CHAPTER 3.
INDIAN BURNING PATTERNS, 1491-1848
The traveler can but imagine the numbers of these dead tribes by the mounds of clam and oyster shells, many feet in thickness and many yards in extent, which mark the site of their former camping places. The gatherers of these sea-dainties have long since passed away, and even our first records tell of a time when wars, pestilence, and the gradual pressure on these sea coast dwellers by other tribes displaced from their hunting grounds in the east and south, had already done their work.
--Fagan 1885: 320
All the oak timber was owned by well-to-do families and was divided off by lines and boundaries as carefully as the whites have got it surveyed today. It can be easily seen by this that the Indians have carefully preserved the oak timber and have never at any time destroyed it
The Douglas fir timber they say has always encroached on the open prairies and crowded out the other timber; therefore they have continuously burned it and have done all they could to keep it from covering the open lands. Our legends tell when they arrived in the Klamath River country that there were thousands of acres of prairie lands, and with all the burning that they could do the country has been growing up to timber more and more.
--Che-na-wah Weitch-ah-wah (Thompson 1991: 33)
This chapter provides background on the primary Indian tribes and nations that lived on the Oregon Coast Range during the late 1700s and early 1800s. It then describes the principal burning practices these people used to create landscape-scale patterns across the Range and provides maps, figures, and tables of those patterns.
A. Historical Indian Nations: Background
Indians living in the Oregon Coast Range prior to European-American contact essentially viewed the land and sea as their supermarket, hardware store, and pharmacy (Lake 2002). The area naturally offers many biologically diverse and productive habitats which people exploited to provide personal and social necessities. Every ecosystem and vegetative assemblage was likely used and managed in variable intensities over time (Pullen 1996; Boyd 1999).
In early historical time there were at least eight Indian nations in the Oregon Coast Range and at least 26 distinct tribes. Map 3.01 shows the location of Coast Range Indian tribes during that period of time, from the late 1700s to the 1840s (Zybach et al., 1995). National boundaries were determined by the observations of early journalists, riverine and ridgeline travel corridors, and current understanding of precontact language and cultural affiliations.
For determinations of language I have relied on Ruby and Brown (1986) and Volume 7 of the Smithsonian's Handbook of North American Indians (Krauss 1990; Miller and Seaburg 1990; Seaburg and Miller 1990; Silverstein 1990; Zenk 1990a, 1990b, 1990c). The Smithsonian publications are probably somewhat more authoritative, but the Ruby and Brown book often provides additional insights and both use a common set of references. Both authorities are in general agreement as to the languages used by Oregon Coast Range Indians, with one notable exception: Ruby and Brown consider all coastal languages south of the Siletz to be of a single stock, Yakonan (1986: 4, 79, 97, 130, 206, 275); whereas Zenk (1990b: 568, 1990c: 572) lists Alsean, Siuslawan, and Coosan. In this instance, I decided to take a middle route--two languages: Yakonan (for the Yakona, Alsi, Siuslaw and Kelawatset tribes) and Kusan (for the Hanis and Miluk tribes). This intermediate position is consistent with current perceptions by modern tribal leaders (Whereat 2003: personal communication; Kentta 2003: personal communication).
Whenever possible, I tried to use the earliest commonly used spellings for individual tribes. Newer spellings and designations are generally less accurate phonetically (e.g., Atfalatl vs. Tualatin; Yamel vs. Yamhill; Killamox vs. Tillamook) and potentially confusing when using modern spellings of rivers (e.g., Marys River Indians vs. Chepanafa; Salmon River Indians vs. Nechesne; Upper Coquille Indians vs. Mishikwutetunne). Earlier spellings also help keep references clear as to time and possible pronunciation.
Map 3.01 Oregon Coast Range tribes and nations, ca. 1770.
Table 3.01 Oregon Coast Range tribes, rivers, and counties, 1770-1893.
|
Tribe |
Language |
River |
City |
County |
|
Northern |
|
|
|
|
|
Clowewallah |
Chinookan |
Willamette |
Oregon City |
Clackamas |
|
Multnomah |
Chinookan |
Willamette |
Portland |
Multnomah |
|
Skilloot |
Chinookan |
Columbia |
Ranier |
Columbia |
|
Kathlamet |
Chinookan |
Columbia |
Knappa |
Clatsop |
|
Clatsop |
Chinookan |
Youngs |
Astoria |
Clatsop |
|
Klaskani |
Athapaskan |
Clatskanie |
Clatskanie |
Columbia |
|
Nehalem |
Salish |
Nehalem |
Nehalem |
Tillamook |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eastern |
|
|
|
|
|
Atfalatl |
Kalapuyan |
Tualatin |
Tualatin |
Washington |
|
Yamel |
Kalapuyan |
Yamhill |
Yamhill |
Yamhill |
|
Luckiamute |
Kalapuyan |
Luckiamute |
Dallas |
Polk |
|
Chepenafa |
Kalapuyan |
Marys |
Corvallis |
Benton |
|
Chelamela |
Kalapuyan |
Long Tom |
Monroe |
Benton |
|
Calapooia |
Kalapuyan |
Willamette |
Eugene |
Lane |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Western |
|
|
|
|
|
Killamox |
Salish |
Tillamook |
Tillamook |
Tillamook |
|
Nestucca |
Salish |
Nestucca |
Pacific City |
Tillamook |
|
Nechesne |
Salish |
Salmon |
Rose Lodge |
Lincoln |
|
Siletz |
Salish |
Siletz |
Siletz |
Lincoln |
|
Yakona |
Yakonan |
Yaquina |
Newport |
Lincoln |
|
Alsi |
Yakonan |
Alsea |
Waldport |
Lincoln |
|
Siuslaw |
Yakonan |
Siuslaw |
Florence |
Lane |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southern |
|
|
|
|
|
Ayankeld |
Kalapuyan |
Umpqua |
Yoncalla |
Douglas |
|
Kelawatset |
Kusan |
Umpqua |
Reedsport |
Douglas |
|
Hanis |
Kusan |
Coos |
Coos Bay |
Coos |
|
Miluk |
Kusan |
Coquille |
Bandon |
Coos |
|
Mishikwutmetunne |
Athapaskan |
Coquille |
Coquille |
Coos |
Table 3.01 lists the tribal groups shown on Map 3.01 and puts them into context with current river names, counties, and cities. Note the close correlation between modern river names and precontact tribes (also see Appendix B). Fig. 3.01 shows a selection of tribal members as depicted by a variety of photographers and artists in early historical time. The upper left photograph is of two Salish women, possibly Killamox, on a "trading trip" (Sauter and Johnson 1974: 29). The upper right drawing is of a Chinookan woman and her child. The drawing is thought to be made from a sketch by George Catlin and to depict a likely "superfluity of tattoos (Ruby and Brown 1988: 80). Note the flattened head of the woman, denoting "royalty" or upper caste, and the device used to create a similar effect on the child. This was a common practice among Chinookan people and certain adjacent tribes and gave rise to the general name of "flatheads" applied to several regional tribes and nations by early trappers and explorers (Carey 1971: 12). The lower left hand corner shows a family of Yakona Indians, near present-day Newport (Nash 1976: 150). This picture was drawn shortly after the Yaquina River basin had been withdrawn from the Coast Range Reservation and opened to white settlement. Note the postcontact dresses, pants, and shirt combined with traditional feather headdresses, tattoos and necklaces. It is thought that the modern clothing was inspired by early missionaries, who wanted local Indians to dress in a "more modest" fashion than provided by traditional clothing (Kentta 2003: personal communication). The lower right hand drawing was made of a Kalapuyan man, possibly of the Chelamela tribe, made in 1841 by Alfred Agate, a member of the Wilkes Expedition, near present-day Monroe, in Benton County (Wilkes 1845). Note the bare hills and isolated Douglas-fir trees in the background, the forbs at his feet, and the sealskin quiver; a sign of trade or other contact with adjacent tribes.
Fig. 3.01 Native people of the Oregon Coast Range.
Wilkes (1845) described the occasion of the latter drawing with this account:
Some wandering Callapuyas came to the camp, who proved to be acquaintances of WarfieldÕs wife: they were very poorly provided with necessaries. Mr. Agate took a characteristic drawing of one of the old men.
These Indians were known to many of the hunters, who manifested much pleasure at meeting with their old acquaintances, each vying with the other in affording them and their wives entertainment by sharing part of their provisions with them. This hospitality showed them in a pleasing light, and proved that both parties felt the utmost good-will towards each other. The Indians were for the most part clothed in deer-skins, with fox-skin caps, or cast-off clothing of the whites; their arms, except in the case of three or four, who had rifles, were bows and arrows, similar to those I have described as used at the north; their arrows were carried in a quiver made of seal-skin, which was suspended over the shoulders.
Large wood products. Precontact Indian people used large wood products throughout the Coast Range over long periods of time. Fig. 3.02 shows two principal uses of logs and planks by a variety of tribes. The two upper pictures show a photograph of a plank house near the mouth of the Umpqua River taken in the 1850s (CITE); the drawing is of a similarly styled home, possibly Kusan, from the same time period (CITE). The lower right picture shows another 1841 drawing by Agate (Oregon Historical Society negative # 4465) of the interior of a Chinookan lodge. Consider the amount of firewood needed to heat structures of this size. Also, the amount of lumber for construction and maintenance:
A single large house may have required as much as 70,000 board feet of lumber: One such structure near Portland, Oregon, was used continuously for 400 years and would have required between 500,000 and 1 million board feet of lumber during that period for maintenance and repair. And that is just one house, 55 feet wide and 120 feet long, home to forty-five to sixty people. (Suttles and Ames 1997: 273).
Fig. 3.02 Large wood products, Oregon Coast Range, 1788-1860.
The ocean going canoe in the lower left hand corner of Fig. 3.02 is typical of a type used by Salish people to travel and trade along the coastline (Sauter and Johnson 1974: 109). Such a canoe could easily hold more than twenty people, hundreds of pounds of seal, fish, or kelp, and facilitate the widespread trade of foods, baskets, slaves, or other items of common value. One of the earliest accounts of these canoes is by Haswell, off the mouth Tillamook Bay, in 1788 (Elliot 1928): "at this time we discovered a canoe with ten natives of the country paddling towards us on there nigh approach they made very expressive seigns of friendship."
On January 20, 1806, Clark described this type of canoe in detail (Sauter and Johnson 1974: 108-111):
The . . . largest species of canoe we did not meet until we reached tide-water, near the grand rapids below, in which place they are found among all the nations, especially the Killamucks and others residing on the seacoast. They are upward of 50 feet long, and will carry from 8,000 to 10,000 pounds' weight, or from 20 to 30 persons. Like all the canoes we have mentioned, they are cut out of a single trunk of a tree, which is generally white cedar, though the fir is sometimes used . . . In this way they ride with perfect safety the highest waves, and venture without the least concern in seas where other boats or seamen could not live an instant . . . In the management of these canoes the women are equally expert with the men.
Disease. A common tragedy among all of the Coast Range nations was the decimation of nearly all communities and families via diseases introduced by European, African, and American explorers and fur traders, beginning in the 1770s, and perhaps dating to much earlier times. Haswell, for example, made the following observations of people near the mouth of the Siletz and Salmon rivers in 1788 (Elliot 1926):
They were armed with bows and arrows they had allso spears but would part with none of them they had both Iron and stone knives which they allways kept in there hands uplifted in readiness to strike we admitted one of them onboard but he would not come without this weepen two or three of our visitors were much pitted with the small pox.
Haswell's observations were confirmed by Clark, who also extended the wide-ranging effects of the ca. 1770s smallpox epidemic, when he made the following observations near the mouth of the Willamette River in 1806:
I observed the wreck of 5 house remaining of a very large village, the houses of which had been built in the form of those we first saw at the long narrows of the E-lute Nation with whome those people are connected. I endeavored to obtain from those people of the situation of their nation, if scattered or what had become of the nativs who must have peopled this great town. an old man who appeared of some note among them and father to my guide brought forward a woman who was badly marked with the Small Pox and made signs that they all died with the disorder which marked her face, and which she was verry near dieing with when a girl. from the age of this woman this Disruptive disorder I judge must have been about 28 or 30 years past, and about the time the Clatsops inform us that this disorder raged in their towns and distroyed their nation
Introduced diseases inflicted a heavy toll on the social organization and infrastructure of Indian land management practices, particularly burning and trading networks. Catastrophic diseases between 1770 and 1850 removed at least 80% of the Indian population (Boyd 1999a). Settlement of whites followed closely behind Indian depopulation. Many areas of the landscape once commonly under Indian management and burning transitioned into ÒwildernessÓ (Anderson 1996). As a result, specific vegetation assemblages: orchards of oaks, berry grounds, basketry and root gardens, and rangelands managed for hunting missed Indian burning return intervals and forestation of prairies, berry patches, brakes, and meadows went unchecked (see Appendix F). What many white settlers came to witness was a transitional landscape moving from intentional management to one more influenced by natural processes. Remnant populations of Indians focused what limited management practices they could in face of disease, genocide and forced removal off their land base on to reservations.
A chilling eyewitness account of the impact of diseases on the populations of Nechesne and Siletz peoples first described by Haswell (Elliot 1926) is given by Talbot (Haskins 1948) as he traveled along Siletz Bay and the Salmon River (along the same route that currently connects the Chinook Winds and Spirit Mountain casinos) in early September, 1849:
Recrossing the horses, we extricated ourselves from this marsh and traveled down the shore of the [Siletz] bay. It was about three and a half miles long - greatest width one mile. The opposite shore was almost concealed from view by the fog, but it seemed to be heavily timbered. . . It is the custom of the Indians in this country to deposit their dead in canoes, and there are a great number of them along the borders of the bay.
Early this morning an old Indian entered our camp. He had come in a canoe from some distance up the bay, his attention having been attracted by a large fire which we had built last evening on the southern point of the inlet. He said that himself and another man, with their families, were the only residents on this bay - the last lingering remnants of a large population which once dwelt upon these waters. . .
. . . bidding our final adieau to the ocean, we struck northeast, following a small trail (present-day Highway 18] which led us over rolling hills covered with grass and a high growth of fern. About a mile to our right lay a handsome little fresh-water lake [Devils Lake], and beyond rose a succession of ridges and tall forests. Having come three miles through the hills we descended into a fine bottom lying along the banks of a stream about fifty feet wide [Salmon River] . . . There are no Indians living here.
1) North: Chinookan, Athapaskan, and Salish
The northern Coast Range was inhabited by Chinookan people from Willamette Falls to the mouth of the Columbia River, represented by the Clatsop (Silverstein 1990: 533-546; Ruby and Brown 1986: 30-31), Kathlamet (Silverstein 1990: 533-546; Ruby and Brown 1986: 11-12), Skilloot (Silverstein 1990: 533-546; Ruby and Brown 1986: 208), Multnomah (Silverstein 1990: 533-546; Ruby and Brown 1986: 142), and
Clowwewalla (Silverstein 1990: 533-546; Ruby and Brown 1986: 31-32) tribes. The Salish Nehalem tribe (Seaburg and Miller 1990: 560-567; Ruby and Brown 1986: 240-243) lived along the seacoast, to the south of Tillamook Head, an historical boundary between them and the Clatsop. Klaskani (Kraus: 530-532; Ruby and Brown: 29) people largely occupied the forested Tualatin Hills that bordered the Columbia River and the headwaters of the Nehalem River, to the north of Willamette Valley Kalapuyans.
Some of the earliest and most detailed accounts of the Chinookans and their local landscape were by Lewis and Clark, during their travels of late 1805 and early 1806. Clark, for example, described a Skilloot town in this manner:
a Short distance below the last Island we landed at a village of 25 houses: 24 of those houses we[re] thached with Straw, and covered with bark, the other House is built of boards in the form of those above, except that it is above ground and about 50 feet in length (and covered with broad split boards) This village contains about 200 Men of the Skilloot nation I counted 52 canoes on the bank in front of this village maney of them verry large and raised in bow.
On November 11, 1805, he made these observations:
dureing the last tide the logs on which we lay was all on float, sent out Jo Fields to hunt, he Soon returned and informed us that the hills was So high & Steep, & thick with undergroth and fallen Timber that he could not get out any distance . . . those people left us and crossed the river (which is about 5 miles wide at this point) through the highest waves I ever Saw a Small vestles ride. Those Indians are certainly the best Canoe navigators I ever Saw.
The eastern slopes of the Coast Range were inhabited by Kalapuyan people, who maintained tens of thousands of contiguous oak savannah acres through the practice of annual broadcast burns (Boyd 1986; Gilsen 1989). As with other tribes of the Coast Range, most Kalapuyans lived in tribes closely associated with a particular river (see Table 3.01; Map 1.03). The Atfalati (Zenk 1990a: 547-553; Ruby and Brown 1986: 5-6) occupied the mouth and headwaters of the Tualatin River; the Yamel (Zenk 1990a: 547-553; Ruby and Brown 1986: 274-275) lived to their south; along the Yamhill River; the Luckiamute (Zenk 1990a: 547-553; Ruby and Brown 1986: 109-110) lived to the south of the Yamel, along the Luckiamute River, the Chepenafa (Zenk 1990a: 547-553; Ruby and Brown 1986: 18-19) lived along the Marys River, to the south of the Luckiamute, although they likely shared common grounds, such as Soap Creek Valley, tributary to the Luckiamute. The Chelamela (Zenk 1990a: 547-553; Ruby and Brown 1986: 17) resided along the Long Tom River to the south of the Chepanefa. The Calapooia (Zenk 1990a: 547-553; Ruby and Brown 1986: 10-11) were more wide-ranging than other Kalapuyans during early historical time and apparently occupied much of the woodlands along the headwaters of the Willamette, Long Tom, and Siuslaw rivers, and traveled southward into the Umpqua basin.
The western Coast Range was dominated by Salish and Yankonan speaking tribes (see Map 3.01 and Table 3.01). The Killamox (Seaburg and Miller 1990: 560-567; Ruby and Brown 1986: 240-243) lived in the vicinity of Tillamook Bay, to the south of the Nehalem and to the north of the Nestucca (Seaburg and Miller 1990: 560-567; Ruby and Brown 1986: 240-243), who lived between the Killamox and Cascade Head, in north Lincoln County, which separated them from the Nechesne (Seaburg and Miller 1990: 560-567; Ruby and Brown 1986: 240-243), also known as the Salmon River Indians. To the south of the Nechesne were the Siletz (Seaburg and Miller 1990: 560-567; Ruby and Brown 1986: 202), who lived along Siletz Bay and extended southward as far as Yaquina Head, to the north of Yaquina Bay. All four tribes spoke Salish, the southernmost group of people to use this language.
To the south of Yaquina Head, and extending southward to Tenmile Lake between the Umpqua and Coos rivers, were the Yakonan speakers. The Yakona (Zenk 1990b: 568-571; Ruby and Brown 1986: 275-276) lived along the Yaquina River, the Alsi (Zenk 1990b: 568-571; Ruby and Brown 1986: 4-5) along the Alsea River, and the Siuslaw (Zenk 1990c: 572-579; Ruby and Brown 1986: 206-207). Haswell (1928) was the first to note differences in the Yakona and Salish people, when he observed in 1788:
The long boat in the evening returned alongside they had seen nothing remarkable except vast numbers of the [probably Alsi] natives they appeared to be a very hostile and warlike people they ran along shore waving white skins these are the skins of moose deer three or four thicknesses compleatly tanned and not penetrable by arrows these are there war armour they would some times make fast there bows and quivers of arrows to there spears of considerable length and shake them at us with an air of defyence every jesture they accompaneyed with hideous shouting
The following day Haswell sailed further north with his ship, where they encountered an entirely different response:
Made sail along shore at 11 A M there came alongside two Indians [likely Nechesne or Siletz] in a small canoe very differently formed from those we had seen to the southward it was very sharp at the head and stern and Extrememly well built to paddle fast they came very cautiously toward us nor would they come within pistol shot untill one of them a very fine lookÕg fellow had delivered a long oration accompaneying it with actions and jestures that would have graced a European oritor the subject of his discorse was designed to inform us they had plenty of Fish & fresh water on shore at there habitations which they seemed to wish us to go and partake of . . .
One line of speculation is that the Alsi people had already been subjected to European diseases and had determined the source of their problem as having arrived by sea, in the same manner and from the same direction as Haswell and his shipmates.
4) South: Kusan, Athapaskan, and Kalapuyan
The southern Coast Range was a mix of cultures, weather, and landscape patterns that reflected similarities to each of the other three subregions. The Kelawatset (Zenk 1990c: 572-579; Ruby and Brown 1986: 97-99) lived along the lower Umpqua River mainstem, and were the southernmost speakers of the Yakonan language. Their territory extended south to Tenmile Lake, which the Hanis (Zenk 1990c: 572-579; Ruby and Brown 1986: 79-81) are said to have claimed for the Wappato that grew there. They also lived along the Millicoma River, although it was named for the Miluk tribe (Zenk 1990c: 572-579; Ruby and Brown 1986: 130-133), whose territory included land south of Coos Bay to the mouth of the Coquille River, and then inland, to the present-day site of Myrtle Point. Both Hanis and Miluk spoke Kusan, although the Miluk are thought to have been largely bilingual; bordered on the north by the Hanis, and to the east and south by the Mishikwutetunne (Miller and Seaburg 1990: 580-588; Ruby and Brown 1986: 64-66) and other Athapaskan speaking tribes.
To the east of the Yakonan and Kusan people were the southernmost tribe of Kalapuyans, the Ayankeld (Zenk 1990a: 547-553; Ruby and Brown 1986: 276-277), who lived near present-day Yoncalla, south to present-day Roseburg or Winston. These people maintained the central Umpqua Valley in nearly the same manner that other Kalapuyan tribes maintained the Willamette Valley: that is, they used fire annually to broadcast burn great expanses of oak savannah and grasslands. A key difference with the Willamette Valley people is that the climate was drier, so grass and ferns grew less profusely and acorns were harvested from mostly black oak and tanoak, rather than white oak.
Fire was one of the most energetically efficient tools available to manipulate local ecosystems to produce or induce ecological qualities and derive socially desired products from the land (Kimmerer and Lake 2002). Through time, observations of natural processes, and experience, people learned to use fire to maintain areas of biological diversity and enhance the productive capabilities of the land (Anderson 1999; Turner 1991). As a result, they were able to consistently obtain a wide variety of foods, construction materials, medicines, and other products from known locations during certain seasons throughout the year. Such practices also reduced the likelihood of wildfire, and ensured personal and community safety when such events did occur (G. Williams 2000).
Indian burning patterns, by definition, are caused by people, and are the result of purposeful actions. Occasional fire escapements were probably a significant part of the landscape pattern created by daily firewood storage and use, situational patch burning, and seasonal broadcast burning. Trails would have been regularly cleared by fire and routinely harvested for firewood along their routes. The same would likely have been true of canoe routes, at least seasonally, along stretches of most low gradient streams and rivers throughout the Range.
The use of fire in the landscape varied from culture to culture over time, and according to circumstance. Differing climates, topographies, and plant assemblages led to--and resulted from--such differences throughout the region (Boyd 1999). All tribal groups used firewood, wove baskets, or manipulated vegetation that affected fuel structure and composition. Indian people managed oak savannas for acorns, and prairies primarily for seed, camas or other bulbs, or roots crops (Norton 1979). Indians on the coast used fire along coastal headlands affecting the production of berries, ferns, and facilitated more open wildlife habitat (Pullen 1996). Local knowledge of fire and fire's effects on different ecosystems increased predictability and certainty of such seasonally available resources (Turner 1991). Increased diversity, predictability, and certainty resulted in improved individual quality of life and social security for local communities (Anderson 1996).
Table 3.02 (Zybach and Lake 2003) describes three major types of Indian burning practices that affected landscape patterns of vegetation and provided definition to local wildlife habitat conditions: firewood gathering and burning, patch burning, and broadcast burning.
Table 3.02 Oregon Coast Range Indian burning practices, pre-1849 .
|
Type of burning |
Products and purposes |
Timing |
|
Firewood gathering and burning |
1-2 purposes: heat, light, cooking, boiling, cleaning, fuel stores, celebration, ceremony, security. |
Daily: concentrated near homes, trails, settlements and campgrounds. |
|
Patch burning |
1-2 purposes: hunting, berry patch maintenance, root fields harvesting, pest control, weaving materials, trail maintenance. |
Seasonal and situational. |
|
Broadcast burning |
Multiple purposes: stable wildlife habitat; curing seeds; hunting; viewing; transportation; weaving materials; acorn harvest. |
Seasonal: late summer, early fall for grasslands; late winter, early spring for brackenfern. |
Firewood gathering and burning involves the movement of fuels to specific locations, resulting in areas containing relatively little (or stockpiled) large, woody debris and spots of repeated, intense, and prolonged heat. Patch burning is defined as having a specific purpose and involving fuels within a bounded area, such as burning an older huckleberry patch, maintaining a trail, or clearing a field of weeds. Broadcast burning is the practice of setting fire to the landscape for multiple purposes and with general boundaries, such as burning a prairie to cure tarweed seeds, eliminate Douglas-fir seedlings, expose reptiles and burrowing mammals, and harvest insects (Zybach and Lake 2003).
Firewood gathering and use was probably a daily process for most families, hunters, gatherers, and travelers for hundreds and thousands of years throughout the Coast Range. Principal locations were probably located along the shores of estuaries and at the mouths of major tributaries. Low gradient riverbank floodplains were also likely locations of homesites and campgrounds. Springs, peaks, waterfalls, meadows, berry patches, root fields, filbert orchards, oat fields, camas patches, pea fields, and other favored locations were also the likely sites of seasonal camping and food processing activities that required intensive, localized firewood gathering activities.
The likelihood of most bonfires, campfires, oven fires, and sweathouse fires resulting in wildfire events was probably very low. Fires left unattended for the purpose or desire of spreading were probably fairly common, but such fires were intended to spread when possible and cannot be considered escapements. The cumulative results of widespread and systematic firewood gathering over time undoubtedly had a major impact on the location, distribution, and quantity of fuels consumed during wildfire, field clearing, or crop management processes.
Daily and seasonal trail clearing activities, combined with seasonal and occasional and seasonal brush clearing, hunting, seed curing, sprout-inducing burns, made year-around open field burning a likelihood. Areas most likely to be burned in this manner included ridgeline trail segments, hilltop balds, brackenfern prairies, berry patches, filbert orchards, and other travel corridor segments or croplands. The escapement potential of such fires was probably moderate, depending on weather, the fuels being burned, and the condition of burn boundaries.
Many areas (specific habitats or patches) across the landscape within different ecosystems were nationally, family or individual owned. Ownership of productive areas across the landscape was viewed as a care-taking socio-ecological responsibility. Indians managed many of the most productive hunting and gathering areas with fire. Parcels of land that could provide productive, abundant, and predictable natural resources provided foods, medicines and material goods for Indian people. A productive and diverse landscape reflected a wealthy and healthy social community. Fire was a ubiquitous tool used by Indian people to perpetuate ecological goods and services necessary for survival (Kimmerer and Lake 2002).
Seasonal broadcast burning activities varied from firewood and patch burning actions in two important ways: fire boundaries were not so clearly defined, and there were multiple objectives for burning. Large grass or fern prairies and extensive oak savannahs were maintained by seasonal broadcast burns for a wide variety of purposes, including land clearing, hunting, seed processing, weeding, insect harvesting, and enjoyment. Escapement likelihood of these actions was, like patch burning, probably moderate. The application of broadcast burning by Indians was viewed essential to maintain diversity and productivity of the landscape. The scale of such broadcast burning varied but could result in much larger expanses of land base if climate or weather intensified fire behavior (Lake 2002).
The development and maintenance of transportation corridors, extensive oak savannahs, prairies, berry patches, filbert groves, camas fields, lawns, and balds by Indian burning practices also resulted in beneficial habitat to a number of plant and animal species, providing sunlight, abundant food, ready transportation corridors, and certain types of cover. During wildfire events, these areas were not prone to being burned, or burned at relatively low temperatures, and could also function as "refuges" for threatened wildlife species.
Table 3.03 lists a range of native plant environments encountered by GLO surveyors in Alsea Valley (see Appendix D) between 1853 and 1897 (see Table 2.02). These descriptions were included in a national set of GLO survey instructions used from 1851 until 1910, and so each surveyor had an identical range of choices to select from. A column titled "Burning" has been added, to provide an approximate idea as to how often--and what time of year--the landscape needed to be burned in order to remain free of tree growth.
Table 3.03 Native plant environments of "Alseya Valley", 1853-1897.
|
Name |
Years |
Townships |
Burning |
|
Belt |
1893 |
14-7 |
Rare |
|
Bottom |
1853-1893 |
13-7; 14-7; 14-8 |
Situational |
|
Brake |
1856-1897 |
13-7; 13-8; 14-7; 15-7 |
Spring |
|
Burn |
1853-1897 |
13-7; 13-8; 14-7; 14-8; 15-8 |
Fall |
|
Cluster |
1891 |
15-8 |