Professor: There’s no proof California paid bounties for Native American scalps

CHICO — If you could have cornered Native Americans during the early decades of California’s existence as a state, you could have murdered your way to publicly funded riches — as much as $25 per scalp, head or other body part.

In fact, the state would have gladly paid this bounty to anyone willing to aid in an official effort to exterminate native populations as people of white European ancestry sought to settle the new state.

Sound far-fetched? It is, and Chico State history professor Mike Magliari can prove it, following substantial detective work on the topic. His essay, “The California Indian Scalp Bounty Myth: Evidence of Genocide or Just Faulty Scholarship?” appeared in the summer 2023 edition of California History, a publication of the University of California Press.

Magliari, along with fellow Chico State professor Mike Gillis, is an expert on early California history — especially as it pertains to John Bidwell and his establishment of what became the modern city of Chico. Magliari was dogged by the persistent claim that the state paid cash bounties on the scalps and heads of Native Americans during the Gold Rush and Civil War years.

The problem was, Magliari explained, there was no evidence to back up such a systematic attack on natives.

“I’ve always been curious about this,” he said Tuesday. “For years, I’ve seen it repeated by many people — politicians, journalists, political activists, anthropologists and others.

“They all said state paid cash bounties part of official state policy of genocide. The thing that always intrigued me was that nobody ever provides any sources or footnotes, documenting scalp or head bounties.”

In its abstract of Magliari’s article, UC Press says: “The state of California never offered, let alone actually paid, cash bounties for Native American scalps, heads, or other body parts. And, despite numerous similar claims to the contrary, neither did any county — nor, with one possible exception, did any incorporated town or city.”

Magliari said anyone who discusses the topic “always points to four instances of scalp bounties that were documented years ago.”

He was referring to California history experts and professors Robert Heizer and James Rawls, who discovered — during research in the 1970s and 1980s — four Native American scalp bounty offers made in local communities, including two in Tehama and Shasta counties. However, they weren’t bounties sponsored by the state or any county government.

“They were offered only in unincorporated, isolated, rural communities,” Magliari said.

“Somehow these four instances keep getting recycled. People get the idea these were common around the state. People have also said the state was doing this, or the California counties.”

A bounty of 25 cents in 1860 would be worth approximately $8 now. A $25 bounty in those days equals approximately $836 in today’s money — which would have, if it were true, clearly allowed a person to make a pretty nice living at eradicating native populations.

Magliari said it’s an idea with no foundation in fact.

“I’ve looked for a long time and I’ve found no new evidence, though in the article I mention that I’ve found some possible additions” of isolated instances, the professor said.

“I haven’t found any documentation that the state ever did this. It’s a popular myth that has grown over years through constant repetition. It has sort of evolved into popular fact.”

To make sure of an essay’s sound basis, an academic publication’s editor uses several layers of peer review before an article ever sees the light of day. Magliari explained the process.

“Once in a while, a journal will solicit an article from an academic, but usually, you’re doing research and you want to get that research published,” he said. “In the case of an article, you decide what journals are out there that would be interested in the topic you’re looking at. Then you submit it to editor for publication.

“If interested, the editor will send it out to 2-3 scholars who have expertise in the field the article covers. It’s an anonymous referee process. You don’t know who they are. Then, they send reports back to the editor, saying, ‘yes, publish’ or ‘no, reject’ — though often it’s in-between. They’ll say, ‘yes’ to publish ‘but with these changes,’ or, ‘here’s a source the author overlooked.’

“The process could take a year or more in a back-and-forth peer review.”