UC Merced Journal of and Great Basin Anthropology

Title A Comment on "Puvunga and Point Conception: A Comparative Study of Indian Traditionalism," by Matthew A. Boxt and L. Mark Raab

Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5km0r634

Journal Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 22(1)

ISSN 0191-3557

Author Ruyle, Eugene E

Publication Date 2000-07-01

Peer reviewed

eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INDIAN TRADITIONALISM 77 term occupation of a place is a very valid enter­ formances, and Popular Entertainments, prise. My concem is whether a rigorous methodol­ Richard Bauman, ed., pp. 92-97. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ogy is employed in the research process—one that considers multiple lines of evidence and evaluates Vansina, Jan 1985 Oral Tradition as History. Madison: Uni­ altemative kiterpretations ki a crkical manner. In versity of Wisconsin Press. the long mn, no one is served by poor research Williamson, Ray A., and Clake R. Farrer (eds.) methods and weakly argued interpretations. The 1992 Earth and Sky: Visions of the Cosmos tme test of any kiterpretation is whether other schol­ in Native American Folklore. Albuquer­ ars, native peoples, and kiterested lay people sup­ que: University of New Press. port the conclusions based on the arguments and evidence presented. This is one reason why I think peer-reviewed research is so knportant today. Of course, interpretations are always subject to change with the addkion of new information. Ukknately, I think the jury on Puvunga is still out.

REFERENCES Bauman, Richard A Comment on "Puvunga and 1986 StOTy, Performance and Event: Contextual Point Conception: A Comparative Studies of Oral Narrative. Cambridge: Study of Southern California Cambridge University Press. Indian Traditionalism," by Cmikshank, Julie 1990 Life Lived Like a Story: Life Stories of Matthew A. Boxt and L. Mark Three Yukon Native Elders. In: Collabora­ Raab tion with Angela Sidney, Kitty Smith, and Annie Ned. Lincoln: University of Nebras­ ka Press. EUGENE E. RUYLE Dept. of Anthropology, California State Univ., Long Dundes, Alan Beach, 1250 Bellflower Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90840- 1980 Interpreting Folklwe. Bloomington: Indi­ 1003. ana University Press. Erdoes, Richard, and Alfonso Ortiz (eds.) THE centtal pokit of Boxt and Raab's article lies 1984 American Indian Myths and Legends. New ki thek assertion that "widely held understandkigs York: Pantheon Books. of Puvunga are aknost entkely a product of anthro­ Farris, Glenn J. pological scholarship. This fact is rarely acknowl­ 1989 Recognizing Indian Folk History as Real History: A Fort Ross Example. American edged" (p. 63). Th^ claim that the "exact location kidian Quarterly 13(4):471-480. of this community and its archaeological remains Fmnegan, Ruth were unknown untU J. P. Harrington announced his 1996 Oral Tradition. In: Encyclopedia of Cul­ discovery to the academic world 60 years ago: Pu­ tural Anthropology, Vol. 3, David Levki- vunga had been located" (p. 51). This is nonsense. son and Melvki Ember, eds., pp. 887-891. New York: Henry Hok and Company. BOXT AND RAAB IGNORE Haley, Brian D., and Larry R. Wilcoxon INDIAN ORAL TRADHIONS 1997 Anthropology and the Makkig of Chumash Tradkion. Current Anthropology 38(5): First of all, to the extent that Harrkigton "dis­ 761-794. covered" Puvunga, he did so by talking to Indians. Lummis, Tevor Boxt and Raab give no kidication that they did the 1992 Oral Ustory. hi: Folklore, Culttiral Per­ same. Boxt and Raab do thank thek Indian moni- 78 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY tors "for their interest in our work, as well as for Harrington so that thek fradkions would be written graciously sharing wkh us their perspectives re­ down and available when future generations of In­ garding Puvunga and Gabrielino identity" (p. 63), dians needed them. The Indians, ki other words, as if to imply that they actually discussed thek were using Harrington to ensure that thek fradi- views wkh living Indians. This is problematic. tions would not be lost. 1 spoke to Anthony Morales, Chief of the Gabri- eUno/Tongva Tribal Council, who was "deeply dis­ BOXT AND RAAB IGNORE LONG turbed" by the article and the knplication that he or BEACH'S EARLIEST HISTORIAN other members of the council were consuked in any The fact of the matter is that there has never way about Boxt and Raab's views on Puvunga and been any mystery about the location of Puvunga. It Gabrielkio identity. After reading the article, he de­ was common knowledge in Long Beach decades scribed k as a "bunch of hogwash" and "demeaning" before Harrkigton arrived. Before she died ki 1918, to Indians. He further stated that he was never inter­ Long Beach's fu-st historian, Jane Elizabeth Har­ viewed by either Boxt or Raab on his perspectives re- nett, wrote that gardkig Puvunga and Gabrielino identity. As far as Morales knows, neither Boxt nor Raab ever present­ [t]be Indians of San Juan Capisttano, accordkig to ed the views expressed in this article to the Tribal Father Boscana, "emigrated from a place called Council. Morales (personal communication, 1999) Sejat, distant northeast from the mission seven OT eight leagues, and in the midst of a valley, now expressed his view that this article is "just a continu­ known by the name of El Rancho de Los Nietos." ation of the Native American holocaust in modern "Originally," be says, "die mbabitants were numer­ times, based on the European mentality of trying to ous, but the success and influence of a holy con­ make the Native American extinct." quest gradually eradicated their attachment of Sejat and k finallybecam e subject to the spkitual as well Boxt and Raab fail to examine other sources as temporal administtation of the ecclesiastical which might indicate that Indian knowledge of Pu­ mission." Now k is very evident that in describkig vunga is derived from thek own oral traditions. the location of Sejat Father Boscana has made a They do not cite the ethnohistorical research com­ slight mistake, for, if it were on Rancho Los Nie­ tos, k must have beai nwdiwest of San Juan Capis­ missioned by California State University, Long ttano and not northeast, as he declares. Beach (CSULB) on Puvunga (Akschul 1994). This point is rather important because be de­ They do not consider the oral testimony given to scribes another Indian village, Pubuna, about CaUfomia's Native American Heritage Commission which center all the legends of the San Juan Indi­ ans COTiceming the OTigino f thek god, Quaguar, as in public meetkigs on June 18 and December 3, being also "distant from San Juan Capisttano, 1993. (The American Anthropological Association northeast about 8 leagues." Now, Hugo Reid, has supported the Heritage Commission on Puvun­ writing 22 years later, tells us that at that tkne, ga; see Overbey [1994].) They do not consider the there still existed on Rancho Los Alamitos (one of the subdivisions of ), an Indian sworn testimony provided by over a dozen Indian rancheria named Pubugna. plaintiffs ki the Puvunga lawsuk. (The case has In view, first, of Father Boscana's manifest twice been appealed to the Califomia Supreme errw in statuig the dkection of Sejat; second, of the Coiut, which supported the Indians, not the Univer­ fact that Randio Los Nietos was distant about eight leagues northwest from San Juan; and, last, of the sity; seeRuyle [1995a]; Skomal [1997].) great sknilarity of the names Pubugna and Pubuna, If Boxt and Raab had discussed thek views with k seems reasonable to believe that the two (Reid's living Indians, they may have heard what I heard Pubugna and Boscana's Pubuna) are identical, in which case we may claim for this vicinity the most from Chumash friends. In discusskig Haley and into-estkig of all the rancherias between the moun­ Wilcoxon's (1997) article on Point Conception, I tains and the sea. Whether this rancheria can be was told that the Indian elders decided to talk to identified with the undoubted ttaces of an Indian SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INDIAN TRADITIONALISM 79

village at the head of Alamitos Bay, is, of course, northwest of San Juan Capistrano, not northeast as quite another matter. At present, we have no Boscana wrote) decades before Harrington offered means of knowing whether this village was one which had existed during the Spanish period, or what Boxt and Raab describe (p. 53) as his "some­ whether it was one of those many more ancient what convoluted refutation of Boscana's direc­ sites which seem to have been abandoned many tions." It is amuskig that Boxt and Raab make an years, perhaps centuries, before the Spanish came. The finding of pestles of a type not used by error sknilar to Boscana's in their discussion of the Indians of the later days would seem to point to CSULB campus. They write with misleading pre­ the latter conclusion. So far, too, nothing of cision that "The 319-acre (127.6-ha.) campus of undoubted later OTigin,suc h as bits of cloth, beads CSULB is situated less than one-half mile (0.81 or iron, which would go to show that the site was occupied in Spanish days, has been discovered. km.) east of the park [Rancho Los Alamkos The wdiole of Rancho Los Alamitos has proved so Historic Ranch and Gardens-EER] ki the Los Akos rich in Indian relics that some other location on community of the city of Long Beach, Los Angeles the ranch may easily have been the site of County, about 20 miles (32.6 km.) southeast of Pubugna. Then too, by the time at which Reid wrote, the Indians bad adopted the Spanish downtown Los Angeles" (pp. 46-47). custom of giving a single name to a whole ttact of A glance at Boxt and Raab's Figure 2 will show land on which there might be several villages. that the CSULB campus is located to the west, not Pubugna, a name which undoubtedly designated originally a single rancheria, was, in Reid's time, east, of Rancho Los Alamitos. Further, a call to any used to denote all the Indian settlements on the realtor would confirm that the campus is not in Los Alamitos Ranch [Case 1927:26-27]. Altos but just south of it. (The real estate map of Long Beach shows the campus to be in College So, we have Reid in the 1850s (Heizer 1968), Park. To the extent that there is a boundary, k runs Hamett sometime before 1918 (see Case 1927), along Atherton Street on the northern edge of cam­ Kroeber (1925); Harrkigton (1933), Dixon(1973), pus.) and Scientific Resource Surveys (1980)—all pokit- So here we have two Ph.D.s in anthropology, ing to the vickiity around the CSULB campus and presumably with graduate fraining in map reading the present Rancho Los Alamitos as the location of and site location, who are unable to give the proper Puvunga. This view is found not only ki anthro­ location of the university that employed them. It is pological sources (Kroeber 1925; Bean and Vane not surprising that they are confused about Pu­ 1978), but also in standard histories of Long Beach vunga. and the surrounding area (Quinn 1973; Meyer and Kalayjian 1983; Queenan 1986; DeAtley 1988), his­ BOXT AND RAAB tories of Los Alamitos (Robinson 1966; Salzer MISREPRESENT HISTORY 1974), general books on the Gabrielino (Johnston OF THE PUVUNGA STRUGGLE 1962), as well as the recent authoritative work by McCawley(1996). Boxt and Raab claim that "Over a span of the Clearly, anthropologists have played a role in last 25 years, then, a host of events materially af­ the preservation of Indian fradkions, and quite ap­ fected sites CA-LAN-234 and -235. What is re­ propriately so. To discuss this role without also ex­ markable in refrospect is that there is no record that amining Indian oral ttadkions and the wrkings of these activkies were met with resistance or com- historians does a disservice to anthropology. plakit fromIndians , anthropologists, or the public" (p. 49). Apparently Boxt and Raab are relykig on BOXT AND RAAB'S ERROR IN THE what they were told by campus officials, for they LOCATION OF CSULB CAMPUS fail to cite any of the published material on the Pu­ Hamett (see Case 1927) corrected Boscana's vunga stmggle in anthropological sources (Overbey "manifest error" ki the location of Puvunga (k is 1994; Ruyle 1994a; Ruyle 1995b; Skomal 1997). 80 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

They fail to cite any of the over 150 news articles for youngsters (including my two sons). Neither of on the subject. They apparently have not viewed the these uses conflicted with the spirituality of the land hour-long video "Sacred Lands, White Man's cherished by Native Americans. Laws" on the Puvunga struggle (Dodds and Gray The situation changed when campus officials an­ 1994). They have not kiterviewed any of the Indian nounced thek plans to build a strip mall on the site. plaintiffs ki the Puvunga lawsuk. They have not In December 1992, campus officials filed a false and discussed this article wkh me or Keith Dixon or, as misleadkig negative declaration stating that "No cul­ fer as I know, anyone else crkical of campus devel­ tural resources are known to exist on site." This opment plans. They have not requested copies of evoked a storm of protests from Indians, state offi­ the papers on the Puvunga stmggle that I have given cials, archaeologists, gardeners, students, and resi­ at professional meetings (Ruyle 1994b, 1995b, dents. 1995c, 1995d, 1996a, 1996b, 1999). In response, campus officials brought ki the The movement to save Puvunga goes back to confract archaeologist they had anployed earlier. In the 1970s, when Indian students at CSULB suc­ a stormy confrontation with campus officials and cessfully mobiUzed for the reburial of the Indian re- this archaeologist on February 28, 1993, a group of makis that had been found on campus ki 1972. The about 40 Indians (including veterans of the earlier land was placed on the National Register of Histor­ stmggle at Puvunga as weU as at Point Conception) ic Places in 1974. The university accepted this and demanded that Puvunga be preserved. They further modified ks development plans accordingly. The kisisted that the archaeologist be removed because president's residence that had been planned for con- of her "long past history of desfroykig sacred land stmction on CA-LAN-234 was deleted in 1976, and that all Native Americans cherish." Thus, k was student houskig that had been planned for constmc- only after campus officials decided to build a sfrip tion on CA-LAN-235 was deleted ki 1978. Public mall on CA-LAN-235 and were frustrated in thek records in the CSU Chancellor's Office clearly attempt to conceal its National Register status that show that these changes were made because the they hked Boxt and Raab for a "cultural review." sites were "registered in the National Register of Historic Places" and the "purpose of registration is BOXT AND RAAB MISREPRESENT to protect sites" (Board of Tmstees 1976, 1978). THEIR WORK AT CSULB The Indian remakis uncovered ki 1972 were Here again, Boxt and Raab misrepresent the sit­ reburied ki 1979, and the sign identifykig the area uation, clakning that "CSULB became the focal as Puvunga was also put up at that time. The stu­ point of protests and legal challenges by Indians, dents were promised that the entke area would be anthropologists, and others after university officials preserved because k was on the National Register. announced a feasibiUty study to develop portions of Campus officials have denied that any such promise campus terrain" (p. 45). The purpose of the "cul­ was made, but thek own files support the Indians tural review" by Boxt and Raab was clearly stated on this issue. Thus, this was not undeveloped land by CSULB Interkn President Karl Anatol: that happened to be on the National Register of His­ toric Places; k was undeveloped because k was on Unconvinced that Puvungna really lies under the the National Register and because Indians had Gardens, Anatol hopes results of the archaeological survey will allow CSULB to continue with plans to fought to preserve it. develop 22 acres of land If Puvungna is indeed For a dozen years, Indians were able to visk the discovered under the site, Anatol said, "obviously site in peace for prayer and meditation. They did not the univo-sity will have to change its plans—not out­ right, not totally. There are ways to deal with the object to the land being used for organic gardetung, recognitioi of sites that still allow agencies and con- nor did they object to its use as a summer day camp cems to carry on with their projects" [Cox 1993:1 ]. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INDIAN TRADITIONALISM 81

As archaeologist Chester King, a veteran of the excavated by Boxt in the spring of 1993. As kidi- Pokit Conception struggle, observed, "They're try­ cated above, Boxt's report on this site is not avail­ ing to use archaeology as a smoke screen to destroy able, but a reporter for the campus newspaper gave the site. I thkik everybody knows that and is seekig me a one-page typewritten statement written by that, and the University is still trykig the same Boxt. This stated in part: game. I'm tired ofit." (Dodds and Gray 1994). Excavations produced hundreds of shell beads, In stating that "Owkig to heightened concerns dozens of pieces of earthenware pottery, deer bone about CA-LAN-235, this site was not included in tools used to make projectile points, projectile these studies" (p. 50), Boxt and Raab knply that points, cores that generated chipped stone tools, Boxt's archaeological digs on campus did not ki- litbic waste flakes, and hundred of pounds of shell debris suggest that small bands of people utilized clude the National Register site out of some kind of this site at certain seasons over a period of three or senskivity to Indian concerns. In fact, CA-LAN- four hundred years. Radiocarbon dates confirm 235 was not included ki Boxt's studies because an­ this assertion. Dates of T.S.N. 2 range from 1500 other archaeologist was hked to do the job. Al­ A.D. to 1850 A.D. The presence of steatke indi­ cates ttade with either Santa Catalma Island or Si­ though Interim President Anatol had pronused that erra Pelona near Palmdale. The presence of manos, the cultural review would be conducted with "the mortars, and pestles indicates that the site's inhab­ greatest possible respect and senskivity to the kiter- itants processed seeds, acoms, and possibly small animals (rodents, etc.) for food [Boxt 1993]. ests of Native Americans," campus officials hked another firm for a massive backhoe excavation of During the 1993 excavation, a tooth from a human Puvunga: "A grid will... be placed over the entke infant was found, but not reported to the coroner's parcel, and 20-m long frenches will be excavated office as requked by state law. It was only repafri- with a backhoe 20-m apart" (Altschul 1993:20). ated after the Native American Heritage Commis­ While these plans were being made, Indians sion notified the coroner's office of the find. were holdkig a round-the-clock vigil at Puvunga to Following Boxt and Raab's convoluted argu­ protect the site, and the Native American Heritage ment ("the older an archaeological site is, the less Commission wrote to the university recommending likely k is to be connected with the Chingchinich "complete avoidance of the site as the appropriate tradkion"), the site would seem to be a candidate and only accq)table mitigation measure." (See fur­ for the historic Puvunga. A detailed discussion of ther discussion ki my comments on Haley and Wil­ Boxt's findings here would certainly be appropri­ coxon's [1997] paper on Point Conception [Ruyle ate. Why is this site not discussed? 1998]). Boxt and Raab do eke Boxt's reports on BOXT AND RAAB MISREPRESENT his archaeological digs on campus, but this is prob­ lematic as these reports are not available for inde­ INDIAN BURIAL pendent review. Campus officials have repeatedly Boxt and Raab assert that the identification of refused to release these documents, ckkig "verbal the Indian remakis discovered at CA-LAN-235 ki mstmctions" from university lawyers. Further, al­ 1972 is based solely on "a two-page report" at though Boxt and Raab base thek ideas on the Haley UCLA. This is what Raab clakned ki his court and Wilcoxon (1997) article, they fail to mention deposkion ki the fall of 1993. Raab's error was the storm of criticism which that article evoked pokited out by Keith Dixon at the December 1993 from the Chumash (Bums 1997) or the anthropo­ meetkig of the Native American Heritage Commis­ logical commuiuty (see the various comments in sion ki Long Beach. In fact, the definitive identifi­ Current Anthropology 39[4], 1998). cation was made ki 1979 by Judy Suchey, the fo­ It is not clear why Boxt and Raab fail to dis­ rensic anthropologist employed by the Los Angeles cuss a very significant ske on the CSULB campus County Coroner, and reported ki a letter to campus 82 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

President Steve Horn. This was covered in the Pu­ the Gabrielino of Puvunga and another god, Chun­ vunga video (Dodds and Gray 1994) and I also gichnisb [Jacobs 1993:3]. quoted Suchey's letter in my response to Haley and REFERENCES Wilcoxon (1997) (Ruyle 1998). Yet Boxt and Raab Altschul, Jeffrey H. continue to insinuate that there is some question 1993 Technical Proposal. Phase Two Archaeo­ about the identification of the remains. logical Study. Califomia State University, Long Beach. Report on file at Statistical CONCLUDING REMARKS Research, Tucson, Arizona. The article by Boxt and Raab is a shoddy and Altschul, Jeffrey H. (comp.) 1994 Puvunga: A Reviewof the EthnobistOTic, irresponsible piece of work. It is unclear how an Archaeological, and Ethnographic Issues article so lacking in substance could be accepted by Surrounding a Gabrielino Rancheria Near an otherwise respectable journal. Unfortunately, Alamitos Bay, Los Angeles County, Cali­ space and time preclude a complete examination of fornia. Draft report on file at the South Centtal Coastal Information Center, Cali­ the errors, misrepresentations, and half-truths of the fomia State University, Fullerton. Boxt and Raab article. 1 hope that serious students Bean, Lowell John, and Sylvia Brakke Vane of the Puvunga sfruggle will consult the Puvunga 1978 Cults and Thek Transformations. In: Hand­ web site (access through my own web site: www. book of North American Indians, Vol. 8, csulb.edu/~emyle), where fuller crkicism of the arti­ Califomia, Robert F. Heizer, ed., pp. 662- 672. Wasbingtcxi: Smithsonian Institution. cle will be posted by the time k is in print. Board of Tmstees of the Califomia State University This paper should never have been accepted for 1976 Agenda of the Committee on Campus Plan­ pubUcation. The authors clearly lack the trairung in ning, Building and Grounds, September 21, social and cultural anthropology which might quali­ 1976. Document on filea t the Chancellor's fy them for a study of "Indian Tradkionalism." Office, the Califomia State University, Long Beach, Califomia. They do not employ such ttaditional anthropological methods as participant observation, collection of life 1978 Agaida of the Committee on Campus Plan­ ning, Building and Grounds, November 28, histories, or sttuctured interviews. Worse, they ig­ 1978. Document on filea t the Chancellor's nore completely what Malinowski described as the Office, the Califomia State University, "final goal, of which the Ethnographer should never Long Beach, Califomia. lose sight. This goal is, briefly, to grasp the native's Boxt, Matthew point of view, his relation to life, to realise his vi­ 1993 Untkled report on excavations at Califor­ nia State University, Long Beach. Docu­ sion of his world" (Malkiowski 1922:25, italics in ment in possession of the author. origkial). The native point of view on Puvunga has Bums, Melinda been well expressed by the Director of the CSULB 1997 Pokit of Contention. Santa Barbara News- American Indians Studies Program. Press, December 26, pp. Al, A14. . . . the site in question is sacred not because it Case, Walter H. may contain artifacts or remains of ancient Gab- 1927 History of Long Beach and Vicinity, In rielinos (simply removal and reburial of bones will Which is Incorporated the Early History not lessen the significance of the land), k is sacred Written by the Late Jane Elizabeth Hamett. to the Gabrielino because this campus sits on the Chicago: S. J. Clarke Publishkig Company. land on wliicb a new religion was bom in the per­ Cox, John son of Chungichnisb. This religion became the 1993 Anatol to Move Organic Garden. Daily center of the tribes' existence. Even though no 49er (CSULB newspaper), March 16, p. 1. one else can remember the sacredness of this land, DeAtley, Richard the Gabrielkio are bound up ki that history and are 1988 Long Beach, The Golden Shore: A History therefore called upon to remind us all that we are ofthe City and the Port. Houston: Pioneer walking on land that remembers another people. Publications, Inc. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INDIAN TRADITIONALISM 83

Dixon, Keith Queenan, Charles F. 1973 National Register of Historic Places Inven­ 1986 Long Beach and Los Angeles: A Tale of tory Nomkiation Form. Report on file at the Two Ports. Northridge, CA: Windsor Pub­ South Centtal Coastal Information Center, lications, Inc. University of Califomia, Los Angeles. Quinn, Charles Russell Dodds, J. Scott, and Lynne C. Gray 1973 History of Downey: The Life Story of a 1994 Sacred Lands, White Man's Law (video). Pioneer Community, and ofthe Man Who Minneapolis: Native American Television, Founded It—Califomia Govemor John Inc. Gately Downey—From Covered Wagon to Jacobs, Mary the Space Age. Downey, CA: Elena Qukin, 1993 Guest Columnist. Mukicultural News, News- Publisher. lettCT ofthe Mukicultural Center, Califomia Robkison, W.W. State University, Long Beach l(3):2-3. 1966 Los Alamitos: The Indian and Rancho Johnston, Bemice E. Phases. Califomia Historical Society Quar- 1962 CaUfOTnia's Galnielino Indians. Los Ange­ terty45(l):2l-30. les: Southwest Museum, Hodge Anniver­ Ruyle, Eugene E. sary Publication Fund, Vol. VIII. 1994a University Officials, Indians At Odds Over Haley, Brian D., and Larry R Wilcoxon Archaeological Site. Society for Califor­ 1997 Antbrqwlogy and the Makkig of Chumash nia Archaeology Newsletter 28(2): 17-18. Tradition. Current Anthropology 38(5): 1994b Let My Pec^le Grow! Partisan Anthropol­ 761-794. ogy and the Stmggle to Save Puvungna and Harrington, John P. the Organic Gardens. Paper presented at 1933 Annotations. In: Chinigchinich: A Revised the annual meetings ofthe American An­ and Annotated Version of Alfred Robin­ thropological Association, Atlanta. son's Translation of Father Gerdnimo Bos­ cana's Historical Account of the Belief, 1995a CSULB Lawsuits Raise Ethical Issues for Usages, Customs and Exttavagancies ofthe Anthropologists. Anthropology Newsletter Indians of this Mission of San Juan Cap­ 36(9): 15-16. isttano Called the Acagchemem Tribe 1995b Archaeology as a Polkical Weapon: The [1846], Phil Townsend Hanna, ed., pp. 91- Stoty of Puvungna. Paper presented at the 228. Santa Ana, CA: Fkie Arts Press. annual meetings of the Southwestern An­ thropological Association, San Francisco. Heizer, Robert F. (ed.) 1968 The Indians of Los Angeles County: Hugo 1995c Lies, Bribes, and Archaeology: The Story Reid's Letters of 1852. Los Angeles: South­ of Puvungna. Paper presented at the annu­ west Museum Papers No. 21. al meetings ofthe American Anthropologi­ cal Association, Washington. Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925 Handbook ofthe Indians of Califomia. Bu­ 1995d Refugees ki Thek Own Land: TheGabri- reau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. elino/Tongva Indians of Southern Califor­ nia. Paper presented at the Conference on Malkiowski, Bronislaw Human Rights Violations and Refugees' 1922 Argonauts of the Western Pacific. New Plight: National and Intemational Dimen­ York: Dutton. sions, Califomia State University, Long McCawIey, William Beach. 1996 The Fkst Angelkios: The Gabrielkio Indi­ 1996a Anthropology and Indigenous Populations. ans of Los Angeles. Bannkig, CA: Malki Paper presented at the annual meetings of Museum Press. the American Anthropological Association, Meyer, Larry L., and Patticia Larson Kalayjian San Francisco. 1983 L«ig Beach: FOTtune's IferbOT. Tulsa, OK: 1996b kidian Spirittiality, White Man's Law: The Contkiental Heritage Press. Story of Puvungna. Paper presented at the Overbey, Mary Margaret Second Aimual Symposium ofthe Califor­ 1994 AAA Statement on Puvungna Community. nia Institute of Integral Studies, San Fran­ Anthropology Newsletter 33(2):39. cisco. 84 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

1998 The Making of Chumash Tradition: Re­ ferent issues, they reflect quite sknilar lines of plies to Haley and Wilcoxon. Current An­ commentary. The reader will notice, for instance, thropology 39(4):487-491. that Ruyle and Dixon essentially ignore the major 1999 SaCTed Sites ki Urban Settings: The Case pokits made by our article. Instead, both commen­ of Puvungna. Paper presented at the annu­ al meetkigs of the Anthropology of Reli­ tators adopt a strategy favored by frial lawyers: If gion Section ofthe American Anthropolog­ you cannot refute your opponent's arguments di­ ical Association (held jointly with the Cen­ rectly, disfract the jury with confusing side issues ttal States Anthropological Association), and character assassination. These diversionary Chicago. tactics are designed to desfroy the credibility of our Salzer, George 1974 A Brief History of the Rancho Los Alami­ article on three grounds: k leaves out vital informa­ tos. Los Fieros 11(3): 111-127. tion; we are guilty of sloppy scholarship; and we Skomal, Susan N. are "hked guns," somehow enticed by the adminis- 1997 Puvungna Prevails in Round 4. Anthro­ fration of CSULB to propagate ideas inknical to pology Newsletter 3 8(2): 18. Native Americans and historic preservation. Let us Scientific Resource Surveys look at these charges more closely. 1980 Archaeological Test Report on the Japanese Gardoi ArbOTetum/Museum Site Located on SINS OF OMISSION? the Campus ofthe Califomia State Univer­ sity at Long Beach. Report on file at the Ruyle and Dixon say we omitted knportant is­ South Centtal Coastal Information Center, sues and mformation from our article. Ruyle, for University of Califomia, Los Angeles. example, criticizes us for not reportkig in detail the perspectives of contemporary Indians, and for not adequately discussing the "Puvunga stmggle." Both Ruyle and Dixon makitaki that we failed to provide an accurate history of archaeological ki- vestigations on the CSULB campus, including what they say are miskiterpretations of a Native American burial discovered a number of years ago. Curiously, Dixon focuses most of his comments on legal documents, personal correspondence, and an Reply unpublished manuscript. This tactic complicates assesskig our article published here, skice the docu­ ments to which Dixon refers are not before the L. MARK RAAB and MATTHEW A. BOXT readers of this volume. On the other hand, this ap­ Department of Anthropology, Califomia State Univer­ sity, Northridge, 18111 NordhofifSt., Northridge, CA proach affords plenty of opportunity for creating 91330-8244 confiision and infroducing ad honunem judgments. Each ofthe pokits outikied by Ruyle and Dixon EUGENE Ruyle and Keith Dixon, long-time ad­ is interestkig ki its own right. There is no question vocates of Puvunga-related issues and members of that Indians hold knportant perspectives on Puvun­ the Anthropology Department at Califomia State ga, views to which they and others are deeply com- University, Long Beach (CSULB), are active stake­ nutted. The CSULB campus has an extensive and holders ki the current debate. Skice Ruyle and Dix­ kiterestkig history of archaeological investigation. on also offer the most critical reviews of our article, We see nothing to keep Ruyle and/or Dixon from we turn our attention to thek comments first. Al- akkig their perspectives on these topics ki prkit. thougk Ruyle and Dixon emphasize somewhat dif­ But our article ki this volume is not primarily