISIS areas has occurred as of 2017.

On the other hand, we have seen that Mali and Cote d’Ivoire avoided genocide in spite of communal violence, by avoiding exclusionary ideology (Straus 2015).

These and subsequent additions are conveniently summarized by Samuel Totten and Paul Bartrop (2008:342):  “conflict resolution efforts…mediation…diplomacy…sanctions…radio/television jamming…signing of peace agreements…peace-enforcement troops; establishment of effective safe havens…no-fly zones…outright combat by outside forces to prevent genocide from being carried out.”  Of these, safe zones, and troops on the ground, have proved effective.  Little else has.  Economic sanctions, for instance, have no detectable effect at all, positive or negative (Krain 2017).  Calling out hate speech and propaganda is obviously necessary and important, but more to alert good people than to stop the evil ones.  It awakens the world to the problem, but usually merely hardens the evildoers in their ways.  One remembers the astonishing resistance of Trump supporters to every proof that Trump and his backers had lied outright.  However, calling out hatred sometimes persuades the undecided to decide against evil.  Immediate international diplomatic sanctions against hate-based political action is clearly warranted.  In the end, prediction followed by troop deployment is probably necessary for serious threats.

 

Confronting Prevention

 

We will all have to confront the crimes of genocide and mass murder at national and international levels, and throw the whole weight of citizenry behind ways to reverse vicious spirals and get people to see each other as all in the same lifeboat, and not fighting over the provisions on it.

One other essential thing, however, is to have real, unified, dedicated counterleadership, to give the vast mass of reasonably well-meaning people some leaders to follow and conform to. If conformity and morality are indeed the overwhelmingly most important drivers in the followers of genocide, as appears to be the case, then having a higher and more moral counter-standard to conform to is obviously basic.  As noted above, we need to attack exclusionary ideologies, above all the moralizing of hatred and exclusion.  We can do this only if we also advocate replacing them with ideologies of inclusion, tolerance, mutual aid, and solidarity.

This would involve, most obviously, insistence on tolerance and truth: no “alternative facts” or fake news or racism or climate change denial.

That would require some serious changes to American educational systems.  We too often teach falsehoods.  Worse, we do not teach critical thinking and analysis.  There is also a wider concern: unless we teach genuine appreciation of people, cultures, arts, nature, and the world in general, the gullible and passive will still be seduced by the psychopathic.  Only positive good can truly counteract positive evil.

From the above, it is obvious that at any point, a concerted movement could stop genocide, except in cases where an extremist government had taken total power in war.

All that is required is for ordinary citizens to face what is going on, and refuse to play.  But this means keeping a clear vision in mind of human good, and of the really good people in the world.

Treating fear is clearly a priority.  Fear, and above all irrational behavior due to fear, is due in large part of loss of feelings of self-control, self-efficacy, and control over one’s life (Bandura 1982; Beck 1999; Kemper 2006; LeDoux 1996; many others).  It also involves giving up on controlling that which one cannot control; the Serenity Prayer remains a key ideal to strive for, however hard to reach in practice.  More directly, comprehensive medical care, assurance of food in times of want, reasonable hope of jobs for workers, and above all security of life, identity, and property are essential.  Genocidal leaders thrive on whipping up fear for livelihood.  On the other hand, they are adept at whipping up hatreds even among the affluent and self-assured, so security is ancillary to direct opposition to hate and its ideologies.

Again, there is a back story.  We in the United States have been beneficiaries of the Enlightenment—the visionary program devised in the 18th century that invented such new ideas as participatory democracy, liberty of conscience, a slavery-free society, equal justice for all, and equal opportunities for people of all classes.  These were completely new ideas at the time—as strange to most people as computers and the Internet were to my generation.  They rode a wave of exploration, trade, commerce, prosperity, and adventure.  Unfortunately, it was also a wave of colonialism, war, slavery, oppression, and, of course, genocide.  The Enlightenment leaders were largely reacting against this, but one must remember that some of them profited from it, directly or indirectly.

In any case, we now live on the basis of a program that proved not only very good for people but also stunningly good for the economy.  Democracy and freedom of opportunity paid off, at least as well as any investment in history.  Steven Pinker (2011) argues that the Enlightenment reduced both interpersonal violence and international war.  The jury is out.  In any case, we are now seeing a massive turning away from the Enlightenment program—in the United States, in China, in Turkey, in India, in Hungary, and indeed worldwide.  We need to save the old Enlightenment ideals, and add to them now ones targeted at mass killing.

Human rights remain the key. The rights developed in the Enlightenment—freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and conscience; freedom from torture, oppression, arbitrary “justice”—remain necessary for the world if we are not to fall into mutual destruction.  The governments that deny these and regard them as mere western constructions pay the price in evrything from lost wealth (through destroying their most thoughtful and productive citizens) to total war.  There will always be those who defend genocide as a good thing, but they are basing their vision on hatred and on lust for power, not on any beneficial results.

We need to work on a morality based on helping others, not hurting them.  One would think this was simple and straightforward, but common experience shows otherwise.  We now live in a world where religious leaders preach hatred and mass murder, and sometimes nothing else.

Next comes countering hatred.  This basically requires education, not only in school but in public media.  Clearly dishonest claims of racial difference and of religions that call for murder of innocent people need to be continually refuted at all levels and by all media.  More ambiguous propaganda requires more nuanced approaches.  Meeting extremist Islam (Salafism) with even more extremist intolerant Christianity merely makes things worse.  Meeting racism with generic attacks on white people is no help (though sensible, reasonable critique of white privilege is sorely needed in this day and age).

Economics courses should teach about the link of genocide with special breaks for giant firms.  History courses should include material on how Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin got whole nations to go along with them in missions of hatred and mass murder. Philosophy, psychology,, literature all have their role.  Science courses should not only debunk lies, but also teach how to evaluate claims in the media.  And there certainly should be comparative religion courses, including the full story of the corruption of religion by demagogues for evil ends.

Child-rearing should focus very solicitously on raising children to be civil, polite, and considerate to everyone, and to talk out their problems with parents, siblings, and peers.  Children need to be taught to take responsiblity for everything from daily chores to their own feelings.  They need to respect others, but not give in to others.  A correlation of harsh, repressive child-rearing and genocide has been raised in much of the literature (see the cited works on Evil, above); it does not hold up robustly, but has some support.  Empowerment should be a major goal. In this imperfect world, sensitivity and self-confidence from actual support by parents and others should be combined with actual testing and developing self-efficacy.

In the wider society, we need to unite economic policies that bring fairness with media arguments for decent treatment of all and a wider morality of tolerance and mutual aid.  Failed, vacillating, or grossly unfair economic policies are a genocider’s dream.  Even more closely connected, usually providing the actual economic base of genocide, are paleoeconomic forms: obsolete industries, crude extractive industries (especially oil), highly traditional sectors (agriculture is notorious), and other basic industries challenged by new, higher-technology sectors.

Again, responsibility is vitally important.  This seems rarely stressed in the literature, but reading accounts of hate ideologies and resulting genocides makes it clear that progressive shrinking from responsible behavior is one common theme.

By far the worst problem is deliberate circulation of all manner of hate propaganda, from flat racist lies to carefully nuanced and disguised bigotry, by the giant firms and super-rich business owners.  The Koch brothers and Robert Mercer have carved out a special niche in funding hate propaganda (see detailed analysis of the Mercer empire, which includes Stephen Bannon; Gertz 2017).  They are not the only ones.  This needs to be continually daylighted.

Of course, most obvious of all is the need to teach that the combination of autocratic government, hate ideology, and economic or violent disruption is almost inevitably deadly.  One therefore hopes for more effort to prevent situations that bring out the worst in people.  Steven Pinker said it well:  “The decline of genocide over the last third of a century…may be traced to the upswing of some of the same factors that drove down interstate and civil wars: stable government, democracy, openness to trade, and humanistic ruling philosophies that elevate the interests of individuals over struggles among groups” (Pinker 2011:342).  Of course we have seen genocides among societies with those traits.  The Weimar Republic that nourished Hitler had them all.  Conversely, conspicuously lacking them all has not brought genocide to a few of the smaller dictatorships like Qatar or Bahrein.  In general, though, they stand up under scrutiny.  Rudolph Rummel was right: autocracy kills, and the more oppressive it is, the more deaths follow when any disruption perturbs the system.

International scrutiny of autocratic states in troubled times must therefore take a high priority, with threat of direct multinational intervention made very real.  Experience suggests that nothing else works when genocide is under way, and even armed intervention does not always have any effect, since dictators may simply keep killing until they themselves are forcibly removed from office.

Attacking hatred in general and the specific correlates of genocide are thus both equally necessary.  Generic attacks on intolerance have never been enough.

Finally, the worst failing of the international community has been in condemning genocide and bringing genociders to justice.  Accountability is absolutely necessary.  The mills of trial and sentencing move so slowly that genociders brought to trial often die of old age before final sentencing.  The international community has been far too comfortable with genocide, human rights abuses, and oppression of minorities.  (For much more detail on all these issues, see Anderson and Anderson 2012:127-156 and Staub 2011.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 10.  REAFFIRMING AMERICAN VALUES

 

Immediate Basics

 

We need to get people to stop seeing American politics as a negative-sum game, in which “my” group hurts itself just to do worse damage to “their” group.  This is clearest and worst in race and gender politics, but is unfortunately common.  Obama did an amazing, though far from perfect, job of bringing us together to work together to build.  Trump, Sanders, and Clinton unfortunately ran quite divisive campaigns; Trump made no pretense otherwise.  Trump, Fox News, and the far-right media whipped up a level of hatred not seen in the United States for decades, possibly not since the Civil War.  A huge anti-hatred civic action movement is absolutely necessary.  But, also, since hate comes from fear, we need to encourage people in the literal sense of the word:  Give them courage.  Fear, and weakness caused by facing the giant corporations in all their power, is the ultimate source of the outbreak of hatred, now so cynically manipulated by the most reactionary of those corporations.

The real problem now is developing solidarity among those opposed to Trumpism.  One way is uniting people around classic conservative virtues—patriotism, loyalty, respect for the Constitution, honesty, personal honor, and courage—as well as the liberal ones of tolerance, fairness, and justice.  Above all, we need simple acceptance.  Love is not the opposite of hate; the opposite of hate is acceptance of people as they are.  Tolerance, valuing diversity, and above all mutual respect are the basic values.  This does not mean tolerating or accepting evil behavior; it means evaluating people as human beings, not as representatives of groups.  In particular, they are not merely parts of imagined, invented, or socially constructed groups.  They are not mere fragments of their religion or their ethnicity or their political party.  They are human beings.

We need a program that has wide support but sharply defines the sane majority against the extremists (see Mounck 2016).  Having no program beyond opposition to Trump and his administration will not work.  Neither will having an extreme or exclusionist “progressive” program.  We have to have clear goals.  These should be both immediate and for the farther future.  Immediate goals should be steps toward utopia.  Any progress in that direction helps, and if we do not have a clear vision of the good society, we will not know where to start or how to evaluate what efforts we make.

The longer-term issues are health and environment.  American life expectancy, infant mortality, and maternal mortality are a disgrace—far worse than in any other developed country, and down with much poorer countries like Cuba, Costa Rica, and China.  Our environmental situation is deteriorating fast.  Global warming threatens to get out of control and devastate the planet.  We have to fight anti-scientific nonsense on all these fronts.

We want an economy that produces jobs but not subsidies, breaks, giveaways, and getting rich through crime, corruption, and cheating.

We want collective goods like free public education, a functioning infrastructure, and a beautiful and healthy environment as well as a sustainably productive one.

We have to have good public health.  One thing conservatives forget is that we cannot have individual good health; it has to be public or nothing.  Epidemics do not know about race, religion, or, on the whole, gender.  They are worse for the poor but the rich do not escape them. The health gap between rural and urban America is increasing, with death rates declining less rapidly or actually rising in the rural areas (Frostenson 2017).  This is directly due to rural choice: they have been voting more and more consistently for Republicans and against health care.  The greatest gap is in maternal and child mortality, because of the rural bias against abortion and indeed against women’s health care in general.

Above all, we want, or should want, a society where civil rights and voting rights are real, equal, and enforced.  We want a society where collective goods allow individual “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

 

One thing to do right away is to document everything we can.  We may have to make sure that documentation in stored out of the United States to be protected in other countries.  We will probably face suppression of the press and legitimate radio and TV.  Trump has already started it.  His admired friend Vladimir Putin has killed many reporters, as well as shutting down opposition media.  We can expect that.  The legitimate media are already weak enough in this world of Twitter and Fox News.  They will collapse, leaving us without honest news, if real suppression happens.  So, we have to get the word out, by conventional media, social media, word of mouth.  Let the light shine.

Robert Reich identifies four syndromes to avoid:  normalizing, outrage-numbness, cynicism, and giving up (AlterNet, Dec. 20, 2016, http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/robert-reich-4-signs-you-may-have-lost-your-will-fight-coming-tyranny-trump).

Loss also comes from having too broad and vague an agenda—something people cannot relate to.  Supporting “capitalism” or “socialism,” in this day and age when those words are defined any which way, will not work.  We have to be specific.

The civil rights struggle is perhaps the most relevant, if only because many of the same people—the same individuals—that are backing Trump now were leaders of the anti-civil-rights forces, or were coming of age under them.  Jerry Falwell, for instance, was a vocal opponent of civil rights.  His son is still with us, backing Trump.  Guns, attack dogs, tear gas, water cannons, and the whole force the south could muster was thrown against the civil rights activists.

Another very relevant case was the labor movement.  From the 1870s and even earlier, workers fought bosses for minimal pay and rights.  Labor largely lost until the 1930s, but the workers kept up the fight, against incredible odds and with many martyrdoms.  “Solidarity forever” was the watchword, and almost 100% of the variance as far as success went, though having a clear and not too unreachable agenda (the eight-hour day, for instance) was also important.  It really is time to revive the old song “Solidarity forever.”

We need activists who know exactly what we’re in for:  fighting over the long term, against a full-scale, merciless fascist movement.

On the other hand, all polls agree that the vast majority of Americans, including most Republicans, are not on board with Trumpism.  We have to have an actual platform, or at least solid ideas of what we want, and it has to be based on saving America—maintaining democracy and freedom, stopping and reversing the rapid trend toward inequality not only in wealth but also before the law.  We have to get back to demanding real public education, medical care available to all, voting rights for all adult citizens, protection of life and liberty, and other obvious matters on which there is broad agreement.

So, first, unite against hate.   Vote!  Organize! “The best solution is old-fashioned organizing, focused on the issues of the most pressing concern to voters: healthcare, jobs and wage” (Zimmerman 2017).

Second, recognize the level and depth of the threat, especially the way that cynical and evil people are deliberately whipping up the hate to get votes and support for their side and to divide our side.

Third, stop ignoring working-class and rural whites.  Stay with the real grassroots, anywhere and everywhere.  Find out what is happening there.

Fourth, do everything possible to maintain solidarity, including steady advocacy for civil rights and equality before the law.

Fifth, support legitimate media!  Anyone against Trump should subscribe to a (real) newspaper, support networks that carry real news, support websites that carry real news and expose lies.  The honest media are our best hope, and, if the Trump regime is consistent with other fascist regimes, will be the first target.  The first and hardest battle will be to maintain civil rights and access to truth.  Trump will surely attempt to follow the examples of Hitler, Putin, Erdogan and others, and shut down “hostile” media, i.e. those that report truth.  By the same token, avoid and call out the lying media that exist only to serve evil bosses:  Fox News, Breitbart, and the like.

Sixth, join the major civil rights groups and send them money when possible.  In the end, they are probably our next best hope.  The most stalwart and persistently rights-defending groups in the US are the ACLU, Amnesty International, and the Southern Poverty Law Center.  There are other worthy organizations.  Similarly for the environment, where the Sierra Club clearly has the best track record.  Natural Resources Defense Council has also done a consistently fine job.  Beware of “astroturf organizations” (phony grassroots organizations). Do not waste money on hopeful startups too small to accomplish anything consequential.

Seventh, hold Republicans’ feet to the fire.  Stop using euphemisms.  This is fascism and hatred, not politics as usual.  The extreme and pervasive anti-Jewish hate speech of Trump, Stephen Bannon, and others makes clear the fascist roots of it all.  It is not “white nationalism” or “populism.”  Confront that.  Force every Republican in Congress to defend or cut loose the anti-Jewish hatred of people like Bannon.  Stop crediting the Republicans with wanting “small government”; they are instituting tyranny.  (Look at voter suppression, the crushing of women’s reproductive rights and other rights, and indeed almost everything the Republicans currently favor.)  Stop saying they want the “free market”; they want subsidies and government/giant firm cronyism.  They give us not free enterprise, but fusion of government and big business, as seen in Trump’s cabinet.   Stop crediting them with wanting to help the poor or the working people or the sick; they want to hold those groups down or cut them adrift.  They know perfectly well that their plans to “help” actually harm.  We have hundreds of years of evidence on the effects of lowering wages, breaking unions, and eliminating public health care.  Democrats and ordinary Republican voters may be fooled, but no congressperson or cabinet member could possibly be under the illusion that such measures do anything but harm.  If they seriously try to repeal Medicare and Medicaid, call them mass murderers.  If they eliminate regulations on banking and finance, tell them they know perfectly well that that leads to depression.  And so on down the list.

Eighth, protest unendingly and noisily.  Phone and write your representatives.

Ninth, work to change attitudes.  Michael Shermer (2017) has provided simple rules for this:  “1.  Keep emotions out of the exchange, 2 discuss, don’t attack…, 3 listen carefully and try to articulate the other position acurately, 4 show respect, 5 acknowledge that you understand why someone might hold that opinion and 6 try to show how changing facts does not necessarily mean changing worldviews.”

So, get the word out, by conventional media, social media, word of mouth, anything.  Let the light shine.  We need to document everything, especially deaths from refusal of health care, suppression of the press and media, and job losses from Trumpist policies.  We desperately need good reporters and media.

We need a serious leader,  or leaders, with a clear, consistent ideology, the opposite of Trump’s.

 

Reaffirming Values

 

One thing is sure:  the United States must go either up or down.  Continuing on the path of Trump and the Republican Party leads to fascist dictatorship, genocide, and national destruction.  The only alternative is to create a better, more fair, more honest, better educated society than we have had before.  Going back to the days of Clinton and Obama is impossible.  In any case, it would almost certainly lead to a repeat of what happened before: set the United States up for fascism.

The only good that can come of the Trump administration would be forcing Americans of the left, center, and traditional right to get together, reaffirm classic values, and fight these fascists down.  That would, however, be a monumentally good thing.  It happened in the Depression.  It could happen now.  Germany, Italy, Japan, and several other genocidal countires emerged from fascism with far more democratic and free regimes than the ones they had before.  On the other hand, de-communisation did not notably help Russia or most of the former USSR (with the conspicuous exceptions of the Baltics).  Only lack of will makes the difference.

We will have to start over from scratch with the classic American project of creating a fair society, with justice consisting of equality before the law and rights consisting of freedom to act in so far as it does not inhibit another’s welfare or freedom.  Under Trump, the rich, the white, and the fundamentalist-Christian have enormous special privileges before the law and in economic and rights-based terms.  The whole idea of “we’re all in this together” has been lost; the Trump administration, including the Republican congress, are engaged in a single-minded war on weaker Americans.

For the future, the key is to learn and rationally understand instead of hating; act and fight on instead of giving up and falling into passivity; be independent instead of conformist!  These self-disciplines have to underlie and be the foundation for restored tolerance, civility, and solidarity in American life.  It will take hard work for all of us to buck the system and do this.  Just do it.  America and all of us Americans are fighting for our lives now.

Psychologists inform us that values clarification makes one happier, healthier, and more successful in everything from exam-taking to courtship.  We need to get serious about restoring American values of liberty, equality, solidarity, and democracy.

Recently, the United States has been losing its traditional values.  Both the right—now ruling—and the more extreme and vocal end of the left have abandoned a good deal of what most Americans agreed on until recently.

Civil rights have priority, since they are most essential to the American vision and they are most under attack.

Freedom of speech is most at risk.  The Trump administration is attacking the media in exactly the way Hitler did in the 1930s.  Unfortunately, some of the misguided “progressive” camp is going after the media too, in the name of suppressing “hate speech.”  There are classic problems with this, all identified by the Founding Fathers, and also by Tom Paine and John Stuart Mill:

Hate speech is in the eye of the beholder.  No definition can be tight enough to stop people from insisting that what they say is not hate speech, and what their opponents say is always hate speech no matter how nicely phrased.  (Politeness can be a way of subtly maintaining white privilege, for instance.)

Hate speech can be educative–if not the speech itself, then from the fact that people say it, believe it, and act on it.

Suppressing speech drives it underground, where it spreads like wildfire—as censored things always do—and is attractive simply because it was suppressed.  There is an Arab saying that “if you forbid people from rolling camel dung into little balls with their fingers, they would do it, because if it is forbidden there must be something good about it.”  Moreover, suppressing speech makes the suppressed people into instant martyrs, no matter how unsavory they seemed before.

Since the people in power will naturally be the ones doing the censoring, all opposition to those in power will soon be censored, and everything that supports them will be permitted, no matter how vile it is.  This is, in practice, the greatest reason why censorship is generally bad.

Last, it is immoral to shut other people up because you happen to dislike what they say.  They have a right to their opinions and their mouths.

If what they say is downright libel, or a direct call to violence, or a lie that directly leads to physical harm to people (like the anti-vaxx lies), that is something else.  Freedom is not a matter of absolute freedom; it is a matter of considering others’ rights.  Speech that actually and directly causes physical harmful is not defensible.  However, the wise activist errs on the side of liberty.

All this we learned in the Free Speech Movement in Berkeley in the 1960s, but it has all been said before, ever since Voltaire and Jefferson.

On the other hand, there are limits.  Libel is properly outlawed.  Yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre is too, and inciting to riot is dicey; some hate speech falls into that category.  Above all, lying under oath is properly forbidden.  It has been suggested that campaign speech should be sworn testimony, at least when facts are stated, and thus lies like Trump’s would be illegal.

Similar conclusions apply to freedom of press, assembly, and religion.  However, religion has now been so thoroughly abused as a cover for political campaigning and even for money-laundering and profiteering that it will have to be protected from these abuses.  Taxing the churches seems an inescapable necessity if the US is to flourish.  Politics is probably protected speech, up to a point, but outright campaigning—with donations of laundered or illegally-gained money—must be stopped.  Preachers who are clearly in it for the money rather than the souls are all too common, and tax laws have to recognize this.  The problem is not just one of politics; the rapidly escalating religious hate that has swept the world, and notably the United States, in the last generation is to a very large degree a product of preaching for money.  Corrupt and evil men posing as preachers find that the easiest way to make it pay is to preach hate and right-wing politics.  This is the story of ISIS and the Taliban as well as of Trump’s preacher claque.

Thus, cleaning up the institution of religion would seem to be a part of assuring liberty of conscience.  Above all, though, liberty of conscience must be preserved.

 

Second is tolerance, which is also under an astonishing amount of attack from the left as well as the right.

It really should need no defense.  Many of the same considerations as those above will apply.

If you do not tolerate others, they will not tolerate you.  They may not even if you do tolerate them, but, in general, hate breeds hate, acceptance breeds acceptance.

We are all in this together.  A functioning society has to grow, change, and build, and can do that only by unified effort, mutual aid, and solidarity.  The alternative is mutual destruction.  The dominant group may win for a while by doing others down, but it merely hurts itself—first by losing those other groups and whatever they have to offer, but second by starting a spirit of hate and rivalry that inevitably tears up the dominant group itself, in due course of time.

As usual, there are limits.  Obviously, we do not want to tolerate rape, murder, or robbery.  The argument is for tolerating people as individuals—the essential personhood behind whatever unacceptable behavior they may sometimes present.  They deserve fairness and consideration.  If they are acting to harm others, they have to be stopped.  Toleration of ideas is a good, but we need to argue and negotiate and work them out.  Toleration of particular behaviors is allowable only in so far as those behaviors do not actively and unnecessarily harm people.  Not all harm to people is bad—Plato and Aristotle were already pointing out 2400 years ago that surgeons “harm” people for their own good.  One wants to minimize hurt, but some pain is necessary.

In short, tolerance is a major goal, but has to be qualified by common sense.  None of this affects tolerating people as human beings, or, for that matter, tolerating other life forms.  Essential acceptance of living beings, simply on the basis of being fellow travelers on the planet, is the basic and essential need of a functioning society.

It is therefore unacceptable to hate or reject anyone on the basis of skin color, ethnicity, language, history, or the like.  No morality can justify that.  Total personal rejection of anyone for any reason is unacceptable.  We may have to kill a person in self-defense, but we are not given license to hate that individual simply for being.  We know that “races” are not biological entities, and that all human groups are pretty much identical in potential, but even if we did find a group that was—say—less intelligent by some measure than the average, we would morally have to pay them the same respect and treatment as everyone else.

This is the real underpinning of the classic Enlightenment virtues: liberty, equality, fairness, justice as fairness, and civil behavior in civil society.  Never mind that the Enlightenment was financed by slavery and colonialism.  The point is that much of its content was explicitly directed against slavery and class discrimination.  No one in the history of the world had opposed slavery in general until 18th-century religious thinkers, largely Quakers, did so.   Fairness has to mean serious attention to disadvantaged groups, not just even-handed treatment of all.  Equality before the law has been in sorry shape under Trump, with flagrant favoring of whites and rich people ove the rest.  With the Attorney General an open racist, nothing but trouble can be expected.  That way lies genocide and nothing else.

 

This brings us to solidarity:  Mutual aid, mutual support, mutual empowerment and strengthening.             It worked for the labor movement and for the old-time Democrats; disunion, carefully nurtured by the right wing, has led to the decline of both those institutions.  The war between Clinton and Sanders supporters took down Clinton in 2016, and will guarantee a Republican gain in the congressional elections of 2018 if it is not resolved.

A major part of this is civility.  We are getting farther and farther from civil discourse.  The right wing is usually the leader and always the most successful in extreme, exaggerated, intemperate, and insulting remarks, and we should leave that to them.  We always lose if we try that tactic.

We can move on to the four C’s—civility, caring, compassion, and considerateness—and the three R’s: Respect, reasonableness, responsibility.  Those last three alone would fix the US’ problems if applied consistently. Thus there is some need to be beyond tolerance.  Compassion and caring for others is a learned skill that should be taught.  They too do not just happen, nor does modern life encourage them.  They have to be taught in schools, workplaces, and elsewhere.

Another value in extreme danger under the Trump administration is education.  His Secretary of Education opposes the whole idea of education, in the usual sense, and totally opposes public education.  She is systematically planning to minimize schooling and turn it into indoctrination in right-wing views.  We need the exact opposite: education to produce genuinely better people—people who are not hateful bullies, but who actually want to help others.

Americans are not getting the type of education they need.  This would be one that 1) teaches civics, including the Constitution and a non-whitewashed US history; 2) teaches actual science and how one can tell falsehoods and investigate truth; 3) actually teach the young about the depth and complexity of human emotions.  Humanistic education these days runs too heavily to comic books and other media that may be well enough in themselves, but do not have the sustained engagement with human feelings and thoughts that one gets from Shakespeare, Cao Xueqin, Dostoievsky, Mann, or Toni Morrison.  Serious music seems to have disappeared from most people’s lives; again, whatever is true or not about “quality,” music of Victoria or Beethoven engages much more deep and complex emotions than the popular stuff.  Whatever one likes or feels is appropriate, people need more insights into humanity than they get from American popular culture.  A reasonable order of teaching children would be starting them with civil behavior (considerate, respectful, sharing; responsible reasonable), then going on to teach compassion and helpfulness because we are all in this together and must follow something like the Golden Rule.  This really has to be done along with reading, writing, history, and math, if we are to survive.

 

This brings up science and environment.  The Trump administration, including the Republicans in Congress, have launched a full-scale war against both.  They do not stop with dismissing science that is embarrassing to their corporate donors, such as research on climate change and pollution.  They have attacked everything from conservation science to Darwinian evolution.  This is perhaps the area where the Republican base—giant primary-production firms, racists, and right-wing religious extremists—shows itself most clearly.  “Scientific” racism and creationism are now supported; the genuine science that disproves these is attacked.  Budget cuts to basic science and to science education are planned; they are serious enough to virtually destroy both.  Republicans realize that promoting such a wide anti-scientific agenda—climate change denial, claims that pesticides are harmless to humans, anti-vaccination propaganda, anti-evolutionism, racism, and so on—can only succeed if the entire enterprise of science is attacked.  The whole concept of truth is a casualty, with the calls for “alternative facts.”  Ideas of proof, evidence, data, and expertise are regarded as basically hostile to Republicanism.

Clearly, it will be national suicide ot allow this to go on.  Not only is further scientific research necessary to progress; a government that makes policy in defiance of the facts of the case will not survive.  We have already been afflicted with Zika, MRSA, and a host of other germs because of indifferent attention to public health.  Rising sea levels are eating away at coastlines.  Bees and other critically important insects are disappearing.  Foreign policy made in a fact-free environment has devastated the Middle East.  The future will be incalculably worse.  Attention to science education, moral education, and humanistic education remains small.

Part of this is environmental concern, and there we need to draw on traditional moralities.  Most cultures, worldwide, have solved the problems of sustainability—usually by teaching respect for all beings.  Children absorb this at a very young age.  They go on to remember that trees, fish, grass, and future humans all need to be regarded as worthy of consideration—to be used only as necessary and to be protected for future uses or simply to keep them alive.  The western world has long been an outlier, worldwide, by treating resources as things to destroy without a second thought.

With a proper spirit of respect, we will be able to preserve species and environments and to avoid destroying the environment with pollutants and excessive construction.  In the short run, we will have to fall back on laws.  The framework existing as of 2016 was inadequate but was a good start; it is now lost, and we will have to start from scratch, hopefully with better laws to be designed in future.  There are countless books on solving the environmental crisis, and to go further into it here would be tedious.  What matters is recognizing that we have to think of sustainability and respect.

 

All the above are what may be called “process goals.”  These are goals that we will never fully achieve, but should keep trying for, because any progress in that direction is pure good.  We will never be perfectly healthy, but any progress toward health is good.  Sustainability is another such case, though this one has to be qualified with the point that achieving sustainability by drastically reducing incomes and welfare would not be good.  Justice, fairness, truth in politics and public life, and civility are all process goals.  Fairness means giving everyone a fair chance, not making everybody equal in a mindless, mechanical way.

We can go on to plan Utopia, but we have to reaffirm and restore the classic American values first, at least as a platform to build on.

 

The key is to learn and rationally understand instead of hating; act and fight on instead of giving up and falling into passivity; be independent instead of conformist!  These self-disciplines have to underlie and be the foundation for restored tolerance, civility, and solidarity in American life.  It will take hard work for all of us to buck the system and do this.  Just do it.  America and all of us Americans are fighting for our lives now.  Choose life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDICES

 

Appendix 1.  Background, Data on the Election, 2016

 

It is fairly easy to see what most mattered in Trump’s victory, by looking at which counties flipped from voting for Obama in 2012 to voting for Trump in 2016.  They were largely small-town and rural counties.  They were concentrated in the northern Midwest, but there were quite a few in the rural northeast and border south.  This is the pattern expected if Trump held the Republicans and added most of the formerly Democratic working-class whites—including women—in those areas.

If Clinton’s main problem had been left-wing defections, the difference would have showed up in the cities, not the rural areas.  Her weak campaigning was clearly a factor, but if it had been deadly there would have been a decline in voting overall.  There was a slight decline, due to general lukewarmness and more specific voter suppression.  However, the overwhelming main difference between 2012 and 2016 was in the votes cast by the rural and small-town interior of America.  Trump appealed most of all to the white male working-class voters who have seen their lives steadily eroding in recent decades.  He also appealed to the women; white women voted for Trump, and many who did not were supporters of Sanders or Stein.  Feminism did not make many vote for Hillary.

The problems have been offshoring of jobs, automation, and giant corporations forcing speedups and other exploitative moves, but it proved very easy for Trump to shift the blame to the weak:  Minorities, “illegal aliens,” the poor, women, gays, anybody that seemed weaker than the white males.  Given rising population, shrinking opportunities, rapidly increasing inegality, and above all a sense of losing control over their lives, the working class voted against their self-interest.  Even the Republican middle class clearly voted against themselves.  No one benefits from the Trump presidency except the giant primary-production corporations—the most reactionary, dinosauric segment of society.

In 2012, Obama got about as many votes as Hillary did in 2016, Romney got about as many as Trump.  And about 125,000,000 eligible voters did not turn out at all.   Only 55.6% the eligible voters turned out, and Democrats suffered far more than Republicans, as usual.  That means that the 20% of voters who were hateful represent only a bit over 10% of the general population.  (Accusations of illegals, dead people, and duplicate-voters for Clinton have not turned up a single case.  On the other hand, many faked votes for Trump have been disclosed.)  Clinton won fewer than 500 counties, but they included almost all the large urban ones; Trump won the rest of the 3141 counties in the US, but these were overwhelmingly rural.

Men and women were almost mirror image: Men broke 53-41 for Trump, women 42-54.  People under 30 voted 37-55, over 30 52-43.  (Other votes went to third party people, with little effect on overall results.)  Whites broke an amazing 58-37, probably a record.  Hispanics were 29-65, blacks 8-88 (!).  College-educated people, especially women, broke for Clinton; less educated whites broke very heavily for Trump.  The most economically productive counties in the US voted overwhelmingly for Clinton, giving her 64% of the economy (going by counties); of rich, economically active counties, Trump won only Maricopa County, AZ (Phoenix and suburbs) and Tarrant County, TX (Fort Worth area) (Tankersley 2016).  The economically less successful counties Clinton carried were almost all minority-dominated.  This economic breakdown is rare at best, and unique in Democrat history.

Evangelicals broke 81 to 16% for Trump, a record.  In all, the GOP constituency turned out in force and was loyal.  There was also a reversal of the recent trend for rich to vote Democratic.  Most of the press and many giant corporations supported Clinton, but the traditional Republican constituency—well-to-do whites, suburbanites, farmers—went as heavily Republican as they did in the 1980s, unlike their shift toward Obama in 2008 and 2012.  The poorer whites broke for Trump, slightly, but overall 52 to 53% of less affluent voters went for Clinton—largely because the number of minorities is so high in that income category.  Even so, Trump got 15% more of the less educated and less affluent (under $30,000/year) white vote than Romney got in 2012.  People under 30 broke heavily for Clinton, but not so heavily as they had broken for Obama.  In all, the pattern was a return to the George W. Bush years.

Trump voters tend to believe that whites are more discriminated against than blacks, Hispanics, or Muslims—in contrast to the US average and especially Clinton voters.  A Huffington Post-YouGov poll revealed that 10% of Clinton voters and 45% of Trump voters thought there was” a lot of discrimination” against whites (the US average was 24%).  Clinton voters were far more prone than average to see more discrimination against the other named groups, reaching a high of 88% for Muslims (Edwards-Levy 2016).

Interesting are the huge changes in the last 50 years, even in the last 30.  The cities are now so heavily Democratic that, for instance, the whole Los Angeles Basin was a sea of blue when the precincts were counted, with only a few tiny pink (not red—the pink districts were barely carried by Trump) spots in the most traditionally rich and conservative areas.  Even San Marino, former home of the John Birch Society and a city that went approximately 90% for Reagan in 1980 and 1984, was split into a pale pink ward and a blue one.  Pasadena and La Canada-Flintridge, formerly major Republican strongholds, were deep blue.  So were millionaire strongholds like Malibu and the Westside.  Other cities all over the state, and indeed all over the country, showed the same trajectory.

By contrast, rural areas that were solidly Democratic as recently as 1980, and in some cases even 2012, were solidly red all over the country, including California.  The only exceptions were rural counties that are overwhelmingly minority-populated.  Idaho was the most liberal-voting state in the country in the 1960s.  It is now the second most Republican, after Wyoming.  The Dakotas and Montana were solidly Democrat then; they are now Republican strongholds. Of course the deep south switched because the Republicans replaced the southern Democrats as the party of racism, but the border south was generally liberal Democrat through the 1960s; it is now second only to the northern interior west in Republican dominance.  Among other things, this thoroughly disproves theories of “innate” and “genetically determined” politics and party affiliation—bits of nonsense that reappear every election.

The result was that Clinton carried 88 of the most populous 100 counties in the US, but lost virtually all the rural and suburban counties—essentially all of the ones that were not dominated by nonwhite minority populations.

Voter suppression since 2010 had a huge amount of effect in this, and several other games were played.  Russian hacking of voting machines clearly benefited Trump, to an uncertain degree.  Republican voter suppression and intimidation cost Clinton Wisconsin, North Carolina and Ohio, and possibly Arizona,.  Some 1,100,000 voters, mostly poor and nonwhite, were disqualified, or their ballots somehow disappeared; reporter Greg Palast traced the story and found out how Republicans had managed it (Palast 2016a, 2016b).  Google counted voter incidents reported to them, and found a clear and enormous pattern of repression and corruption of many kinds, from rigged machines to long wait times, often from closed polling places (Garland 2016). There was also apparent gaming of voting machines.

Bill Palmer has noted that there was an astonishing decline in Black turnout even from the primaries, let alone 2012.  There were other mysterious declines of minority voters, in states with voter suppression laws.  He also noted that Clinton carried the early vote in Florida, where most people voted early, but then Trump won the state—requiring a vote of 70% for Trump by the election-day voters.  Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan turned in late-breaking Trump wins with 1% or less of the vote—consistently.  Polls were mysteriously far wrong (with one or two exceptions).  Voter turnout was surprisingly light, and mysteriously much lighter than expected in precisely the states where suppression was already ongoing and registration therefore down.  Any one or two of these anomalies could be chance, or late-breaking changes of mind by the voters, but all of the anomalies put together look highly suspicious.  Further detailed analysis of the numbers by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman (2016) and Greg Palast (2016a, 2016b) prove Palmer right, and reveal many other suspicious matters.

Of course the Koch brothers were intensely involved at all levels.  They did not like Trump and refused to support him directly, but poured over $750 million dollars into Senate and other races and general build-up of Republican agendas.  They are now poised to tell the solidly Republican congress exactly what to do (Skocpol et al. 2016).  It took them no time to accept Trump and work with him.  Their operator Marc Short is now Trump’s liaison to Congress (Eskow 2017)—a group he knows well from prior work for the Kochs, who are huge donors to the most right-wing congresspersons.

 

Many of the Democrat nonvoters were disaffected supporters of Bernie Sanders.  They refused to vote for Clinton, and that was one of the things that cost her the election.

Democrats often fail to turn out large percentages of their typical “base demographics.”  Democrats did better in 2008 and 2012, but their turnouts in 2010 and 2014 were derisory.  Only a very small percentage of registered Democrats turned out in those midterm years.

So, there were many causes of Clinton’s loss.  The biggest was clearly the failure of turnout, especially the disaffected voters.  Clinton’s lack of charisma and personal touch, and Trump’s abundant endowment with both, was clearly and heavily decisive.  These two together led to massive loss of working-class white votes (see e.g. Maslin 2016).  Possibly even more important was Clinton’s establishment ties and her inability to escape them.  She always embodied the Washington establishment so clearly and unmistakably that voters weary of that enterprise voted against her, no matter what they thought of Trump.

Clinton’s one really hateful remark—calling the most racist of Trump supporters “a basket of deplorables”—may have cost her the election, but Trump’s hundreds of hateful remarks merely fed his supporters.  They came on top of decades of Republicans deliberately whipping up racial, gender, and religious hatred, to divide the voters and set them against each other.  Lies (especially on talk radio and Fox News) and dirty tricks did the rest.  The Clinton campaign blamed especially the tricks played by James Comey, head of the FBI and a Trump Republican, in the last month of the campaign.  He apparently timed email investigations and his letters about them to do maximal damage.

Part of the back story included progressive distancing of the Democrats from working-class and rural voters over three decades.  This has thrown an increasingly desperate and miserable group of people to the wolves (as “bkamr” 2017 notes, Democrat representatives did not show up in desperately troubled eastern Kentucky).  An excellent account of their problems and the exploitation thereof by the hate-merchants is given by Chris Hedges (2016).  Part of the problem is a hard-to-define but easy-to-see difference between traditional American rural and working-class culture—defiant, independent, but loyal to charismatic leaders—and the urban intellectual culture that dominates the Democratic Party today.

Even worse was the rapid decline of newspapers and serious news magazines, and their replacement by biased and “clickbait” sites, hate propaganda, non-print media (especially on talk radio and Fox News), and trash entertainment.  The media both eliminated serious coverage of news and set people up to believe any story or to disbelieve all stories, including climate science and other vitally important truths.

Reversal of any one of these many causes would have meant a win for Clinton.

In the days after the election, everybody seized on his or her pet cause as “the” cause, and flayed anyone who thought differently—guaranteeing problems with fixing the situation in future.  The leftists and liberals revealed their fondness for what many refer to as their typical “circular firing squad.”

The basic fact, though, is that people voted their hate—or hatred of all the alternatives led the  not to vote.  Trump and Clinton had the lowest approval ratings of any candidates in the history of polling—Trump was the worst ever, Clinton second.  Trump’s savage hatemongering gave him this reputation; Clinton was the victim of a huge and systematic Republican smear campaign, but if she had been more personable and less connected with big banks and big business she could have blown that off, as Obama did and as her own husband did when they were subjected to similar treatment.  She appeared elitist; that made her connection with the banks and firms seem deadly serious rather than mere ordinary politics.

 

This election is unique in the history of the US, and rare in the history of the world.  In most elections, the candidates at least pretend to discuss real issues.  This one was entirely about hate, from Trump’s side—even his “positive” proposals were all things to be done by getting rid of Mexicans, Chinese, Muslims, anyone.  Sanders avoided hate, but his followers did not; they circulated lies about Clinton, often recycled from the Trump propaganda mill.  (Some “pro-Sanders” lies may have been Russian hack jobs, however.)  Clinton did not run a very positive or hopeful campaign either.  One kept hoping and expecting her to give a clarion call for national unity and solidarity—everyone standing and working together.  She never did.  She appealed to every demographic in the country except white males.  It didn’t work.  She had no real proposals for major change; she ran far too much on Obama’s record.  It was a record of global trade deals, support for hi-tech, and other moves that proved anathema to rural and working-class whites, who felt left out by the latter and genuinely harmed by the former.  They understandably felt that the new economy was being constructed at their expense.  Almost all commentators since the election have agreed that Clinton should have appealed to this traditionally Democratic group of voteres by promising economic reforms that would benefit them.  Instead, what little she promised in the way of economic reform was of interest largely to affluent urban voters.  Part of the context is the decline in manufacturing jobs in the US from 17 million as recently as 2000 (after already huge job flight) to 11 million at the depth of the 2008-9 recession.  It recovered to over 12 million by 2016, but one can certainly see why blue-collar America is disaffected.  The Clinton wing blames automation, but exporting jobs to low-wage, labor-suppressing countries may be the real problem.  It was certainly the problem salient to the white working class, and to many other workers too.

Previous US elections—all of them—highlighted solidarity and national unity (even while working cynically against it, as many presidents did).  Even Calvin Coolidge, previously the most right-wing president, ran more upbeat campaigns and made more solid contributions than Trump.  Earlier campaigns also invariably included numerous proposals for change and growth—again, often to betray them all later, but the promise was important.  Most of our elections have matched one pleasant stuffed suit against another, with no vast outpouring of hateful rhetoric and no huge difference in programs.  Not in 2016.

Worldwide, elections with this breadth and depth of hate on the part of the winner have been confined to fascist takeovers, especially Germany in 1932-33, of course, but also Mussolini’s victories, and hard-right victories in various Latin American countries over the decades.  Modi’s win in India involved much hatred, but had many promises too (still to be fulfilled).

Several studies confirm the obvious point that racism and sexism account for much more of the Trump vote than any economic factors do (Lopez 2017).  In general, traditional Republicans and also racist and sexist former Democrats voted for Trump.

The Los Angeles Times (Lauter 2016) reports that the clearest demographic difference between Trump and Clinton was education: whites without college education broke overwhelmingly for Trump.  No other demographic did.  Young people, as usual, did not vote in large numbers, and given their well-documented support for Clinton, that low turnout itself doomed her.  Blue-collar white voters and counties that went for Obama in 2008 and 2012 went heavily for Trump; conversely, relatively conservative educated whites flipped the other way.  The biggest change was in the northern midwest, formerly a solid Democratic stronghold, now—and not only in the presidential race—almost as right-wing as the deep south.

One reason the final result—Trump’s solid win nationwide—was so surprising was last-minute voters breaking for Trump.  These seem to have been partly Republicans who had trouble stomaching the man, and partly independents and traditional Democrats who both disliked Hillary and wanted a more aggressive change agenda.

A long, excellent article in the Washington Post (Hofmann 2016) describes Shannon Monnat’s research on 3106 counties.  Trump’s vote surpassed Romney’s by 10% in downwardly mobile, largely white counties with high rates of drug, alcohol, and suicide deaths, especially if such deaths have been increasing.  These are counties where farming, manufacturing, and mining formerly provided good livings, but have declined or died out.  Trump did worse by 3% in better-off counties.  Typical was Scioto Co., Ohio: Trump ran 33% better than Romney—and drug, alcohol, and suicide death rates have doubled in that time, as pill-pushing clinics came in and manufacturing went out.  Mingo Co., WV, the drug, alcohol and suicide death rate rose from 53.6 to 161.1 in the years 1999-2014.  In Coos County, NH, Manufacturing shrank from 38% of jobs to 7%, and pay for it from 49% to 9%, from the 1980s.  It went heavily for Trump.  All across the northern Midwest, Trump did better than Romney, especially in rural and small-town counties.

Clinton should have opposed hatred from the start—hatred in general, across the board.  Instead, she joined in (with her infamous “deplorables” remark) or, at best, protested against hatred of specific groups, notably women.  Clinton could have and should have talked more to economic issues, especially those that concern less educated workers.  Derek Thompson (2016) points out that she did in fact focus on those matters.  However, she did not highlight it.  The media did not cover it, which is yet another proof that the media were hypnotized by Trump and thus did much to elect him.

Clinton ran far worse than Obama did in 2012.  Trump also ran worse than Romney in most places.  The World Almanac for 2017 gives county-by-county totals, making research easy. For a random example, Shawnee County, Kansas, returned 33,074 votes for Clinton, 35,260 for Trump, as opposed to 36,975 and 97,782 for Obama and Romney respectively.  Leslie County, KY, one of the most pro-Trump counties in the US, returned 400 and 4,015 vs. 433 and 4,439.  (This county, with which I am quite familiar, is one of the poorest in the US, with extremely high unemployment, mortality, and substance abuse rates.)  The state of Mississippi ran 457,569/668,987 vs. 562,949/710,748 (reflecting a tendency of Black voters—almost the only Democrats in the state—to stay home in 2016).

Notable was that, as James Hohmann (2016) reports, Trump did best in the counties with the highest alcoholism, drug abuse, and suicide rates.  These are the areas of white working-class hopelessness: worked-out coal-mining areas, ruined industrial cities, small towns ruined by big agribusiness.

Part of the reason was voter suppression.  The shift in Wisconsin was about 300,000 total, and that is exactly the estimated number of votrs forced off the rolls by Governor Scott Walker’s policies.  In Michigan, the Clinton shortfall almost exactly equaled the mysteriously missing or misrecorded 75,000 votes from Detroit, apparently uncounted for very dubious reasons (Palast 2016).

Sometimes,Trump picked up many votes that must earlier have gone to Obama.  To pick a random but typical county, Buchanan County, Iowa, reported 3,966 votes for Clinton, 5504 for Trump, vs. in 2012 5,911 for Obama and 4450 for Romney.  This was a very typical pattern across the northern midwest—the Rust Belt and especially its rural environs.  Even Minnesota, which Clinton carried handily, had voted far more strongly for Obama.  It seems more than unlikely that all these Trump voters were racist, since so many had gone for Obama only four years earlier.  A few urban areas reported more votes for Clinton than Obama, but the increase reflects population increase fairly accurately.

Overall, rural areas, especially in the Appalachians and Plains (where many counties went over 10-1 for Trump), reported lopsided wins for Trump; many urban areas reported lopsided wins for Clinton (Berkeley, CA, reported 3% for Trump—even Jill Stein got more).  In Oregon, Multnomah County (Portland) went 4-1 for Clinton (and both candidates got fewer votes than Obama and Romney, respectively, got in 2012); Harney County, in the remote ranching east, more than 4-1 for Trump.  There is an extreme split in the US.

The Democrats will never win again unless they reverse the rapid swing of rural and small-town areas away from them.

More and more evidence shows a full-scale conspiracy involving James Comey, head of the FBI, and Clinton’s emails (Abramson 2017).

However, Trump most certainly lost the total vote.  The final count was 62,979,879 for him, 65,854,954 for Clinton, and several million for others, totaling 74,074,037 against him. The final count shows Clinton got 2,864,974 more votes than Trump, without rechecking states like Florida and Michigan.

 

In state-by-state breakdowns (World Almanac 2017):

Clinton won more votes than Obama, Trump more than Romney in

FL, IA, NV, TX—basically only in states with large population increases, except for Iowa.

Clinton more than Obama, Trump less than Romney:

GA, MA

Clinton less than Obama, Trump more than Romney

AL, AR, CT, DL, HI, IN, KY, LA, MN, MI, MN, MO, NB, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, PA, RI, SD, TN, VT, WV, WY—note this includes most of the old Democratic strongholds, which should absolutely terrify Democrats.  Even New York and Vermont.

Clinton less than Obama, Trump less than Romney:

AK (quite huge difference), AZ, CA (but not all votes had been counted when the World Almanac was published), CO, DC, ID, IL, KS, MD, MS, MT, NM, OK, SC, UT (huge drop from Romney to Trump vote because of the popularity of Evan McMillan and Gary Johnson as alternate right-wing candidates), VA, WA, WI.  Note many of these are solid Red states, where disgust for Trump was widespread, but also several Democrat strongholds.

 

For the future, minimally, the Democrats must:

Fight hate.  Preach unity, solidarity, tolerance, valuing diversity, civil behavior, politeness, responsibility.

Deal with an economy that has been incresaingly distorted and corrupted by giant firms and their enormous subsidies and tax breaks.

Stress classic American values, especially egality, genuine freedom (as opposed to the freedom to bully weaker people), opportunity, and public goods.

Attack corruption, gerrymandering, voter suppression, and violence.

Tactically, first, stop trying to win by mobilizing demographics that don’t vote!  There is no hope of getting the turnout of Latinos, Asian-Americans, or, above all, young people up to the point where they can turn an election.

Go for grassroots.  Ask ordinary people what they want.

Attack dark money and everything connected with it.  Daylight it.

 

 

 

Appendix 2.  A PROFESSOR’S ACTION PLAN FOR THE POST-ELECTION ERA

Pierce Salguero

In the wake of the 2016 election, the core values I hold as an individual and that I believe are emblematic of the academic professions (e.g., multicultural inclusion, critical inquiry, and pursuit of truth) have come under direct attack. I believe that this situation necessitates a coherent and strategic response from any of us who are in a position to speak out. Below is my own personal action plan for the post-election era. I have arranged these ideas, compiled with the goal of maximizing my impact within the limitations of my power, from the personal to the community to the national level:

  1. MICRO-LEVEL ACTIONS
  2. SELF-EDUCATION. At the personal and individual level, I plan to educate myself about the deep historical roots as well as the more recent factors that have led to the rise of right wing populism in the US and around the world. I plan to reach out to colleagues in history, political science, economics, sociology, and other fields, to ask for help identifying readings and resources. Although this critical inquiry does not necessarily relate directly to my own academic field, I plan to make time for this and to integrate it into my weekly schedule.
  3. INTERROGATING PRIVILEGE. I plan to continue to understand, reflect on, and critically interrogate my own privilege as a white, straight, cisgendered, able-bodied male. I need to identify and work to break down my own inherent biases. Where I can, I should leverage my privilege in order to intervene on behalf of those who do not share it. I plan to keep reading, attending workshops at conferences and on campus, and learning from colleagues in who are engaged in this field of study. While these conversations may sometimes be uncomfortable, I need to remain open, engaged, and moving forward in this area.
  4. RESPONSIBLE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA. Part of my surprise about the results of this election was no doubt due to my being comfortably ensconced in a heavily left-leaning social media bubble. I plan to break out by reading more widely and seeking out a more diverse circle of contacts. Responsible use of social media also means recognizing its limitations. I need to know when to set down the computer and engage in the real world.
  5. SELF-CARE. I’ve noticed that this crisis has weighed more heavily on me than I would have anticipated. Stress, anxiety, and depression are not productive for critical inquiry. I am also finding myself in a very judgmental space right now. I need to be able to cultivate empathy in order to understand other people — especially when I strongly disagree with them. For all of these reasons, I need to continue to tap into my spiritual community, and to engage in activities for physical and mental wellbeing. Although it feels like copping out, knowing when to step away to care for myself will make me a stronger advocate in the long tun.
  6. MESO-LEVEL ACTIONS
  7. CAMPUS ORGANIZATIONS & EVENTS. In addition to my own private life and personal space, I also know I can be an agent for diversity, equity, and inclusion within the communities of which I am a part. On campus, I have the opportunity to engage with these issues through committees and faculty senate. I can also continue to be involved in mentoring for student clubs, organizing or attending multicultural celebrations, and participating in other opportunities that bring me into regular contact with our diverse student body. I can also organize reading groups, small discussion groups, or public lectures on related issues, both on campus and locally where I live.
  8. PUBLIC STATEMENTS. I can draft a declaration opposing hate and bigotry, and propose this to my campus administrators and my faculty senate. I can also work to introduce a similar statement as legislation in the townships where live and where my workplace is located, as well as in organizations with which I have a connection. (Note that I must engage in this activity as a private citizen and not as a representative of the college where I work, cognizant of my employer’s policies regarding engagement in politics or media.)
  9. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS. I was pleasantly surprised with the proactive stance on dealing with post-election climate taken by several of the professional associations I am affiliated with. Where such efforts are being made, I can support them, and I can utilize the resources and community that such associations provide in order to expand my circle, connect with people who have expertise I need to tap into, and keep myself informed. Where such efforts are not already being made, I can advocate for these issues to be taken up by writing letters to association officers.
  10. BECOMING A BETTER ALLY. I need to challenge myself to learn more about being a trustworthy ally for my most vulnerable friends, colleagues, students, and community members. I need to continue to read up on this, to reach out to colleagues who are more knowledgable than me, and to engage with the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion on my campus. I can also prioritize mentoring underrepresented faculty, staff, and students on campus, through my professional associations, at conferences, and in other professional settings.
  11. PEDAGOGICAL DEVELOPMENT. As my courses do not focus on the modern period, I do not often have the opportunity to directly engage in classroom discussions related to contemporary politics. When I do, I need to focus on the analytical tools my discipline brings to the discussion, taking pains not to present an unbalanced account or to state my own opinions as fact. I also need to remain cognizant that students have varying viewpoints and backgrounds, and not abuse my position of power at the front of the classroom. I need to continue to develop inclusive pedagogical methods that actively bring all students into the conversation. An openness to all perspectives is especially important since I want my classroom to be a safe space for dialogue and growth — both for students and myself. I need to seek out knowledgable colleagues who can help me to develop pedagogical methods that ensure I am doing this well and responsibly.
  12. MACRO-LEVEL ACTIONS
  13. ENGAGE IN POLITICS. It’s in this arena where I feel the most helpless, but I am recommitting to supporting organizations that promote higher education, multicultural inclusion, civil liberties, and investigative journalism, as well as public academic and cultural institutions. I need to stay involved at the local, state, and national level, and not let myself get complacent in the interim between elections. My support cannot be limited to social media posts, online petitions, and private conversations; I need to contribute materially to the causes I believe in. I am unlikely to be able to support all of these causes financially, but I should do so where I can and seek out other means of supporting where I cannot.
  14. PRIORITIZE PUBLIC SCHOLARSHIP. Finally, as a professor, scholar, and author who cares about critical inquiry, multiculturalism, and the future of higher education, I need to reach more diverse audiences, across disciplines, both inside the academy and beyond. In this “post-truth” and anti-intellectual climate, the burden is on me to demonstrate why what I do is relevant and important. With this goal in mind, I can write up my methods and findings in accessible ways in blogs, websites, popular magazines, and other outlets with further reach than scholarly journals. I can contribute to the circulation of academic humanities and social science research more widely, which in the long run may lead to deeper public understanding of critical thinking, the role of education, and the importance of the academic professions for civic life in the US.

I am an interdisciplinary humanities scholar interested in the role of Buddhism in the crosscultural exchange of medical ideas. See more at piercesalguero.com.

Appendix 3.

 

Timothy Snyder’s twenty lessons, from On Tyranny (Snyder 2017).

  1. Do not obey in advance.
  2. Defend institutions.
  3. Beware the one-party state.
  4. Take responsibiloity for the face of the world.
  5. Remember professional ethics.
  6. Be wary of paramilitaries.
  7. Be reflective if you must be armed.
  8. Stand out.
  9. Be kind to our language.
  10. Believe in truth.
  11. Investigate.
  12. Make eye contact and small talk.
  13. Practice corporeal politics.
  14. Establish a private life.
  15. Contribute to good causes.
  16. Learn from peers in other countries.
  17. Listen for dangerous words.
  18. Be calm when the unthinkable arrives.
  19. Be a patriot.
  20. Be as courageous as you can.

 

Appendix 4. A constitution for a united world:

FIRST, the standard freedoms, including all human and civil rights, guarantee of impartial justice (especially impartial to dollars) and rights to organize.  Explicitly, money is not speech.

Next, full rights to a decent environment—minimal pollution and waste, no subsidies for primary production, preservation of as much of nature as possible given the need to maintain a decent standard of living.

Next, no offensive war; war only to defend the country from direct attack, but that can cover going after terrorists abroad.

Then, firm graduated tax rate, written into the constitution  No tax exemptions except for legitimate business and work expenses, and actual, effective charities. No exceptions for churches, for “charities” that do not spend >80% of their incomes on actual charity work, or political outfits masquerading as “non-profits.”  Offshore tax havens, offshore headquarters of firms with 98% of their activities far from the headquarters country, and the like absolutely illegal, with extreme penalties.

No subsidies, no favoring particular businesses, minimal restriction of business and trade, but firm regulations such that harm and cheating don’t happen.

Free universal health care (free up to a point—small deductibles possible, and no free plastic surgery to conform to fashion).

Free universal liberal-arts education.  National educational policy guaranteeing accurate content, attention to differentially abled students, strict equality of opportunity, and quality literature and arts.  Private schools allowed, but not doctrinaire religious schools.  Content of education strictly monitored; disproved or effectively disproved material not allowed.

Savage penalties for corruption, including for donating campaign funds beyond a set limit.  Campaign fund regulations, especially in sensitive things like judicial elections.

Universal national service: a year in the military, a year doing environmental work, then a year of social work.  Lifetime emergency call-up, as in Switzerland.

Discouragement of hate and hate speech.  Citizens see their duty as opposing it and damping it down.  No penalties, but extreme, savage penalties for violating civil rights and for hate crimes.

Aesthetics encouraged; national conservation in natural and historic sites, museums, galleries, and the like; art, music and literature important in schools.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES

 

Abramson, Seth.  2017.  “The Domestic Conspiracy That Gave Trump the Election Is in Plain Sight.”  Huffington Post, Jan. 17, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-domestic-conspiracy-that-gave-trump-the-election_us_587ed24fe4b0b110fe11dbf9

 

Akçam, Taner.  2012.  The Young Turks’ Crime against Humanity:  The Armenian Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing in the Ottoman Empire.  Princeton: Princeton University Press.

 

AlJazeera.  2012.  “The School of the Americas: Class Over?”  Posted Sept. 20.

 

Allport, Gordon.  1954.  The Nature of Prejudice.  Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

 

Alvarez, Alex.  2016.  “Borderlands, Climate Change, and the Genocidal Impulse.”  Genocide Studies International 10:27-36.

 

Anderson, Barbara; E. N. Anderson; and Roseanne Rushing.  2004.  “Violence:  Assault on Personhood.”  In Reproductive Health:  Women and Men’s Shared Responsibility, Barbara A. Anderson, ed.  Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.  Pp. 163-204.

 

Anderson, E. N.  2010.  The Pursuit of Ecotopia.  Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio.

 

Anderson, E. N., and Barbara A. Anderson. 2012.  Warning Signs of Genocide.  Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.

 

Angell, David.  2017.  The Death Gap: How Inequality Kills.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 

Apsel, Joyce, and Ernesto Verdeja (eds.).  2013.  Genocide Matters: Ongoing Issues and Emerging Perspectives.  New York: Routledge.

 

Arrow, Holly. 2007. “The Sharp End of Altruism.” Science 318:581-582.

 

Atran, Scott. 2003. “Genesis of Suicide Terrorism.” Science 299:1534-1539.

 

Atran, Scott.  2010. Talking to the Enemy: Faith, Brotherhood, and the (Un)Making of Terrorists. New York: HarperCollins.

 

Baker, Marge.  2017.  “Jeff Sessions’ Relationship with Breitbart, ‘The Platform’ for the Alt-Right, Should Be Disqualifying.”  Huffington Post, Jan. 4, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marge-baker/jeff-sessions-relationshi_b_13941372.html

 

Balakian, Grigoris. 2009. Armenian Golgotha. New York: Knopf.

 

Balakian, Peter. 2007. Black Dog of Fate: A Memoir. New York: Basic Books.

 

Bandura, Albert. 1982.  “Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency.”  American Psychologist 37:122-147.

 

Bandura, Albert.  1986.  Social Foundations of Thought and Action:  A Social Cognitive Theory.  Englewood Cliffs, NJ:  Prentice-Hall.

 

Baron-Cohen, Simon.  2011.  Zero Degrees of Empathy: A New Theory of Human Cruelty.  London:  Allen Lane.  In US as:  The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty.  New York:  Basic Books.

 

Bartlett, Steven James.  2005.  The Pathology of Man:  A Study of Human Evil.  Springfield, IL:  Charles C. Thomas.

 

Baumann, Nick.  2016.  “Trump’s National Security Adviser Met with Head of Party Founded by Nazis.”  Huffington Post, Dec. 20, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-flynn-freedom-party-nazis_us_5859367ee4b08debb78af7c2

 

Baumeister, Roy F.  1997.  Evil:  Inside Human Cruelty and Violence.  San Francisco:  W. H. Freeman.

Beattie, James, and Richard Bullen.  2014.  Visions of Peace: The H. W. Youren Collection and the Art of Chinese Soft Diplomacy.  Napier, NZ: University of Canterbury Confucius Institute.

 

Beck, Aaron. 1999.  Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger, Hostility, and Violence.  NY: HarperCollins.

 

Beck, Ulrich. 1992. The Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Tr. Mark Ritter. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

 

Bellamy, Alex.  2010.  “Military Intervention.”  In The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, David Bloxham and A. Dirk Moses, eds.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Pp. 597-616.

 

Bengali, Sashank. 2007. “Wars Have Cost Africa an Estimated $284 Billion Since 1990.” Yahoo online from McClatchy News Service, Oct. 11.

 

Bengali, Shashank.  2017.  “Myanmar Admits Abuse of Villagers.”  Los Angeles Times, Jan. 3, A3.

 

“bkamr.”  2017.  “Why Are People Surprised When a Dysfunctional Community Votes Against Their Self-interest?” Daily Kos, Jan. 1. http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/1/1616174/-Why-are-people-surprised-that-a-dysfunctional-community-could-vote-against-their-self-interests?detail=facebook

 

Bourdieu, P. 1991. The Political Ontology of Martin Heidegger. Tr. Peter Collier. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

 

Bowles, Samuel. 2006. “Group Competition, Reproductive Leveling, and the Evolution of Human Altruism.” Science 314:1569-1572.

 

— 2008. “Conflict: Altruism’s Midwife.” Nature 456:326-327.

 

— 2009. Did Warfare among Ancestral Hunter-Gatherers Affect the Evolution of Human Social Behaviors?” Science 324:1293-1298.

 

Bowles, Samuel, and Herbert Gintis. 2011. A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

 

Brown, Dee  1971. Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

 

Brown, Hayes.  2013.  “The Inside Story of How the U.S. Acted to Prevent Another Rwanda.”  ThinkProgress website, Dec. 20.

 

Buell, Paul D. 2008. “Central Eurasia: Genocide as a Way of Life?” Ms.

 

Bunker, Stephen, and Paul Ciccantell. 2005. Globalization and the Race for Resources. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

 

Cameron, Catherine M.; Paul Kelton; Alan C. Swedlund (eds.).  2015.  Beyond Germs: Native Depopulation in North America.  Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

 

Cartwright, Zach.  2017.  “Harvard Doctors Just Revealed How Many People Will Die from Repealing Obamacare.”  US Uncut, Jan. 23, http://usuncut.com/politics/harvard-doctors-obamacare-repeal/

Case, Anne, and Angus Deaton.  2015.  “Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife among White Non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st Century.”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112:15078-15083.

 

Chalk, Frank, and Kurt Jonassohn. 1990. The History and Sociology of Genocide: Analyses and Case Studies. New Haven: Yale University Press.

 

Charny, Israel. 1994. The Widening Circle of Genocide. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

—  2016.  The Genocide Contagion: How We Commit and Confront Holocaust and Genocide.  Lanham, MD: Lexington Books (Rowman and Littlefield).

 

Chenoweth, Erica, and Maria Stephan.  2012.  Why Civil Resistance Works.  New York: Columbia University Press.

 

Chirot, Daniel, and Clark McCauley. 2006.  Why Not Kill Them All?  The Logic and Prevention of Mass Political Murder.  Princeton:  Princeton University Press.

 

Choi, Jung-Kyoo, and Samuel Bowles. 2007. “The Coevolution of Parochial Altruism and War.” Science 318:636-640.

 

Collier, Paul. 2003. Breaking the Conflict Trap: Civil War and Development Policy. New York: World Bank.

 

— 2007. The Bottom Billion. New York: Oxford University Press.

 

— 2010. The Plundered Planet: Why We Must—and How We Can—Manage Nature for Global Prosperity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 

Collier, Paul, and Ian Bannon (eds.). 2003. Natural Resources and Violent Conflict: Options and Actions. New York: World Bank.

 

Collier, Paul, and Nicholas Sambanis. 2005.  Understanding Civil War: Evidence and Analysis.  2 v. Washington, DC: World Bank.

 

Dallaire, Roméo. 2003. Shake Hands with the Devil. Torono: Random House

 

Davis, David Brion. 1966. The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 2 v.

 

— 1971. “New Sidelights on Early Antislavery Radicalism.” William and Mary Quarterly 28:585-594.

 

Debo, Angie.  2013.  A History of the Indians of the United States.  Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

 

De Dreu, Carsten K. W.; Lindred L. Greer; Michel J. J. Handgraaf; Shaul Shalvi; Gerben A. Van Kleef; Matthijs Baas; Femke S. Ten Velden; Eric Van Dijk; Sander W. W. Feith. 2010. “The Neuropeptide Oxytocin Regulates Parochial Altruism in Intergroup Conflict among Humans.” Science 328:1408-1411.

 

Dentan, Robert K. 1968. The Semai, a Nonviolent People of Malaysia. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

 

—  2008. Overwhelming Terror: Love, Fear, Peace, and Violence among Semai of Malaysia. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

 

Dikötter, Frank.  2010.  Mao’s Great Famine:  The History of China’s Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958-1962.  New York:  Walker and Co.

 

—  2013. The Tragedy of Liberation: A History of the Chinese Revolution 1945-1957.  Bloomsbury Press.

 

—  2016.  The Cultural Revolution: A People’s History 1962-1976.  London:  Bloomsbury.

 

Doughty, Kristin. 2015.  Review of Warning Signs of Genocide: An Anthropological Perspective.  American Anthropologist 117:174-175.

Edwards, Haley Sweetland.  2016.  “The Schoolyatrd Rebel.”  Time, Dec. 26, 64-65.

 

Douglas, Mary, and Aaron Wildavsky. 1982. Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.

 

Dunbar, Robin I. M. 1993. “Coevolution of Neocortical Size, Group Size and Language in Humans.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16:681-735.

 

— 2004. Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language. New York: Gardner Books.

 

Edwards-Levy, Ariel.  2016.  “Nearly Half of Trump Voters Think Whites Face a Lot of Discrimination.”  Huffington Post, Nov.  21, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/discrimination-race-religion_us_5833761ee4b099512f845bba?section=politics

 

Eskow, Richard.  2017.  “Koch Dark-Money Operative is Trump’s Liaison to Congress.”  Moyers and Company, Jan. 24,  http://billmoyers.com/story/koch-dark-money-operative-trumps-liaison-congress/

 

Fausset, Richard. 2013.  “Ex-Guatemalan Dictator Found Guilty of Genocide.”  Los Angeles Times, May. 11, p. AA6.

 

Feierstein, Daniel.  2010.  “National Security Doctrine in Latin America: The Genocide Question.”  In The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, Donald Bloxham and A Dirk Moses, eds.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Pp. 489-508.

 

Fein, Helen.  1990.  “Genocide: A Sociological Perspective.”  Current Sociology 38:1.

 

—  2007.  Human Rights and Wrongs: Slavery, Terror, Genocide.  London: Paradigm.  Republished 2016: New York: Routledge.

 

Finnegan, William.  1992.  A Complicated War: The Harrowing of Mozambique.  Berkeley: Univesity of California Press.

 

Fitrakis, Bob, and Harvey Wasserman.  2016.  “Did the GOP Flip the 2016 Election?”  Columbus Free Press, Nov. 18, http://columbusfreepress.com/article/did-gop-strip-flip-2016-selection

 

Foer, Franklin.  2016.  “Putin’s Puppet.”  Slate, Dec. 7, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/07/vladimir_putin_has_a_plan_for_destroying_the_west_and_it_looks_a_lot_like.html

 

Foster, John Bellamy.  2017.  “Neofascism in the white house.”  Monthly Review, 68:11, https://monthlyreview.org/2017/04/01/neofascism-in-the-white-house/

 

Friedman, Ana.  2016.  “It’s Not Funny Any More.”  Los Angeles Times, Dec. 2, A17.

 

Frostenson, Sarah.  2017.  “The Death Rate Gap between Rural and Urban America is Getting Wider.”  Vox, Jan. 13, http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/1/13/14246260/death-gap-urban-rural-america-worse

 

Fry, Douglas P. (ed.).  2013.  War, Peace, and Human Nature: The Convergence of Evolutionary and Cultural Views.  New York: Oxford University Press.

 

Frye, Barbara. 1989.  Process of Health Care Decision Making among Khmer Immigrants. DrPH.dissertation, School of Public Health, Loma Linda University.

 

Fukuyama, Francis.  2016.  “America: The Failed State.”  Prospect Magazine, Dec. 13, http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/america-the-failed-state-donald-trump

 

Galtung, Johan. 1969.  Violence, Peace, and Peace Research.  Journal of Peace Research. 6(3):167-191.

 

Galtung, Johan.  2009.  The Fall of the US Empire—And Then What?  Transcend University Press.

 

Garland, Eric.  2016.  “Google Voting Issues Map Shows Disturbing Data about the 2016 Election.”  Google website, http://www.ericgarland.co/2016/11/16/google-voting-map-disturbing-patterns-2016/

 

Gaunt, David. 2015.  “The Complexity of the Assyrian Genocide.”  Genocide Studies International 9:83-103.

 

Geen, Russell G., and Edward Donnerstein. 1998. Human Aggression: Theories, Research, and Implications for Social Policy. San Diego: Academic Press.

Gerber, B.  2017.  “Trump Is Creating an Authoritarian Dictatorship—Here’s Why.”  Daily Kos, April 18, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/04/18/1654118/-Trump-Is-Creating-an-Authoritarian-Dictatorship-Here-s-Why?detail=facebook

 

Gertz, Matt.  2017.   “Breitbart Is Not Independent, It’s the Communications Arm of the Mercers’ Empire.”  MediaMatters, April 21, https://mediamatters.org/research/2017/04/21/breitbart-not-independent-its-communications-arm-mercers-empire/216128

 

Gettys, Travis.  2016.  “Here’s How the US Empire Will Devolve into Fascism and Then Collapse—According to Science.”  Rawstory, Dec. 7, http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/heres-how-the-us-empire-will-devolve-into-fascism-and-then-collapse-according-to-science/

 

Gibbon, Edward. 1995 [1776-1788]. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. New York: Penguin.

Gill, Paul, and Emily Corner.  2017. “There and Back Again: The Study of Mental Disorder and Terrorist Involvement.”  American Psychologist 72:231-241.

 

Gilpin, Lyndsay.  2016.  “Trump’s Cabinet Choices Reflect Deep Koch Influence.”  High Country News, Dec. 16, http://www.hcn.org/articles/donald-trumps-cabinet-choices-reflect-koch-influence

 

Giroux, Henry.  2017a.  America at War with Itself.  San Francisco: City Lights Books.

 

—  2017b.  “The Culture of Cruelty in Trump’s America.”  Truthout, March 22,  http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/39925-the-culture-of-cruelty-in-trump-s-america

 

Goldberg, Michelle.  2017.  “Trump Didn’t Just Reinstate the Global Gag Rule.  He Massively Expanded It.”  Slate, Jan. 25, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/01/trump_s_global_gag_rule_is_even_worse_than_it_seemed.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_fb_top

 

Goldhagen, Danel Jonah.  2009.  Worse than War: Genocide, Eliminationism and the Ongoing Assault on Humanity.  London: Abacus.

 

Guilaine, Jean, and Jean Zammit. 2001. The Origins of War: Violence in Prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell.

 

Gusterson, Hugh. 2007. “Anthropology and Militarism.” Annual Review of Anthropology 36:155-176.

 

Harff, Barbara. 2003.  “No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust? Assessing Risks of Genocide and Political Mass Murder since 1955.” American Political Science Review 97:57-73.

 

—  2005. “Assessing Risks of Genocide and Politicide.” In Peace and Conflict 2005: A Global Survey of Armed Conflicts, Self-Determination Movements, and Democracy, M. G. Marshall and T. R. Gurr, eds. College Park, MD: Center for International Development an Conflict Management, University of Maryland.

 

— 2008. “Development and Inmplementation of Genocide Early Warning Systems: Conceptual and Practical Issues.” In The Prevention and Intervention of Genocide, Samuel Totten, ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Pp. 63-82.

 

— 2012.  “Assessing Risks of Genocide and Politicide: A Global Watch List for 2012.”  In Peace and conflict 2012, J. Joseph Hewitt, Jonathan Wilkenfeld, and Ted Robert Gurr, eds.  Boulder, CO: Paradigm Press.  Pp. 53-56.

 

Harvey, David.  2007.  A Brief History of Neoliberalism.  New York: Oxford University Press.

 

Hedges, Chris.  2016.  “We Are All Deplorables.”  Truthdig, online, Nov. 20, http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/we_are_all_deplorables_20161120

 

Hemming, John. 1978. Red Gold: The Conquest of the Brazilian Indians. London: MacMillan.

 

Henry, P. J.  2009.  “Low-status Compensation:  A Theory for Understanding the Role of Status in Cultures of Honor.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97:451-466.

 

Heying, Shirley.  2013.  Review of “Warning Signs of Genocide.”  Journal of Anthropological Research 69:587-588

 

Hiltzik, Michael.  2017.  “Education Secretary Betsy DeVos Is Getting Some Very Bad News about Her Favorite Thing, School Vouchers.”  Los Angeles Times, Feb. 28, http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-devos-vouchers-20170228-story.html

 

Hinton, Alexander Laban. 2005.  Why Did They Kill?  Cambodia in the Shadow of Genocide.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

 

Hinton, Alexander Laban (ed.). 2002a.  Annihilating Difference:  The Anthropology of Genocide.  Berkeley:  University of California.

 

Hinton, Alexander Laban (ed.).  2002b.  Genocide:  An Anthropological Reader.  Oxford:  Blackwell.

 

Hofmann, Tessa.  2015. “The Genocide against the Ottoman Armenians: German Diplomatic Correspondence and Eyewitness Testimonies.”  Genocide Studies International 9:22-60.

 

Hohmann, James.  2016.  “The Daily 202: Trump Overperformed the Most in Counties with the Highest Drug, Alcohol and Suicide Mortality Rates.”  Washington Post, Dec. 10, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/12/09/daily-202-trump-over-performed-the-most-in-counties-with-the-highest-drug-alcohol-and-suicide-mortality-rates/584a2a59e9b69b7e58e45f2e/?utm_term=.5fc6eab2b5c0&wpisrc=nl_daily202&wpmm=1

 

Holloway, Kali.  2016.  “Trump Is an Eerily Perfect Match with a Famous 14-point Guide to Identify Fascist Leaders.”  AlterNet, Dec. 6, http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/trump-eerily-perfect-match-famous-14-point-guide-identify-fascist-leaders?akid=14969.317267.tvvane&rd=1&src=newsletter1068417&t=2

 

Horgan, John G., and Anne E. Kazak.  2017.  Special Issue: Psychology of Terrorism.  American Psychologist 72:3:199-300.

 

Hume, David.  1969 [1739-40].  A Treatise of Human Nature.  New York: Penguin.

 

Isenberg, Nancy.  2016.  White Trash.  New York: Viking.

 

Jonassohn, Kurt, and Karin Solveig Björnson. 1998. Genocide and Gross Human Rights Violations in Comparative Perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

 

Johnson, Glen.  2016.  “Fury and Alarm in Hungary over Death of Paper.”  Los Angeles Times, Dec. 18, A1, A4.

 

Jones, Adam.  2011.  Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction.  2nd edn.  London: Routledge.

 

Juhasz, Antonia.  2008.  The Tyranny of Oil:  The World’s Most Powerful Industry—and What We Must Do to Stop It.  New York:  William Morrow (HarperCollins).

 

Kaiser, Hiilmar.  2010.  “Genocide at the Twilight of the Ottokman Empire.” In The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, Donald Bloxham and A Dirk Moses, eds.  Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 365-385.

 

Kaleem, Jaweed.  2016.  “’White Pride’ Awakened.”  Los Angeles Times, Nov. 18, A1, A10.

 

Kaplan, Karen.  2016.  “A ‘Disturbing’ Portrait of Poverty.”  Los Angeles

 

Keeley, Lawrence. 1996. War before Civilization. New York: Oxford University Press.

 

Kemper, Theodore D. 2006. “Power and Status and the Power-Status Theory of Emotions.” In Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions, Jan E. Stets and Jonathan H. Turner, eds. New York: Springer. Pp. 87-113.

 

Kiernan, Ben.  2004.  How Pol Pot Came to Power: Colonialism, Nationalism and Communism in Cambodia.  2nd edn.  New Haven: Yale University Press.

 

—  2007.  Blood and Soil:  A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur.  New Haven: Yale University Press.

 

—  2008.  Genocide and Resistance in Southeast Asia: Documentation, Denial and Justice in Cambodia and East Timor.  New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

 

Krain, Matthew.  2017.  “The Effect of Economic Sanctions on the Severity of Genocides or Politicides.”  Journal of Genocide Research 19, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2016.1240516

 

Kteily, Nour; Emile Bruneau; Adam Waytz; Sarah Cotterill.  2015.  “The Ascent of Man; Theoretical and Empirical Evidence for Blatant Discrimination.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 109:901-931.

 

Kteily, Nour; Gordon Hodson; Emile Bruneau.  2016.  “They See Us as Less than Human: Metadehumanization Predicts Intergroup Conflict via Reciprocal Dehumanization.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 110:343-370.

 

Kuper, Leo. 1983. Genocide: Its Political Use in the Twentieth Century. New Haven: Yale University Press.

 

—1985. The Prevention of Genocide. New Haven: Yale University Press.

 

Langer, Ellen. 1983. The Psychology of Control. Beverly Hills: Sage.

 

Langfitt, Frank.  2017.  “For Journalists Who’ve Worked in China, New White House Tactics Seem Familiar.”  NPR, Jan. 25, http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/01/25/511460917/for-journalists-whove-worked-in-china-new-white-house-tactics-seem-familiar?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170125

 

Las Casas, Bartolomé de. 1992. A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies. Ed./tr. Nigel Griffin. London: Penguin.

 

Lauter, David.  2016.  ‘Clinton’s Big Wins Illustrate Her Weaknesses.”  Los Angeles Times, Dec. 12, A1, A10.

 

LeBlanc, Stephen, & Katherine E. Register. 2002. Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage.  New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.

 

LeDoux, Joseph.  1996. The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life. New York: Simon & Schuster.

 

Lemkin, Raphael. 1944. Axis Rule in Occupied Europe:  Laws of Occupation—Analysis of Government—Proposals for Redress.  Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

 

Lemkin, Raphael, ed. by Donna-Lee Frieze. 2013.  Totally Unofficial: The Autobiography of Raphael Lemkin.  New Haven: Yale University Press.

 

Levene, Mark. 2005. Genocide in the Age of the Nation State. Vol. 2: The Meaning of Genocide. London: I. B. Tauris.

 

Lewy, Guenter.  2012.  Essays on Genocide and Humanitarian Intervention.  Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

 

Lopez, German.  2017.  “Study: Racism and Sexism Predict Support for Trump Much More than Economic Dissatisfaction.”  Vox, Jan. 4, http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/4/14160956/trump-racism-sexism-economy-study

 

Madley, Benjamin  2012.  “When the World Was Turned Upside Down’: California and Oregon’s Tolowa Indian Genocide, 1851-1856.” In New Directions in Genocide Research, Adam Jones, ed.  London: Routledge.  Pp. 171-197.

 

Madley, Benjamin.  2016.  An American Genocide:  The United States and the California Indian Catastrophe, 1846-1873.

 

Mann, Michael.  2004.  Fascists.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

—  2005.  The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press.

 

Marcus, George E. 2002. The Sentimental Citizen: Emotion in Democratic Politics. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

 

Maslin, Paul.  2016.  “Democrats Can’t Ignore working-class white Voters.”  Los Angeles Times, Nov. 15, A15.

 

Mayer, Jane 2016.  Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right.  New York: Doubleday.

 

Meierhenrich, Jens.  2014.  Genocide: A Reader.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 

Melville, Herman.  2001.  Moby Dick.  New York: Penguin.

 

Memoli, Michael A., and Brian Bennet..  2017. “Trump Team Signals ‘War’ with Media.”  Los Angeles Times, Jan. 23, A1, A10.

 

Michael, George.  2016.  “The Right-wing Movement behind Trump Isn’t Just Breitbart and the White Nationalists—It’s Way Worse.”  Daily Progressive, Nov. 30.  https://dailyprogressive.org/2016/11/right-wing-movement-behind-trump-isnt-just-breitbart-white-nationalists-way-worse/

 

Michel, Casey.  2017.  “How Putin Played the Far Left.”  Daily Beast, Jan. 17, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/13/how-putin-played-the-far-left.html

 

Monbiot, George.  2016.  “Frightened by Donald Trump?  You Don’t Know the Half of It.”  The Guardian, Nov. 30, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/30/donald-trump-george-monbiot-misinformation

 

Mooney, James. 1896.  The Ghost-Dance Religion and the Sioux Outbreak of 1890.  Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Annual Report for 1892-1893, vol. 2.

 

Moses, A. Dirk.  2010.  “Raphael Lemkin, Culture, and the Concept of Genocide.”  In The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, Donald Bloxham and A Dirk Moses, eds.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Pp. 19-41.

 

Mote, Frederick. 1999. Imperial China 900-1800. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 

Motherboard.  2015.  “This Algorithm Could Show When the Next Genocide is About to Happen.”  Posting, online, Sept. 25.

 

Mounck, Yasha.  2016.  “What We Do Now.”  Slate, Nov. 9, preserve_the_ideals_of_liberal_democracy_in_the_face_of_a_trump_presidency.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_fb_top

 

Muhamad, Mahathir bin. 1970.  The Malay Dilemma.  Singapore: Donald Moore.

 

Neumann, Franz.  1944.  Behemoth:  The Structure and Practice of National Socialism.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 

—  1957  The Democratic and the Authoritarian State.  Glencoe, IL:  Free Press of Glencoe.

 

Ng, David.  2016.  “Inside Breitbart’s Westside LA Headquarters, They’ve Got Plans for Global Expansion.”  Los Angeles Times, Dec. 26, http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-breitbart-news-20161116-story.html

 

Nordstrom, Carolyn. 1997. A Different Kind of War Story. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

 

Nowak, Martin A. 2006. “Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation.” Science 314:1560-1563.

 

Nyseth Brehm, Hollie.  2015.  “State Context and Exclusionary Ideologies.”  American Behavioral Scientist 2015:1-19.

 

—  2017.  “Re-examining Risk Factors of Genocide.”  Journal of Genocide Research 19:61-87.

 

O’Shea, Stephen. 2002. The Perfect Heresy: The Revolutionary Life and Death of the Medieval Cathars. New York: Walker and Co.

 

Palast, Greg.  2016a.   The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.  Web posting, www.gregpalast.com

 

—   2016b.  “The Election Was Stolen—Here’s How.”  http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/40246-focus-the-election-was-stolen-heres-how

 

Palmer, Bill.  2016.  You’re not just imagining it: the Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump vote totals do look rigged.  DailyNewsBin, online, Nov. 17.

 

Parks, Craig D., and Asako B. Stone. 2010. “The Desire to Expel Unselfish Members from the Group.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99:303-310.

 

Perdue, Peter.  2005.  China Marches West:  The Qing Conquest of Central Eurasia.  Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press.

 

Piggott, Stephen.  2017. “Former Executive Director of Anti-Immigrant Hate Group FAIR Joins Trump Administration.”  Southern Poverty Law Center, Jan. 25, https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/01/23/former-executive-director-anti-immigrant-hate-group-fair-joins-trump-administration

 

Pinker, Stephen.   2011.  The Better Angels of Our Nature:  Why Violence Has Declined.  New York:  Viking.

 

Pinto, Isabel R.; José M. Marques; John M. Levine; Dominic Abrams. 2010. “Membership Status and Subjective Group Dynamics: Who Triggers the Black Sheep Effect?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99:107-119.

 

Pope, Carl.  2017.  “The Most Dangerous Bill You’ve Never Heard of Just Passed the House.”  Huffington Post, Jan. 10,

 

Power, Samantha. 2002.  “A Problem from Hell”:  America and the Age of Genocide.  New York:  Basic Books.

 

Prunier, Gérard. 2007. Darfur: The Ambiguous Genocide. 2nd ed. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

 

— 1995. The Rwanda Crisis: History of a Genocide. London: Hurst.

 

Redden, Molly.  2016.  “Texas Has Highest Maternal Mortality Rate in Developed World, Study Finds.”  The Guardian, Aug. 20, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/texas-maternal-mortality-rate-health-clinics-funding

 

Robarchek, Clayton. 1977. “Frustration, Aggression, and the Nonviolent Semai.” American Ethnologist 6:555-567.

 

— 1989. “Hobbesian and Rousseauan Images of Man: Autonomy and Individualism in a Peaceful Society.” Howell and Willis 31-44.

 

— 1989. “Primitive War and the Ratomorphic Image of Mankind.” AA 91:903-920.

 

Robarchek, Clayton, and Carole Robarchek. 1998. Waorani: The Contexts of Violence and War. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Robins, Nicolas A.  2010.  “Colonial Latin America.”  In The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, David Bloxham and A. Dirk Moses, eds.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Pp. 304-320.

 

Roscoe, Paul. 2007. “Intelligence, Coalitional Killing, and the Antecedents of War.” American Anthropologist 109:485-495.

 

Ross, Michael L.  2012.  The Oil Curse: How Petroleum Wealth Shapes the Development of Nations.  Princeton:  Princeton University Press.

 

Roux-Perino, Julie, and Anne Brenon.  2006.  The Cathars.  Tr. Barbara Jachowicz-Davoust.  Vic-en-Bigorre, France: MSM.

 

Rubinstein, William.  2004.  Genocide: A History.  Harlow, England: Pearson Longman.

 

Rummel, Rudolph. 1994.  Death by Government. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books.

 

—  1998.  Statistics of Democide. Munchen, Germany: LIT.

 

Runciman, Stephen.  1987.  History of the Crusades.  2 v.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Sanford, Victoria.  2014.  “Communal Responsibility and the Guatemalan Genocide: Genocide as a Military Plan of the Guatemalan Army under the Dictatorships of Generals Lucas Garcia., Rios Montt and Mejia Victores.”  Genocide Studies International 8:1:86-101.

 

Sayyid Qutb.  2007.  The Sayyid Qutb Reader.  Ed. Albert Bergeson.  New York: Routledge.

 

Scahill, Jeremy.  2017.  “Notorious Mercenary Erik Prince is Advising Trump from the Shadows.”  The Intercept, Jan. 17, https://theintercept.com/2017/01/17/notorious-mercenary-erik-prince-is-advising-trump-from-the-shadows/

 

Schewitz, Manny.  2015.  “70,000 Muslim Clerics Issue Fatwa Condemning Terrorism.”  Forward Progressives, Dec. 10, http://www.forwardprogressives.com/70000-muslim-clerics-issue-fatwa-condemning-terrorism/

 

Schulz, Richard. 1976. “Some Life and Death Consequences of Perceived Control.” In Cognition and Social Behavior, John S. Carroll and John W. Payne (eds.). New York: Academic Press. Pp. 135-153.

 

Scudder, Thayer. 2005. The Future of Large Dams. London: Earthscan.

 

Sémelin, Jacques.  2007.  Purify and Destroy.  New York:  Columbia University Press.

 

Sen, Amartya.  1982.  Poverty and Famines:  An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation.  Oxford:  Oxford University Press.

 

—  1984.  Resources, Values, and Development.  Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press.

 

—  1992.  Inequality Reconsidered.  Cambridge:  Harvard University Press and Russell Sage Foundation.

 

Shaw, Martin.  2013.  Genocide and International Relations: Changing Patterns in the Transitions of the Late Modern World.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Shepherd, Frederick M.  2017.  “State Strength, Non-State Actors, and the Guatemalan Genocide: Comparative Lessons.”  Genocide Studies International 10:65-83.

 

Shirer, William L.  1960.  The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany.  New York: Simor and Schuster.

 

Short, Damien.  2016. Redeeming Genocide: Settler Dcolonialism, Social Death and Ecocide.  London: Zed Books.

 

Skocpol, Theda; Alexander Hertel-Fernandez; Caroline Tervo. 2016.  “Behind ‘Make America Great,’ the Koch Agenda Returns with a Vengeance.”  TPM, Nov. 21. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/behind-make-america-great-the-koch-agenda-returns-with-a-vengeance

 

Smith, David Livingstone. 2011. Less Than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

 

Smith, Roger.  2015.  “Introduction: The Ottoman Genocides of Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks.”  Genocide Studies International 9:1-9.

 

Snyder, Timothy.  2015.  Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning.  New York: Tim Duggan Books.

 

Snyder, Timothy.  2017.  On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century.  New York:  Tim Duggan Books.

 

Stanton, Gregory.  2005.  “Twelve Ways to Deny a Genocide.”  Posting, Genocide Watch website , http://genocidewatch.net/genocide-2/12-ways-to-deny-genocide/

Stanton, Gregory.  2010.  Genocides and Politicides Since 1945.  www.genocidewatch.com webpage, last checked Jan. 6, 2017.

 

Stanton, Gregory.  2013.  “The Ten Stages of Genocide.”  Posting, Genocide Watch website: http://genocidewatch.net/genocide-2/8-stages-of-genocide/

 

Staub, Ervin.  1989.  The Roots of Evil.  New York:  Cambridge University Press.

 

Staub, Ervin.  2003. The Psychology of Good and Evil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Staub, Ervin.  2011.  Overcoming Evil:  Genocide, Violent Conflict, and Terrorism.  New York: Oxford University Press.

 

Sternberg, Robert J., and Karin Sternberg.  2008.  The Nature of Hate.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press.

 

Stoll, David. 1993.  Between Two Armies in the Ixil Towns of Guatemala. New York: Columbia University Press.

 

—  1999.  Rigoberta Menchú and the Story of All Poor Guatemalans. Boulder, CO: Westview.

 

Storm Is Coming.  2016.  “The Big Oil Companies….”  Nov. 30, https://www.facebook.com/StormIsComingSoon/photos/a.278989962233337.1073741829.263803127085354/919552068177120/?type=3&theater

 

Straus, Scott. 2006. The Order of Genocide: Race, Power, and War in Rwanda. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

 

—  2015.  Making and Unmaking Nations:  war, Leadership, and Genocide in Modern Africa.  Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

 

Sussman, Robert Wald.  2014.  The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 

Tabachnik, Rachel.  2011.  “The DeVos Family: Meet the Super-Wealthy Right-wingers Working with the Religious Right to Kill Public Education.”  AlterNet, May 6,

http://www.alternet.org/story/150868/the_devos_family%3A_meet_the_super-wealthy_right-wingers_working_with_the_religious_right_to_kill_public_education

 

Tankersley, Jim.  2016.  “Donald Trump Lost Most of the American Economy in This Election.”  Washington Post, Nov. 22.

 

Tepper, Taylor.  2017.  “President Trump Wants to Kill These 17 Agencies and Programs.  Here’s What They Actually Cost (and Do).”  Money, Jan. 24, http://time.com/money/4639544/trump-nea-sesame-street-budget-cut/

 

Thompson, Derek.  2016.  “The Dangerous Myth that Hillary Clinton Ignored the Working Class.”  The Atlantic, Nov. 29, https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/hillary-clinton-working-class/509477/?utm_source=fbb

 

Tilly, Charles.  2003.   The Politics of Collective Violence.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press.

 

Timerman, Jacobo. 2002.  Prisoner without a Name, Cell without a Number. Toby Talbot, trans. Madison, WI:  University of Wisconsin.

 

Torres, Gabriela.  2016.  In the Wake of the Rios Montt Genocide Trials: Guatemala’s Crisis of Corruption and the Enduring Love of the Mano Dura.  Paper, Society for Applied Anthropology, annual conference, Vancouver, Canada.

 

Totten, Samuel.  2012.  Genocide by Attrition: Nuba Mountains, Sudan.  New Brunswick, NJ:  Transaction.

 

Totten, Samuel.  2014. “Paying Lip Service to R2P and Genocide Prevention: The Muted Response of the US Atrocities Prevention Board and the USHMM’s Committee on Conscience to the Crisis in the Nuba Mountains.”  Genocide Studies International 8:1:23-57.

 

Totten, Samuel (ed.). 2008a. The Plight of Women During and Following Genocide. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

 

Totten, Samuel, and Paul R. Bartrop.  2008.  Dictionary of Genocide.  Westport, CT: Greenwood.

 

Totten, Samuel; William Parsons; Israel W. Charny. 1997. Century of Genocide: Eyewitness Accounts and Critical Views. New York: Garland.

 

Travis, Hannibal.  2016.  “Why Was Benghazi ‘Saved,’ but Sinjar Allowed to Be Lost?”  New Failures of Genocide Prevention, 2007-2015.”  Genocide Studies International 10:139-182.

 

Voigtländer, Nico, and Hans-Joachim Voth.  2015. “Nazi Indoctrination and Anti-Semitic Beliefs in Germany.”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112:7931-7936.

 

Van Vugt, Mark; Robert Hogan; Robert B. Kaiser. 2008. “Leadership, Followership, and Evolution.” American Psychologist 63:182-196.

 

Von Wees, Hans.  2010.  “Genocide in the Ancient World.”  In The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, David Bloxham and A. Dirk Moses, eds.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Pp. 239-258.

 

Wasserman, Lee.  2017.  “Exxon First, Earth Second.”  Los Angeles Times, Jan. 3, A11.

 

Watts, David.  1990.  The West Indies: Patterns of Development, Culture, and Environmental Change Since 1492.

 

Weatherford, Jack. 2004. Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. New York: Three Rivers Press.

 

Weir, Kirsten.  2017.  “Psychologists’ Roles in Helping to Treat Opioid-Use Disorders and prevent Overdoses.”  Monitor on Psychology, April, 28-32.

 

Werner, Emmy. 1989. “Children of the Garden Island.” Scientific American 260:4:106-111.

 

Werner, Emmy, and Ruth S. Smith. 1982. Vulnerable but Invincible: A Longitudinal Study of Resilient Children and Youth. New York: McGraw-Hill.

 

Westen, Drew. 2007. The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation. New York: Public Affairs.

 

Whitehorn, Alan.  N. d.  Just Poems: Reflections on the Armenian Genocide. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Hybrid.

 

Wiens, Herold.  1954.  China’ March toward the Tropics.  Hamden, CT: Shoe String Press.

 

Wilkinson, S. I.  2006.  Votes and Violence:  Electoral Competition and Ethnic Riots in India.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Wolf, Aaron.  2007.  “Shared Waters: Conflict and Cooperation.”  Annual Review of Environment and Resources 32:3.1-3.29.

 

Wolf, Stephen.  2017.  “Voter Suppression and Anti-Union Laws work in Tandem when the GOP Takes Over a State’s Government.”  Daily Kos, March 23, http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/23/1645724/-Voter-suppression-and-anti-union-laws-work-in-tandem-when-the-GOP-takes-over-a-state-s-government

 

Wolfe, Patrick.  2006.  “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.”  Journal of Genocide Research 8:387-409

 

World Almanac and Book of Facts.  2017.  New York: World Almanac Books.

 

Zimmerman, John.  2017.  “Protests Are Nice, Voting Is Better.”  Los Angeles Times, Jan. 24, A9.

 

 

Career Guide for Anthropologists: Student to Professor, and How to Publish

Sunday, May 21st, 2017

Career Advice for Anthropologists:  Student to Professor, and How to Publish

  1. N. Anderson

Department of Anthropology

University of California, Riverside

 

My student Jenny Banh suggested I might write a book guiding graduate students on the academic path.  I don’t have a book’s worth of knowledge, but after 50 years teaching for the University of California system, I have some tips.

 

General Basics

 

The place to start is by recycling advice from Alex Lightman (web posting):  Figure out what you’re best at, what you like best to do, what you can do that actually helps people, and what you can actually making a living at.  If you are lucky, there will be a sweet spot that optimally fits all four.

For an academic, the item about actually helping people should have priority.  If you are not particularly interested in helping people, you’re in the wrong field; with your education, you could make much more money doing almost anything else.  The only reason to be an academic is that it’s your Calling, in the old sense.  You feel a need to do it to help the world, or at least your students.

Anthropology, in particular, is a fantastic field not only for understanding people, but also for helping people and understanding how to help them more.  It is great for dealing with those wonderful goals that are unachievable, but that really matter in the world: perfect peace, health, justice, environmental sanity, and the rest.  Ideally, it will allow a real predictive science of history, in which we can (within limits) predict troubles ahead and figure out how to solve them.

In my case, the sweet spot was the question of how humans and (the rest of) nature interact, and how we can fix that so people and nature can be one functioning system instead of a continuing fight.  I found the right places to study this, too:  China, Southeast Asia, the Northwest Coast of North America, and the Yucatec Maya world of southeast Mexico.  In all these areas, people coexisted for thousands of years with the rest of creation without totally trashing it—until the modern colonial world intruded and messed everything up, usually without helping the local people in the process.

Your sweet spot may be kinship theory, or classic films, or amoeba behavior.  Just find it.  At worst, if there isn’t an overlap between all four of the above, make the best accommodation you can.

Of course you won’t get to do your favorite thing all the time.  Definitely do it for your grad work including Ph.D. thesis, but don’t expect it in a first job.  Keep working at it and progressing toward it.

Do your best at what you do best.  Don’t waste your time on anything else unless you have to.  Life is too short.  For most of us, that means focusing on one thing.  There are true renaissance figures out there who can do great jobs at several different demanding fields—I have known some—but such people are so rare that unless you know you are one, don’t try it.  Stick to your best shot and work it to death.  (This does not mean that you should stick to one theory or subject.  Some of us—myself included—are best at generalizing and integrating across fields rather than at laser-like focus on one idea or thing.  If what you do best is integrate across theory-fields, go for it.)

On the other hand, if you are a renaissance scholar, go for that too.  One of my colleagues is a first-rate biological anthropologist and a first-rate concert pianist.  And the ethnomusicologist and ethnographer Steve Feld is also a professional jazz musician. But they focus awfully hard on their fields.  Still fewer people can handle three or four.  I doubt if anyone ever handled five.  Incidentally, it occurs to me that in almost all cases I know where someone is a genius in two or three fields, one of those fields is music.  Must be a theory there….

Third, once you’ve found the ideal research focus, know everything about it.  Become the world’s expert.  But also maintain a broad knowledge of your whole field.  Scan the major journals, go to the main conferences and check things out, keep on top of what’s currently considered “hot stuff” even if it’s just faddish nonsense.  In other words, laser focus on your specialty and very broad overview of your whole discipline.  Often you will be doing interdisciplinary work, and need to keep some competence in another field too.

This is difficult, but possible.  However, you can’t spend too much time outside work.  Academic scholarship is an 80-hour-a-week job.

Finally, recent psychological studies show that a very good way to get yourself out of a funk and get something done is to reaffirm your core values.  Several experiments, for instance, involve students writing short essays on their core values—they then do better on tests, and shed test anxiety.  At least meditate on your core values if you don’t actually write an essay.

 

Studenting

Few comments are needed here.  You know how to study and learn or you wouldn’t be reading this.

First, almost all grad students who wash out do so because of failure of will.  No grad program admits incompetent students (unless somebody on the intake committee was asleep).  Conversely, many (many, many) of the very best students give up because they just can’t take the pressure or because they get irrationally discouraged.  Saddest is giving up when ABD (all but dissertation).  Don’t give up—you have important things to tell the world.  If you want to switch fields, or find anthro unsatisfying, fine, but don’t just waste ten years of work because you hit a depressed spell.  Carry on!

On the other hand, if you find anthro isn’t for you, get out quickly, before you run up a huge debt and/or waste years of your life on it.  Most students do this—they recognize within a year that they’d rather do something else—but a few will stick it out.  Still, it’s worth repeating: my considerable experience with “permanent students” and students who drop out ABD is that they all had the intelligence, the calling, and the research competence.  They just got despondent.  This is a tragedy, and it’s preventable, if you have a sympathetic advisor and a sympathetic counselor—professional or friend-and-family.

Second, find a sociable advisor.  An advisor who knows nothing about your area but loves to talk and share about the field in general is better than an expert in your area who won’t talk to you!  If you have a non-responsive advisor, change advisors if at all possible.  I have some real horror stories in my files—careers set back for years by a nonresponsive advisor.  Get someone who will talk and be responsible and be on time with paperwork and actually give you good advice.  Be careful in picking a committee, also.  You have to be able to work with these people, often under tense circumstances (deadlines, etc.), for years, often for a lifetime.  Pick people who are friendly, available, prompt, and interested in your stuff.  This seems obvious, but you wouldn’t believe how much of my professional time has been taken up dealing with problems between students and advisors, or giving the advice that their advisors were supposed to give but weren’t giving.  Conversely, I remember one famous biologist telling how much he had learned while going fishing with his advisor; they apparently talked shop more than they fished.  You may not get that kind of relationship, but at least try.

 

Never ignore good advice, even if it sounds trivial.  One of the best tips I got from my grad advisor was to carry 3 x 5 index cards at all times, to write down whatever happens.  I did this in the field and I keep doing it—I write down thoughts on my pocket cards every day of my life.

 

The lone-wolf anthropologist is an extinct species.  All work is now collaborative at some level.  You depend on fellow scholars, and/or your field contacts: subjects, consultants, assistants, friends.  Getting along with people is basic, and interpersonal skills matter.  You do not need to be suave and charismatic (though it does help) but you need to be aware of the need to get along with all sorts of people.  Being able to work with others is now more important than sheer brilliance.

Also, more and more projects are interdisciplinary (a very good trend), so prepare to work with people from other fields.  If in environmental anthro you’ll have to work with biologists; in medical, with medical experts; in psychological anthro, with psychologists; and so on.  To do this you have to know enough about those fields to be an “informed consumer” (as Dave Kronenfeld puts it), though not necessarily any more than that.

Form as many close bonds with your fellow students as you possibly can.  This may be the best advice in my whole set.  A cohort is a wonderful thing.  Student cohorts often stick together for life and form mutual support and back-scratching networks—citing each other, writing about each other’s work, etc.  I still depend on my undergrad network for a lot of career help, and this is after more than 50 years.

Go to meetings and keep networking there.

Networking is NOT all the game, and NOT a substitute for your own hard intellectual work, but it is VERY important and is typically essential to success in the field.  Brilliant loners make it, but not-so-brilliant loners rarely if ever do.

 

My only comment on actual learning is that students in anthro these days are not always well taught (to put it mildly) in the area of theory.  Read on your own.  The one critical necessity is to read THOROUGHLY the theory you do read—whole books and articles, not bits and pieces and short takes.  Short excerpts from the classics are not enough.  Worse:  many of the secondary sources and canned history-and-theory books are just plain wrong.  Core or “boot camp” courses are often terrible (mine at Berkeley was) and are sometimes not given at all.  You absolutely have to learn basic theory, and you may be on your own.  Read, and find someone to ask about it.

Anthropological theory is derived, directly or indirectly, from the writings of Kant, Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Boas, and a very few other people.  (At a much more distant remove, it goes back to Plato and Aristotle, like the rest of western thought; there are still clearly identifiable Aristotelian and Platonic traditions in the field.)  It really pays to know where anthro theory started, so you might read at least one book by each of those seven.  Note, among other things, that Kant enormously influenced the other four—they all read him in detail in the original German.  His influence survives accordingly.

Durkheim and Boas, especially, have suffered from gross misrepresentation in the secondary sources.  Don’t believe the textbooks!  READ the original work!

Of more recent major influences, Foucault is another notably worthwhile thinker who has suffered a lot of inaccurate summarizing.

One endless problem is separating a brief fad from a real trend.  Use your judgment.  If a guy is clearly an airhead but writes sententiously and impressively, he’s sure to be popular, but only for a while:  a fad.  If a guy writes well and gets popular but ALSO has surprising, exciting, evidence-based things to say, he’s got staying power.  Some recent cases would be Deleuze and Derrida in the fad set, Latour and Sahlins in the set with staying power.

On field work, including ethics, read my “Methodology” post on my website, www.krazykioti.com. It has citations to the literature.  The one indispensable reference is H. Russell Bernard, Research Methods in Anthropology (latest edition—new editions appear regularly).  Take a copy to the field.

 

On writing:  Every area has its styles.  Read the journals for your area and see how they do it.  Many have specific directions.  The only general advice is write clearly and concisely—but even this is wrong for certain theory journals that require contorted, jargon-laden, postmodernist prose.

Grant writing, though, is an art that has to be learned.  Most grant agencies are interested primarily in why they should give you money rather than your competitors for the very limited funding now available.  This means you have to have a clearly stated problem that can be solved in finite time—ideally a problem that you can show is genuinely important to the field.  Fard, far more important, though, you have to prove that you know the best way to solve that problem, and can explain it clearly.  In the lab sciences, including lab anthro, this means you even have to list the brand names of the equipment and reagents you will be using.  Field anthro usually isn’t that demanding, but if you intend to make films or record music you have to state what equipment you will use!

In general, minimally:

–you have to cite the major current literature that actually contributes to the question (as opposed to general stuff that merely mentions it)

–you have to know the methods currently used in this area

–you have to show that you know exactly which methods are best for your particular case (this is in italics because it tends to be the make-or-break ingredient in a grant proposal)

–you have to explain how you will interpret results (data) to prove your case.

Agencies now typically require you to explain how you will work with people on the ground, share results with them, and credit them properly.  This is important, and is required because people on the ground—over the decades—have insisted on it.  Read Vine Deloria in extenso if you wonder why.

Most rejections of grant applications are based on either (1) the problem is not stated clearly, (2) the problem can’t be addressed in the real world in finite time (so don’t ask for funding to bring peace on earth or to solve the question of where culture came from), or (3) the methods are not shown conclusively in the writeup to be state-of-the-art, adequate, and pertinent.  #3 is the real killer.

Be as concise as possible and don’t waste much time doing anything other than the above.

IRB’s are usually not a terrible problem for anthropologists; see my Methodology writeup.

 

Job Hunting

You will notice that in what follows I am not lamenting the awful job market or telling you that you have a one-in-a-million chance at a job.  We at UCR have an excellent placement record, because we are still a four-field department that teaches basic theory, professional skills, and a range of courses, and because we have good advisors.  We also feature applied fields and research!  If you want to be one of those bitter grad students who can’t get a job, go to a university or department or advisor that specializes only in a currently faddish area of anthro.  Especially if it’s High Theory.  By the time you get your Ph.D., that fad will be over and done, and you’ll be left on the beach by the receding tide.

Most of these guidelines are for people seeking jobs as university professors, because that is the only work world I know well, but today most anthropologists find jobs outside of academia.  More and more areas of work are finding that anthropologists—if adequately trained—have several particularly valuable and distinctive skills:

–they know how to ask questions—not just questionnaires but depth interviewing, etc.

–they know how to listen

–they have learned as second nature to attend to differences in people’s outlooks, backgrounds, and viewpoints

–they know what culture, ethnicity, and religion are and aren’t.  They don’t believe everybody has the same “rational choice” behavior, but they also don’t assume that all Hispanics like hot sauce or all Generation X’ers are selfish or all Chinese are “collectivist”

–they can, as a corollary, get along with different types of people

–they can usually write well; they can write research papers, grant applications, do comprehensive plans, do research statements, etc.  If you aren’t trained in these things in your grad program, complain loudly and find training in those areas somehow! All major universities have workshops on grant applying.

–they are good evaluators and program critics

–they are comfortable in the field, and adjust to even quite rough situations

–and so on.

Because of this, anthropologists are now in demand—in fact, in rather desperate demand—in health care and medicine.  This includes, most importantly, public and global health, maternal and child health and care, and environmental health.  Also golden are environmental planning, development work of all kinds, and any and all international enterprises.  Anthropologists are in demand in personnel and marketing departments.  They are in extreme demand for grant-writing and field work for small NGO’s and such.  All these take some special training beyond anthro, but usually not much.  My anthropologist daughter got a master’s in public health and promptly got six job offers.  (She went on to a nursing degree and research nursing work.)

The standard places to look for jobs are ads in the journals and newsletters, but note that listservs routinely post job openings.  The Eanth-L listserv in environmental anthro, for example, posts pretty much every environmental anthro job opportunity.  There are medical, agricultural, and nutritional anthro listservs that routinely post job openings in those fields.  I assume the same is true for other sub-sub-fields.

 

One major problem that has to be faced is that products of the snob schools already have a leg up.  Partly it’s the name—a Harvard or Chicago product will almost always be hired over a UCR product with comparable brilliance and knowledge.  Partly it’s the contacts and the inside knowledge; the snob school kids are more apt to know that Richard Roe has just replaced John Doe as the Big Fad in your field.  So, get to conferences, pick people’s brains, don’t be left in the dust—know who’s the big name and what’s the “happenin’” theory.  But, more to the point, the snob schools actually do, on average, a good job of teaching.  I have certainly known plenty of exceptions—people who got through Berkeley or Chicago or wherever without learning a thing, presumably by playing political games.  But usually the Ph.D.s from those schools really are well trained.

Given those realities, FACE IT: YOU HAVE TO BE BETTER THAN THEY ARE, AND THAT TAKES A TERRIFIC AMOUNT OF WORK.  And you have to make sure you get the theory training and find out who the latest big names are.

 

On the market, my cynical but absolutely essential advice is: sell yourself shamelessly but appear to be modest.  Write a good CV with detail but not too much detail.

Get out publications—it is now almost impossible to get a tenure-track job in archaeology or biological anthro without publications, and even cultural anthro is getting there.  One of my students was told it now takes 5 publications to have a shot at a job.  That would be true only at major research universities, and not always at them.  One or two is enough for most places.  But the more the better.

More serious is grant-getting.  I have heard people in the lab sciences cut to the chase on hiring committees with the coldest of cold lines: “How much money is he bringing with him?”  Anthro is not so crass, but any grants sure do help, and the more—and more prestigious—the better.  Universities today survive on grant money, and if you aren’t going to contribute….

In your application letters and in interviewing, your whole game is to explain, very deferentially and politely, why the people offering the job need YOU rather than your competitors.  The surest way to NOT get the job is to ask what they can do for you (salary, leaves, etc.)  The only way TO get the job, usually, is to read the job description with obsessive interest, and pounce on every detail.  If they emphasize teaching, stress your qualifications as a teacher.  If research, talk up your research.  If there is a line in there about potatoes, highlight your knowledge of potatoes and your fascination with them.  If there is a line about critical theory, read up on it and comment intelligently on it.  If the ad is for a North Americanist with special interest in spruce trees, become an instant expert on that.  Also, and this is absolutely critical, study up on the members of the department, and talk about how well you would relate to their interests and how much you want to work with them.  You have to know who they are and what they do.

Then be careful not to get your letters mixed up.  It is all too easy on a computer to recycle a form letter for every application.  Then we who are hiring can get some hilarious amusement when—as one applicant actually did—you start out addressing UCR and talking about UCR’s concerns, but slip in the middle of the letter into talking about how well you’d relate to the profs at UC Irvine and how much you want to work with them.  We all understand—this poor soul just forgot to change the application letter—but, alas, such an application goes straight into the circular file (or “file 13” as the Mexicans call it).  Sorry.  If you’re that careless, we don’t want you.  Yes, that sounds cold, and it is, but it’s reality.

You will be required to get three people to write letters of reference for you.  These should, other things being equal, be your dissertation committee, or your major professor plus some employers who know your teaching record.  Obviously, the former is generally the better set for a research job, the latter for a teaching or nonacademic job.  It should also be obvious, but for some reason never is, that you should solicit letters only from people who know your work, can comment intelligently on it, and—this is critical—are known to be prompt with letters.  Only a very few professors are dilatory about writing these letters, but they can ruin you.

Being a “freeway flier” or temp for years is generally not a good place to be, unless you were a temp at one place and did well there; if that is the case, they are morally bound to give you a good opportunity at any job that comes along.  Outright “insider hiring” is illegal.  By law, the place has to advertise widely.  But in fact a well-qualified temp will often be hired over a more or less equally qualified outsider.  If you are the outsider in this case, it hurts like hell—but you must understand it and realize that it is fair and even necessary.

On the other hand, laws now prohibit discrimination on the basis of “race,” ethnicity, age, and everything else not directly related to job performance.  Religious schools can give preference to people of their religion, at least for teaching theology and the like, but otherwise you can expect fairness, and sue the socks off anybody that doesn’t deliver it.

My general experience is that of 100 applicants for a position, only about 20 actually fit the ad; 15 of them don’t talk about how they would relate to the faculty; 1 or 2 of the rest are obviously a bit out of the loop; so our short list of 3 or 4 people is very easy to generate.  Then, usually, only one of those 3 or 4 interviews well.

 

If you make it to a job interview, again tailor your interview presentation (normally an hour-long talk) to the audience.  If it is a teaching school, focus on giving a vibrant, exciting presentation, with beautiful visuals and clear explanations.  If a research place, focus on your present and future plans and projects (remember, they want to know what you will do for them).  Subtly but very, very clearly emphasize any grants you got, and, above all, what major grants you plan to go for and expect you will actually get.

Be polite.  Be prepared for anything.  I recall one job candidate whose talk was interrupted by an earthquake.  She fell apart and couldn’t go on.  She did not get the job (but luckily got a better one).  Things like that really do happen.  Be prepared, above all, for hard questions; most hiring committees just happily listen to anything, but there are those that really test you by asking searching questions.

A minor point, very annoying to me personally, is that the more prestigious eastern schools essentially require women to dress in very expensive, stylish clothes for interviews.  No such thing for the men.  This bit of sexism and classism makes me sick, but you have to deal with it if you are female and apply to one of those schools.

 

Otherwise, if your application letter and subsequent interview and interview talk have a lot of really interesting detail about your research, and a lot of serious thinking about how you would mesh with the department you’re applying to, you have a very good chance of being hired.  My experience is that no more than one or two candidates per job opening do this.  If your letter is short and lacking detail and doesn’t speak at length to the department and people you’re applying to, you don’t stand much chance.

 

When starting a new job, expect to have to teach (or do) the stuff nobody wants to teach or do.  Bear it.  This phase ends quickly.

 

Money and other nonsense

I can’t advise much here, except to think seriously before running up a huge debt.  You won’t make much with an anthro degree, even in the best possible job.  You will never have a house and may never have a kid if you get too deep in debt.

If you do get a job and have some money, get a house as near work as possible.  Commutes are death.  Also, get a small house, in good repair, with a small yard.  House repairs and “fixing up,” and yard work, are far more deadly to careers than anything else outside of a bad marriage.  Think maintenance.

Otherwise, usual consumer advice.

 

Teaching

FIRST rule:  Respect the students.

First corollary: Spare us the crap about this new generation of students being history’s worst, dumbest, least prepared, and—above all—the most disrespectful of professors.  The oldest documents in ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, Chinese, and Greek all have this stuff already, and the crap hasn’t changed since.  Many of the people I hear saying this stuff are people I knew as students, and I remember their professors (sometimes including me) saying the same things about them!  For the record, the best class I ever had, in terms of overall performance, was in 2000, and one of the best was my very last class, in 2006.  Some of the worst classes I ever had were back in the mythical 1960s—yes, everybody was thinking, but up to half of them were too stoned for it to matter.

Second rule:  Go where the students are if you want to find them.  This should be elementary advice, especially for anthropologists, but few of my colleagues think about this.  There is, for instance, the fact that most of our students at UCR come from families without much college background.  A large percentage of our students are the first members of their families to go to college.  Also, virtually all our students at UCR and local colleges come from “minority” or immigrant backgrounds.  The traditional student—white, middle or upper class, from an educated family—practically doesn’t exist here.  Thus you can’t expect students to act like the “proper university student” of old-time novels and movies.

Remember that students are individual human beings (not mere representatives of an ethnic group, let alone of a worthless generation) and have their human concerns and their very different personalities and experiences.  Use your ethnographic skills to find out where they are.  I recently read an “education expert” airily dismissing the existence of different learning styles.  I wondered what planet he was on—certainly not this one.

Therefore, third rule:  Learn basic counseling techniques!  You’ll have plenty of students sobbing in your office, over everything from flunking a quiz to being beaten up and deserted by Significant Other.  You will certainly encounter suicidal students and will probably face mentally ill ones, some of whom might be threatening.  Know how to deal with these problems!  Ask the counseling center and read a book or manual on crisis counseling.  Know when to stop:  it is NOT appropriate, safe, or legal for you to deal with genuinely hard cases like mentally ill or severely troubled students.  Get to know people in the counseling center so you will know where to refer such cases.

 

Students, especially graduate students, do most of their learning outside of class.  It is absolutely essential for good teaching to have a lot of out-of-class contact, including social contact.  So much for MOOCs and such.

As to the nuts and bolts:  Common sense should tell you to organize lectures in advance, write up notes, and post them online.  Also, if you use PowerPoint or other visuals, don’t make them so crowded that students can’t read them.  I once saw a grad student do this and actually say “I realize you can’t read this slide….”  So why on earth did he show it?  Needless to say, his committee did not love his presentation.

Worst of all is giving a “lecture” by just reading off your PowerPoints.  If you ever do that, my ghost will haunt you and drive you to madness and death.

It is far better to put your course notes on line and/or hand them out than to give dismal text-only PowerPoints.  In fact, many of us always put our course notes online.

Most anthropology departments have serious problems planning curricula, because the field (and often the department too) is so diverse and disunited.  Think very seriously about this.  Plan your dream sequence of courses and options for the students, and talk it out with the department.  Hopefully, the department will come up with some sort of plan.  We had a model schedule and selection of options in the 1970s through early 90s.  Unfortunately, we let it fall apart after that.  This was an enormous disservice to the students.  Finally things got so bad that courses that had been dropped (and were never taught any more) were still listed in the university catalogue, because nobody was bothering to take them out.

A department plan or curriculum has to change as new people are hired, old ones retire, or middle-career ones change their focus.  Such changes should be made fast and cleanly.  Planning is really make-or-break for a department.

 

Student evaluations are now routinely used to evaluate professors.  Don’t be lulled into being a crowd-pleaser.  Promotion committees know all about this, and may distrust a prof with all-good evaluations.  She may be a true Great Teacher—there really are such—but she may be a crowd-pleaser and easy grader.  To paraphrase the old movie cliché, promotion committees have ways of finding out which you are.  Promotion committees like to see a prof with good evaluations in literate, judicious style and BAD evaluations in stupid, nasty style.  Confucius was once asked:  “If everyone likes a person, does that mean he’s a good person?”  Confucius answered “Of course not.  If the good people like him and the bad people hate him, then he’s probably a good person.”  Promotion committees generally have a similar idea.  Personal confession: my all-time favorite eval said, simply, “Too much work for too little grade.”  YES!  I was not an easy grader and I did require college-level work.  I’d infinitely rather have that eval than be stroked for giving crowd-pleasing lectures and easy A’s.

 

Publishing

When I was a grad student at Berkeley, there was a sign by the grad office with a quote from A. L. Kroeber, who founded the department and ran it for more than half a century.  He advised scholars to publish anything they had to say as soon as possible, so people could “shoot at it.”  In other words, don’t be a perfectionist.  This was dynamite advice, and I have always followed it.  Kroeber got hit by plenty of shots, many deserved, but he got a lot of wonderful and accurate data out too, and the debates triggered by his mistakes greatly advanced the field. (Remember what Darwin said about “false views” greatly advancing science because everyone takes such pleasure in proving them wrong.)  I admit, I have published a lot less than Kroeber and been a bit more careful, but still that advice truly made my career.

Writer’s block is the classic worst problem for academics.  It is purely psychological, but horribly annoying.  I once gave it up for Lent.  To my surprise, this worked.  At the end of Lent I figured, Why should I let it back in?  I’ve never had serious writer’s block since.  Basically, the lesson is, you can get out of the writer’s block trap by devoting yourself to whatever you believe will let you transcend it.

Procrastination is closely related and almost equally crippling.  Same advice.  Just do it.  As a friend of mine who wrote a book on procrastination pointed out to me, there is no easy answer, since—if there is a perfect cure out there—a true procrastinator will put off trying it.  Watch out and don’t get trapped into this mind-set.

Search diligently for the ideal place to publish your stuff, and then write in their style with their format.  Find their style guide.  Every journal and publisher has one online now.  There is always some journal, often new or obscure, for which your paper on the left nostril of the red-backed vole is ideal.  Another one will yearn for your paper on the early films of Roy Rogers.  Not the same journal.  And probably neither of them the flagship journal of your field.  And there is almost always a book publisher for even the most arcane topic (though I never could publish my guide to gardening in the tropics). Just LOOK.  Go online, use keyword searches, and find every journal on earth that publishes your kind of work.  Check each one out (50 or 100 if you need to) and send off journal articles accordingly.  Be warned, though, that there are now countless fly-by-night journals that publish anything for pay.  Publishing in these is the kiss of death.  If a journal starts off by saying how much you have to pay to publish with them, promptly delete it from your list.

For a book, you have to write up a prospectus, and then send it off to all possible publishers.  This prospectus is a document with a set form, though each publisher has a slightly different version (posted online at their website).  You have to give the title, main theme, abstract (100 to 300 word summary), and a thorough account of who might buy it—what the target audience is—and where to advertise it.  The publisher wants to know what conventions to show it at, what journals to advertise it in, what journals to contact for reviewing it, what professional societies would be interested in it, and so on.  Some publishers want a table of contents and even chapter summaries, and most want a sample chapter.  They also want your short CV.

Think seriously about how you can reach the maximum number of readers.

You can NOT send a full ms of an article or book to more than one publisher at a time.  This is highly immoral, and if a publisher finds out you do it they will never deal with you again.  On the other hand, you are expected to saturate everybody with prospectuses.  The best way to do this is to go to your professional convention (the American Anthropological Association annual conference for anthropologists) and talk to the publishers’ representatives there, and drop off prospectuses with them.

Finally, there are those anonymous reviews.  All journal and book mss of any scholarly quality get sent out to 2 or 3 reviewers.  About 90% of the resulting reviews are helpful and fair—though often fairly harsh in the way they say it.  The other 10% are taking out on you their problems with their spouse or chair or substance abuse or something.  They will give you a mean and unfair reading.  Often they make it clear that they never read the ms.  For instance, they will attack you for things you didn’t say—even when you said the opposite.  The eminent psychologist Roy Baumeister got so fed up that he wrote a savage but hilariously funny screed about this: “Dear Journal Editor, It’s Me Again….”  You can probably find it online.  Look it up.  It’s consoling to know that even one of America’s leading psychologists gets this same treatment.

Do NOT take these reviews personally.  Think of all your written work as evolving and never perfect.  You can always use some critique.  If that critique is phrased civilly, be deeply thankful.  If it is uncivil, use what you can of it and disregard the rest.  Never protest to the editor or waste your time ranting.  Complaining to colleagues is merely annoying; they’ve all been through it too, and are apt to answer you the same way the old bear answered the young wolves in Kipling’s Jungle Book:  “We knew it ten seasons before.”

 

Getting Tenure

Little to say here, since every institution has its own wants and rules.  In general, there are teaching schools and research institutions.  Teaching schools want evidence of superior teaching, usually in the form of student evaluations plus peer observations.  Research schools want publications and grants.  They expect a major article in a refereed journal per year, plus a book for tenure (not just your thesis—unless you have massively rewritten and added to it).  Some expect even more.  The big ones most certainly expect funding—you have to get grants, if only small ones.  Small ones may lead to large ones, and show you are making progress.

Department and community service is theoretically taken into account, but in reality the best it can do is be decisive in a very close case.  If you are barely making it in teaching and research, good service can save you.  Normally, however, it does no good, and young professors are usually advised NOT to invest much time or effort in service when they could invest it in teaching and research.  A responsible department, department chair, or dean will place you on minimal-work committees so it looks like you are doing something but in fact you are not worked too hard.

Denying tenure if you do the above is VERY rare.  Now and then someone gets into serious political trouble.  There is recourse, if you were unfairly treated: the law, plus the American Association of University Professors—the latter has no legal authority to do anything, but can provide very bad publicity for a school.  Normally, if you don’t alienate people, and do publish, you’re OK.

 

Working

            Just be nice to everybody and look for the good in everybody. Use your ethnographic skills: figure out where people are coming from, why they are there, and how to be nice to them and get along with them given those various standpoints.

Keep your office door open (see below), be available, keep your office hours.  Nothing ruins a college student’s experience like unavailable professors.  If you’re in the private sector, nothing ruins your work like being unavailable and unlocatable. Use the social media.

Being nice to people includes being as good as you possibly can to department and university staff: secretaries, administrative assistants, MSO’s, etc.  These people do everything for the school, usually work terribly hard at very long hours for terrible pay, and are almost invariably really good, dedicated individuals.  (Yes, I’ve known some exceptions, but really few.)  They also control all the minor but vital details, like access to the copier and instructions on how to use it, filling out forms for grants, and getting help scheduling.  So they can make your life wonderful if you’re good to them—or, if you aren’t…you get the idea.

Throw a lot of parties.  I used to have an open, informal party at the end of every quarter.  These were fondly remembered—much more so than my teaching.  Academics are sociable beings, and need to unwind and talk shop, but seem rarely to be party organizers.

Never believe gossip.  Most academic gossip reduces to one of two formulas: “X doesn’t like Y” or “X is screwing Y.”  Experience teaches that these claims, and other gossip, are wrong at least 90% of the time.  As to the other 10%, who the hell cares?  Stop worrying about it.

On the other hand, if you actually know something bad is going on,  do not trust or deal with said people, if possible.  If it’s actually illegal behavior, report it to the appropriate administrator.

Be aware of who might stab you in the back or screw you out of a good thing (very few colleagues really do this, but there is always someone).  Be nice anyway, but watch your back.  The way to spot such people is that they are always complaining about others.  Complaining about the sorrows and ills of the world is one thing—it can merely mean the complainer is an idealist.  But constant complaints about one’s family and work associates mean trouble.  Such people cannot be trusted.

Nothing is served by the endless squabbles and gossip that mess up universities and other workplaces.  This does NOT mean you should put up with everything.  If you need to state an opinion that differs from others’, do so.  Just do it civilly and politely.  I had to learn the hard way that 60s-style “confrontation” is purely bad and never does anything but harm.

Though the vast majority of academic conflicts are trivial personality issues, there are always a few—thankfully a very few—genuine skunks in any workplace, including universities.  They tend to rise in the system, too, because they love power and because they play games that honorable persons do not do.  Thus they get ahead at the expense of others.  Unless you are their department chair, or on a relevant committee such as Personnel, there is not usually much you can do about them except be unfailingly courteous, avoid them as much as possible, and wait them out.  They generally get fired or else move on.  (One species of skunk is the one who’s always looking for a better job, and thus never bothers to do anything for his or her university—s/he doesn’t expect to be there long.  And usually isn’t there long, thank God.)  Again, be warned, but do not think this is at all a norm.  Such people are rare and don’t usually last—though they do unfortunately take over the university in certain tragic cases.

Keep a detailed written record of events at your university or other workplace, and of your department.  Nobody seems to keep workplace histories.  In a university, where there is a complete turnover of students every 4 years or so, this leads to real disconnect.  Even if you’re not in the know, keep a record, for fun, for ultimate writeup as group history, for political improvement of it all, and other reasons.  Budgets especially need to be recorded.  You will find these records increasingly useful after several years at a place.

If you’re at a university, do everything you possibly can, politically and personally, to shore up the core academic functions: library, classes, professor contact time, remedial learning, research facilities including labs, and so on.  In the current economic climate, this means defending them against the administration’s desire to divert money to athletics, flashy projects, luxurious facililities (especially for the administration), and other nonacademic matters. This latter tendency is sometimes called the “business model” of administration, but any real business that neglects its core mission for flashy stuff promptly fails.

The worst problem currently, nationwide and at my university, is the library.  Administrations have found that the library is a long-term concern that can always be defunded “just for this year” without damaging much.  Librarians are politically weak at most schools, have few faculty advocates, and are regarded as “mere” support staff even if they are actually highly-trained professionals.  Most US universities have inadequate and declining libraries, even if they are otherwise rich.  We once had a chancellor at my university who one year redirected the library’s special book budget to redecorating his office.  At the University of Missouri they recently cut 100% of the library’s funds for the year—but the football coach makes over $2 million a year.  Libraries are the absolute basis of the research function of the university, and this is true for freshmen and Nobel prize winners alike.  As a student or professor or other academic, make helping the library your first priority.  If you aren’t an academic, you still depend on local university libraries for all kinds of public data functions, so you need to concern yourself very seriously with local academic libraries.

All places now have zero tolerance for sexually harassing students, or bullying.  This means you don’t dare do anything even remotely suspicious.  I always kept my office door open (unless I was napping in there) and my whole body visible from the corridor.  It has come to the point where a male does not dare compliment a female on her appearance.  Hugs are apparently taboo in some areas, though, thank God, not yet in California, where we hug all the time for no reason.

 

Administrating

As with other matters, there is a first rule:  Consult with everybody, then do what you believe is right, then thank everyone for their advice—whether you took it or not.  If you didn’t use it, just thank them and tell them you found their advice helpful—no need to go on and point out that it helped you know what to avoid.  People in academia, and elsewhere, desperately want to be consulted, listened to, and recognized.  Nobody is more deservedly hated than an administrator who won’t consult and won’t thank.  But as to following their advice:  Get all opinions but then make your own judgment. Of course you have to go with the majority or the consensus if it’s a democratic situation, but very often you will have to make the choices, either because it’s your responsibility or because no one else will help or be decisive.

In my administrative positions, I always asked for input, then flew a trial decision, then followed the qui tacit consentit rule:  “Who stays silent has consented.” In other words, anyone who does not protest by a given deadline time is considered to have voted in favor of your choice.  This amazingly expedites decision-making.

Another rule is that whoever DOES protest has thereby volunteered to fix the situation or at least propose the solution.  Establish zero tolerance for whining-but-then-not-helping.  If somebody routinely doesn’t like your way of doing X, put him or her in charge of X forthwith (if it’s possible to do so).

Assume that all conflicts are the fault of ALL the contestants until PROVEN otherwise.  The “he started it” blame game is an invitation to lying and to dodging responsibility.  Get the parties in question to settle it.  Listen to the full stories of all sides, with care and sympathy, but don’t believe a word of it.  People in the midst of conflict almost invariably distort their stories.  Listen to all sides and note the differences.  Thus, when you’ve heard all sides, do what YOU think best.

Sexual harassment:  This is scary.  If it’s real, you as administrator have to get on it instantly with 100% attention, and immediately contact university counsel.  On the other hand, there are students who will make false accusations.  They can ruin a faculty member’s career.  Obviously there is no simple way to tell true from false, but if a clearly desperate student breaks down in your office, chances are almost 100% that it’s real; if, in contrast, a clearly angry and vicious student just takes a high moral ground on it without seeming very upset, you want to watch out.

Detail is the soul of good administration.  The best administrators have broad vision but are ALSO superb detail persons.  They keep track of every paper and file and data point.  They organize their information and USE it.  Think of health care, and the need to keep data available, and how frightening it is to you as a patient to discover that your HMO always loses your drug allergy data.  (They always used to lose mine, and of course this is life-threatening.)  Details matter.

All universities have a vast number of good, diligent, scholarly, caring faculty members; a few troublemakers; and a few manipulators.  The good, diligent ones rarely get any recognition.  They get taken for granted.  Always be sure to thank people like that for their good work, and do small things for them.  They usually hate the embarrassing public recognition that bad administrators love to get.  Quiet personal thank-yous and dinner invitations are much better.  The troublemakers, by contrast, can be endured, but don’t reinforce them.

The real problem is the manipulators.  Every university has a few people who never work but continually play politics instead.  Fortunately there are very few, but they always manage to rise rapidly in the system and often wind up running it.  Then they do incalculable damage. Manipulators can ruin the library, gut programs that are vitally important but not “flashy” enough, sell out the business school to corrupt businesses, and ultimately wreck the university.  These people start by getting themselves into all kinds of cushy positions that involve no responsibility, like running “centers” and being on committees that look important but don’t actually do much.

If you are running a department and have one of these people, fire him or her.  Period.  This can be done even if they’re tenured.  They always slip up and take another job on the side, or harass a student, or fake data in a study, or do something else for which firing over tenure is required.  I’ve had a role in firing several such people and I’m proud of it.  Wish I’d done it more.

Much more common are professors who are good scholars but also suave and sociable and thus successful at politics.  They can easily drift into playing politics more and more, and working less and less.  This will annoy you, but such people are valuable and can be salvaged.  Get them to do the scholarship, and also get them into useful, responsible political positions where their skills are used for good purposes:  things like the honors program, the library committee, or editorship of a journal.

 

Having It All

Many women are now concerned about “having it all,” which seems to mean having a demanding job, raising kids, keeping up on movies and TV, running a model home, and sometimes dressing stylishly too.  No, you can’t have all that.  Men long ago resigned themselves to having to work full time, and thus sacrifice some of the childrearing and home care, and all or most of the rest.  The realistic hope is a demanding job, some time with the kids, a sort-of-clean but not very orderly and decorative home, and not much else.

I was a single parent for five years, while managing some of the more difficult years of my career.  Everything went fine (though it was a rough ride).  But the house was a very small minimal-care place, and of course things like movies and vacations went over the wall.

In most fields it is perfectly possible to have a career AND have kids—I’ve done it—but in the lab sciences, where you may have to spend very long hours in the lab, there are special problems.  I often wonder why biologists, in particular, don’t read Darwin; they seem to take a perverse delight in wrecking their younger colleagues’ reproductive chances.  Still, with a cooperative partner and good local child care, a lab scientist can do perfectly fine as a parent.  Lots do it.

Finally, to repeat a line above, one of the most important things I have learned in life is that the greatest goals in a career are those where any progress is good, but absolute success is impossible:  World peace, perfect health for all, justice for everyone, a thoroughly protected yet profitably used environment, and so on down to a perfect marriage and perfectly raised kids.  Keep trying.  The journey truly is the end.

So, plan your life realistically.  Think what you really want.  Give up other things accordingly.

 

Thanks very much to Jenny Banh for suggesting this guide and helping with it.

 

Administrators

In my years at UC Riverside, I have seen administrators come and go, and have learned a little about the world of higher-level university administration.  My own administrative duties have been low-level, but ongoing and educative.

Administrators tend to be of two types.  One hopes for dedicated, competent, academically trained administrators who can and will deal with crises and keep the system running well.  I have served under many such.  Unfortunately, one often encounters career administrators, many of them trained in business or educational administration rather than in an academic subject, who are neither competent managers nor interested in becoming so.  They are driven by ambition to rise in the system, not by desire to help it.

The two are easy to tell apart.  Administrators of the first type are rarely noticed by the wider public.  They show themselves through the coming of many new books in the libraries, new labs in the science buildings, new hires who win the Nobel Prize a few years later, new donations from rich alumni, and new computers in the  computer labs.  Above all, they show themselves through making sure that teaching and research faculties are paid decently and not worked impossibly hard (but are not allowed to laze on the job either).

Administrators of the second type are very visible.  They are seen in expensive suits and flashy ties, or female-equivalent garb, at every high-level meeting, major social event, and public photo-op.  They are featured on all the university’s publicity fliers.  They are seen at sports events and at the openings of new gyms, stadiums, sports fan facilities, and student unions.  However, a university run by them is singularly lacking in new books, new labs, new research, good new faculty, and new (or even old) instructional improvement projects.

Though some people are intermediate, administrators tend to cluster at one or the other pole of this continuum.  This is because a real scholar or scientist, even if also politically ambitious, finds it difficult to ignore the scholarly side of the university.  Only the academically hopeless or resentful will willingly trash the entire research and education functions of their universities.

Administrators of the first type manage the old way:  They allocate scarce resources for maximum overall benefit, and they inspire and encourage their workers, from senior professors to gardeners.

Administrators of the second type manage according to the latest fad.  Today, that is the “business model.”  The businesses used for a model are Enron, Madoff, and Wal-Mart, however, not Costco, Subway, or even Starbuck’s.  (Lest you think I am exaggerating…one of the people I am as a model for a Type II actually had us read a book on “successful” businesses that had become “great.”  By the time we finished the book, half the cases in the book were in court for illegal practices leading to financial disaster.)  Put another way, the businesses used are McDonald’s and Burger King rather than Chez Panisse and Spago; we are talking mass consumption with minimal nutritional (educational) value, not specialized top-quality experience.

The business model is a model in which the goal is to process more bodies cheaper.  We of the faculty are under continual pressure to teach more students and get them through the system faster, and at less cost.  This, of course, drastically impacts the quality of education—but that is not a concern.  The ultimate in efficiency is the MOOC (Massive Open Online Course), in which thousands of students can tune in to a single course of lectures—ideally given by a world expert who is also a great teacher.  The rest of us are too inferior to be of use.

Of course, no one would use a MOOC to teach anything they actually wanted people to know.  No one would be mad enough to teach driving, or nursing, or brain surgery, or the all-important sports by way of a MOOC.  Even administrators know that those things require actual one-on-one teaching, practice, apprenticeship, hands-on training, and feedback.  MOOC’s, like standardized tests, are used only for things nobody cares about, such as literature, philosophy, and basic science.

Actually, in an ideal world the mindless rote side of driving, nursing, and so on would be taught by some such method, though with thoughtful essays rather than standardized tests as the evaluation tools.  This would leave real teachers free to concentrate on the hands-on side.  Some online courses and universities do teach this way, with great success.  But all that is far too expensive and complicated for the business model.

The business model, as applied to academic employees, means, first of all, less power and less pay for the teaching staff.  (Ironically, this has led to unionization in many public universities, including mine, and thus to more confrontation and management problems.  But there is really no alternative: without unions, our lower-level teaching staff would be so poorly paid and overworked that they would frequently have to drop out, leaving us with even worse staffing levels than we have now.)  Second, it means more and more highly paid administrators.  My university went from one vice-chancellor to six in a few years, and is moving on up.  UC’s systemwide administration absorbs as many resources as a major campus, but does little to earn it (they do provide useful legal services).  Third, it means not wasting money on such inconspicuous things as labs, computers, or libraries.  Money must go into something visible to the public.  We at my university in the early 2000’s had lots of beautiful new signs, a lovely student union, all manner of sports activities, and even new and very expensive uniforms for the students who help with orientation at the end of summer…but no new books, no new labs, no instructional improvement, worse and worse faculty/student ratios, fewer remedial courses, more overcrowded classes, fewer classes in total.  Fortunately, the scoundrel that chose all that went on—unfortunately, to bigger and better things.  We are now doing better.

This is not to say that universities can’t be cut, but the cutting should be entirely in upper-level management and their folly projects.  Spending on administration has soared in American universities in the last two decades—doubling in many—while everything else has been cut to the bone, and in the case of libraries even the bones are going fast.

For some reason, strange and unimaginable to most administrators, measures of quality such as student graduation rates (especially in the recommended four years instead of five or six) remain poor at most universities.  Cheating has increased.  The job market for graduates is not steller; students clearly know less than they used to, and their employment fates prove it.  In short, career administrators using the business model have succeeded as well as did their models in Enron and Lehman Brothers.  Like the latter, university administrators can always count on generous governments to bail them out.  Universities are “too big to fail,” and their administrators always make the case that higher-paid higher-level administrators are the only hope.  Legislators, being what they are, usually sympathize—especially those many legislators who depend on an ignorant and uninformed citizenry to stay in office.  Legislators love Big Men.  They do not love professors, still less students.

A sure sign of Type II administrators at work is the proliferation of “centers” that accomplish little.  The easiest way for an ambitious but incompetent academic to move up is by starting a center—say, for the investigation of research on centers.  UCR has countless centers that either do nothing or duplicate existing faculties.  (It also, in fairness, has a few real centers that actually do work.)  All the centers absorb considerable resources; they are supposed to get grants that more than offset the cost.  It would be interesting to see how many of our centers do that.

Type II administrators sometimes steal outright.  More often, they have final say over the budget, and can move funds according to discretion.  Thus, one of our chancellors once used the year’s book-buying budget to redecorate his office.  The library, and thus the university’s teaching and research mission, never recovered—but you should have seen the chancellor’s office door.

The problem, then, is not so much the business model as the type of administrator who invokes it.  They are the people who early-on decided that rising in power through social ability and political skill was the way to win in academia.  (A catty writer might say that they tend not to have the intellectual skills to rise any other way…but two of our very worst chancellors at UCR were actually quite eminent scientists.)

Probably the biggest problem with Type II administrators is not their laziness—though most of them indeed do little except posture in public—but their constant scheming to get ahead.  A second-string university like UCR is merely a place to polish their vitas and jockey for a better position.  Often, they show their competence the same way that bad CEO’s do: by cutting the work force and shrinking the budget, no matter how much it damages education.  Since they had already risen to their Peter Principle “level of incompetence,” we of the faculty have often wondered how they did in their later postings.  Sometimes we hear, and reflect that our gain is the later postings’ loss.  (Modern readers may not remember Lawrence Peters’ classic work [1969], in which he pointed out that managers tend to rise till they reach a job level they can’t handle, and then stick there—leaving the world mismanaged.)

Since Type II administrators spend their time playing social and political games, they, not the Type I administrators, are the ones that are visible to politicians and donors.  Those politicians and donors who love game-playing, fancy suits, and sports events will be impressed, and will steer some money to the university.  Unfortunately, politicians and donors who actually care about education and research will go somewhere else.  I would like to know how many hundreds of millions UCR has lost this way over the years.  I do know that one gift to UCLA’s medical school in 2012 was almost a third of our entire annual budget.  UCLA’s medical school has competent administration.  (Very fortunately, we have managed to get a medical school with an extremely competent Type I dean here at UCR.  Maybe we have a chance at last.)

 

Modern universities are incredibly complicated, and face diverse political and legal challenges.  Therefore, they actually do need administrators.  We do not need six or eight vice-chancellors, but we do need one, probably more than one.  We may not need as many deans as we have now, but we need several.  We do not need the “business model,” but we do need some genuine business management: cutting waste (i.e. high-level administrative spending), inviting comments from employees, constantly upgrading quality, allocating resources where they are needed (rather than where they make a show), and attending to the final product above all.

The problem, then, becomes one of finding Type I administrators.  Currently, university administration is so difficult and demanding that people who seriously want to work at it are daunted.  We at UCR used to have a hard time getting competent people to apply for chancellor and vice-chancellor positions.  We had to “wash” a vice-chancellor search a few years ago for sheer lack of qualified applicants.  With rising prestige, we are currently fortunate in having found a number of really good people.  Still, the problem continues, and the Chronicle of Higher Education reveals we are not alone in this.  One important step would be to give “service” a much higher place in promotion.  Encouraging people to rise through the ranks—where their capability can be judged—would produce a cadre of competent, decent administrators, rising within each school.  We could then dispense with the need to hire Type II people from other schools.

A competent administrator will, first of all, listen to what people say: students, faculty, staff, public, everyone.  He or she will then think seriously about what’s the best thing to do—not just take the most widely popular suggestion.  He or she will then thank everybody for their input, whether or not it was adopted!  Nothing is more valuable than input, and if people aren’t thanked they won’t provide it.

He or she will be perfectly clear about the core functions of a university:  Education and research.  These come first.  Other functions come last.  Sports are an unsavory, wasteful luxury—they do nothing for most universities except waste a lot of money.  (It has been repeatedly shown that only the places with major established programs make money off sports.)   Fine food, beautiful dorms, beautiful student union buildings, and the like have their place—but their place is elite private schools, not struggling public universities that have to starve the library and the computer bank even without such luxury spending.

He or she will recognize that faculty and staff are human beings, and deserve not only fair pay but also respect.  Even Type II administrators usually know enough to be civil to senior faculty, but they have a reflex need to cut pay and resources for teaching and research personnel, and to be arrogant about it whenever possible.  Type I administrators try to get fairer shares of the state’s money and the university’s money for the people who actually do the heavy lifting, especially the overworked and exploited temps, teaching assistants, and junior faculty.  But if they fail in getting more state money, they at least try to soften the blow by being respectful and listening to the faculty.

He or she will work seriously with the community, addressing local needs as well as possible and thus hopefully getting donations.  Type II administrators, if they work with the “town” at all, tend to work only with the high-level business community.

He or she will work with the state and other powers-that-be to focus on quality teaching and research, cut other expenses, and above all not allow universities to become top-heavy with highly paid administrators.

He or she will strategically build on the strengths of the campus, and will also try to fix obvious weaknesses.  Type II administrators, by contrast, often hate and fear strong units and programs.  The most insane thing done by administration in my 47 years at UCR was summarily terminating the agricultural research program and firing the entire research staff—because the chancellor in question “did not want UCR to be seen as a cow college.”  This gutted one of the three or four leading agricultural research programs in the world, a program that was making enormous differences in poorer nations.  Of course, the researchers were not cow tenders, but world-class geneticists, entomologists, plant pathologists, cell biologists, and soil and water scientists.  Quite apart from devastating the intellectual and academic life at UCR—it had depended heavily on the ag scientists—this move, and all too many similar cuts at other universities, contributed to millions of people starving to death in Africa and Asia.  Decline in agricultural research is one of the major reasons why one and a half billion people are hungry and about one to two million die of malnutrition every year.

Make no mistake:  Type II administrators kill.  At thousands of universities, they have run down cutting-edge medical research, agricultural research, environmental research, crime studies, war-and-peace research, and other life-and-death agendas—all to feed their egos by redirecting the money to sports, fancy nonacademic buildings, glossy brochures, country-club dorm facilities, and, above all, lavish parties for each other.  Their natural allies, the legislators and boards of directors who want only to save money in the short term, bear even more of the guilt.  In a world where forward knowledge is the most important way of saving lives, this mischief is murder.

 

 

 

 

Peter, Lawrence.  1969.  The Peter Principle: Why Things Always Go Wrong.  New York: Bantam.

 

How to Get an Academic Book Published

I am frequently asked by young scholars how to start out in the publishing world.  Usually, the specific question is how to turn a Ph.D. thesis into a book.  The time has come to write down some tips.

First, the basics.  Publishers want a prospectus.  This is a summary of the book, with special attention to its main points and its distinctive findings and insights.  Different presses have slightly different requirements, which they conveniently specify on their websites.  The general formula is the same:  about four pages summarizing the basic message of the book; quick summaries of the specific chapters; and information on marketing it.

This last is basic and important—the publishers have to know the details.  First and most important is the target audience.  Who is actually going to read this book?  Interested “laypersons”?  All anthropologists?  Only experts in kinship?  Only experts in Chinese village studies?  What types of students will read it?  Will it be accessible to freshmen, or only to upper-level students, or only to Ph.D. candidates?  Should this book be in every bookstore, or only in specialized bookstores, or only offered online?

Publishers naturally want to reach the widest possible audience, and you should too, since you have really valuable and important findings to share. Write the book and the prospectus accordingly.

Your prospectus will have to include not only this information, but also the competition.  You will have to list other books with similar content, and often give details on who buys them and how many copies they sell, but the really important question is how your book is different from theirs—why people should buy yours instead of, or as well as, theirs.  Then you will be expected to say where the book should be marketed, what journals would be good places to advertise it, and so on.  This is really important.  My food book Everyone Eats was published by an academic press with little trade-book experience.  It did not occur to them to market it in cookbook stores, gourmet food stores (almost all of which carry books), and places like that, and it did not occur to me to tell them.  I lost probably 50% or more of my potential sales because of that.  If you write a book that potentially has wide appeal, you have to think TV and other media as well as print media.

The best thing is to write a generic prospectus—covering things that all the publishers’ webpages ask for—and send it out as widely as possible.  Saturate the publishing world.  However, so as not to waste effort, do your homework first on who actually publishes the sort of book you are writing.  Academic and trade presses are specializing more and more now.  If you’re writing about Mexico, look first to University of Arizona and University of Texas.  If political ecology, go for Duke University Press.  For Northwest Coast studies, University of British Columbia and University of Washington.  Commercial presses are often just as prestigious; Brill for history and social science, Elsevier for hard science, Routledge for general books, Edwin Mellen for specialized scholarly works, and so on.

Do not confine yourself to these—anybody may publish anything—but start with the most likely venue.  A corollary is: do not be discouraged if the first 50 publishers turn you down cold.  You may just not be within their specialized profiles.  The 51st may well see your ms as just what they’ve been desperately seeking for all these years.

Simon Batterbury adds that there are also book series to watch for, and other plans and programs.  Duke’s series in political ecology is now a particularly prestigious publishing venue for that area of research.  Series tend to appear and disappear, or change profile, without warning.

Increasingly, book deals are made at conferences.  All the major publishers have representatives at the American Anthropological Association meetings, and many send reps to SfAA, SAA, and other smaller associations.  If you seriously want to publish your book, you have to go to these meetings, bring copies of your prospectus, talk at length to the publishers’ reps about what they want, and drop off a copy of the prospectus with each one who shows any interest at all.  Forget all shame—sell yourself and be persuasive!  You have an ms that you invested a lot in, that you care about, and that you believe in (I hope and trust).  Say so.

If you have a choice, always go with the largest and most prestigious press!  Beware of excessively small presses.  One-man outfits are often desperate for mss. and will cut good deals, but then you get poor marketing—or worse.  A coworker and I once had a book accepted by a good but tiny press—basically a one-man operation.  Things were going well till we started getting strange emails.  Finally one said (roughly) “Are you aliens from another galaxy?”  We had no idea what to make of this until we got a letter saying (more or less), “We are the receivers for ***.  The editor has unfortunately suffered a nervous breakdown and is resting in a mental hospital.  We plan to bring out the books accepted by this press…”—which they did, in a timely and professional manner, but we quickly brought out a second edition with a large, reliable publisher!  I’ve had small publishers go broke on me, editors die or change jobs, and so on.  Be warned.  (Of course, it goes without saying that you do not publish it yourself.  Self-publishing is great for family cookbooks and memoirs, but gets you nowhere in academic publishing.)

Publishers currently want books in the 70,000-100,000 word range.  Anything much over 100,000 to 120,000 words has to be a Blockbuster (capital B) to get much traction.  Such books do, however, exist, and are not even all that rare, so feel free if you have really important data.

Illustrations are now very cheap to produce, so use lots of them.  But getting permission for commercial ones is another matter, so take good photographs.

One final issue: anything major and important that goes in a published book has to be there with the full permission of the people you are writing about.  You have to get their signed permission, after seriously explaining what you are going to do with the material (i.e., publish it).  Then you should provide the people in question with the fruits of your labor.  Bring copies of the book back to them when it’s published.  I worked hard to get my main work on the Quintana Roo Maya published in Quintana Roo and in both English and Spanish (I would have done it in Maya too if I had found a good translator).  Think seriously about coauthorship and other means of insuring that intellectual property rights are respected.  And—this really should not be necessary, but unfortunately it is necessary, to spell out—anything confidential, or anything that could endanger your consultants, should NOT be published.  I once wound up in an unexpectedly very hairy situation that prevented me from publishing anything for 7 years and prevented me from ever publishing a great deal of the data I got!  Remember, the various anthropological codes of ethics emphasize that your first duty is to the people you work with—not to serve them or argue for them, necessarily, but certainly to protect them by not publishing highly sensitive material, or ripping off material that they want to keep for themselves.

Simon Batterbury has very usefully added that Australia has somewhat different rules (no “tenure,” but same requirements for publishing if you want promotions) and that there is a whole world of e-books I have not mentioned.  I don’t know the differences between that universe and regular publishing.  Clearly, it helps sales to have your publisher do both e-book and print versions.

So much for the grubby business side.  Now to the serious stuff.

First, believe in your work.  If it isn’t what you deeply feel and care about, change it.

Some thesis committees, with the best will in the world (I hope), really insist on having their personal views, ideas, and citations represented at enormous length in the thesis.  Others insist that you cover the entire history of anthropological theory (or whatever branch of it you are using).  Publishers dread this, and the larger academic presses actually say right out on their website that if you are submitting a thesis book be sure and take out all that stuff first!  So, the main thing to do in turning a thesis into a book is usually trimming down the stuff the committee made you put in, and focusing on what YOU want to put in.

Alternatively, some students are shy about putting their deeply held views and their favorite facts and stories into academic books.  Forget that.  A book is SUPPOSED to be about your deeply held and valued material.  Obviously you have to confine your views to reasonable statements for which you have evidence, and you have to be properly dignified and civil in writing style.  No strong statements about the evils of this or that.  But you need to have enough passion for your work to motivate you to write it and then sell the ms.

That said, the next step is to write for the widest possible audience.  If you are doing the cognitive aspects of mother’s brother’s daughter marriage on the Upper Nowhere River, this may be only 20 people worldwide, but at least write for all 20 of them.  The horrible jargon that polluted anthro in the 1990s is mercifully gone, and not lamented.  Stick to normal English words in their normal English meaning.  (No, “imaginary” is NOT an English noun!  And cultures do not hybridize, they naturally blend; “hybridity” used for cultural matters is a racist term that should be absolutely unacceptable.)  Use six-syllable words only if they are genuine technical terms, not cover terms for ignorance and sloppiness.  (Prime examples of the latter: “neoliberalism” and “globalization.”)  Write in clear English and try to reach all the people who would naturally be interested in your findings.

Actually, even the Upper Nowhere River marriage lore may be of very wide interest.  Ideally, a piece of scientific or humanistic research is intended to provide the key finding that will unlock a whole area of knowledge, or the key insight that solves a very wide problem.  Maybe the Upper Nowhere case is the criterial case that shows the entire field of anthropology needs to rethink everything.  At the very least, it may confirm one view and disconfirm a rival view.  Such dramatic findings are rare, but they do happen.  One recent case in anthropology was the serendipitous discovery of the Denisovan lineage of humans.  Another was the finding of Göbekli in Turkey, a large, complex site with monumental architecture several thousand years older than such sites were supposed to exist.

However, general, “popular,” Jared Diamond type books are not the way to go unless you’re a Famous Senior Scholar.  Pop books are not respected, and there are reasons for that (see any review of Diamond).  However, they can be perfectly good if done by a seasoned scholar with a lot of perspective on the field.  In general, for a beginning academic, the way to go is a thorough case study, but one with very wide implications that you trace out and spell out in detail, with full awareness of and citation of the relevant wider theoretical and practical literature.  It is also quite possible to do a good short overview book on a specific field or area, like Don Joralemon’s Exploring Medical Anthropology (2004).  We need more books like that.

 

So, think about what you found, and see just how big a deal it is in the wider picture.  Chances are that it is a very big deal indeed, and you should be seeing it and writing it as a major breakthrough in a large field, not a humble “thesis book.”  Do a good deal of original thinking about this.  Professors often do not teach students to see how important their stuff is.  Alas, some thesis committees seem dedicated to preventing that; they think of students as followers and helpers, mere contributors of bricks to the great building that the full profs are putting together. I am the opposite—I can think of nothing I like better than having my students succeed right off and eclipse me in the field.  It gets my good ideas out in ways I never could have done by myself.  Also it makes me pretty proud of having done well at teaching!

 

How much of your own experiences and feelings should go into the book?  That depends on the book and what is necessary for it.  There are reasonable limits.  Saying nothing about your experiences in the field is not a good idea; we readers seriously need to know what you actually did, whether it worked out, and how you dealt with issues of objectivity, privacy, confidentiality, intellectual propery rights, sensitivity, and so on.  At the other extreme, an anthropology book is supposed to be about the people studied, not about the ethnographer—unless it’s a deliberate autobiography.  Telling stories about your naïve early field experiences is particularly unworthy; every anthropologist knows about that and has gone through it, and there is no profit in saying it again.  I am always reminded of what the old wolves say to the young wolves in Kipling’s Jungle Book:  “We knew it three seasons before.”

In short, write what you feel is necessary, and no more; but if you have to err, err on the side of inclusion, because matters of rapport maintenance, intellectual property rights, and so on need more discussion than they have had heretofore.

 

In lieu of more extended discussion, let me list a few books (randomly selected—not a complete list!) that I think exemplify the best in anthropological writing—i.e., that are clear, decently written, and make extremely important general points on the basis of thorough but narrowly focused case studies.  (This list runs heavily to ecological anthro, because that’s what I do, but I try for a mix of humanistic, political, and biological studies, and of old as well as new ones.)

 

Cruikshank, Julie.  2005.  Do Glaciers Listen?  Local Knowledge, Colonial Encouinters, and Social Imagination.  Vancouver:  University of British Columbia Press.

 

Dove, Michael.  2011.  The Banana Tree at the Gate:  A History of Marginal Peoples and Global Markets in Borneo.  New Haven:  Yale University Press.

 

Feld, Steven.  1982.  Sound and Sentiment.  Princeton:  Princeton University Press.

 

Firth, Raymond.  1936.  We the Tikopia.  London:  George Allen & Unwin.

 

Gonzalez, Roberto.  2001.  Zapotec Science:  Farming and Food in the Northern Sierra of Oaxaca. Austin:  University of Texas Press.

 

Greenfield, Patricia Marks.  2004.  Weaving Generations Together:  Evolving Creativity in the Maya of Chiapas.  Santa Fe:  School of American Research.

 

Hunn, Eugene.  1991.  N’Chi-Wana, The Big River.  Seattle:  University of Washington Press.

 

Lansing, Stephen.  1984.  Priests and Programmers.  Princeton:  Princeton University Press.

 

Li, Tania Murray.  2007.  The Will to Improve:  Governmentality, Development, and the Practice of Politics.  Durham:  Duke University Press.

 

McCabe, J. Terrence.  2004.  Cattle Bring Us to Our Enemies:  Turkna Ecology, Politics, and Raiding in a Disequilibrium System.  Ann Arbor:  University of Michigan Press.

 

McCay, Bonnie.  1998.  Oyster Wars and the Public Trust:  Property Law, and Ecology in New Jersey History.  Tucson:  University of Arizona Press.

 

Mooney, James.  1991.  The Ghost-Dance Religion and the Sioux Outbreak of 1890.  Lincoln:  University of Nebraska Press.  Originally appeared in the Bureau of American Ethnology annual report #14, for 1892-93, published in 1896.

 

Netting, Robert.  1991.  Balancing on an Alp:  Ecological Change and Continuity in a Swiss Mountain Community.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press.

 

Rose, Deborah.  2000.  Dingo Makes Us Human:  Life and Land in an Australian Aboriginal Culture.  New York:  Cambridge University Press.

 

West, Paige.  2012.  From Modern Production to Imagined Primitive: The Social World of Coffee from Papua-New Guinea.  Durham:  Duke University Press.

 

 

 

 

Climate and China’s Dynastic Cycles

Sunday, November 6th, 2016

 

Climate and China’s Dynastic Cycles

 

  1. N. Anderson

Dept. of Anthropology

University of California, Riverside

gene@ucr.edu

www.krazykioti.com

 

Abstract

 

With climate change very much in the news, historians have sought correlations between climate change and the rise and fall of Chinese dynasties.

This contrasts with traditional explanations by Chinese historians of those eras, who explain rise and fall as the result of human decisions and actions.  Resolving these two reasonable, but inevitably partial, explanations requires looking at the ways people respond to large-scale stressors.  Climate change is indeed one source of problems that rulers and masses must consider—along with wars, diseases, population changes, and other large-scale phenomena.  Climate change does not “cause” dynastic change, but it does force people to respond in ways that may produce dynastic change.

*****

Climate change is much in the news these days.  Given the exaggeration and polarization of debate, it is no surprise to find that the role of climate change in Chinese history has come in for its share of debate (on environment in imperial times, management, see Anderson 2014a; Elvin 2004, but Elvin considerably too harsh on the traditional system; Marks 1998, 2009, 2012; Menzies 1994).

Climate change significant enough to make major differences in human affairs is now well understood.  Climate after the last Ice Age quickly became warmer than today, up to a very few degrees C, and stayed very warm from about 7000 BCE to about 3000.  For instance, in the loess plateau around 4200-3600 BCE, conditions were more than 1 degree C warmer than now, and precipitation comparable to current conditions in nearby mountains (Sun et al. 2016).  Warm climates make China wetter, because they not only make the monsoon more powerful, but they shift northward the intertropical convergence zone, meaning that the monsoon starts closer to China.  The same move takes it farther from tropical Asia, and thus is associated with droughts in southeast Asia.  China derives almost all its rain from the summer monsoon, though the cold, dry winter monsoon can pick up enough moisture over China to bring drizzling, chilling rain to the south.  Warmer weather dries up central Asia and brings warmer and thus more drying conditions to Tibet, but only western Xinjiang and the highlands of Tibet are much affected by this.

Following the cooling after 3000 BCE, conditions were rather like today, until a very sharp drying trend hit central Asia in 1500-500 BCE.  It does not seem to have affected China greatly.  (What follows is synthesized from Brooke 2014; Kidder et al. 2016; Lin et al. 2016; Wei et al. 2015; Yin et al. 2016; D. Zhang et al. 2007; P. Zhang et al. 2008; Y. Zhang et al. 2016; Zhao et al. 2016)  Then a pleasant, warm, moist period, known in the west as the Roman optimum, helped both the Roman Republic and Roman Empire and the Chinese Empire between 200 BCE and 200 CE.  This gave way to cooler conditions, and then a sharp cold and dry period from 550 to 650.  This modified to conditions much like today’s, or a bit more warm and wet, in Tang.  A weak monsoon 910-930 seems to have occurred (P. Zhang et al. 2008).  In 950 to 1300 came the Medieval Warm Period, also known as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly.  It brought warmer and wetter conditions to China, but with sharp fluctuations, especially in the 11th and 12th centuries, when sudden returns to more average (i.e. colder) conditions hit China hard.  The early 12th century seems to have been especially cool.  After 1300, the Little Ice Age slowly came on, producing extremely cold, dry conditions, especially at certain times in the 1400s, 1600s, and 1700s.  This was followed by a slow warming after 1800 or 1850, which gave way after 1900 to more steady warming as human-released greenhouse gases added themselves to natural warming and eventually took over the major warming role.  (Human-caused global warming appears clearly only about 1850.  Alleged human-caused warming by rice agriculture in dynastic times is not credible.  Among other things, the allegers forgot that the rice largely replaced marshes and wetlands that already released methane.)

Otherwise, minor to substantial fluctuations in the record appear, but are largely in the category of “weather” rather than “climate.”  Also, the magnitude of these climate changes should not be overestimated; a few degrees C was the greatest amplitude.

The major confounder in studying the effect of climate change on dynastic cycling is the well-known fact that China exacerbated or even created its own problems.  Walter Mallory’s classic study China: Land of Famine (1926) stressed the role of deforestation, erosion, badly managed river dykes, wetlands drainage, and other environmental ills on China’s horrific history of droughts and floods.  Recent studies have gone on to confirm this (Elvin 2004; Marks 2012).  Shiba Yoshinobu has made this point, most recently for the Song Dynasty (McDermott and Yoshinobu 2015), which engaged in massive deforestation for iron smelting, ceramics making, and printing (pines were burned for ink), with the result that enormous and uncontrollable floods devastated the country and threatened the dynasty.  Like so many modern disasters in China and elsewhere (Muir-Wood 2016), these were not acts of God but acts of man; they do not show that dynasties fell because of climate change, they show that the environment was stressed and dynasties fell because of human mismanagement.

 

The dynasties in question are as follows:

Xia Dynasty (assumed equivalent to the Erlitou culture on the middle Yellow River): ca. 2000-ca. 1500 BCE.

Shang Dynasty: ca. 1500-ca. 1050 BCE.

Zhou Dynasty:  ca. 1050-250 BCE, the last 500 years being a time of disunion when the Zhou had control over only a tiny area; the rest of China was divided into “warring states.”

Qin Dynasty:  221-207 BCE.

Han Dynasty:  206 BCE-220 CE, with a break 9-23 CE when an affine of the royal family briefly took over after a series of child-emperors, to be overthrown in a countercoup by the Han dynasts; major rebellion ca. 180.

Time of disunion: 220-581.

Sui Dynasty: 581-618.

Tang Dynasty: 620-907.  Once again, the fall of Tang saw several weak or child emperors.  Very important rebellions in 754 and 880 almost brought down the dynasty, forcing major changes in government.

Time of disunion: 907-960.

Song Dynasty: 960-1279, interrupted by loss of the entire north, including the capital, in 1127, with capture of the Emperor; the dynasty had to re-form in the south.  It collapsed, again under very young boys, and after savage factional fighting and corrupt ministers, in the 1270s.

Liao Dynasty:  Began ca. 960 in far north, took over most of north China after 1000, fell 1126.

Jin Dynasty:  Conquered Liao in 1126, took the rest of north China from Song in 1127, fell to Mongols in 1234.

Yuan Dynasty (Mongol Empire): 1279-1368.  Last few emperors accused of alcoholism.

Ming Dynasty: 1368-1644.  Major corruption and imperial failure at the end.

Qing Dynasty: 1644-1911, with major near-fatal rebellion 1844; once again with child-emperors at the helm toward the end.

 

All the longer dynasties suffered from coups, countercoups, major rebellions, and the like, as well as constant palace intrigues and jockeying between candidates for royal succession.

This brings us to other destabilizing factors besides climate.  A dynasty is subject to several well-known problems.  First is foreign invasion.  China was so much the biggest power in the east that it rarely had to worry about that, but the medieval period saw the rise of powers—Liao, Jin, and above all the Mongols—that overwhelmed China.  This was partly due to climate, as will appear.  Second is bad luck in imperial demography.  Often an emperor died childless, or left a young child as the only heir.  Child emperors had to have regents—often mothers or grandmothers, sometimes an uncle or high court official.  The results were usually poor and often disastrous.  Other problems with palace politics included extremely powerful but corrupt officials, irresponsible or downright deranged emperors, and overly powerful generals who thought they could do a better job of running the empire.  A weak emperor following an unpopular one was a particularly fatal combination, directly responsible for the falls of Qin and Sui.

Over all this play the great cycles of resilience theory, Ibn Khaldun’s theory, and Peter Turchin’s work.  These all postulate a rising phase when a population or system grows and increases its power (the r phase of resilience theory), a high (K) phase when it consolidates control and may have a golden age, a downward (omega) phase when it loses coherence and falls apart, and a down (alpha) phase when it is depopulated, ruinous, but regrouping for the next rise.  Resilience theory does not suggest a time frame, since it is meant to apply to everything from bacteria to whales.  Ibn Khaldun (1958) saw the cycle in human dynasties playing over three or four generations, about 100 years.  Turchin (Turchin and Zefedov 2006) saw longer cycles of up[ to 200-300 years: the time frame of Chinese dynasties.  Ibn Khaldun’s theory predicts major crises; coups or rebellions that shook the dynasty profoundly happened about every 60 years within the great dynasties (Han through Qing).

The dynasties, even the short-lived ones, conform to Ibn Khaldun’s classic scenario.  A charismatic military leader, not only bold and intrepid but charismatic and generous enough to inspire genuine loyalty and affection (‘asabiyah in Ibn Khaldun’s Arabic), becomes what the Chinese call the High or Great Emperor, founding the dynasty.  He is followed by a brilliant age—often started or marked by coup and coutercoup—when the dynasty is powerful, expanding, and rich.  The economy grows through conquest, settlement of abandoned or thinly populated lands, rising production, and positive feedback loops—the more economic activity, the more production, the more crafts and trade, the more innovation and intensification.  Then follows a period in which the land is filled up and heavily populated but innovation is stalling, leading to Malthusian squeeze.  Often, previous economic activity is now demanding that costs be paid.  Deforestation and erosion lead to devastating floods.  Levees and dykes have confined the rivers too much, so they aggrade their beds with silt.  The floods make them burst their beds and drown the area, inevitably densely populated because of the ease of river access.  Overcultivation makes every dry summer a drought.  Taxes keep rising, or at best stay steady, but there is now no economic growth, so the taxes bite hard.  Discontent leads to banditry.  Neighbor states start raiding.  All this forces more and more military buildup, but there is now no conquest to provide more land and loot.  The resulting feedback loops of increasing environmental damage, increasing military spending, and increasing tax bite lead to, or at least are associated with, corruption, factional fighting, and paralysis in the high levels of government.  Collapse is by now inevitable.  What Tristram Kidder et al. say of the Han Dynasty is perfectly typical of all: the collapse of a dynasty occurs when “the disjunction between rules and resources reaches a threshold so stark that agents at all social levels stood to gain more by challenging the status quo than they did by conforming to it” (Kidder et al. 2016:86).

It is astonishing to see how perfectly the Chinese dynasties recapitulate this formula.  The Chinese knew it, too.  By the Han Dynasty they already recognized the cyclic nature of dynasties, the necessary charisma of the founder, and the inevitable degeneration of governance at the end.  Not having a worldwide perspective, they naturally saw it in terms of the morality of the individual actors, but they recognized that floods, droughts, invasions, and other catastrophes exacerbated the problems.

Our next step is to correlate climate change with dynastic events.  The prediction (mine and that of Yin et al. 2016) is that better times—warmer and wetter, with stronger monsoons—will predate or accompany the rise of dynasties, while worse times—colder and drier—will predate their fall.

The Xia, Shang, and Zhou Dynasties are too poorly known and dated for meaningful correlations.

The rise of Qin and Han accompanies the Roman Republic/Empire Optimum.  The interregnum of 9-23 CE followed some bad years that may partially explain it (Kidder et al. 2016).  The fall of Han tracks the beginning of the end of the Roman Optimum.  This fits our prediction well.  But then the spectacular rise and Sui and Tang, and the beginning of Tang’s glory days, coincide with a sharp deterioration in climate.  Yet, not only did China rise, but the conquest by the founders of Sui and Tang came from the hardest-hit area, the northwest edge of China where it fringes into Central Asia.  The fall of Tang accompanies drought and heat associated with the very uneven beginning of the Medieval Warm Period.

The rise of Song is somewhat associated with a more strong and reliable monsoon.  The Liao, Jin, and Yuan (Mongol) Dynasties rose during the Medieval Warm Period, which made it far easier for these originally nomadic, horse-riding peoples to increase their herds and manpower, increase their food supply, and conquer outward.  There is now no question that this took place in the Mongol case (Anderson 2014b).  But the reduction of Song and its eventual fall took place in relatively cool times, which should have weakened the northern regimes in relation to Song.

However, Song was facing another problem: the devastation caused by centuries of deforestation and overgrazing.  This is a classic point, often made, and more recently extended and elaborated by Ling Zhang (2016) in a brilliant recent study drawing on earlier work by George Cressey (1955), Robert Hartwell, and others.  She focuses on the Yellow River and its steadily rising ability to produce devastating floods.  The rise of iron smelting, printing, and other industries created a huge demand for fuel, thus causing massive deforestation, even on slopes too steep to farm and therefore very susceptible to erosion.

This reminds us of the obvious fact—notably stressed by Jared Diamond in Collapse (2011)—that people create their fates and landscapes.  Climate does not act on a blank, empty world.  It acts on a world people have built, for better or worse.

Yuan took power when the Medieval Warm Period was still in its favor, but it declined as that good age gave way.  The succeeding Ming Dynasty had a horrible situation to face: running the empire during a period of unprecedented cold and dry conditions.  It succeeded astonishingly well, not losing power for centuries.  Even worse cold and drought probably hastened its fall (Brooke 2014; Parker 2013), but we are left needing to explain the long run of Ming.

Then comes the strangest thing of all.  Ming was conquered not by a powerful regime, not by internal unrest, but by the tiny Manchu state—a state that was based in China’s frigid and snowy northeast, an area that sufferend inconceivable miseries from the exacerbation of the Little Ice Age in the early 1600s.  Outside of traditional ascriptions of success to the personalities of the early Qing emperors, there is no way to explain this.  In fact, we have many writings by the Kangxi Emperor, the real architect of Qing power, and he was exactly the type of leader calculated to maximize ‘asabiyah—a brilliant, driving, single-minded man, able to be generous to allies and utterly ruthless to enemies (Spence 1974).

Similarly, the decline and fall of Qing took place during a period of steadily ameliorating climate, though it must be admitted that this warming trend both produced more floods (the monsoon strengthened) and more droughts (heat exacerbated dry weather when that occurred).

Several recent groups have attempted to synthesize these data.  Recent books by John Brooke (2014) and Geoffrey Parker (2013) marginally discuss China, largely its hard times.  These authors write as if climate directly caused events—people were mere machines, programmed to do what climate told them.  This greatly underestimates human agency.

Yin et al (2016) looked at imperial China from Qin on through Qing.  They find that social rise was associated with warming (which normally meant wetting too) 57% of the time, and decline with cooling and drying 66.6%.  (The very few warm-dry and cool-wet periods did not correlate with anything in particular, but they were exceedingly rare and short.)  This is not compelling; the first is not statistically much better than chance.  We shall have to look for other explanations here.  They gathered 1586 data points from the standard histories of China (saving me a lot of work), and parceled out even such things as particularly dynamic reign periods when China expanded its power, e.g. under Han Wu Di (140-87 BCE), who conquered neighboring areas during a relatively warm period.  They miss the fact that the warm period should have, and in fact did, benefit his enemies as much as it benefited him, forcing him to fight hard and spend the empire’s wealth.  (They also find that records of good and bad times are particularly good for Han, bad for the Tang-Song interregnum and the Song Dynasty—fitting the history of war and conquest in the latter cases.)  They find that China was peaceful 68.4% of the time, turbulent otherwise.

Chen Qiang, on the other hand, thinks drought and cold did it.  Cold was associated with more wars—a claim that does not explain the violent Medieval Warm Period or the long, peaceful Ming Dynasty.  He finds that the main correlates were age of dynasty (older ones were weaker; that is true of nomad regimes too) and drought.  This does not check with the warlike but pleasantly warm period from 220 to 581, though it does coincide with the rise of Sui and Tang.  It does not work for the Mongols.  It works for the Manchus, in that they came in during a cold dry period, but the people of the Manchu state were largely settled agriculturalists and not nomadic (in spite of frequent mistaken claims).  Warfare shows correlation with cold periods (Zhang et al. 2007).  Shortly after the start of cold periods came the falls of Northern Song, Southern Song, Yuan, and Ming, as well as the Taiping rebellions.  Early Ming was still warm—the Little Ice Age became serious in the 1400s and then made the 1600s one of the worst periods in China’s history, with (resulting?) war and chaos.

Wei et al (2015) find that climate events are related to dynastic cycles.  They provide a careful, methodologically interesting assessment of troubles, with a very full bibliography.  They use Holling’s resilience cycle.  They find a fair correlation of moist warm periods with good times, and vice versa, but note the obvious Ming exception.  They do find a major crash in post-1420 Ming, though with a fairly quick recovery.  They, like Kidder et al, focus on the Xin Dynasty interregnum in the Han Dynasty, this attaching more importance to it than do most historians.

Another approach is to look at local regions, which often had quite different climate histories from the rest of China.  Harry Lee and his colleagues looked at dry and drought-prone northwest China (Lee and Zhang 2010; Lee et al. 2015, 2016).  They found that wild fluctuations in rainfall characterized the Little Ice Age, with many droughts, but that the famously peaceful period of the middle Qing Dynasty from 1700 to 1820 saw a lack of famines and a rise in population, because of successful land management and the coming of New World crops (Lee et al. 2016).  In far northwestern China, westerlies and north winds dominated, totally decoupling that region from the rest of China and making its climate countercyclic (Y. Zhang et al. 2016).

In northeastern China, it was the Medieval Warm Period that was problematic, causing many floods, often alternating with horrific droughts in wild swings (Lee et al. 2015; L. Zhang 2016).  Ling Zhang (2016) has written a brilliant, major work about the consequences:  progressive breakdown in management of the Yellow River and other water sources and wetlands.  Her work interestingly fits with Peter Turchin’s findings on cycles; during the disintegration cycle of Northern Song, politics got more and more polarized and acerbic, and one result was failure to come up with coherent, consistent policies for the Yellow River. As Turchin says, “During the disintegrative phases…it is very difficult to generate the cooperative action needed to win a major war” (Turchin 2016:106).  That was true of Song’s war with the conquest dynasties, and it was also true of Song’s war with the Yellow River.

One could, of course, come up with contrived post-hoc explanations for the perverse rises of Sui, Tang, and Qing, and the perverse weakness of Song, but I fear there is no way to save climatic change as a really necessary or always-important driving variable.  Warming certainly helped the Mongols, at first, and cooling hurt them later.  Warming almost certainly helped Qin and Han initially and cooling hurt Han later.  Cooling days contributed to the woes of Song and Ming.  On the other hand, the rise of Sui and Tang, the rise and long continuance of Ming, and the whole course of Qing go directly contrary to predictions.  Thus we can conclude with Kidder et al. (2016) and Wei et al. (2015) that climate can help or harm, but does not make or break.  Charismatic leaders, well-trained armies, and plain luck are the direct incident causes of dynastic rises.  Weak leaders, child-emperors, rampant corruption, unstoppable invasions, and factional fighting are direct incident causes of dynastic fall.

So here we have several theories of dynastic rise and fall.  The Chinese saw the Mandate of Heaven—either actual heavenly decisions, or their incarnations in floods and droughts, or the result of factional fighting, dynastic politics, bad luck (childless emperors or child emperors or mad emperors), and the like.  Cycle theorists see a general trend toward rise and fall, or a more specific one driven by shifting loyalties—from the dynastic head to one’s own group or faction or to one’s own self.  Marxian and other economic and political-economic structural determinists had their own theories (not considered here for reasons of space).  Now climate change has added itself to the mix.  No doubt all these theories have their value.

In fact, climate acts indirectly.  It is one cause—along with human idiocy and incompetence, among other things—of floods, droughts, and other catastrophes.  These catastrophes put major stresses on the dynastic government.  A strong, upwardly moving government can directly address these matters with relief measures and remedies.  Also, it commands the loyalty and support of the people.  The weaker and more incompetent the government, the less it can directly address problems, and the less it can get the broad masses to help.  Weakness and incompetence of government, in turn, depends on the emperor personally, his family, his ministers, and the rest of the high elites.  If the emperor is a boy in the care of a corrupt chief minister, the empire is in trouble.  If the appalling infant mortality rates of the time leave the emperor childless, as often happened, intra-elite feuding over the succession is sure to occur, and sure to weaken the dynasty. China grew steadily more autocratic over time, which meant the emperor’s person was more a factor as time went on.

I might add a comparison with the Maya at this point.  Maya civilization grew and achieved greatness in the rather optimal climate between 500 BCE and 500 CE,  It survived with a hitch—a noticeable pause—the cold, dry period from 550 to 650.  It then collapsed in the Medieval Warm Period, which brought massive and long-lasting droughts to the area.  These droughts not only devastated agriculture, they even removed drinking water; much of the Yucatan Peninsula and Maya Lowlands is without surface water.  People had to store water, dig wells, or find caves with permanent sources.  These all proved inadequate in drought times (Gill 2000).  Also, hotter weather led to more plant diseases, and probably more human diseases as well.

Warfare was also a factor.  Some areas had already been devastated by war, and collapsed before the droughts (Demarest 2004).  Not all the Maya world collapsed, only the central portions; the northern Yucatan Peninsula and the southern highlands continued to be urbanized and civilized, while cities, literacy, and high culture disappeared in the central lowlands.  The claim that the Maya collapsed because of sheer ecological folly (Diamond 2005) and the counterclaim that they did not collapse at all (McAnany and Gallareta N. 2010) do not bear close investigation.

Mayaland would have recovered with the return of cooler, moister weather in the 1300s, but by then the trade routes had shifted to the coast.  This is certainly one reason, possibly the only really important reason, why the central lowlands never recovered.  Trade, contact, and communication had focused around the geographical center of the lowland world.  After that center collapsed, trade shifted to the coasts, and stayed there, carried by canoes.

In this case, we cannot see the micropolitics—we have no way of knowing what went on in the cities, or what people said and thought as agriculture became increasingly unsuccessful.

Many other New World societies collapsed or suffered sharp setbacks during the Medieval Warm Period, which seems to have been dry very widely.  It devastated the Four Corners, hit the Mississippi Valley, ruined much of the Andes, and generally caused woe.  One major reason was maize.  Maize is exceedingly susceptible to drought and heat.  This contrasts rather dramatically with China’s grains: millets and rice love heat, while millets, wheat and barley can handle very appreciable drought.  China was thus relatively buffered, and could produce higher populations.

Causation is a complex topic, but simple principles underlies much of it.  First, all events have multiple causes.  Second, these can be big, broad, and indirect, or very specific and immediate; the big, broad causes can act only through specific, immediate ones.  In human affairs, big, broad causes act through individual decisions added up into collective decisions.  The special cases of northwest China in the long 18th century and northeast China in the star-crossed decline of Northern Song show how different adaptations can be.  In the one case, horrible weather was mitigated by political-economic action, and people flourished.  In the other, good but fluctuating weather led to nothing but problems, because of political-economic chaos.

From this I extract a core principle for diachronic social studies:  large-scale forces act indirectly, through people.  Direct causes of social events are personal decisions, and the resulting actions.  These do not always play out as the actors intend.  All manner of constraints prevent people from doing what they want. Government and economic necessity restrict behavior, or, more often, discourage people from trying.  Sheer chance, faction fighting, and amoral individual actions that mess the system can all intervene.  But, in the end, it is human decisions and actions that make cultures and societies.  Individual actions play out in interpersonal space, which generates both short-term and long-term social structures or interaction dynamics that add up to systems that take on a life of their own.  (I am using—and here briefly summarizing—Anthony Giddens’ “structuration”; Giddens 1984, which is fairly Weberian; see also Bourdieu 1977, 1990; Latour 2005.  The basic insight is that people do things—climate doesn’t, culture doesn’t, society doesn’t—but people do things in response to climate, culture and society.)  Climate and weather are simply some of the things those individuals and systems have to take into account.

In terms of cultural evolution, we may say that people’s most basic needs and wants are genetically enough “given” to pass as a biological substrate.  From them grow desires and intentions, which lead to actions, variously constrained.  We often find that people react in comparable ways to comparable stimuli.  We often, however, find they do not—they may react in violently conflicting ways, as the Song officials did to the environmental problems of the Medieval Warm Period.  Just as biological evolution often takes very unexpected ways to adapt, so do human societies.

 

 

This post was delivered as a paper at the California Sociological Association, annual meeting, Riverside, CA, Nov. 5, 2016.  Thanks to Christopher Chase-Dunn and Hiroko Inoue for advice and help.

 

 

Anderson, E. N.  2014a.  Caring for Place.  Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

 

—  2014b.  Food and Environment in Early and Medieval China.  Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

 

Bourdieu, Pierre.  1977.  Outline of a Theory of Practice.  Tr. Richard Nice.  New York:  Cambridge University Press.

 

—  1990.  The Logic of Practice.  Tr. Richard Nice.  Stanford:  Stanford University Press.

 

Brook, Timothy.  2010.  The Troubled Empire:  China in the Yuan and Ming.  Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press.

 

Brooke, John L.  2014.  Climate Change and the Course of Global History.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chen, Qiang.  2015.  “Climate Shocks, Dynastic Cycles and Nomadic Conquests: Evidence from Historical China.”  Oxford Economic Papers 67:185-204.

 

Cressey, George Babcock.  1955.  Land of the 500 Million: A Geography of China.  New York: McGraw-Hill.

 

Demarest, Arthur.  2004.  Ancient Maya:  The Rise and Fall of a Rainforest Civilization.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press.

 

Diamond, Jared.  2011.  Collapse: How Civilizations Choose or Fail to Succeed.  Revised edn.  New York: Penguin.

 

Elvin, Mark.  2004.  The Retreat of the Elephants:  An Environmental History of China.  New Haven:  Yale University Press.

 

Giddens, Anthony.  1984.  The Constitution of Society.  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

 

Gill, Richardson.  2000.  The Great Maya Droughts.  Albuquerque:  University of New Mexico Press.

 

Kidder, Tristram R.; Liu Haiwang; Michael J. Storozum; Qin Zhen.  2016.  “New Perspectives on the Collapse and Regeneration of the Han Dynasty.”  In Beyond Collapse:  Archaeological Perspectives on Resilience, Revitalization, and Transformation in Complex Societies, Ronald K. Faulseit, ed.  Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.  Pp. 70-98.

 

Latour, Bruno.  2005.  Reassembling the Social:  An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory.  Oxford:  Oxford University Press.

 

Lee, Harry F., and David D. Zhang.  2010.  “Natural Disasters in Northwestern China, 1270-1949.”  Climate Research 41:245-257.

 

Lee, Harry F.; Qing Pei; David D. Zhang; Kan P. K. Choi.  2015.  “Quantifying the Intra-Regional Precipitation Variability in Northwestern China over the Past 1,400 Years.”  PloS One Doi 10.1371/journal.pone.0131693.

 

Lee, Harry F.; David D. Zhang; Qing Pei; Xin Jia; Ricci Yue.  2016.  “Demographic Impact of Climate Change on Northwestern China in the Late Imperial Era.”  Quarternary International, in proof as of Sept,  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618216303998

 

Lin Zhao; Chunmei Ma; Lingyu Tang; Kam-biu Liu; Limi Mao; Yu Zhang; Huayu Lu; Shuangye Wu; Qingyun Tu.  2016.  “Investigation of Peat Sediments from Daiyun Mountain in Southeast China: Late Holocene Vegetation, Climate and Human Impact.”  Archaeobotany and Vegetation History 25: 359-373.

 

Mallory, Walter H.  2026.  China: Land of Famine.  New York: American Geographic Society.

 

Marks, Robert B.  1998.  Tigers, Rice, Silk, and Silt:  Envronment and Economy in Late Imperial South China.  New York:  Cambridge University Press.

 

—  2009.  “Geography Is Not Destiny: Historical Contingency and the Making of the Pearl River Delta.”  In Good Earths:  Regional and Historical Insights into China’s Environment.   Ken-Ichi Abe  and James E. Nickum (eds.).  Kyoto:  Kyoto University Press; Melbourne:  Trans Pacific Press.  Pp. 1-28.

 

—  2012.  China: Its Environment and History.  Lanham, MD:  Rowman and Littlefield.

 

McAnany, Patricia A., and Tomás Gallareta Negrón.  2010.  “Bellicose Rulers and Climatological Peril?  Retrofitting Twenty-First-Century Woes on Eighth-Century Maya Society.”  In Questioning Collapse:  Human Resilience, Ecological Vulnerability, and the Aftermath of Empire, Patricia McAnany and Norman Yoffee, eds.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press.  Pp. 142-176.

 

Menzies, Nicholas.  1994.  Forest and Land Management in Imperial China.  New York:  St. Martin’s.

 

Muir-Wood, Robert. 2016.  The Cure for Catastrophe: How We Can Stop Manufacturing Natural Disasters.  London: Oneworld.

 

Parker, Geoffrey.  2013.  Global Crisis:  War, Climate Change and Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century.  New Haven:  Yale University Press.

 

Spence Jonathan D.  1974.  Emperor of China:  Self-Portrait of K’ang-Hsi.  New York:  Random House.

 

Sun, Nan; Xiaoqiang Li; John Dodson; Xinying Zhou; Keliang Zhao; Qing Yang.  2016.  “The Quantitative Reconstruction of Temperature and Precipitation in the Guanzhong Basin of the Southern Loess Plateau between 6200 BP and 5600 BP.”  The Holocene 26:1200-1207.

 

Turchin, Peter.  2016.  Ages of Discord.  Chaplin, CT: Beresta Books.

 

Wei, Zhudeng; Arlene M. Rosen; Xiuqi Fang; Yun Su; Xuezhen Zhang.  2015.  “Macro-economic Cycles Related to Climate Change in Dynastic China.”  Quarternary Research 83:13-23.

 

Yin, Jun; Yun Su; Xiuqi Fang.  2016.  “Climate Change and Social Vicissitudes in China over the Past Two Millennia.”  Quarternary Research http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589416300369

 

Zhang, David D.; Jane Zhang; Harry F. Lee; Yuan-qing He.  2007.  “Climate Change and War Frequency in Eastern China over the Last Millennium.”  Human Ecology 35:403-414.

 

Zhang, Ling. 2016.  The River, the Plain, and the State: An Environmental Drama in Northern Song China, 1048-1128.  New York: Cambridge University Press.

 

Zhang, Pingzhong; Hai Cheng; R. Lawrence Edwards; Fahu Chen; Yongjin Wang; Xulin Yang; Jian Liu; Ming Tan; Xianfeng Wang; Jinghua Liu; Chunlei An; Zhibo Dai; Jing Zhou; Dezhong Zhang; Jihong Jia; Liya Jin; Kathleen R. Johnson.  2008.  “A Test of Climate, Sun, and Culture Relationships from an 1810-Year Chinese Cave Record.”  Science 322:940-942.

 

Zhang, Yan; Philip A. Meyers; Xingtu Liu; Guoping Wang; Xiaoyu Li; Yuxiang Yang; Bolong Wen.  2016.  “Holocene Climate Changes in the Central Asia Mountain Region Inferred from a Peat  Sequence from the Altai Mountains, Xinjiang, Northwestern China.”  Quarternary Science Reviews 152:19-30.

 

Zhao, Lin; Chunmei Ma; Lingyu Tang; Kam-biu Liu; Limi Mao; Yu Zhang; Huayu Lu; Shuangye Wu; Qingyun Tu.  2016.  “Investigation of Peat Sediments from Daiyun Mountain in Southeast China:  Late Holocene Vegetation, Climate and Human Impact.”  Vegetation History and Archaeobtany 25:359-373.

 

 

 

 

Developing Mexican Food: Globalization Early On

Monday, October 24th, 2016

Developing Mexican Food:

Globalization Early On

E. N. Anderson

University of California, Riverside

 

Abstract

Mexican food today is extremely diverse, and has a complicated background.  My view is that of a Mayanist who has worked in southeast Mexico and traveled widely in the country.  Already long before Columbus, Native American foodways were spreading widely; the Maya were powerfully influenced by South American foods from chocolate to manioc.  The Spanish Colonial period brought not only Spanish foods but also Arab and African foodways, all diverse in themselves.  Modern influences have not been less complex.  This all tests current theories of “culture” and “appropriation,” and makes a world-systems approach to anthropology more useful and predictive.  Some comparative notes on folk music are added to show the extent of cultural borrowings, since they track foodways closely.

 

*

My work in Mexico has largely been with the Yucatec Maya of the Yucatan Peninsula, but I have traveled all over Mexico, visiting every state and major region.  I am a food anthropologist, so I have sampled everything from ant pupae at a fine upscale restaurant in Guanajuato to wasp larvae on a remote rainforest back road in Quintana Roo.  In two years of living and traveling in Mexico, spread over 40 years of my life, the only bad meals I recall were in United States-type restaurants.

Much of what follows is sourced from K’oben, forthcoming book by Amber O’Connor and myself (2017; see also Anderson 2010).  Much is from, or in, Jeffrey Pilcher’s classic Que vivan los tamales! (1998), which is by far the best, most thorough, and most authoritative work in English on Mexican food.  There are other good histories in Spanish.

The incredible richness and variety of Mexican folk culture never ceases to amaze me, and food is not the least of its manifestations.  Mexican culture today is a product of many Native American cultures interacting with Spanish culture.  It is much more than that, however.  Three things are not often appreciated about Mexican culture.  First, Mexican Indigenous cultures were extremely varied and were constantly influencing each other.  Second, Spain in the 1500s and 1600s was itself a region of cultural mixing.  Third, Spain was by no means the only Old World country that influenced Mexico.  Mexico has had very substantial immigration from Africa, Ireland, Lebanon, Syria, Philippines, China, France, Germany, and elsewhere, to say nothing of the United States and most parts of Latin America.  All these areas contributed to foodways.

The Native American heritage is the really basic one.  Mexico still depends on the classic maize, beans, chiles, and squash.  The commonest species of these are all Mexican domesticates.  Maize (Zeo mays) was domesticated about 7000 years ago in the Balsas River drainage; geneticists have run it down to an origin in the wild teosinte grass of middle elevations in that drainage area.  At least three species of beans were domesticated in central Mexico; these are frijol beans (Phaseolus vulgaris), teparies (P. acutifolius), and scarlet runner beans (P. coccineus).  The tepary bean is famously drought-resistant and has been used in drought-prone parts of Africa as well as Mexico.  The fourth common species, the lima bean (P. lunatus), was certainly domesticated in Peru, but a different form, the sieva bean, may have been independently domesticated in Mexico.  The sieva bean is now rare and little known, but my Maya friends in Quintana Roo grow several delicious varieties that seriously need saving and propagating.

Squash also come in many species.  Pumpkins (Cucurbita pepo) were domesticated in Mexico and probably independently in what is now the southern United States.  Winter sqush (C. maxima, C. moschata), chayote (Sechium edule) and spaghetti squash (C. ficifolia) also occur; C. maxima is probably South American, but got to Mexico early.  With bottle gourd (Lagenaria vulgaris), of uncertain origin, these gave Mexican Indigenous people plenty of choices.  I should point out that the tender leaves, vine tips, and flowers of the squash are also eaten and are incredibly good as well as vitamin-rich.

Chiles also come in multiple forms.  The common, ordinary varieties of chile, from which the non-hot bell pepper was recently developed, is Capsicum annuum and is native to Mexico.  It is a small annual plant.  The Tabasco chile (C. frutescens), by contrast, is a large perennial bush.  It is known by its Maya name of maax in southern Mexico, including Tabasco.  The habanero (C. chinense), as its name shows, came from Cuba to Mexico; it is originally South American. Yet another species, the most flavorful and meaty of all and one of the hottest, is the rocoto or manzano (C. pubescens), another South American.  It somehow got from Peru to Oaxaca and around there, probably after the Spanish conquest.  There are other species of chile in South America.  It is highly interesting that so many species were separately domesticated in different areas.  The reason is not just their delightful warmth; they are also highly antibiotic and antifungal.  They may have been domesticated for medicine or for use in preserving food—chile powder or crushed chile is a good preservative.

With these four species, you can live a happy life.  Maize provides basic calories, beans provide good protein, squash and chiles provide vitamins, and chiles in particular provide incredible quantities of vitamin C and the B complex.  One problem is that maize contains phytic acid, which bonds with mineral nutrients and with niacin (vitamin B3) making them unavailable to digestion.  So the Mexican people learned very early to process maize with limewater—not from limes, but CaO made by burning calcium carbonate—thus producing nixtamal.  The lime neutralizes the phytic acid.  The limewater processing was probably originally used to tenderize the maize, but then seen to help nutrition (Katz et al. 1974). The maize needs tenderizing in the first place because soft kernels get eaten by bruchid weevils.  So weevils cause civilization: they made people select for hard corn, but then the people had to tenderize it, which made it nutritionally adequate to support cities.

These many species were only the beginning.  Mexican Indigenous people domesticated so many plants that it would take me much of this hour just to read off the names.  One triumph was the avocado, a fantastic source of oil, protein and vitamins that grows like a weed in central Mexican mountain conditions.  The poverty diet of the central Mexican people at the time of Spanish conquest was noted as tortillas and guacamole, then made of just avocado, chile, and salt.  This is a perfect diet—it has all the essentials—and I think it’s the tastiest poverty diet I ever found.  (It beats the European equivalent of stale bread and water.)  Among the hundreds of other species are amaranth, chia sage, and millets.  Amaranth, chia, and chenopod species provided seed crops that were much more nutritious than maize.  They grow easily and were essential staples to many Indigenous groups.  In addition, chocolate, sweet potatoes, and manioc came up very early from South America.  There are proto-Maya words for them—at least the last two—which means the Maya had them 5000 years ago.

Domestic animals were few.  The dog came over the Bering Straits with the humans.  It was eaten by some groups.  The turkey was domesticated in Mexico.  The muscovy duck (Cairinia moschata), native from Mexico south but domesticated in Peru, seems to have come up fairly early.  Why Mexico never domesticated mountain sheep remains a mystery.  Javalis (known in English as peccaries) are locally tamed and farmed on a small scale, but they compete with humans for food—unlike pigs, they can’t eat garbage; they have to have maize and other quality fare.  So they were not domesticated, which is sad, because they are delightful pets (at least as smart as dogs) as well as very good eating.  If I were young I’d go domesticate them.

All this was only the beginning.  The Indigenous people developed great cuisines from the many domesticated and wild foods they had.  Early Maya paintings show vast amounts of tamales, evidently baked in earth ovens, as they still often are in Mayaland.  Also shown are fish, deer, and many other animal foods.  Chocolate was an elite drink; the Maya may very well be the people who developed it as a tasty drink by learning how to ferment the seeds.  The unfermented pulp and ground seeds are very pleasant, but fermenting is necessary to bring out the actual chocolate flavor.  It is fitting that our word “cacao” is taken straight from Maya.  Around many Classic Maya cups is written a line of Maya hieroglyphics.  When I was a student, we learned that the Maya were deeply religious, and this line must have been a powerful spell or sacred prayer.  Well, we can now read Maya writing, and that line turned out to mean “This is so-and-so’s chocolate cup.”  So much for romance.

The Aztecs and other central Mexican Indigenous people spoke Nahuatl, a beautiful and expressive language.  It is not related to Maya, but is related to the Indigenous languages of southern California.  Many of our familiar food words today are “Nahuatlismos”:  Chile, tamale, chocolate, tomato, chayote, achiote, camote (sweet potato), chia, jicama, and more.  In Nahuatl, there was a three-part division of the major foods:  tamalli (tamales), tlaxcalli (tortillas), and taballi (food to eat with the tortillas, such as beans and guacamole).  Other Indigenous languages of the Mexican realm gave us abalone (California Costanoan), and many more.

The Aztecs loved good food.  One story says it all.  Fray Diego Duran compiled a history in the mid-16th century, based on Azec accounts.  They told him of a war with a city named Coyoacan, which means “coyote place.”  The Aztecs besieged it but it would not yield, and had fierce warriors.  So the Aztec monarch said: “’Let the guards take ducks, waterfowl, fish, and other creatures from the lagoon that cannot be obtained in Coyoacan.  Let them be…cooked or toasted in such a way that their rich odor and the smoke that rises from these delicacies will penetrate the city….  Old men and old women will become feeble and die of longing for the food they cannot have.’  The king’s orders were carried out: they prepared many loaves of ezcahuitli, a type of small red worm….together with ducks, fish, and frogs….” They cooked these upwind of Coyoacan, and the scent drove the people there to distraction.  They made a desperate sally, were defeated, and their city was taken (Duran 1994:92).

Other sources tell of equally mouthwatering dishes made from acociles (crustaceans), axolotls (salamanders; the name literally means “water monsters”), and other aquatic foods.  The Aztecs grew all sorts of fruit, from all over Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America, and had large botanical gardens (Duran 1994:205).  Duran also tells of Motecuhzoma (“Montezuma” to moderns) feasting on game, fish, chocolate, and so on, including flesh from human sacrifices, and then ending the feast with hallucinogenic mushrooms, which put them “out of their minds and…in a worse state than if they had drunk a great quantity of wine” (Duran 1994;407; take note and stick to wine and forget those Psilocybe mushrooms).  Bernardino de Sahagun and other early chroniclers also describe Aztec food.  Sahagun describes merchants feasting on turkey, dog, tomatoes, chiles, chocolate, and occasionally human sacrifices (Sahagun 1979:48, 67, 75).  However, it is clear that very little human flesh was eaten; it was not a significant protein source.  Sahagun also went into detail on all the incredible variety of foods available in markets and elite kitchens (1979:69) and on varieties of maize, beans, and other crops (1963:279-290; see also Sahagun 1959, 1961).   They all agree that it was an incredibly rich, varied diet, even for the relatively poor.  Some of the dishes described by Sahagun are “turkey with a sauce of small chilis, tomatoes, and ground squash seeds” (patzcalmolli, what we would now in Nahuatl call mole pipian); “white fish with yellow chili…newt with yellow chili…winged ants with savory herbs; locusts with chia; maguey grubs with a sauce of small chilis…a sauce of unripened plums with white fish….tamales stuffed with amaranth greens…small tuna cactus fruit with fish eggs…” and on for many pages (Sahagun 1979:37-38).  A major aspect Indigenous Mexican cuisine is the use of insects and other invertebrates.  Over 300 kinds of insects are eaten (Ramos-Elorduy 1991, 1998; Ramos Elorduy and Pino Moreno 1989).

Drinks, besides water, consisted largely of atoles of various sorts.  Atole (Nahuatl atolli) is finely ground seed meal beaten up in water.  It was usually made from maize, but also from beans, fruit, and so on.  Pinole (pinolli) was another seed meal drink, often made from wild seeds.  Atole could be flavored with chocolate, chile, honey, and other substances (Sahagun 1961:93).  It is still common.  Pozole (pozolli) was, in those days, probably just nixtamal beaten up in water, as it still is in Maya Mexico.  That wonderful pozole you get in restaurants now, with pork and hominy and chiles and more, is probably a recent invention from west Mexico, especially Jalisco.

It is said that a true civilization has to have its alcohol, and Mexico had various types of maize beers, as well as honey mead and combinations of the two.  Central Mexico had pulque, the fermented sap of the flower stalks of agaves (Agave spp. which are not cacti).  There is some chance that they had learned to distill alcohol.  Very simple stills are found in remote areas of west Mexico.  Some Mexican ethnobotanist friends of mine argue that the stills go back to pre-Columbian times.  However, they resemble Philippine stills, and most of us think they probably came over on the Manila galleon in the early days.  Sailors early learned in the Philippines to make these simple stills, and probably brought the technology with them.  Mezcal is distilled not from pulque, but from the juice extracted by slow-cooking the flowering stem bases of agave and related plants, and then fermenting and distilling that.  Tequila is mezcal made from the blue agave (Agave tequilana), originally from the Tequila area of Jalisco, but now widely planted, to the annoyance of residents of the actual Tequila area.  Incidentally, a word of warning:  Don’t try to drive in the town of Tequila.  The old, steep, cobblestone streets are filled with drivers who have been sampling pretty freely at the many distilleries in town.

Other parts of Mexico had their own Indigenous foods.  Heavy seafood dependence along the coast of the Gulf of California lives on in Sinaloa’s incomparable seafood cuisine.  Similar pre-Columbian traditions give us excellent seafood in Campeche and Veracruz.  In northeast Mexico, the Teenek Maya—called Huastec by the Nahuatl—baked very large tamales (as some Yucatec Maya do).  These Huasteca tamales were known as zacahuil, and still exist.  In this age of Guinness records, towns vie to produce ever larger ones, and some now weigh a hundred pounds.  They are one of the few dishes in the world to be immortalized in folksong; every traditional Huastecan singer can perform “Zacahuil,” often in the wonderful folk style of the region, influenced by Scots-Irish fiddling styles learned from nearby Texas.

A final Native American influence came from the Antilles, but it appeared mostly with the Spanish.  Outside of habanero peppers, the Spanish introduced few if any foods from the Antilles, but they brought several words from the Arawak language there: maize for corn, yuca for manioc, and a few others.  Our word “barbecue” comes from Arawak barbacoa, the frame on which meat was smoked for preserving it.  Hammock, tobacco, and cigar are also Arawak.

The Spanish were amazed at the productive maize fields.  They had read in the Bible about grain that returned a hundredfold on seed; they had never seen such a thing—Spanish wheat in the middle ages returned about three or four for one.  So when they saw maize literally returning a hundredfold, they were duly impressed.  Their diet back home had often been limited to bread, olives, wine, and cheese; now they could have game, fish, vegetables, spices, everything.  They soon began bringing the best New World foods back home.

Merchants in Spain tried hard to keep wheat, almonds, olives, wine, and other specialties from being produced in Mexico.  Wheat soon got away from them, since it grows extremely well in northern Mexico and in the Bajío (the high, beautiful center of Mexico).  In northwest Mexico, the Indigenous people either died out or mounted heroic resistance to the Spanish.  The Seri and Yaqui resistance movements against genocide stand as some of the most amazingly heroic stories in the entire history of humanity.  Maize was thus hard to get, so wheat became the staple.  In these areas the wheat tortilla—which, unlike the maize one, requires shortening—became staple food.

Olives, grapes, and almonds were hard to grow in central and south Mexico, and remained Spanish monopolies for a long time.  The main contribution of the Old World, in most of Mexico, was domestic livestock.  This proved a very mixed blessing.  It provided cheap and abundant meat and cheese, but the flocks multiplied, overran Indigenous cultivation, ate crops, caused horrific erosion, led to massive deforestation, and generally ruined much of the landscape, causing untold misery and environmental damage that is still getting worse all the time (Melville 1997; Painter and Durham 1995).  Those who deplore Native America’s lack of domestic livestock (e.g. Diamond 1997) need to explain why enormously reducing the food production and potential of Mexico is somehow a good thing.

Bread and domestic-animal meat soon became core parts of the Mexican diet, and grapes in the dried form of raisins became rather common.  Olives, almonds, capers, wine, and so on remained luxuries for the Spanish rich.  However, the real excitement came when converted Jews and Muslims were sent to Mexico.  The Spanish spent 800 years fighitng the Moors—Muslims of Arab and Berber ancestry—for control of Spain.  (“Moor” and “Morocco” both derive from Arabic maghrib, “sunset” or “far west,” because the area in question is the farthest west of the Arab lands.)  The Moors had developed an exceedingly elaborate and sophisticated cuisine.  They had also introduced oranges, sugar, dates, rice, and many other foods to Spain (Watson 2008).  The Romans had begun introducing spices, but the Moors really popularized them, especially the Arabic signature mix of cumin, coriander, black pepper, and (often) cinnamon.  Sesame seeds are also a Moorish item.  Also Moorish are the limes that are now so totally basic to Mexican food, and the bitter oranges that partially replace limes in Yucatan.

The Spanish finally conquered the last Moorish stronghold in 1492.  Yes, the date is significant, because it was the loot from conquest that financed Columbus, and the luxury of having finished the Reconquista that made possible a new conquest on a far larger scale.  But after the conquest the conquered Muslims and Jews persisted in rebelling, since they were subject to appalling oppression, brutality, and exploitation.  They were forced to become nominally Christian, but many held out in secret.  Those that would not convert were killed or forced to flee, finding refuge in Morocco, Tunisia, and Turkey.  Even conversos were not trusted, and vast numbers of them were sent to Mexico to get rid of them.  Here they were often sent to the more isolated areas, at first Puebla (it was isolated then!) and later New Mexico, where Moorish culture persisted until very recently.  Some years ago I noted a classic Mesopotamian Arab recipe in a traditional New Mexican cookbook by Cleofas Jaramillo (1981).  Gary Nabhan, an authority on these connections, found that the Jaramillo family did indeed have a Moorish converso background (Nabhan 2014).  As so often, foodways are mirrored in musical styles; New Mexico is a living museum of Moorish songs, even today after many centuries.  Older Hispanic singing styles are pure Moorish, and all the Hispanic traditions of the southwest are at least somewhat influenced, however indirectly, by that part of the heritage (see Robb 1980, but writing in the mid-20th century Robb did not realize the extent of Moorish influence in New Mexico, which was established largely in the 1980-2010 period).

One product of this was classic Puebla cooking.  The famous mole poblano is the perfect fusion of Aztec and Moorish haute cuisine.  It is basically a Moorish chicken dish fused with an Aztec turkey dish.  From the Moorish side we get the spices, sesame seeds, onions, and basic overall technique.  From the Aztec side we get the chocolate, tomato, and chile.  Stuffed chiles and stuffed squash simply classic Moorish stuffed vegetable dishes that use Mexican instead of Near Eastern vegetables.  They have gone home to Spain; you find them especially in Estremadura, the source of a large percentage of the original conquistadores and settlers.  Countless other Mexican dishes, including essentially all the ways of cooking lamb and mutton, are Moorish.

Another interesting Moorish dish is migas, basically stale bread soaked in broth, the tharid of Arab cuisine.  This is commoner in Spain than in Mexico, but it has found a home in Tepito, a rough working-class area of Mexico City.  The people there took to making cheap migas by salvaging bones from butchers and restaurants and cooking them into stock, then making migas with stale bread and tortillas.  With the inevitable Mexican (and especially Chilango) pride in making do, this got idealized as a marker of the tough, resourceful Tepitan, and thus called “vita-migas,” from vitaminas, Spanish for “vitamins” (Hernández 2009; he cites a wonderful Tepito saying that cannot be repeated in polite company but is all the better a life guide for that).

Another important derivative of Spanish and Moorish culture fusing with Native American culture was the belief that certain foods are heating to the body while others are cooling and still others are neutral.  Heating foods include high-calorie and spicy ones; cooling foods are low-calorie, often green vegetables, and tend to seem cool to the touch; neutral foods are basic starch staples.  This idea comes largely from ancient Greek medicine, but was developed largely by the Arab and Persian doctors in the early medieval period.  In Mexico it fused with similar Indigenous ideas.  One interesting and still locally important Indigenous idea is that wild areas, being cooler and moister than the hot sunny villages and fields, are cooling to the body and to foods produced there, while people and foods in the hot, dusty villages become hot.  Either way, chiles, strong alcohol, and fried foods are heating; green vegetables are cooling; tortillas and rice are neutral.  Many of you have encountered this belief.  It is fossilized in the English language in the term “to catch a cold.”  Within my lifetime, Americans almost all believed that colds came from experiencing cooling foods or from getting a chill or from similar cooling influences, not from catching a virus.  This is only one of many Mexican and New World beliefs that come from fusion of Spanish and Indigenous worldviews (or ontologies, as anthropologists say).

The Spanish favorite animal was the pig.  This stems from Celtic and Roman traditions.  The pig also found a happy home in Puebla, to the point where I heard there a bit of lousy poetry:  “Cuatro cosas come el Poblano:  Cerdo, cochinito, puerco, y marrano.”  “Pueblans eat four things: hog, pig, pork and boar.”  Notably exaggerated, but too good to leave out of this talk.

Anyway, the Spanish became the world’s master sausage makers (along with the Portuguese and Italians), and they introduced a pretty full range of it to the New World, where it thrives best in rather dry highland areas like Mexico City and the Altos de Chiapas.

Another influence at this time was African.  The Spanish imported an all too large number of enslaved Africans to the Caribbean and its coasts and shores, because the Native Americans died out from disease and overwork.  The entire Antilles were virtually depopulated within 50 years.  The biggest reasons included smallpox, malaria, and yellow fever, to which the Africans had some resistance.  The dreadful toll of disease hit Mexico more slowly and with less horrific effect, but by 1700 the Indigenous population had been reduced 90 to 95%, locally to 100%, and replaced in large party by people of African origin.   Unlike the situation in the United States and in Brazil, Africans did not enormously influence the actual dishes, but they introduced a range of foods: black-eyed peas, yams, okra, African rice, watermelons, and many more.  They made important foods out of the Native American peanut and sweet potato (both South American but introduced to Mexico before Columbus), which resemble African indigenous foods.  The most African-influenced regions are the area around Veracruz and the Costa Chica of Guerrero, both of which preserve highly African-influenced musical styles, including the amazing Jarocho music of Veracruz.  (“Jarocho,” originally a “racial” term for mixed African-Indigenous-Spanish locals, has become a general term of pride for Veracruzanos.)  Both areas preserve some minor but interesting African foodways, including a fondness for fried foods.             Meanwhile, the Manila Galleon kept Mexico in constant touch with the Philippines.  The galleon ran every year, going east on the trade winds in the tropics, then coming back on the westerlies, taking something like a great circle route through the north Pacific.  It coasted California on this run, and occasionally paused briefly.  It ran to Acapulco, which thus was influenced by Filipino culture.  Everything from distilling (see above) to the local names of some dishes (including black beans mixed with rice) came thus to Acapulco.  Chinese immigrants occasionally appeared.

Thus by the 18th century, Mexican food was, quite literally, a total melting pot.  Moving away from food a minute, we can learn from the story of Santiago de Murcia.  He was a musician to the Queen of Spain at the start of the 1700s, playing French and Spanish guitar music, but she died, and the new queen liked only Italian music.  So Santiago went to Mexico to seek his fortune, and there became fascinated with the local folk music, setting down many Native American and African dances (O’Dette 1998).  The African dances included the world’s first recorded cumbias (or “cumbas’)—predating the 1990s cumbia boom by 250 years.  All these were getting more and more Spanish-influenced, and vice versa.  Spain and Mexico were musical melting pots as well as literal ones.

The 19th century brought yet more influences.  The French arrived and briefly conquered Mexico before being expelled again (part of the process being the actually inconclusive battle celebrated on Cinco de Mayo—not a holiday in Mexico, which is much more concerned with its actual independence day, Sept. 16).  Even before French rule, the prestige of French food had influenced Mexico.  With French rule, it took the urban areas by storm, and the elites consumed little else for years.  French bread influenced the Mexican bolillo and other wheat flour items.  French cakes and pastries, French ways with meat and fish, French menus, and French table manners were general (Pilcher 1998).  Meanwhile, other European influences accumulated; beer, more German and United States-style than French or Spanish, slowly replaced pulque and other home brews as the alcoholic drink of choice, and now Mexico is one of the world’s major brewers and consumers of that beverage.  Otherwise, heavy German and Irish immigration in the 19th century has had surprisingly little obvious influence, but it certainly colors Mexican food and consumption habits.

After the French were expelled, but mostly in the 20th century, Indigenous Mexican food slowly came back into style.  However, in the meantime, another huge influence had appeared.  Chinese immigrants flooded into Mexico in the late 19th century, brought in as cheap labor on railroads, in mines, in new agribusiness plantations, and so on.  They formed local Chinatowns, where typical foods of the poorer rural parts of coastal Guangdong Province were found: chop suey, chow mein, egg fuyong, noodle soups, white rice, soy sauce, pickled vegetables, preserved eggs and fish, Chinese sausage, and stir-fried dishes using small bits of boneless chicken or pork stir-fried with vegetables cut into small cubes.  My generation remembers this well from California Chinatowns as well as from Chinatowns in Mexicali, Mexico City, and elsewhere.  The Chinatown in Mexicali, now about gone, was a fascinating time machine when I was young; you could visit it and go back to the early 1900s.  The Chinese had been brought in as laborers on the new fields created with large-scale irrigation, or had come as tradespeople and urban workers, and had remained fairly conservative in foods and other ways.  Chinese food is now widespread in Mexico, and has slowly diversified, so one can now find Sichuan food and other non-Cantonese specialties in the bigger cities.  One Chinese introduction that has become widely known in ordinary Mexican society are the little salted plums or apricots called saladitos in Mexican Spanish.

A bigger influence was a renewed burst of Arab food borrowing.  This was due to the sudden tide of repression that swept the previously tolerant Turkish Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  The empire was dying, and looking for ways to shore up power; also, German advisors counseled more firm and culturally homogenizing policies.  The results included savage repression and local massacres of Christian Arabs and full-scale genocide of Armenians.  Today we think of Arabs as Muslims, but in 1900 about 10% were Christian, with a huge concentration in Syria (then including Lebanon) and Palestine.  Thousands of them fled to Latin America, especially if they were Catholic—whether Roman rite or Syrian rite.  They introduced the foods of their home region.  Possibly the most widely known now is the semita (Arabic simit), a ring-shaped bread covered with sesame seeds.  It is widely sold in Mexico as a street vendor snack.  Another food that caught on was kibi, ground meat and bulgur wheat combined in a pointed-ended meatball and fried.  These have now become a “traditional Maya” food, having spread from the Merida city market area.  A new boom in stuffed vegetables was also apparent.  Baklava, raw onions, Greek-type salads, and other foods became known.  Perhaps most interesting was the new form of tacos al pastor.  Previously probably just made with meat hung up to roast over a fire (the carne al pastor of old-time cookbooks), this now became the Greek- and Turkish-style gyro:  meat is sliced, marinated, and impaled on a vertical spit; bits are shaved off from the turning mass of meat and wrapped in a soft tortilla.  Many cities had Arab restaurants.  Merida used to have a range of incredibly wonderful Lebanese-style restaurants, ranging from very cheap to very expensive and luxurious, but I think only one is left now.  Gary Nabhan, who is Lebanese-American, has been increasingly involved in documenting Arab foods in New World folk traditions (Nabhan 2014).  Another huge influence came from the Arab immigrants starting supermarkets.  The two major Mexican supermarket chains, Chedraui and San Francisco de Asís, were both started by Christian Arab immigrants from the old Turkish Empire.  Mexico’s richest man, Carlos Slim, is also descended from Arab immigrants.

Smaller groups of immigrants had more local influence.  The extent to which Mexico is a melting pot, like the United States, is not always appreciated.  Huge numbers of Irish and large numbers of Germans went to Mexico in the 19th century.  The Irish left little trace, but the Germans included many Mennonites, from the German-Dutch border country, speaking a different language somewhere between German and Dutch.  They set up farming colonies in remote areas, and often live by selling cheese, including a high-fat white cheese that has come to be known as menonita.  Another fascinating group was made up of mascogos, descended from escaped African-American enslaved persons from Texas, who maintained a strikingly traditional lifestyle in remote parts of north Mexico well into the 20th century, combining Mexican rural foods with African and African-American foods like soski bread and tetapun, a Mexicanized spelling of ‘tater pone—sweet potato pie (del Moral and Siller 2000).  More generally, southern US cooking influenced other parts of Mexico.  Yucatan state, especially Merida, is fond of strictly southern-US-style pecan pies and cheese pies, called pie de nuez and pie de queso respectively; this leads to some puns, since pai is Maya for “skunk.”

 

As of 1900, and even 1950, village Mexico was still Indigenous as far as foodways went.  Maize, beans, squash and chiles remained the staples.  Tortillas, tamales, tacos, moles, and other pre—Colombian dishes were the norm.  Pulque and tepache or tiswin (homemade beers) were the alcoholic drinks.  All sorts of domestic and wild greens were eaten, under the old Nahuatl name of quelites (Nahuatl quilitl).  Most of them are very healthful, and they have been studied in detail by ethnobotanists recently.  An interesting case is verdolagas (purslane in English; Portulaca oleracea).  It is a domesticated crop with selected varieties in central Mexico, an enthusiastically consumed weed in the rest of Mexico, and a mere weed—pulled out when seen—in the United States.  Several other crops show this pattern of being appreciated in Mexico but ignored elsewhere.  Mexican culture is much more appreciative of the plant world than are many others.  A large percentage of our favorite domestic flowers were domesticated by Indigenous Mexicans, from marigolds and dahlias to zinnias and cosmos.

Many foodways are extremely health-promoting; many foods have medicinal values, and many herbal medicines have come from Mexico.  The most dramatic finding was the birth control pill, which was developed from wild yams used in local medicine.  The story of how the pill was developed, and how Mexico lost out on the financial bonanza, has been told in a superb book, Jungle Laboratories by Gabriela Soto Laveaga (2010).  Since then, Mexico has been very careful about letting anyone patent its plant medicines—far too careful, from a humanitarian point of view, since it will not allow much research.

 

My own experiences with Mexican food have been largely in Maya lands of southeastern Mexico.  I have done food ethnography in Yucatan and Quintana Roo, and fairly extensively in Tabasco, Campeche, and Chiapas.  They are culturally very different indeed from the Nahuatl-dominated center.  Tortillas are now basic, but they are a fairly recent introduction, probably becoming staple food within the last few centuries.  Before that, the Maya ate tamales, pit-roasted meats, and large maize breads baked in the pit oven (pib).  Also baked in the pit oven are whole pigs, cochinita pibil.  Many soups and stews were made.  They also ate manioc, sweet potatoes, and other root crops.  They eat an enormous range of tropical fruits and vegetables.  I piublished a long article on my work (Anderson 2010) and self-published a book of recipes (Anderson 2008, recipes available online at www.krazykioti.com under the title “Mayaland Cuisine”), and I am currently finishing up a book with food ethnographer Amber O’Connor on Maya foodways (O’Connor and Anderson 2017).

Maya food also includes a range of ceremonial dishes for the many ceremonies to worship and thank spirits and gods for rain, harvests, game, and other blessings.  These would traditionally be based on the sacred maize, and include squash seed meal.  Humans were made of maize by the gods, and then animated by blood that the gods shed to give life to the maze dough.  The squash seed meal symbolizes the blood (at least to some traditional ritualists).  Turkey was the traditional meat; chicken is now used.  One set of stews made of turkey and maize (with vegtetables and chiles) is colored according to the four directions.  North is considered to associated with white, and the stew is colored with white maize flour.  South is yellow, colored with yellow maize and with a little achiote.  East is red, colored with more achiote.  West is black, and is colored with burned chiles.  The chiles are toasted black and then ground.  The center is green, the color of vegetation and life, symbolized on the traditional altars by green leaves rather than food.  Homemade cigarettes of native tobacco are also offered to the deities.  Many deities have been equated with Catholic saints, and in particular the all-important Maize God was early equated with Jesus.

Maya food was probably always influenced from central Mexico, but after the Spanish conquest there was more influence, including Nahuatl dishes like chilmole and pipian as well as tortillas.  Later, the usual Caribbean and Arab influences found their way in.

 

The 20th and 21st centuries have seen the floodgates open, in so far as they were not open already.  Most obvious has been the spectacular increase in Italian restaurants, especially since about 1960.  Pizza joints, spaghetti houses, sub sandwich spots, and more upscale Italian restaurants are now as common in Mexico as in the US.  The quality of food at these places is generally very low, I am sorry to say, but they provide cheap, quick, easy-to-eat meals for hurried working-class and middle-class people.

The United States has inevitably had an enormous influence, much of it highly negative from the point of view of health and food quality.   Mass production of low-nutrient breads and snack foods came early, and has only increased over the years.  Soft drinks are the most universal borrowing.  Coca-cola® is so universal that the Mexican idiom for utter remoteness is “where even the Coca truck doesn’t go.”  United States food companies have bought many Mexican ones.  United States soybeans, maize, and other bulk crops flood the market. NAFTA ensured that protected, heavily subsidized US agribusiness could flood the Mexican markets; less subsidized, the Mexican producers cannot compete.  This has ruined many dairy, maize, and bean farms.  More recently, United States chains, from McDonald’s to Pizza Hut, have become universal; even US pseudo-Mexican-food chains like Taco Bell are widespread, especially in tourist areas.

Not all the influence is bad (though finding the exceptions takes searching).  United States innovations in agricultural production have been largely beneficial to farmers, though with important recent problems.  US investment, especially in agricultural research and development, has often been valuable and sometimes decisive.  US culinary trends have spilled over into Mexico, leading to renewed interest in traditional, regional, and folk dishes and ingredients, and renewed interest in freshness and quality of ingredients.  Returning migrants to el norte, as well as tourists and other visitors, have made sure that any new styles in New York or Los Angeles or other centers are quickly tried out in Mexico

Meanwhile, not only has Mexican food continued to be popular in the United States, but also Mexicans have become the backbone of the US restaurant industry.  Fans of Anthony Bourdain will know that even in New York the kitchen staffs of fancy French restaurants are heavily immigrant Mexican (see e.g. Bourdain 2000).   There is a Chinese type of noodle that is stretched by swinging it out like a skipping rope, which really develops the gluten and makes a very chewy noodle.  The technique is incredibly difficult to master, but I have seen it done in Los Angeles by a Mexican cook.  Zacatecas in particular is the source for a slarge percentage of Los Angeles’ greatest chefs.

A food event worth major attention is the development of high-yield varieties of wheat and other grains at CIMMYT, the international research center in Texcoco, now celebrating its 50th birthday.  This center was set up by the Mexican government and Rockefeller Foundation, later getting help from various governments and foundations during the 1960s, when food shortages were common and world famine loomed.  Crash programs of research at CIMMYT and the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines produced high-yield, easy-to-grow grains that saved the world.  Other centers dealing with other crops have arisen since.  The resulting “Green Revolution” has had a bad reputation with scholars, because it tended to encourage overuse of pesticides and fertilizers, but that need not happen.  Recent varieties use much less chemical input.  About the only downside, really, is that the new wheats don’t taste as good as the old ones.  We used to stock up on bolillos when we went to Mexico, back when I was young, because the wheat (and therefore the bolillos) was so much better tasting than wheat in the US.  No longer.  It would be easy to breed back the taste into modern wheats, but no one seems to care.

CIMMYT did not make dramatic breakthroughs with maize, for the very good reason that the Mexican people had bred such incredibly tough, diverse, and high-yielding maizes that there was little they could do.  (I have this on direct authority from former CIMMYT personnel I have interviewed, notably Edgar Niederhouser, to whom thanks.)  In any case, the great success of CIMMYT was the high-yield, short-straw wheats developed by Norman Borlaug and his team; he won the Nobel Prize for this.  These wheats have the additional advantage of growing well in Mexico’s hot climate, unlike most high-yield wheats.  They totally revolutionized wheat-raising not only in Mexico, but in India and Pakistan.  Borlaug, in his Nobel Prize speech in 1970, warned that he and his colleagues had only bought the world some time to get population growth under control:  “There can be no permanent progress in the battle against hunger until the agencies that fight for increased food production and those that fight for population control unite in a common effort.” (Nobel Peace Prize speech, as quoted by Jeffrey D. Sachs, 2009, “Transgressing Planetary Boundaries,” Scientific American, Dec., p. 36.)

Alas, the world did not listen, and now is food-short again.  Worse, agricultural research has been run down and often left to pesticide companies (Pardey 2016).  The traditional, hardy, disease-resistant varieties and species of crops and animals are rapidly going extinct, though CIMMYT and other centers are desperately trying to save at least the seeds.  Recent GMO crops and other highly disruptive influences are coming into Mexico.  Mexico has banned GMO maize, but it has come via returning migrants to the US, and is now not uncommon.  This presents a huge danger to traditional varieties.  They could be genetically swamped by hybridization.  Some hybrids of wild and local maize with GMO varieties have turned up, but fortunately farmers have become more careful, and this is no longer being reported (information from my colleagues and students, especially Norman Ellstrand).  GMO’s also require more (and more, and more) chemical and mechanical inputs, thus getting increasingly out of range of local less affluent farmers, who are driven off the farm.  The ironic result of these new, very inferior “improved” crops is rural decline and the abandonment of millions of acres that were fertile and productive until recently. Once abaindoned, they do not even return to wilderness.  In fact, they often erode away, leaving a moonscape.  Or they become cattle range, increasing erosion and biological degradation as well as rural inequality.

Fortunately, Mexican farmers are tough and independent people, and this process of rural decline has not progressed so far as it has in many areas of the world.  Many parts of Mexico, including Quintana Roo where I do research, are strongholds of independent small farming by local families.  These and other traditional Indigenous farmers are very skill-intensive, and we really need to document the skills and knowledge before they are lost to modernization.

Even so, Mexico’s curse since the Spanish introduced giant estates has been huge-scale farms, either cattle ranches or agribusinesses, with landless laborers reduced to starvation wages and horrible living conditions.  This plantation-style agriculture came to Spain with the Romans.  It was later imposed by the Spanish on the Moors.  Then the Spanish from heavily Moorish parts of Spain used the same institutions to reduce the Indigenous population to serfdom.  This large-scale, landlord-dominated type of agriculture is increasingly a curse to rural Mexico, and now many of the plantations are owned by giant international agribusiness firms.  Dvera Saxton here can tell you more about it; she is one of the leading experts on this problem.

Today, unless there is a new effort comparable to CIMMYT’s, but dedicated to saving small farms and traditional varieties and to farming without deadly chemicals, you will probably all live to see mass starvation worldwide. 

All too predictably, another main event of the 21st century has been the swamping of Mexico by fast-food chains and giant food corporations.  Most are US-based, of course.  Even the iconic Bimbo bakery company has been taken over.

The result of this is horribly predictable.  Besides cutting the pleasure of eating, it has the more tangible and measurable effect of sending diabetes and other diet-related disease rates to unprecedented heights.  Native Americans are particularly susceptible genetically to diabetes and metabolic syndrome (see e.g. SIGMA Type 2 Diabetes Consortium 2014), but anyone would succumb to the mix of bleached white flour, refined white sugar, and soybean oil that is now the standard diet in much of Mexico.  Sugar in commercial soft drinks is now actually the main source of calories for Mexican children.  Worldwide, diabetes rates are soaring, and 422 million people now have this condition (Sonnenburg and Bāckhed 2016).

Traditional diets are protective.  In Mexico, nopales (cactus pads from Platyopuntia spp.) are known to reduce blood sugar and inflammation and alleviate diabetes, and buds of Cecropia spp. appear to, also.  Many other folk remedies are used, with varying effectiveness.  Certainly several Maya people I know have sent their diabetes into remission by using traditional remedies.  Diet is the best cure, though.  Refined carbohydrates, especially sugar, are notorious risk factotrs, but so is soybean oil, because the body quickly converts much of it into prostaglandins, which are inflammatory.  Obesity also causes diabetes directly, through inflammatory mechanisms.  It would be hard to imagine a better diet than the traditional Mexican one of whole grains, wild greens, seed atoles, nopales, avocados, fruit, beans, vegetables, and some lean meat and fish.  Unfortunately, contemporary supply chains and food marketing venues are set up to maximize the marketing of comida chatarra—“junk food.”  It would be perfectly easy to develop supply and marketing chains that would do the opposite; all it would take is going back to the old open markets, still flourishing in many areas.  (Don’t miss the one in Oaxaca.  It’s worth a special trip to the city.)

 

Mexican food may be especially complex and diverse in its origins, but it is fairly typical of food systems worldwide.  No food system developed without massive borrowing from others.  Borrowing goes on all the time.  No food system remains static for more than a generation or two.  Foods fall out of favor, come in from outside, get modified, get substituted.  Fads rise and decline.  The idea of stable, long-continued folkways is nonsense.  Mexico has had some astonishingly long-running food traditions, notably the ever-wonderful tortilla and its frequent accompaniment of boiled beans and chile sauce.  However, little else remains unchanged.

Even after 150 years of cultural anthropology, many people believe that “cultures” and “ethnicities” are steel-walled spheres that are completely independent of each other and do not affect each other except through aggression.  No.  Culture and ethnicity are abstract concepts that cover a realty of constantly shifting, changing practices.  People constantly borrow, negotiate and renegotiate (Bourdieu 1977), and decide to change.

This puts in a rather ironic light the recent protests against “white men,” meaning Anglo-American yanquis, cooking Mexican food.  I occuasionally have nightmares of trying to sort out the mess if we carried this principle to its logical conclusion.  Only Nahuatl speakers would be allowed to make tortillas.  Only Maya would be allowed to make chocolate.  And so on….

There is a huge difference between normal cultural borrowing and actual offensive appropriation.  If cultural appropriation is deliberately insulting (like stereotypic caricatures) or is outright ripoff for profit, it is as bad as any other insult or ripoff.  If it is done more creditable reasons, it’s not only normal, it’s inevitable and necessary.  Think if Norman Borlaug had refused to share those wheat varieties—as, in fact, modern seed companies do refuse to share theirs, insisting on purchase at very high profit rates.  Instead, the wheat was made freely available worldwide, saving tens of millions of lives.  Mexico today has thousands of species and varieties of useful plants and animals.  They could revolutionize farming worldwide.  We need to be able to get them into circulation and feed the world.  But abuse by giant firms and outdated, poorly formulated patent laws make this impossible at the present time.  Reform is seriously needed.

When Western medical researchers were looking for quinine in the forests of the Amazon Basin, they explained they needed it as a cure for malaria, a disease from the Old World.  One local assistant commented:  “God put the fever in Europe and the quinine in America in order to teadch us the solidarty that should prevail among all the peoples of the earth.”  (Quoted Whitaker 1954:58).  Whether God did it or it happened naturally, the point is made.  We all need each other’s knowledge.  We all need each other’s foods and foodways.  We all need each other.

 

 

 

 

Acknowledgements

This article is based on a talk given at California State University-Fresno, Oct. 19, 2016.  Thanks to Jen Banh and Dvera Saxton for initially seeking me out to give this talk.  Thanks to my coworkers in Mexico, especially Felix Medina Tzuc and Aurora Dzib Xihum de Cen, as well as colleagues and students too numerous to mention.

 

Anderson, E. N.  2008.  Mayaland Cuisine: The Food of Maya Mexico.  Self-published.

—  2010.  “Food and Feasting in the Zona Maya of Quintana Roo.”  In John Staller and Michael Carrasco (eds.), Pre-Columbian Foodways:  Interdisciplinary Approaches to Food, Culture, and Markets in Ancient Mesoamerica.  New York:  Springer.  Pp. 441-465.

 

Bourdain, Anthony.  2000 .  Kitchen Confidential: Adventures in the Culinary Underbelly.  New York: Ecco/HarperCollins.

 

Bourdieu, Pierre.  1977.  Outline of a Theory of Practice.  Tr. Richard Nice.  New York:  Cambridge University Press.

 

Del Moral, Paulina, and Alicia Siller V.  2000.  Recetario Mascogo de Coahuila.  Mexico City: Conaculta.

 

Diamond, Jared.  1997.  Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies.  New York:  W. W. Norton.

 

Duran, Fray Diego.  1994.  The History of the Indies of New Spain.  Tr. Doris Heyden [Spanish orig. ca. 1570].  Norman, OK:  University of Oklahoma Press.

 

Hernández, Alfonso.  2009.  “The Vita-migas of Tepito.”  Tr. Laura Roush.  Ethnology 47:89-93.

 

Jaramillo, Cleofas M.  1981.  The Genuine New Mexico Tasty Recipes.  Orig. 1942.  Santa Fe: Ancient City Press.

 

Katz, S. H.; M. L. Hediger; L. A. Valleroy.  1974.  “Traditional Maize Processing Techniques in the New World.”  Sci 148:765-773.

Melville, Elinor G. K.  1997.  A Plague of Sheep:  Environmental Consequences of the Conquest of Mexico.  New York:  Cambridge University Press.

 

Nabhan, Gary.  2014.  Cumin, Camels and Caravans: A Spice Odyssey.  Berkeley: University of California Press.

 

O’Connor, Amber, and E. N. Anderson.  2017.  K’oben.  Lanahm, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

 

O’Dette, Paul.  1998.  Jácaras!  18th Century Spanish Baroque Guitar Miusic of Santiago de Murcia.  (Liner notes to CD recording.)  Harmonia Mundi (recording company).

 

Pardey, Philip G.  2016.  “Agricultural R&D Is on the Move.”  Nature 537:301-303.

 

Painter, Michael, and William Durham (eds.).  1995.  The Social Causes of Environmental Destruction in Latin America.  Ann Arbor:  University of Michigan.

Pilcher, Jeffrey.  1998.  Que vivan los tamales!  Food and the Making of Mexican Identity.  Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

 

Ramos-Elorduy, Julieta.  1998.  Creepy Dcrawly Cuisine: The Gourmet Guide to Edible Insects.  Rochester, VT: Park Street Press.

 

Ramos Elorduy de Conconi, Julieta.  1991.  Los insectos como fuente de proteínas en el futuro.  Mexico: Limusa.

 

Ramos Elorduy de Conconi, Julieta, and José Manuel Pino Moreno.  1989.  Los insectos comestibles en el Mexico antiguo.  Mexico: AGT Editor.

 

Robb, John Donald.  1980.  Hispanic Folk Music of New Mexico and the Southwest: A Self-Portrait of a People.  Norman, OK:  University of Oklahoma Press.

 

Sahagun, Bernardino de.  1959.  Florentine Codex.  Book 9: The Merchants. Tr. Charles Dibble and Arthur Anderson. [Spanish-Nahuatl orig. ca. 1570.]  Santa Fe and Salt Lake City: School of American Research and University of Utah Press.

 

—  1961.  Florentine Codex. Book 10: The People.  Tr. Charles Dibble and Arthur Anderson. [Spanish-Nahuatl orig. ca. 1570.]  Santa Fe and Salt Lake City: School of American Research and University of Utah Press.

 

—  1963.  Florentine Codex.  Book 11: Earthly Things.  Tr. Charles Dibble and Arthur Anderson. [Spanish-Nahuatl orig. ca. 1570.]  Santa Fe and Salt Lake City: School of American Research and University of Utah Press.

 

—  1979.  Florentine Codex.  Book 8:  Kings and Lords.  Tr. Charles Dibble and Arthur Anderson. [Spanish-Nahuatl orig. ca. 1570.]  Santa Fe and Salt Lake City: School of American Research and University of Utah Press.

 

SIGMA Type 2 Diabetes Consortium.  2014.  “Sequence Variants in SLC16A11 Are a Common Risk Factor for Type 2 Diabetes in Mexico.”  Nature 506:97-101.

 

Sonnenburg, Justin L., and Fredrik Bāckhed.  2016.  “Diet-microbiota Interactions as Moderators of Human Metabolism.”  Nature 535:56-64.

Soto Laveaga, Gabriela.  2010.  Jungle Laboratories: Mexican Peasants, National Projects, and the Making of the Pill.  Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

 

Watson, Andrew.  2008.  Agricultural Innovation in the Early Islamic World:  The Diffusion of Crops and Techniques, 700-1100. 2nd edn.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press.

 

Whitaker, A.  1954.  The Western Hemisphere Idea.  Ithaca: Cornell University Press.