California Indians (not Mission Indians)

[Conquistador]

I am looking for American Indians figures for pre-1800 skirmishes between Spanish soldiers/colonists/Priests and non-Mission American Indians in a (today's terms) Central and Southern California setting.  I can find suitable plastic mission Indians for "rebellions." It's the non-mission Indians that I want a better idea of what to look for...

Are there reasonable substitutes for Chumash, Gabrielino, Salinian, or Yokuts Indians?  The sketches and museum recreations suggest simple loin cloths were summer wear so possibly ancient civilian figures might work???

Pictures

https://www.luciolepress.com/Chumash_Indian_Museum.html (scroll down a ways.)

http://foundsf.org/index.php?title=Category:Pre-1776 (mission "residents")

http://whenturtlesfly.blogspot.com/  (scroll down)

http://foundsf.org/index.php?title=First_Contact  (at the top - maybe ceremonial garb)

http://www.cabrillo.edu/~crsmith/anth6_prehist.html

https://eee.uci.edu/clients/tcthorne/anthro/missionlecture.htm

http://whenturtlesfly.blogspot.com/2010/04/books-about-california-indians-for.html

http://www.stocktongov.com/Redevelopment/WeberStSiteSignificance.cfm

Gracias,

Glenn

[cdm]

I was going to answer, but then got stuck on what miniature size you were referring to with the plastic mission indians, are they the 1/48 set or the 1/72 sets?

[Conquistador]

I am willing to make due with whatever figures will match up well (well, "best") with my 25/28 mm lead figures.

I am betting I may need to find ancient or barbarian figures and adapt them...

Gracias,

Glenn

[cdm]

28mm , cool, I expected that, but then remembered they did 1/72 as well

The Pegasus 1/48 California Mission Indians are generally too tall for 28mm figures. A number of items out of the set are useful, but at least half aren't, plus they are entirely civilian in scope. I bought them to go with my Aztecs, and was a bit disappointed. I'll put up photos of them with 28mm to compare the useful bits when I get a chance.

Loin cloth figures you seek generally come from the Aztec and Mayan ranges, the critical thing you are really looking for is hair style, which was different and significant for many tribes. I'm no expert on these particulars, but beware of later European images which were not aware of hairstyle variations. If you have early written sources, or images, excellent I've read some material of the early California Spanish conquest and exploration era, but don't recall much in terms of hair style mentions. Going from what I saw in the links, a mix of TAG, Foundry and Eureka *may* do particularly if hair style is not exact requirement. Outpost Wargames may also have suitable miniatures but I'm not too familiar with them.

Within these ranges, the Aztec figures likely to give you results are those described as unarmoured or novice, even though their hairstyles are without exception wrong for this rank of Aztecs, but more than likely great for you In Aztec terms rustic or rural Chichimecs are what you after, but I don't recall anyone making these specifically. If you're happy to go fully nude figures Tupi may also work. Refer Eureka, Copplestone and ?? ooo I can't remember the other one who does them.

When I get home I'll look through my collection and pull out suitable packs for you to look closer for on manufacturers websites. Eureka do not have their Mayans online, but my images here: http://chronofus.net/php/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=254 for the unarmoured ones may also be suitable depending on your hair style requirements. I'll admit to no knowledge of the hand weapons in California from memory, so you may need to re arm them with more suitable hand weapons. Some of Foundry's slingers would be good for a re arm.

While not a lot of mention is made in what I've read, accounts do speak of padded armoured horses in regions where the indians were expert archers. How late this extended I don't know, and if this was used further north, but certainly by 1523 they were in use specifically to protect the horses as the primary target.

I'll add more when I get home. I'm aware my informaiton is quite 'early' timewise for you but may be of use.

[Conquistador]

Very good starting information.  Actually, despite what some recent posts on nudity may incorrectly imply, I don't mind it when it was what the warriors/women/children historically wore back in the day.  It's modern day nudity where I find disagreement with some of my European counterparts.   

Yeah, early pictures/drawings that aren't modern interpretations in disguise are ideal.  Unconscious assumptions are so easy to fall into with people of other times/cultures.  Right now I wish my California History class in elementary school had spent as much time in pre-contact California history as an American History teacher in college spent exploring possible pre-Columbian contacts (Columbus appeared mid-quarter.)  It's embarrassing to be a multiple generation California "native" and realize how little (along with spelling and grammar) I was taught about my own state.

Gracias,

Glenn

[cdm]

These are the mission indians from Pegasus against a Foundry 'Aztec.' Foundry are about 26mm eye hight, TAG and Eureka 28mm. None fit the Pegasus figures well. Note also the Pegasus Spanish priest pack has 2 bow armed Indians. The kneeling ladies weaving, and the plough set would be more than fine. I also included a small table from the pack, and a papoose propped against the nearest leg. The Spanish Priest set, while lovely, are too large as well, but make great statuary Also good for LOTR mystic statues.

I poked through the 3 ranges I own, the Foundry unarmoured/novice warriors are your best bet with a more appropriate look. None of any range are what I'd call spot on. Unfortunately Foundry have no bows. The Eureka and TAG bows have the wrong hair, mostly bob or column style, and sadly the packs also have armoured and unarmoured together. TAG have the worst Aztec/Tlaxcallan pack mixes ever invented. A few of the unarmoured Eureka and TAG figures are almost passable except for the hair, but not as bad as the archers, which are more of what you'd want I would suggest. The Eureka Mayans seem better than the Aztecs for your purpose. I have poked through various American Indian ranges over time ll of which seem to be much later with guns and inappropriate clothing. I had hoped someone would make decent pre conquest ranges for the desert peoples but I haven't noticed any yet.

I checked the armoured conquistador horses re California and I would discount them now. Too far away and too late. However, the figures you choose, if used with Spanish conquistador figures, would be just as useable for the same premise you have but closer to Mexico in the period 1524-1540. There was significant uprising on a local scale against the Spanish to warrant the scenarios you envision to be applicable to central America as well.

[bc99]

I'm very interested in what you get for this project. I actually worked for State Parks/private CRM jobs in SLO County as an archaeologist and have worked numerous digs in SLO, Monterey, Santa Barbara counties dealing with the above tribes you mention. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with any miniatures that would be appropriate off the top of my head. Simple loincloth is appropriate, but consider that the majority of projectile points I've encountered are very small, most likely bow or (for much older and pre-contact), atl-atl dart tips. I'm not sure what you'd arm them with, besides bows.

Anyway, good luck and I look forward to seeing your finished results.

[cdm]

I had a read through the relevant section of the Alvarez expedition last night, and would lean to nude figures with bow for early remote tribes. I didn't see any mention of alternate weapons or a description of hair style or tattooing. There *may* be some body piercing but nothing you need worry about unless you are a super detailer in which case you should read Alvarez yourself to make up your own mind.

I'd be interested to see if any of your archaelogy was published bc99. Finer points may indicate bird arrows. I'm unclear of the atl atl being used in this area, mostly because it's outside my geographical interest, so I'm very curious of evidence of it's use, I had assumed it had not migrated so far north. I have some archaeology publications of digs from the Tarascans which I had assumed would be of limited value here, but maybe not?

[bc99]

Hey CDM,

I worked for a while with several published archaeologists, but as an undergrad I never actually got anything published (I don't think, I may have been mentioned in one of my profs. papers, who knows). I have completed several reports for cultural resource management firms, but that again doesn't count as an officially "published" academic work. Here are a couple of the sites I've worked on, complete with artifacts, etc.

http://cla.calpoly.edu/~tljones/CA-MNT-1748h.htm
http://cla.calpoly.edu/~tljones/CA-MNT-910.html

Atlatls were in California, but were used long before any contact with Europeans. They were replaced by the bow and arrow. The atlatl was fairly widespread throughout California, but I can honestly say I don't recall finding any of the atlatl "weights" in any of my excavations. Nor do I remember ever finding a "hook". I think that there was an atlatl hook found somewhere in Santa Barbara, but I can't remember. Here's a little blurb on California and atlatls.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/277746

I think basically I never worked any of the very old sites that would contain evidence of atlatls. One of the older sites in California, Cross Creek, is located in SLO County.

http://cla.calpoly.edu/~tljones/Print%20proof%20Jones%20et%20al-1.pdf

Take a look around page 13.

Hope that answers some questions you had. I'd be interested in learning what you have studied, especially as MesoAmerica was my area of interest (before having children and realizing I had to get a steady job, and all that).