Cultural Relations of the Gila River and Lower Colorado Tribes

Abstract

DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE CULTURAL RELATIONS OF THE GILA RIVER AND LOWER COLORADO TRIBES Included in the first issue of papers in the new series entitled Yale University Publications in Anthropology is the excellent presentation and discussion of data bearing on Cultural Relations of the Gila River and Lower Colorado Tribes by Professor Leslie Spier. 1 What he seeks to demonstrate as stated in his own words is the following: The time-honored supposition has been that the Maricopa, having moved from the west to a position adjacent to the Pima, have been culturally as well as politically dominated by the Pima. This is far removed from the truth. I will attempt to show that not only was Maricopa culture of the historic period overwhelmingly one with that of the Yumans on the Lower Colorado, but that the Pima, at least the Piman groups on the Gila, also affiliated strongly in the same direction. So far as Piman influence on the Maricopa goes, and it seems to have been relatively small, it was balanced by an equal counter-influence. The first part of his thesis, viz. that Maricopa culture of the historic period is overwhelmingly one with that of the Yumans on the Lower Colorado he establishes beyond peradventure; in 1931, Professor A. L. Kroeber had already tacitly assumed this by including Maricopa among Colorado River Yuman tribes.' Had Professor Spier utilized Cocopa material also he could have made an even stronger case. The second part of his thesis seems to me to be far less firmly established by his evidence. Perhaps this is in part due to his having included Papago data with the Pima, for presumably Papago culture was less like the Maricopa culture than was the culture of the river Pima. His data are presented in six columns as follows: (1) Elements common to Mari­ copa, Pima-Papago, and Lower Colorado Yumans. (2) Elements common to Mari­ copa and Lower Colorado Yumans. (3) Elements common to Maricopa and Pima­ Papago. (4) Elements peculiar to Maricopa. (5) Elements peculiar to Lower Colo­ rado Yumans. (6) Elements peculiar to Pima-Papago. To have achieved complete clarity of presentation there should have been a seventh column: Elements com­ mon to Lower Colorado Yumans and Pima-Papago. As it is he presents such ele­ ments in columns 5 and 6, though these elements are peculiar to neither Lower Colorado Yumans nor Pima-Papago. Since part of his plan was to prove that the Pimans should be grouped in the Lower Colorado province, it seems strange that no attempt has been made here to list specific resemblances of Lower Colorado and Piman traits beyond what was common to the two and the Maricopa (p. 14). In spite of the clear presentation of the data and the preliminary discussion of them, the reader is unable to formulate precisely the interrelations of the three groups. Professor Spier modestly considered his marshalling of data as inadequate Yale University Publications in Anthropology, No.3, 1936. , The Seri (Southwest Museum Papers, No.6), p. 40.