# The American Indian/Chapter 2

CHAPTER II
DOMESTICATION OF ANIMALS AND METHODS OF TRANSPORTATION
The domestication of animals and methods of transportation may be treated as a single division of our subject, because from the standpoint of Old World culture, one of these concepts calls the other promptly to mind, and even in aboriginal America there is found some relation between the two. The most common domesticated animals were the dog, the llama, and the related alpaca. There were no others. It is true that we have on record instances of individual animals of other species being tamed, but in no case were they propagated.
Of birds, we have the turkey of Mexico and of the Pueblo tribes of the United States. Lawson is responsible for the statement that in Carolina cranes were bred in captivity, while, according to Roger Williams, the Narragansett trained hawks to guard their fields. But all these are exceptional cases. Also, eagles and serpents were sometimes confined for ceremonial reasons, but not truly domesticated. The bee was domesticated in Mexico by the Aztec and the Maya, as is still the case among some groups of natives in Central America and northwest Brazil.
The dog appears in Paleolithic Europe in close association with the remains of man and was practically universal in aboriginal America. The history of its development and dispersion over the earth would in a large measure be the history of man’s cultural achievements. It is thus quite natural that we have a large body of literature on the dog. Unfortunately, this is largely speculative, whereas what we need for our discussion is actual investigation.
Fig 9. Distribution of Animal Transport
​varied greatly in size and form, from the small, pug-like type found in Peru and the hairless variety of the tropics, to the great hairy beasts reared in some parts of the Arctic. Since it is certain that all dogs will readily cross with wolves and foxes and yet tend to remain fertile, the preservation of these types must have required some selective breeding. The only definite study of native dog culture so far made is that of Wilson for the Hidatsa (Siouan) which reveals a complex not inferior to that for agriculture. The Peruvians are credited with three distinct varieties of dog, the contemporaneousness of which necessitates our assuming the existence of breeding control similar to that exercised by us. However, since the methods of propagation are unknown, except for a few northern localities, a comparative discussion of the subject is out of the question.
Dog transportation, on the other hand, has received careful consideration. The most striking characteristic is its limited distribution, for, notwithstanding that the dog occurs everywhere, its use in transportation is confined to the caribou and bison areas with very narrow fringes in those adjoining. Above the forest line dogs were made to draw sledges, a trait quite characteristic of the Eskimo, but found among the most northern Indians of Canada as well. These sledges have straight parallel runners and do not differ essentially from our own simple farm types. There are different methods of harnessing, but for the most part the dogs are hitched by long single traces and run somewhat fan-shaped with the leader at the apex. Excellent descriptions are given in Arctic books of travel.
In all the wooded parts of the caribou area a toboggan is used, the snow being rather too soft for sledges. This is also the great snowshoe area. While dogs were used to drag these toboggans, the hunters themselves not infrequently drew them. The early development of the Canadian fur trade by the Hudson's Bay and French companies greatly stimulated dog traction and greatly increased the use of sledges where ice conditions permitted. The former southern limits of the toboggan are not certainly known but it seemed to end with the ​Ojibway and Iroquois, though it may have been used along the upper Missouri.
In the spring and summer dogs were made to bear packs and drag tent poles. This method was more widely distributed than the use of sledges and toboggans, covering the entire caribou and bison areas and extending somewhat into the inland portion of the salmon area. In the bison area, particularly in the northern part, we find an original contrivance known to us as a travois. Though of two or three varieties, the essential structure is the same throughout—a V-shaped frame with an intervening section of net or wood upon which the load is placed. The structure suggests that this travois is merely a development of the pack and trailing tent poles, the more widely distributed method.
It may be worth noting that dog packing in particular is a concomitant of those hunting tribes following a regular migratory circle. The excursions of the Eskimo to the caribou ranges, the corresponding shifts of the Canadian Indians, and the bison-hunting expeditions of the Plains were in pre-Columbian days facilitated by pack trains of dogs. The intrusion of this method into the inland salmon area is consistent with the journeys then made to gather food, as we have stated. On the contrary, topographical conditions in California made large movements unnecessary, which may be one reason why dog packing was not adopted. The maize areas were more independent and had little use for this trait. So far as we know, dog transportation was not in vogue in the area of intensive maize culture. Mexico and the Pueblo area had no way of land transport except by human carriers, and it is not until Peru is reached that the use of the llama comes to notice. This small, camel-like animal has little more carrying power than a large dog, but is particularly well adapted to mountain travel. For the remainder of South America our information is vague, but so far there is no reason to believe that the dog or any other animal was used for transport.
Fig. 10. Eskimo Dog Sled
Fig. 11. Indians of the Bison Area on the March. Using the Dog Travois
​continuous from Scandinavia to Greenland, this assumption seems justified. Yet, the problem is far from simple. The situation in the Old World is complicated by the presence of horse culture which appears as an early development and by the domestication of the reindeer. Either or both could have greatly stimulated dog traction, but on the other hand, dog traction could have developed in America and spread into Siberia. That it came in with the earliest Asiatic settlers is improbable, since in that case, though not necessarily, we should expect to find it surviving in southern South America. It is also true that the method of hitching in America is different from that in Siberia and contiguous parts of Alaska, and that nothing like the travois is found there.
Returning to our subject, we see that the prevailing mode of land transport in the New World was by human carrier. The wheel was unknown in pre-Columbian times. The wild fauna afforded nothing like the horse and ox of the Old World. The caribou has been found far less suitable for domestication than the closely allied reindeer, and the bison has proved itself rather too strenuous. Yet, these are not sufficient excuses. The plain fact is that the tribes in contact with these animals were relatively primitive. It is fair to assume that if the bison and the caribou had been available to the Peruvians, the tale would be different.
Before the time of Columbus, no tribe had an animal able to carry a man. The dog packers walked in front of their trains, and even the Eskimo walked more than they rode. The coming of the Spaniards made quick changes. The mule and donkey were soon in general use in the area of intense maize culture, though they have not yet entirely displaced the llama in Peru. Wild cattle soon overran Texas and southern California and in the Pampas became almost as numerous as the bison in the North. Their presence greatly modified the food supply, but the most far-reaching change resulted from the spread of the horse.
By direct instruction or mere self-initiated imitation, the natives of the bison and guanaco areas acquired horse culture. Unfortunately, the history of this cultural acquisition is lost, ​but we know that the use of the horse spread much faster than exploration, so that in many cases our first actual view of a tribe is as a horse user. The bison in the North and the guanaco in the South, supplanted later by wild cattle, presented almost parallel environments. In Europe at the time of Columbus, the horse was used almost exclusively by soldiers and aristocrats as a riding animal, mules for packing and bearing the common folk, while carts and plows were drawn by oxen. This horse-riding complex was thus readily adaptable to the native culture of these two areas. At least they seem to have taken it over as a whole, for saddles and other riding appliances are of the same European patterns both south and north.
The important differences between the horse cultures of the two areas appear in the adaptations made to the original cultures. Thus, in the bison area the horse was also used with an enlarged dog travois and in some cases seems to have been so used before the art of riding was acquired. The native names of mysterious-dog, elk-dog, etc., indicate the apperceptive attitude in the northern continent. In South America there was nothing like this, but a unique weapon known as the bola was peculiarly adapted to mounted use. It is believed that this weapon soon entirely displaced the bow and quickly led to the invention of the lasso and its use by all Spanish ranchers north and south. In the bison area the bow was essential for killing buffalo even from horseback. In the Pampas a long lance became the other chief weapon, and though this and the lasso appeared among the Comanche on the southern borders of the bison area, they did not prevail among the other tribes of the North.
The use of the horse spread somewhat from these two continental centers. In the more open parts of the eastern maize area horses were common, but nowhere here except possibly in the Gulf States did they rise to a military level. In the greater part of California they were never used, but in some parts of the inland salmon area they rose to the importance attained in the bison area. The greater part of the caribou area was too cold for the horse.
​The military and commercial necessities of Peru were met by caravans of llamas but even then human carriers were in general use. How the large stones found in some of the ruins of that country were transported is not known, but it must have been by human traction alone. Northward from Ecuador to the Colorado River there is no evidence of anything but human carriage. Tribute was brought to Mexico City by brigades of carriers. Chairs and litters for the transportation of people were used throughout the area of intense culture, and to some extent in the Gulf regions of the United States. In all areas there were special appliances for holding the pack upon the back. While only the lightest loads were carried upon the head, in contrast to the African negro way, a widespread method was to support the pack by a strap over the forehead, one form of which is now known as a "tumpline." Perhaps the most unique appliance is the kia of the Pima tribes in Arizona. (Fig. 12.)
Before proceeding with our subject we may consider the extent to which animals were domesticated for food. The only place where a pastoral culture was noted is again in Peru. The Spaniards found the llama in great domesticated herds, sometimes reaching the thousands. In addition to their use in transportation, they were slaughtered for their flesh and sheared for their wool. The alpaca was also herded for its superior wool. The use of milk seems to have been unknown here as well as in other parts of the New World. In fact, the Indians as a whole seem to be as deeply prejudiced against milk as the Chinese, for it is with the greatest difficulty that our reservation tribes can be led to care for milk cows. The Spanish Americans seem to have been influenced by this also, for though great ranches were maintained it was seldom that a single animal was milked. This is still shown in our western states where cattle raising was derived from Mexico and gives us a fine illustration of culture diffusion.
Fig. 12. Various Methods of Using the Tumpline. Mason, 1896. I
​chiefly among the Siouan tribes. On the other hand, many tribes, even of the same stock, are as averse to its use as are the whites. Since here the local distribution of the custom is geographical and is associated to some extent with certain ceremonies, its occurrence may be sporadic, for the general tendency north of Mexico is to regard the dog as not proper food.
Turkeys were raised for their feathers and eggs by the Pueblo and Mexican peoples. According to some authorities the latter domesticated geese also. Turkeys were wild in some parts of South America in pre-Columbian times, but seem never to have been tamed. As to the tribes of the lower Mississippi, we cannot be certain for some of them got chickens so early that the first French settlers in Louisiana found them raised everywhere. They also had orchards of European fruits and raised hogs, while many others ran wild. The natives of Cuba, however, are credited with having domestic fowls and with stocking fish ponds when first discovered. The sheep, and to some extent the goat, was introduced into the great maize area and later developed the chief material characteristics of the Navajo tribe. The domestication of the bee for its honey has been noted above.
CANOES AND NAVIGATION
Fig. 13. Types of Canoes Used in the New World. a. The "Bull Boat," Bison Area; b. Eskimo Kayak; c. Eskimo Woman's Boat; d. Balsa, or Reed Boat; e. Birchbark Canoe; f. Fuegian Bark Canoe; g. North Pacific Coast Dug-Out; h. Amazon Dug-Out
​considered universal. Boats were made according to the materials at hand. In regions of large trees the dug-out was preferred, but in the far North, the extreme South and parts of the Amazon country and the lake region of North America, we find frame boats covered with skins or bark. The crudest are the bark boats of the Fuegians; the finest are the birchbark canoes of the Ojibway and the kayaks of the Eskimo. From Central California to Chile we have occasional occurrences of the balsa type, a raft-like structure of reeds.
If we except the Eskimo, row-locks were not used, the method of propulsion for small boats being to paddle first on one side and then on the other. The double paddle is found only among the Eskimo. (Yet it was reported by Frezier in 1717 as being used in the insular region of Chile with a boat combining some of the features of the balsa and the kayak.) Even the great dug-outs of the North Pacific Coast were propelled by paddles. The use of sails is somewhat in doubt, but it is asserted that the Spaniards found them in Peru with balsas large enough to carry fifty men. Sails are used on the North Pacific Coast, but whether known before the era of Russian trade is not clear. The Eskimo use both the row-lock and sails, but as these occur on the Siberian coast, they are most likely intrusive. From the same source may have come sails on the West coast. Large canoes are mentioned for the West Indies, but no sails are spoken of until later, so that we cannot be sure of their original use there.
The only boat with hull built up of planks was that of the now extinct Santa Barbara of California. Another unique form was the circular tub-like boat with a skin-covered frame, used to ford rivers in the widely separated bison and guanaco areas, and one on the lower Colorado River made of basketry, Spanish name coritas.
The two regions in which an approach was made to a seafaring culture were the North Pacific Coast and the Antilles. The great war dug-outs of the former with their carved prows remind one of old Norse models. The latter region was overrun in succession by two races of canoe men, both apparently war-like, the Arawak and the Carib. Of these only the ​latter have any just claim to long voyages. In summer, the use of boats by the Eskimo was a prominent feature, especially in Alaska, where voyages of trade to Siberia seem to have been made.
* ↑ Lawson, 1860. I; Mason, 1907. I.
* ↑ Wilson, G. L., 1917. I.
* ↑ Boas, 1888. I; Stefánsson, 1914. I.
* ↑ Maximilian, 1843. I.
* ↑ Stefánsson, 1914. I; Hearne, 1795. I.
* ↑ Wissler, 1910. I.
* ↑ Wissler, 1915. I.
* ↑ Russell, 1908. I.
* ↑ Laufer, 1914. I.
* ↑ Wissler, 1910. I.
* ↑ Swanton, 1911. I.
* ↑ Mason, 1901. I.; Friedrici, 1907. I.
* ↑ Ferzier, 1717. I, p.120.