Remembering the Bear Flag Revolt of 1846: Today's Narratives of Sonoma County's Past by Rudy Alexander Dinarte a Thesis Subm

Remembering the Bear Flag Revolt of 1846: Today’s Narratives of Sonoma County’s Past

by Rudy Alexander Dinarte

A thesis submitted to Sonoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in Cultural Resources Management

Committee Members: Alexis Boutin, Ph.D., Chair Steve Estes, Ph.D. Margaret Purser, Ph.D.

December 11, 2020

By Rudy Alexander Dinarte

AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRODUCTION OF MASTER’S THESIS

I grant permission for the print or digital reproduction of parts of this thesis without further authorization from me, on the condition that the person or agency requesting reproduction absorb the cost and provide proper acknowledgment of authorship.

Permission to reproduce this thesis in its entirety must be obtained from me.

Rudy A. Dinarte December 11, 2020

iii

ABSTRACT Purpose of the Study: In this thesis, I present a collaborative, community-based approach to a cultural resources management-style project. Typically, consultation is limited to descendant communities, but this collaborative approach includes a more expansive definition of stakeholder. In 2014, two members of the Santa Rosa Rural Cemetery Preservation Committee resumed a quest to locate the burials of two casualties of the Bear Flag Revolt of 1846. While their remains were not found, this project was still able to initiate a larger conversation about how Sonoma County’s shared past is remembered and how archaeologists could approach community involvement in future projects.

Procedure: Through oral history interviews and site visits in Sonoma County, I investigated how the Bear Flag Revolt is remembered and how historical narratives of the Revolt have been created. I involved interested community members by seeking out their opinions and knowledge during the interview process.

Results: Applying a collaborative approach to the project provided an opportunity to hear directly from the community, with the goal of incorporating their input into the project at all levels and adding to public understanding of the Revolt. In addition to the mutual appreciation between researchers and participants, we discussed how history has been and could be presented in the future. This project also explores how historical narratives and places relate to identity and identity formation.

Conclusion: Working with diverse stakeholders aids in building an archaeology that is understood and respected by the community. Taking this approach helps archaeologists fulfill our duties as stewards, by changing how consultation looks, and what sources of information can be incorporated. With an understanding that narratives created in the past have often failed certain groups, such as people of color, women, and other marginalized communities, archaeologists can contribute to a more equitable version of history.

RESUMEN El objetivo del estudio: En esta tesis, se presenta un enfoque comunitario y colaborativo para un proyecto de gestión de recursos culturales. Típicamente, una consulta se limite a las comunidades descendientes, pero en este enfoque colaborativo se amplía la definición de “interesado.” En 2014, dos miembros del Comité de la Preservación de Cementerios Rurales de Santa Rosa reanudaron la búsqueda para ubicar los lugares de sepultura de dos victimas de la Rebelión de la Bandera del Oso en 1846. Aunque no se encontraron sus restos, pudimos iniciar un debate sobre la manera en que nuestro pasado común se conmemora y cómo los arqueólogos podrían abordar la cuestión de la participación comunitaria en proyectos futuros.

Proceso de investigación: Mediante entrevistas de historial oral y visitas a sitios en el condado de Sonoma, se investigó cómo se conmemora la Rebelión de la Bandera del Oso en 1846 y cómo los varios relatos históricos de la Rebelión se han formado. Se involucró a miembros de la comunidad en el estudio, solicitando sus opiniones y conocimientos del evento en el trascurso de las entrevistas.

Resultados: El empleo de un enfoque colaborativo me ofreció la ocasión de escuchar directamente de la comunidad, con el objetivo de incorporar sus aportaciones al proyecto y de contribuir a la comprensión de la Rebelión que tiene el público. Además del reconocimiento mutuo entre investigadores y participantes, discutimos cómo la historia ha sido y podría ser presentada en el futuro. Este proyecto explora también la relación entre las narrativas históricas y la identidad y su formación.

Conclusión: La colaboración con diversos interesados ayuda a crear una arqueología mejor entendida y respetada por la comunidad. Este enfoque sirve para que los arqueólogos cumplan con sus deberes como guardianas, cambiando la naturaleza de la consulta y qué fuentes de información pueden incorporarse a un estudio. Al darse cuenta de cómo las narrativos construidos por arqueólogos han fallado a personas de color, a mujeres y a otras comunidades marginalizados, se hace evidente cómo los arqueólogos pueden contribuir a una versión más equitativa de la historia.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to sincerely thank my committee members Alexis Boutin, Steve Estes, and Margie Purser for providing me with their valuable instruction, expertise, and guidance throughout my Master’s program and thesis.

Special thanks to all the participants that were willing to give their time to be interviewed for this project: Ken Brown, Larry Carrillo, Crawford Cooley, Winston Dutton, Donald Nelson Edwards, Donna Marie Carrillo-Endicott, Adolfo “Patrick” Garcia, Kathleen Guelfi, Gaye LeBaron, Peter Meyerhof, William Montgomery, Nick, Bill Northcroft, Ray Owen, Breck Parkman, and George Webber. While not everyone was quoted directly, you all had a direct influence on the trajectory of this project, and without your input none of this would be possible.

Thank you to my classmates in the CRM program for helping make the experience that much more enjoyable.

My gratitude to Michael Arrigo, Ph.D., for translating the abstract into Spanish, and Erin Bornemann, Ph.D., for her services as editor.

I offer special thanks to my in-laws, Kathy and Skip Santy, whose support made it possible for me to pursue a postgraduate education.

I am forever grateful to my mother, Maria Hilaria Membreno, who has always supported and believed in me.

I would like to thank my life partner Jenna Santy, whose support, patience and encouragement helped me reach the finish line.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Project Scope and History of Involvement 2 Regulatory Frameworks and Relevant Definitions 4 Format of the Thesis 5 Chapter 2: Background 8 Southern Pomo and Coast Miwok 8 Spanish Period (1769–1821) 8 Mexican Period (1821–1846) 9 Euroamerican Explorers 10 The Bear Flag Revolt of 1846 11 Transition to Statehood and Modern Demographics 14 Chapter 3: Review of Relevant Theoretical Frameworks 15 Key Terms: Social Memory and Commemorative Landscapes 16 Social Memory: Exclusion and Cohesion 18 Social Memory: Multiple Narratives and the Imagined Past 23 Social Memory: Landscapes and Stakeholders 27 Community-Based Archaeology 29 Communities, Stakeholders and Other Interested Parties 30 Community-Based Archaeology and Cultural Resource Management: A California Example 33 Archaeologists as Facilitators of the Archaeological Record 36 Summary 38 Chapter 4: Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 40 Archival Research in Sonoma State Library’s Gaye LeBaron Collection 40 Historical Records: Newspapers and Secondary Sources 41 Site Visits 42 Collecting Stories and Sharing Histories 45 Summary 52 Chapter 5: Results 53 Interviews with Non-descendant Stakeholders 53 First Impression of the BFR 60 BFR: How a Narrative is Presented 63 Identity 67 The BFR Commemorative Landscape: History Visited and Surveyed 75 Summary 83 Chapter 6: Discussion 84 Interviewee Involvement 86 First Impressions of the BFR 87 Management Recommendations 91 Chapter 7: Conclusion 100 Appendix A-Institutional Review Board Application 104 Appendix B-Interview Questionnaire 107

vii

Chapter 1: Introduction

Creating a working relationship with the public can help produce a field in which archaeologists and the community can work towards a common goal. By embodying a collaborative archaeological approach, members of the community can become an active part of the archaeological process. If community outreach and stakeholder consultation are overlooked in an archaeological project such as this one, there is risk in losing the greater significance of archaeology without the support and involvement of the public. This thesis represents a contribution to the consultation component of the project, “Remembering the Bear Flag Revolt of 1846,” referred to hereafter as the RTBFR project, conducted by Dr. Alexis Boutin. The project was spurred by the search for the remains of Thomas Cowie and George Fowler, the only two Euroamerican casualties of the Bear Flag Revolt. The pursuit of the remains of these two men has raised questions not only regarding the way in which these remains will be commemorated, but also on a broader scale of how the Bear Flag Revolt has and will continue to be remembered. By collaborating with the local community, one of the aims of this project was to record an account of the events of the Revolt that incorporated several perspectives. The primary objective of this project was to engage with members of the greater Sonoma County community, and record their stories in order to gain an understanding of how they perceived and remembered the Bear Flag Revolt of 1846 (referred to hereafter as the Revolt and BFR, interchangeably). This project also attempts to gain perspective on the development of ethnic identity in Sonoma County following the Revolt, considering such questions as, what ethnic groups were part of the event, how did they identify themselves at the time and has this changed over time, and how are those ethnic groups represented in present-day commemorations, and further observed in the community?

Through oral history interviews and a survey of monuments, I explore ways in which the

Revolt is (and is not) commemorated in both public and private spheres. I also investigate what aspects of the Revolt are remembered, and why that may be the case. Based on the interviews conducted, I explore the similarities and differences between the stories told by community members of different ethnic groups. I examine how memories of the past, recalled by living individuals, compare to the narrative of the BFR found in textbooks, monuments, museum displays, public performances, and other more static portrayals. I investigate the ways in which the members of the Sonoma County community identify with participants of the Revolt, and how that influences the development of identity within this community. I identify key themes from various ethnic communities, and I explore their areas of intersection in light of the Revolt.

Through this project, I explore and attempt to understand the development of ethnic identity in

Sonoma County after 1846, specifically within Californio and Hispanic communities, and how these events have contributed to interactions between community members. In addition to ethnic identity, I examine how the Bear Flag Revolt is remembered publicly through monuments, and other commemorative forms. Considering different venues for commemorating the Revolt provides an opportunity to advance efforts towards future public representations of this historical event, which could possibly include consultation according to section 110 of the National

Historic Preservation Act, for the reinterment and commemoration of the remains of Cowie and

Fowler, if they are ever found.

Project Scope and History of Involvement

In 2014, Bill Northcroft and Ray Owen, two members of the Santa Rosa Rural Cemetery

Preservation Committee, resumed a quest that had been pursued intermittently since the 1880s: to locate the burials of Thomas Cowie and George Fowler, the first two, and only Euro-

American, casualties of the Bear Flag Revolt of 1846. Their goal was to exhume their remains, and give them – in Mr. Owen and Mr. Northcroft’s words – a “proper burial” in a “suitable place with a suitable marker.” After extensive research, they identified the backyard of a private home in the wooded hills of Santa Rosa as the most likely spot of the interments. Fortunately, the owners of the property were very receptive to Mr. Northcroft’s and Mr. Owen’s request to investigate, and even shared with them stories about the event that had been handed down through multiple previous owners of the property.

They then contacted the Institute for Canine Forensics, who agreed to come out and see if their dogs could locate any signs of historic human remains. It was coverage of this event in the local newspaper, the Press Democrat, that brought the project to Alexis’s attention, at which time she volunteered her services and those of Sonoma State personnel and facilities. At this point, given the controversial legacy of the Bear Flag revolt, Alexis invited me to participate by documenting the fieldwork process and initiating consultation with local stakeholders.

Unfortunately, the excavation did not identify their remains. Nevertheless, my role in conducting consultation continued. With an awareness of how the past has been remembered and that some voices have been silenced and others ignored in the retelling of the Bear Flag Revolt, I hope what we have created can contribute, via collaboration, to the commemoration and remembrance of the past in a fair and inclusive manner that incorporates multiple perspectives.

From the outset of this project, a collaborative approach was taken. The approach I took to the methods and theory applied were heavily influenced by cultural heritage management, an approach that has been used around the world for several decades, and an approach that continues to develop and grow in California archaeology.

Regulatory Frameworks and Relevant Definitions

The RTBFR project found itself in an odd situation, in terms of laws and legislation. The excavation was conducted on private property, and the existing commemorative landscape can be found on private, municipal, and state properties. Nevertheless, there are existing laws that may be applicable, and provide an opportunity to apply the approach this project pursued, specifically section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act. For the purposes of this thesis I am using terminology found in the legislation to define stakeholder; the law states that “in consultation with State Historic Preservation Officers, local governments, Indian tribes,

Native Hawaiian organizations, and the interested public, as appropriate,” all of which are stakeholders. I take particular focus on in the interested public, as it provides an opportunity to incorporate non-traditional stakeholders. The goal of this project was to apply a collaborative, community-based approaches to a California cultural resources management project (CRM), with the ultimate goal of extending and changing what consultation looks like, and what consultation could focus on in California CRM.

For the purposes of my project I am applying Thomas King’s (2013:3) definition of what cultural resources and CRM should be: “Cultural resources management ought to mean managing all these sociocultural aspects of the environment and all the contemporary world’s impacts on them.” Cultural resources should be understood as those aspects of the environment- both physical and intangible, both natural and built-that have cultural value to a group of people.

Cultural resources management should mean managing all these sociocultural aspects of the environment, and all the contemporary world’s impacts on them. King’s definition is expansive and it encompasses Cultural Heritage Management, which concerns physical and intangible cultural heritage (King 2013).

In terms of the Bear Flag Revolt, there were two primary groups involved, and I sought to interview descendants from both. Californios can be defined as second-generation Mexicans born in California before 1846, as well as their descendants. Today, descendants of these prominent families can still be found throughout the state, and in some cases living in the same areas as the land grants their ancestors once held. I also occasionally use the term defensores to describe those Californios who were directly involved in the protection or defense of California during the Revolt. Some descendants of Californios also identify as Hispanic or Latinx; I define

Hispanic and/or Latinx individuals as those who identify with one or several South/Central

American culture(s). The second group involved were the Bear Flaggers, or Bears; these individuals were of Euroamerican ancestry, and participated in or aided the cause of the Revolt, with the intent of wresting control of California away from the Mexican Government, toward annexation by the United States.

Format of the Thesis

Prior to examining the details of the Bear Flag Revolt, it is important to provide a general background with which to understand and interpret its impact on the residents of Sonoma

County, both past and present. Chapter Two provides an overview of the historical background for Sonoma County, including a brief summary of local history, including both the Mission and

Mexican periods. A more detailed account is provided for both the Mission and Mexican periods, as they create a sense of what Sonoma County may have been like prior to, as well as during, the

Revolt. The historical background laid out in this particular chapter is focused on the development of Sonoma County through time, which provides the information necessary to understand the context of the Revolt, and the events that followed.

Chapter Three presents a theoretical framework that informs this project’s interpretation of the revolt, and draws upon academic literature regarding social and individual memory, collaborative archaeology, and commemorative landscapes. In this chapter, I explore the concepts of public commemoration and remembrance of the Revolt through a combination of interviews, literature review, and survey of public places, and I consider the impacts of memory and commemoration on the development of individual ethnic identity. The theoretical approaches developed in other collaborative archaeology projects provided useful frameworks that informed this project, and also determined which methods to utilize.

In applying a collaborative approach to this project, I adopted methods that incorporated the community in different ways. In Chapter Four I discuss the methods used for data collection and analysis. This thesis revolves around the perspectives of individual community members in

Sonoma County, therefore, the methods I employed included conducting several oral history interviews and engaging in pedestrian survey of monuments and presentations of the Revolt.

Regarding the interviews conducted, I made an explicit attempt to incorporate a diverse range of stakeholders. While the results of these interviews may not be as diverse as I had wished, I believe it is moving in a direction that will make it possible to initiate larger conversations, which can be addressed in subsequent research projects. While the views of all study participants helped guide this project, it was not possible to directly quote every participant. Additionally, all interviews have been transcribed and recorded, and will be submitted to an archive where they can be accessed by future researchers.

The remaining chapters of this thesis present the results of the data collection and analyses, as well as considering future directions for the topic. The research presented herein has provided a strong base for which to continue more comprehensive investigations of how the

Revolt is commemorated by the residents of Sonoma County. The collaborative approach I employed has provided an opportunity to listen to individual understandings of history, as they are presented by individuals in the contexts of their own stories. Through the interviews process,

I was able to identify a level of consistency in how the interviewees presented the narrative of the Revolt and assess what impacts, or lack thereof, the Revolt has had on the community writ large. Additionally, in my research I was able to initiate conversations about ways in which the

Revolt may be commemorated in the future, as well as participant opinions on the redisposition of Cowie and Fowler. The biggest result were the benefits that came from taking a collaborative approach, and the conversations I had with each participant. By actively including the community in cultural resource management projects, it is possible to create a more equitable narrative, where community members have an opportunity to share their knowledge and perspectives.

Chapter 2: Background

In order to understand the Revolt in context, it is necessary to briefly review the relevant history of the region. Historically, Sonoma County has been a setting for interactions between multiple cultures, both in early history and more recently. In this chapter, I will review the historical context for the Bear Flag Revolt, and provide background on what Sonoma County is like today.

Southern Pomo and Coast Miwok

The history of California does not begin with European explorers, but instead with the arrival of humans into today’s Sonoma County at least 12,000 years ago (Buchanan and Collard

2007; Dixon 2001). Modern-day Sonoma County falls within the traditional lands inhabited by

Southern Pomo and Coast Miwok. While the involvement of Indigenous peoples in the Bear Flag

Revolt is understudied, the Indigenous community was there before, during, and after the Revolt.

Their Native American descendant community continues to thrive in their homelands and maintain their cultural traditions, and is currently represented by the Federated Indians of Graton

Rancheria. Though the ancestors of the Southern Pomo and Coast Miwok had been living in the region for thousands of years, their long history was violently interrupted by the arrival of

European colonists around 500 years ago.

Spanish Period (1769–1821)

Spanish attempts to explore Alta California date back to 1542, including such expeditions as the one led by Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo along the California coast, yet it would take over 200 years for the Spanish empire to build their first long-lasting settlement in California (Walker

1999:25–26). For the purposes of this project, Alta California and California encompass the area

9 between San Diego, near the border of California and Mexico, and Fort Ross, near San Francisco in northern California. The story of Hispanic California and Sonoma County begins with the introduction of the mission system into the region by the Franciscan priest Junipero Serra in

1768 (Hackel 2013). Junipero Serra came to California with an entourage that included soldiers, as well as the gente de razon, who were lower-class individuals from Mexico (Monroy 1995:32).

The soldiers and gente de razon are significant to California history, because they were a significant portion of the founding population, who would eventually identify as Californios

(Pubols 2009). The manner in which the Californio identity developed in Sonoma County, and how it continues to be seen today is a primary focus of my research and is examined later in this thesis. Spain would continue to expand its presence in California through the mission system, which produced 21 missions in total. The Sonoma Mission was the final mission built in

California, in 1823, however, it was completed under later Mexican rule, rather than Spanish

(Schneider 2010:7).

Mexican Period (1821–1846)

Mexico gained independence and sole control of California from Spain in 1821. The government attempted to maintain control over this expanded territory and its inhabitants, the

Californios, with mixed results. Due to a lack of support from the Mexican government,

California became an increasingly autonomous state that would eventually open its doors to outsiders (Walker 1999:32). It was during this period of time that military leader Mariano

Guadalupe Vallejo grew in prominence in California. Vallejo made a name for himself early in his career, defeating a sizable force of Miwok in 1829 (Rosenus 1999:11). Following this victory, General José Figueroa sent a young Vallejo to Sonoma in 1833 (Rosenus 1999:14).

Figueroa’s goal in sending Vallejo to Sonoma was to establish a barrier against Russian

10 expansion into the parts of California already claimed by the Spanish. Vallejo was also tasked with managing the development of the Sonoma area, including distributing land grants. His management of the area was instrumental in the construction of the ranchos and the presidio in

Sonoma County (McKittrick 1944:38; Schneider 2010:119–121), and made him wealthy and well-respected. Vallejo did not disappoint his superiors, and succeeded in building a formidable town that is now the city of Sonoma.

In addition to founding and developing the city of Sonoma, Vallejo also dispersed land grants throughout his jurisdiction, including the area, which is now the city of Santa Rosa. In

1842, the land grant Rancho Cabeza de Santa Rosa was deeded to Doña Maria Carrillo, the widowed mother-in-law of General Vallejo. She chose the area along the Santa Rosa Creek where there had been an assistencia, or sub-mission, set up by the priests of Mission San Rafael before the Sonoma mission was established. Within five years of Doña Maria Carrillo’s death, the area had become home to many Euroamerican settlers, and was known as an Americanized town called Santa Rosa (LeBaron et al. 1985:1–22).

Euroamerican Explorers

While the historical presence of Spain, Russia, and Mexico in California are arguably the most well-known examples, others have claimed California as their own and have seen it as a beacon of hope. For example, during his journey around the world, the English master mariner

Francis Drake spent the summer of 1579 on the coast of California, claiming the land as Nova

Albion for his patron, Elizabeth I (Walker 1999:28). Though Drake’s claim on the land for

England was ultimately not upheld, it serves as a lesser-known example of the interest other

European countries had in California.

Even during the Mission and Mexican periods, migration into California was not limited to individuals coming from Spain or Mexico. During these periods of time, there were a diverse array of individuals coming to settle, especially in the northern frontier of Alta California.

Marriage into a Californio family was one way for Euroamericans to enter California and build a new life for themselves. When Mexico obtained independence from Spain in 1821, California experienced a marked increase in Euroamerican migration. California’s role as a global trade center contributed to the mystique it was attributed. Sea captains were shocked at the immensity of the region, and were instrumental in spreading the myth that California was a largely uninhabited wilderness waiting to be tamed by the United States (Walker 1999:43). The increase of newcomers was, in part, a byproduct of the relaxation of migration restrictions and requirements by Mexican authorities. By 1845, the population trends in California looked drastically different when compared to even just a few years prior. In 1841, there were approximately 400 foreigners of many nationalities residing in California (Rosenus 1999:35), whereas in 1845, there were 1,200 foreigners in California. At this point in time, Euroamericans from the United States made up about 75% of the foreign population in California (Walker

1999:43). The increase of foreigners would eventually become a concern for Mexican officials, especially the California Governor Pio Pico (Login and Login 2008:1; Walker 1999:52).

The Bear Flag Revolt of 1846

In 1846, the northern frontier of Alta California was already a multicultural population center; however, tensions between the Euroamerican immigrant population and the Mexican government ran high. The resultant Bear Flag movement was a product of Euroamerican settlers’ fear that Mexican officials would expel them from California. On June 10, 1846, Euroamerican fur trapper Ezekiel Merritt led a group of men from the Buttes and crossed the Sacramento River,

12 with the intent of taking the town of Sonoma (Rosenus 1999:105; Walker 1999:122–123).

Merritt and his group of men are often referred to as the Bears, a name this rebel group adopted after being inspired by the grizzly bears in the area (Bancroft 1886:146; Walker 1999:117). On their journey from Sacramento to Sonoma, the number of men that made up their party would continue to grow. On June 14, 1846, the Bears arrived in the town of Sonoma and surrounded the

Casa Grande belonging to Mariano Vallejo (Bancroft 1886:111–112; Walker 1999:123–124).

After negotiations were completed, Vallejo was placed under arrest by the Bears and subsequently transported to Sacramento (Rosenus 1999:116–117; Walker 1999:123–124). Less than 24 hours after the Bears’ arrival in Sonoma, the Bear Flag was raised in the Sonoma Plaza, signaling a successful revolt by the Euroamericans (Bancroft 1886:146; Walker 1999).

There are only a few minor events recorded from June 17–25, 1846, following the capture of Vallejo. One event of note is the deaths of Thomas Cowie and George Fowler, whose burials and commemoration form the basis for this thesis. There is still debate about Cowie and

Fowler’s final moments, however, it is almost certain that their final moments were spent at the

Carrillo Adobe in Santa Rosa. It is believed that they were killed by some Californios, including

Bernardino Garcia, also known as Three-Fingered Jack, and Ramon Carrillo, who some believe was known by the alias of Joaquin Murrieta. Whether or not the deaths of Cowie and Fowler were justified is still debated, but it seems they were the first, and only, American casualties of the Revolt.

On June 18, 1846, William B. Ide, the elected leader of the Bears, sent Cowie and Fowler on an errand from the town of Sonoma to Moses Carson’s ranch in what is now Healdsburg

(Bancroft 1886:160; Walker 1999:132). They needed Carson’s help to furnish weapons and gunpowder that would prove crucial in aiding the Bears’ revolt (Bancroft 1886:160; Walker

1999:132). Prior to departing Carson’s ranch, the two men were advised to avoid the main road on their return journey (Bancroft 1886:160; Rosenus 1999:146). Instead of listening to this advice, Cowie and Fowler took the main road and were captured by a party of Californios near

Santa Rosa (Bancroft 1886:160; Rosenus 1999:146), who later took the lives of these two men

(Bancroft 1886:161; Rosenus 1999:147; Walker 1999:132). The deaths of Cowie and Fowler are thought to have strengthened the cause of the Bears (Bancroft 1886:160–162). Likely as a response, there were several Californio deaths at the hands of the Bears, including those that occurred at the Battle of Olompali to the south, in modern-day Marin County, and the deaths of the deaths of Jose de la Reyes Berryessa, and Francisco and Ramon DeHaro, at Point San Pedro in San Rafael (Walker 1999:134–136).

On June 26, 1846, John C. Fremont formally started his campaign to take California for the United States of America, leaving Sutter’s Fort for San Rafael with a force of 130 men

(Bancroft 1886:170; Walker 1999:134). Fremont reached the city of Sonoma on July 3, 1846, and immediately upon arriving, he was put in command of the Bears (Bancroft 1886:178).

Shortly after, “California was declared independent, the country put under martial law, the force organized, and officers elected” (Bancroft 1886:179). On July 11, 1846, the U.S. flag, which had been raised at Sonoma two days prior, was raised over Sutter’s Fort, which marked the end of the

Bear Flag Revolt (Bancroft 1886:186). The Bears were able to take Sonoma with minimal bloodshed and claim California as an independent republic (Bancroft 1886; Rosenus 1999;

Walker 1999; Warner 1996). The republic only lasted for a few weeks, however, its legacy still remains today. For example, it can be observed in the California State flag, which is modeled after the one flown by the Bear Flag Republic, as well as sharing many place names found throughout the state of California.

Transition to Statehood and Modern Demographics

Sonoma County and California would continue to grow, achieving statehood into the

United States on September 9, 1850 (California Department of Parks and Recreation 2020).

Though no longer under Mexican rule, Santa Rosa would continue to benefit from Californio contributions to the state and the region. This included the donation of land by Julio Carrillo in

1854, who is considered the founding father of Santa Rosa. The land and the plat provided by

Julio Carrillo would establish the central plaza for Santa Rosa. Santa Rosa became an incorporated California city in 1868 (Balicki 2018, 2020; LeBaron 2018, 2020). Sonoma County would experience continued growth, especially following the World Wars, and in part due to the expansion of the wine industry (Balicki 2018; Sonoma County Tourism 2020). As of 2010, the demographics for Sonoma County included a population makeup of 64.2% white community members, and 25.6% Hispanic. However, projections show the Hispanic population will grow to make up 31% of the total population in the near future, reflecting the present, and growing

Latinx community (Sonoma County Tourism 2020). Today’s population in Sonoma County reflects how, after over 160 years, the region continues to be diverse.

To explore the Revolt’s lasting effects on Sonoma County, I employ several theoretical frameworks that facilitate the analysis of data collected, with a particular focus on understanding commemoration and public memory through archaeology.

Chapter 3: Review of Relevant Theoretical Frameworks

While academic archaeologists have discussed theoretical frameworks for conceptualizing social memory and commemorative landscapes for several decades, the application of these topics in Cultural Resources Management (CRM), as it is practiced in

California, has had a slightly different trajectory. This chapter discusses key definitions of terms like social memory and commemorative landscapes, and presents concepts relevant to the

Remembering the Bear Flag Revolt project as they have been used in both applied and academic settings. Ultimately, the goal for this project is to encourage future community-based archaeology projects; therefore, this chapter reviews and discusses the processes and outcomes of previous community-based archaeology projects and in light of their influence upon this project.

In this chapter I provide examples from a variety of places and from archaeologists who work in a variety of contexts: applied (CRM) and academic; historic and prehistoric; “New

World” and “Old World”. While a significant amount of work on social memory and using collaborative approaches has been done in support of historical archaeology, in both academic and applied settings (which is not necessarily a dichotomous distinction in itself), I intentionally include examples from prehistoric archaeology as well. This is in acknowledgement of that fact that much archaeology done in California, in both applied and academic settings, is prehistoric archaeology. Furthermore, many archaeologists working in CRM in California work in both historic and prehistoric paradigms. As such, it makes sense to me to structure this literature review by theoretical concepts, and not by archaeological region or timeframe. While the

RTBFR Project largely falls under the category of historical archaeology, the concepts explored

16 below could be applied to a wide range of archaeological settings, with the potential to yield interesting and important results.

Key Terms: Social Memory and Commemorative Landscapes

The RTBFR project has been able to initiate a conversation with members of the Sonoma

County community regarding the ways in which they both remember and commemorate important aspects of their history. I employ frameworks of social memory and commemorative landscapes to understand how community members relate to and interact with historically linked places, and how CRM practitioners contribute to the commemoration of the past through our own practice. How the past is remembered and commemorated can also be reflective of the present, which provides an opportunity to explore identity at multiple intersections. Such intersections include how people in the past identified and/or expressed their identities, as well as the reflexive nature of the archaeological process, where archaeologists study commemoration of the past in the present. Archaeologists have frequently employed frameworks of social memory that offer alternative understandings to the prevailing narrative interpretations of history, and also by studying concepts of collective memory they have been able to showcase how the viewpoints of multiple stakeholders influence differing historical narratives (Shackel 2003).

While there are many definitions of memory in archaeological discourse, William R.

Fowler and colleagues (2010) provide a working definition that fits well in the field of CRM.

Fowler and others (2010:309), citing Hendon (2010:1–2), define memory as a “social process of remembering and forgetting that is embedded in the materiality of existence.” For the purposes of this project, social memory is conceptualized in the way that certain historical tidbits and beliefs are retained or created, while others are lost or discarded. This process can be intentional

(as in, a direct campaign championing certain narratives over others) or unintentional (as in, a

17 historical fact might not fit a narrative, so its mention is excised from retellings, and is eventually forgotten). The material aspects of this definition would be places, like monuments, and spaces, such as commemorative landscapes.

Commemorative landscapes go hand-in-hand with social memory; they can be perceived as the physical product of social memory on the landscape. W. Fitzhugh Brundage defines

“commemorative landscapes” as:

…spaces [that have] been identified as having exceptional symbolic meaning not

only by government officials but also by the public. These are sites where

Americans are prompted to reflect on the past, the nation, and their relationship to

both. These places are hallowed spaces redolent with layers and layers of complex

meaning acquired over generations [Brundage 2012:np].

Statues, interpretive displays, signage, and oral traditions can all be iterations of commemorative landscapes. One commemorative landscape studied here is the prospective gravesite of Cowie and Fowler. Study participants were asked questions such as, how would community stakeholders like such a site to be commemorated? Would they even want that site commemorated? Existing commemorative landscapes in Sonoma

County include places such as the Sonoma Plaza, which has implications in the greater history of California, specifically in its stage as part of the Bear Flag Revolt.

Paul Shackel (2003) defines social memory similarly to Fowler by discussing how memory studies have been used to examine and remember landscapes in three general ways. The

18 first approach creates an exclusionary past, in which certain elements are remembered or forgotten in an effort to increase group cohesion. The second develops a collective memory that reflects positively on the community, whether on a local or national scale. The third approach uses memory to develop a sense of heritage (Shackel 2003:3). In conjunction with the project’s data collection and this literature review, it has become apparent that the three approaches are not mutually exclusive, and, more often than not, overlap and complement each other.

It is essential to acknowledge the role that archaeologists play in narrative construction and the creation of social memory. Archaeologists have long served as gatekeepers, valuing certain perspectives over others. In so doing, the members of this field actively contribute to historical narratives, which can influence specific narratives becoming accepted over others; this is, of course, problematic. While these problems and their potential solutions will be addressed at length in later chapters, part of the purpose of this literature review is to highlight case studies where seeking out differing perspectives on history can lead to a more complete, and at times more accurate narrative of historical events.

Social Memory: Exclusion and Cohesion

Gregory Wilson’s (2010) discussion of inscribed and incorporated memory can be applied to this project’s theoretical orientation in order to further understand the ways in which our present monuments and commemorative landscapes reflect a legitimized past, but also how a commemorative landscape can impact underserved and underrepresented communities. Inscribed memory can be understood as “a discursive form of remembrance that involves explicit acts of memory depiction and transmission,” as is seen in commemorative monuments, museums, cemeteries, and archives (Wilson 2010:5). These sites of memory can be used to connect the present with the past in a way that legitimizes a particular re-telling of the past. For the purposes

19 of this project, the Bear Flag Monument in Sonoma Plaza serves as an example of one such memory site. The statue standing in the plaza (Figure 1) depicts a man who can be identified as a member of the rebel Bear Flaggers, and portrays him, as monumental statuary often does, in a heroic pose. Commemorating the Bear Flag Revolt with a monument to the Euroamerican men who participated in it further legitimizes a narrative of heroic Euroamericans, without presenting or acknowledging other participants in its history. Moreover, it also legitimizes the power of one ethnic group over others.

Figure 1. BFR monument in Sonoma Plaza (photo by author).

Incorporated memory can be defined simply as the byproduct of everyday activity; “in social terms, people acquired these practices by watching, mimicking, and receiving input from their peers” (Wilson 2010:5). Every year, a Flag Day celebration is held in honor of the Bear

Flag Revolt, adjacent to the monument in Sonoma Plaza. The attendees are predominantly

Euroamerican, and the festival has a jovial, lively energy; the event is a celebration of the success and bravery of the Bear Flaggers. The unspoken message expressed to those in attendance, is that the Bear Flag Revolt was an unquestionably positive event, and the victors were warriors and heroes, fighting in the name of America. This perception has a ripple effect that intertwines with modern Californian social and political forces; several of the interviewees, who were descendants of Californios and/or of recent Latinx heritage, described efforts to outwardly appear less Hispanic, and the loss aspects of their cultural heritage after just a few generations of assimilation into American culture.

The implementation of a collaborative approach in archaeology can make it so the

“othering” of certain groups within a community, and legitimizing one historical narrative to oppress a segment of the population, can be avoided. When discussing the Bear Flag Revolt, it is imperative that underrepresented perspectives of the dominant historical narrative be incorporated, especially the experiences of the non-Euroamericans whose ancestors were also present, and were impacted by the Revolt and the events that followed. For example, in Wilson’s

(2010) study, the concepts of inscribed and incorporated memory illustrated how Mississippian individuals attempted to legitimize chiefly authority. Adopting a similar approach and applying to the research conducted with the community in Sonoma County can help provide much-needed details into how Euroamerican perspectives have been historically prioritized over perspectives of non-Euroamericans in narratives describing the events of the Revolt.

The ways in which a particular group’s identity has been historically defined by archaeologists can also have implications for their identity in the present. April Beisaw (2010) explores how a direct-historical approach and understanding of identity oversimplifies the

21 complexities surrounding aspects of culture and identity, as well as the ramifications that arise when consultation is enacted as part of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation

Act (NAGPRA). The passing of NAGPRA in 1990 provides the “process for museums and federal agencies to repatriate Native American human remains, associated and unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony to lineal descendants or tribes who could be deemed ‘culturally affiliated’ with the remains or artifacts” (Beisaw 2010:248).

The issue resides with how cultural affiliation has been officially determined.

Beisaw (2010:244) states that the “current understanding of late prehistory of New York and Pennsylvania is based on cultural histories constructed in the 1960s and 1970s.” Such outdated understandings of regional prehistory is in part a byproduct of research approaches that focus on dating cultural traits and mapping their occurrence across the landscape (Beisaw

2010:244).

NAGPRA reinforces the need for researchers to approach an understanding of culture in which a direct or lineal connection can be made to establish cultural affiliation, however, this does not allow for a dynamic understanding of how identity develops, as is seen in her examples of New York and Pennsylvania. Ethnicity cannot be bound by legal constraints; rather, it is actively created, manipulated, and often situational. The dynamic nature of ethnicity can often be at odds with static material culture, which is not always the best indicator of cultural identity

(Beisaw 2010:244). By applying a theoretical approach based in social memory, cultural affiliation can be determined in a different way. Beisaw (2010:245) defines social memory as

“collective notions of the past.”

Beisaw (2010) provides insights into the limitations of NAGPRA, both generally and more specifically as they cross into the field of CRM, where the study of identity is crucial in

22 making decisions regarding which stakeholders deserve input. The overall field of archaeology is defined and shaped by relevant legislation, which ends up informing many aspects of how research is conducted in and out of the field. This being the case, practitioners must do their due diligence to abide by these laws and regulations, however, the laws themselves can be flawed and antiquated. The RTBFR project serves as an example in which stakeholders connected to the

Revolt go beyond lineal descendants, and also present cases in which individuals can still identify with the groups involved in the BFR. Additionally, the manner in which the narrative is created also has implications on other community groups, both on an individual level and also in the public realm. Today, archaeologists need to take the time to understand how identity may have changed over time as a result of historical events, and look beyond the oversimplified linear understanding of culture and identity (Beisaw 2010:252).

Beisaw’s (2010) study presents an example that serves as both a cautionary tale, and an example of how the field of archaeology, CRM included, has previously engaged with consultation practices and defined who falls under the term “stakeholder.” Applying a theoretical approach to the practice of consultation, which is informed by the concept of social memory, breaks the limitations a cultural resource manager may face in seeking out stakeholders.

NAGPRA set a precedent in requiring practitioners to consult with Indigenous groups, but at this point, the field has to continue to evolve and expand the understanding of who falls under the category of a stakeholder. In the case of the Bear Flag Revolt, regarding the remains of Cowie and Fowler in particular, the stakeholders are not just lineal descendants, but also include the community that is searching for these remains, the local historians who have followed the journey of these two men, and the descendants of the original Californios whose families were directly affected by the murders, among many others.

Social Memory: Multiple Narratives and the Imagined Past

Carrie Christman’s (2010) community-based research explores the history of a settlement located in Pike County, Illinois, called New Philadelphia, through both archaeological remains and the living community. This project serves as an example of how oral histories from stakeholders can stand as cultural resources in their own right, and moreover provides details on the mechanism by which historical narratives are created. While, by the time of the research, nearly all descendants of New Philadelphia’s population had left the area, Christman interviewed descendants and local community members to understand how they remembered New

Philadelphia (Christman 2010:102). Through a local nonprofit organization called the New

Philadelphia Association, Christman was able to get in contact with potential interviewees, as well as with other individuals not a part of the Association that expressed their interest in participating in the project. The primary historical significance of New Philadelphia is that it was the first town legally founded by an African American man named Frank McWorter in 1836

(Christman 2010:102). The story of McWorter was adopted by the community as a point of pride, bringing them closer together as a community. McWorter’s story would be later be romanticized by the local community, and used to express the idea of the “American Dream.” As a former enslaved person, McWorter became a self-made man, freed of his captors; this imagery created an ideology of heroism surrounding McWorter that continued to evoke an emotional response from the interviewees (Christman 2010:103–104).

The story of New Philadelphia and McWorter’s role in its founding is further romanticized when it is inaccurately associated with the Underground Railroad (Christman

2010:103). Similar to the mythologizing of McWorter, the community was able to unite behind a story that associates the town with a history of cooperation and unity, while downplaying

24 uncomfortable references to America’s history of slavery. This idea of how a community remembers the past dovetails with the concept of selectively erasing memory. Selective erasure is a significant component in studies of remembrance that are considered in the analysis of the oral histories collected in this project. As Christman shows in her study, when interviewing and reading transcripts, one cannot accept each word and story as fully factual. These stories change the narrative of a united and cooperative past, and provide an example of the benefit of presenting multiple perspectives. In addition to providing a historic context, the oral histories were used to identify locations of historic structures and buildings in the town, and provided information that could potentially be used to inform archaeological projects (Christman

2010:109–110).

When considering the case of New Philadelphia, it can serve as both a cautionary tale, and as an example to follow. In the RTBFR project, recognized stakeholders went beyond lineal descendants and, through numerous interviews, I was able to compile previously unpublished information, as well as popular perceptions of historical “truth.” Following the model set out in the case study of New Philadelphia, I recognize that certain narratives may not be historically accurate, but may in fact reflect aspects of importance to the communities being interviewed, as well as particular perceptions communities would like to convey to outsiders. In the RTBFR project, narratives can be found portraying Cowie and Fowler as victims, while other narratives present them as villains and/or fools. Archaeologists are tasked with avoiding binary narratives in their research. Rather than creating stories of heroes and villains, victims and fools, archaeologists must present a case that is or is not necessarily “true” based upon available data.

Individual case studies also reflect the complicated nature of people and history in the past, and the present, for the future. As Christman (2010:110) argues, “by practicing archaeology and

25 recognizing its potential for creating heritage, archaeologists can embrace the various and diverse histories found in any one place or community.” It is possible for Cowie and Fowler to be considered American heroes, while at the same time also functioning as insurgents who took part in overthrowing a sovereign state.

Theoretical frameworks of social memory can provide tools that allow archaeologists to work toward decolonizing the field as a whole. Additionally, they can also aid in the construction of alternative histories that question the dominant narrative, as well as developing scenarios in which memory can become more powerful than historical accuracy. The latter is demonstrated in the case study that Cameron Wesson (2012) presents in his account of Hernando de Soto’s alleged journey to Childersburg, Alabama. The town—one of the oldest, continuously inhabited by European settlers—claims to be part of the de Soto Trail. Childersburg’s identification with the de Soto Trail is firmly rooted in the interpretations made by previous historians and archaeologists. These researchers were responsible for reconstructing the route using four primary narratives that were either written by survivors of the journey, or that were based on interviews with its members (Wesson 2012:419). The accuracy of the proposed route was questioned after its publication in 1939, but has been widely accepted since (Wesson 2012:419).

In the 1980s, archaeologists and historians proposed a new and potentially more accurate route, however, they were met with resistance from the general public who claimed the de Soto chronicles as part of their local heritage (Wesson 2012420). As Wesson (2012:426) states, the de

Soto chronicles are “an anchor to the past, in this case one embedded in place rather than biology, which helps individuals balance their modern life through reflection and comparison.”

Considering the past in conjunction with the concept of social memory brings about another potential issue: possibilism. Wesson (2012:426) discusses possibilism as an event in

26 which “the absence of confirmatory or disconfirmatory evidence [allows] anything one can imagine [to be] possible.” Wesson (2012:429) argues that while the community’s claims to the past may not be reinforced by archaeological evidence, the community should be afforded the same claim to the past as other groups, and have an opportunity to provide their conception of the past in its interpretation. The de Soto case illustrates how narrative creation can have a direct impact on the identity of a community. Examples such as this one highlight the reasons why archaeologists need to be critical and careful in lending legitimacy to particular narratives, and further stress the need to emphasize multiple perspectives surrounding any one retelling of history. Nevertheless, an active community is one that can be engaged, and that provides an ideal group with which cultural resource managers can effectively work, should such managers choose to seek it out. As mentioned previously, the goal is not to tell the public that they are wrong, but rather to show understanding for their perspectives, and provide the evidence available for their review. The point is not to engage negatively, or argue whose account is correct, but rather to present a narrative that attempts to avoid binary structures, and is inclusive to multiple perspectives.

The idea that memory becomes more powerful than history is not just a modern phenomenon, like the example of Childersburg. The Alamo provides an additional case study that explores how myth can overtake accurate historical accounts. Richard Flores (1998) addresses how the legend of the Alamo has been developed, and how public memory and memory-place have played a role in its development. The narrative was not generated immediately after the events took place, but instead was an accumulation of multiple accounts that would later develop into a tale with reaches far beyond the confines of the Alamo (Flores

1998:429). This particular case does not only present an example of American rebellion against

Mexico, but it also serves as an example of how binary structures reinforce a story that strays from historic fact (Flores 1998:432). The myth of the Alamo upholds the ideas of American exceptionalism and casts the Mexican army as the villains and antagonists. This particular telling of the events that transpired at the Alamo selectively silences aspects of the story, particularly individuals that were part of the historic narrative of the Alamo. It is imperative that archaeologists need to remain aware of the role our research can play in creating a narrative that may influence social memory.

Social Memory: Landscapes and Stakeholders

The process of history making in the Upper Maroni Basin provides an example of how social memory utilized in a collaborative effort can foster a working relationship between the local community and researchers (Duin et al. 2015). Duin and colleagues worked with members of the Wayana tribal nation in French Guyana, on a mapping project that initially focused on identifying archaeological resources. This project was modified after collecting input from the local community, which resulted in the inclusion of current members and further transformed the project goals to include the greater cultural landscape. Duin and others (2015:758) state that

“engaged archaeology and collaborative research are situated in contested histories, as is the underlying theme in most [projects] … concerning engaging descendant communities.” It is via collaboration that archaeologists can increase awareness of the importance of intangible heritage resources and acknowledge that narrative creation also occurred in the past (Duin et al.

2015:759). Duin and colleagues’ (2015) approach provides useful guidelines for archaeological projects, and their study captures an ideal scenario in which social memory and collaborative approaches can be utilized to incorporate multiple perspectives and different types of data into a larger project. The authors’ approach and goals are an ideal for which archaeologists can strive to

28 meet and has been instrumental in informing the research process undertaken by the RTBFR project. By giving power over to the community, archaeologists can include more people into the process, which allows for the ability to share the project’s management and incorporate the ideal options for project outcome as imagined by the stakeholders. Similar to the research conducted by Duin and colleagues, the RTBFR project was driven by the community, and the goal of this project is to provide the community with a compromise towards a narrative that is multifaceted and inclusive.

As these case studies have shown, theoretical frameworks based on conceptions of social memory have been used to construct a past that is both exclusionary and patriotic, while also instilling a sense of heritage in the communities involved (Shackel 2003). Archaeology itself is a form of commemoration, and it is the responsibility of archaeologists to be aware of the connection between memory and identity. How the past is remembered does not just reflect upon the present, it also has direct implications for the future (Shackel 2003:3). Additionally, the way in which the past is remembered can influence aspects of national and individual identity; the creation of collective memory reflects the negotiation of social and individual identity (Wilson

2010). As archaeologists and cultural resource managers, understanding how social memory operates provides an opportunity to aid in the creation of inclusive, community-oriented reflections on the past. While it is invariable that identifying multiple stakeholders and engaging them in consultation will result in a clash of perspectives, it also initiates necessary conversations. It may not be possible to please everyone, but these frameworks of social memory provide an opportunity to consider alternative interpretations of the past. Such considerations, from individuals representing multiple interested parties, have been necessarily sought out and included during the course of the RTBFR project.

The goal of taking an approach informed by social memory and commemorative landscape frameworks is to continue moving towards a community-based archaeology.

Archaeologists are stewards, not owners, of the archaeological record and the material past, however, archaeologists often serve as gatekeepers to knowledge of the past. The goal of community-based archaeology is in the name itself, which necessitates the critical involvement of the community in their own archaeological histories. Regardless if the community members are direct descendants or not, their input and participation is important in understanding history and creating historical narratives. The following section discusses relevant case studies involving community-based archaeology and how they relate to the RTBFR Project.

Community-Based Archaeology

The Remembering the Bear Flag Revolt of 1846 project has provided an opportunity to engage with the way in which the past is remembered and commemorated by both community members and cultural resource managers in Sonoma County. The initial search for Cowie and

Fowler was spurred on by the community’s interest in their own heritage, rather than it coming from an outside source. This relatively widespread interest provided me with an opportunity to work with the communities found in Sonoma County, and as such, the RTBFR project only makes sense as a community-based archaeological project. Community-based archaeological projects provide an opportunity to not only incorporate the input of multiple stakeholders on a single project, but also function as a way to democratize the field of archaeology by sharing some power with the communities and stakeholders. The case studies presented below (and some above; Christman’s (2010) New Philadelphia study falls under this umbrella, as do many social memory studies) demonstrate how a community-based approach can be applied to different

30 situations, caution some difficulties in using this approach, and also consider the role of archaeologists in the whole process.

Communities, Stakeholders and Other Interested Parties

Community-based archaeological projects provide an opportunity to empower underserved and underrepresented communities. Chirikure and Pwiti (2008) employ several case studies to provide an overview of how community involvement has been incorporated into archaeological projects in South Africa; I will discuss in detail two of their case studies that are particularly illustrative, and briefly describe several other examples of community-based archaeological approaches elsewhere in the world. The authors note that regional archaeological projects have become increasingly collaborative, incorporating stakeholders and community members. They say:

As a new discourse, community involvement has steadily gained importance as

archaeologists endeavor to increase the discipline’s social relevance by engaging

with local and Indigenous communities, in particular the communities that own

and have an interest in archaeological sites [Chirikure and Pwiti 2008:467].

Incorporating Indigenous and non-Indigenous community members provides an opportunity for groups that have been alienated from their respective histories to re-engage with their heritage

(Chirikure and Pwiti 2008:467). This approach counters the previous archaeological era— occurring during apartheid in South Africa—that viewed the local community simply as a source of labor, and published data in difficult-to-read papers and academic journals. However, the

31 often-alienated communities in South Africa, who were largely Black and of African descent, became increasingly interested in their heritage, and demanded their chance to be heard: “They called for empowerment and lobbied governments and donor bodies to enact statutes and policies designed to ensure fair treatment of local or Indigenous peoples in archaeological work”

(Chirikure and Pwiti 2008:468). By incorporating the community into the projects, archaeologists in South Africa were able to empower a marginalized group. Similarly, by incorporating Californio perspectives into the RTBFR project and connecting them to more recent Hispanic immigrants, I hope to empower these traditionally underrepresented groups to be able to create narratives around their own histories.

Additionally, archaeologists may benefit from local knowledge that can include oral histories, myths, and legends (Chirikure and Pwiti 2008:469). The Black community in South

Africa grew increasingly disappointed with the way in which narratives about them and their history were created without their input; this reflects a similar practice as has been seen in some parts of North America, including in California. This disappointment is due in part to how legislation is interpreted, but it is also part of a suite of standard practices within the archaeological discipline writ large, where data are published in technical reports that are difficult to read and access, or in academic journals that are not written with the questions the public has in mind. In other instances, the public is completely excluded from the process, and not providing them with what they want and/or need.

Community members have demanded incorporation into projects, but who falls under the category of a community member varies. Chirikure and Pwiti (2008:468) provide a definition for community and stakeholder I use in this project. They define community as:

[A] body of people inhabiting the same locality. Such a community can be insular

or cosmopolitan, insular community residents are usually bound by common

ancestry, heritage, and culture, while diversity is a hallmark of cosmopolitan

communities. Additionally, communities operate at different scales: local,

national regional, and global. In geographical terms, local communities reside

close to archaeological and cultural resources, while national, regional and global

communities live far from them [Chirikure and Pwiti 2008:468].

Communities exist at different scales and in different places, while at the same time being both mobile and diverse. The migration of people in and out of a given area creates a system in which history is left behind by those that leave, and new members experience the preexisting history, while at the same time creating their own. Many different stakeholders can be found within a given community and these individuals often have diverse interests that can be at odds with the interests of others.

Chirikure and Pwiti (2008:469) explain that, while there is disagreement among cultural resources managers over how communities, stakeholders, and indigenous communities are identified, the benefits of community-based projects far outweigh the costs, and provide an opportunity to incorporate diverse interests belonging to many groups into one project. How these groups are incorporated is context-dependent, and manifests in various forms including public outreach, site management, conservation, and involvement of school groups and local communities in archaeological excavations.

Community-based archaeological projects have become widespread over the past several decades, throughout the world. Shelley Greer and others (2002) discuss three case studies in

Australia, from Cape York, Kimberly, and New South Wales, where archaeologists have collaborated with local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups. In Europe, Siân Jones

(2012) worked with communities in the Scottish Highlands navigating trauma and loss via social memory and landscapes. In the United States, Craig Cipolla and James Quinn (2016) recently celebrated the twentieth anniversary of a collaborative field school on the Mohegan Reservation in Connecticut. Audrey Horning’s (2000) community-based work in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia serves as an example of a project working with a non-Indigenous population. The sources mentioned here are far from exhaustive, and are meant to illustrate the geographic and temporal range of community-based studies; these represent several examples in a field where hundreds of collaborative projects have been successfully undertaken. The application of community-based approaches in California has also flourished in the last decade. The foundational work of Adrian Praetzellis and Mary Praetzellis (2011) attests to this statement, and illustrates the value inherent in such an approach in a California-based, CRM-style setting.

Community-Based Archaeology and Cultural Resource Management: A California Example

Praetzellis and Praetzellis (2011) present a case study that did not start as a community- based project, but eventually developed into one. Compulsory laws in the United States can result in meaningful involvement of local communities (Chirikure and Pwiti 2008:475); however, shortcomings still exist in their application, as Praetzellis and Praetzellis explain:

Although Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act mandates the

recovery and dissemination of the information recovered from important

archaeological sites in the name of public benefit, the contribution of the cultural

resource management sector (CRM) to the public or to civic engagement and

education has not achieved its potential [Praetzellis and Praetzellis 2011:86].

While some historical archaeologists seek to find new interpretations and novel approaches to the presentation and publication of data, difficulties arise during the actual application of these concepts. Historical archaeology provides methods and approaches, which can be used to challenge the master narrative; however, such challenges have been frequently struck down by agencies and reviewers overseeing the archaeological projects (Praetzellis and Praetzellis

2011:86–87). Praetzellis and Praetzellis (2011:87) discuss how the “reviews of some of our own reports have included instructions to delete everything that connected the past with the present as having ‘no bearing on archaeology’ and ‘too much political agenda.’” Instead of offering interpretations of the past, historical archaeologists are asked to be history’s “little helper,” and are told that “archaeological findings should stand on their own with only descriptions and minimal, safe interpretation” (Praetzellis and Praetzellis 2011:87). These instructions limit the potential role archaeology can play in understanding the past, as well as limiting the connection of the present community with the past.

There can be roadblocks when applying and interpreting the legislations that guide CRM, especially when considering how the laws discuss community involvement in archaeological projects. Nevertheless, Praetzellis and Praetzellis (2011) provide an example of a community- based archaeological approach to a CRM project: the California Department of Transportation’s

(Caltrans) Cypress Freeway Project in West Oakland, California. The project resulted from a section of freeway being replaced, following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (Praetzellis and

Praetzellis 2011:88). It did not start as a community-based project, but over time developed into

35 one. At the beginning of the project, circumstances required that excavations be done prior to community involvement. “Keeping the fieldwork ahead of construction on this emergency project was the highest priority and, frankly, overshadowed other important aspects of the project” (Praetzellis and Praetzellis 2011:88). Nevertheless, community involvement would eventually become a part of the project, which saw a cooperative effort be made between project managers and the local community. The researchers were able to take advantage of the opportunity they saw before them to connect neighborhoods from past to present. “To connect the archaeology with place, people, and the present, the focus was on oral history and the built environment” (Praetzellis and Praetzellis 2011:88). Using an inclusive approach, the researchers actively included community members who were not represented in the archaeological collection; that is, individuals who were not lineal or cultural descendants of the former inhabitants (Praetzellis and Praetzellis 2011:88). Ultimately, the authors note that while they eventually did bring community perspectives into their research, the local community as a resource itself was underutilized, and even though the project was “successful, it did not live up to its full potential” (Praetzellis and Praetzellis 2011:326.) Their approach provides an example of how archaeology can be a part of the local community’s history, even if they are not direct descendants of the individuals connected to the archaeological record. Similarly, the Bear Flag

Revolt stakeholder groups do not only include the direct descendants of its participants, but also the people that live within the community, who seek out and engage with their local history.

While Praetzellis and Praetzellis (2011) is the community-based case study most relevant to this thesis, there are other recent examples of community-based California archaeological studies worth noting. Barbara Voss and colleagues (2013) at Stanford were some of the first archaeologists working in California to apply a community-based approach to long-term research

36 on historic Chinatown in San Jose. More recently, Kent Lightfoot and Sara Gonzalez (2019) at

UC Berkeley have applied aspects of a community-based approach to their study of sustained colonialism on the Kashaya Pomo site of Metini Village, in northern Sonoma County. At

Sonoma State University, Erica Thompson’s thesis (2017) working with stakeholders in the historically Black Central Valley town of Allensworth, also provides an example of a collaborative project in the context of a CRM graduate program.

Archaeologists as Facilitators of the Archaeological Record

Community-based archaeological projects can include diverse stakeholders and question official narratives. The Levuka Cultural Landscape Project (Silberman and Purser 2012:19;

Purser 2012) provides an example that highlights the role of archaeologists as heritage facilitators in situations where the process of the data collection was also the product. Levuka is a town on the island of Ovalau in Fiji; the Levuka Cultural Landscape Project was initiated by the island’s nomination to be added to the World Heritage list, which would result in it being recognized for the role it played in in history (Silberman and Purser 2012:19). The goal of the project was to record what aspects the members of the community recognized as a significant part of their local heritage, which would then be disseminated to authorities, including their own government, international consultants, and other decision-makers (Silberman and Purser

2012:19–20). Over five field seasons, the participatory GIS project created multiple embedded maps. At the beginning of each season, a series of workshops and meetings were held in which participants collaborated on the development of project goals (Silberman and Purser 2012:19–

20). In creating these workshops, the archaeologists worked to empower the local community, and create a more inclusive project:

Participants in these meetings worked on three things: reviewing the new images

produced in previous season’s work; developing the new information for that

season and deciding what kinds of information should be recorded next. Each

successive season’s maps were generated based on what the previous work

revealed [Silberman and Purser 2012:20].

The process of creating the map was equally as important as the data collection. The approach taken by these researchers exemplifies how archaeologists can work as a facilitators of the archaeological process, while relinquishing power to the community members and working towards a common goal. The RTBFR project was initiated by the community, and will be completed by the community. As a CRM practitioner, it is my goal to act as a facilitator and moderator of the archaeological record, while ultimately answering to the community and relinquishing any definitive ownership or claim I may have to the project and its archaeology.

Over the course of this project, I have attempted to relinquish power bestowed upon me via my credentials and education, and hand it over to the community who are closely attached and connected to this history. Additionally, the data recovered in this project is not just the ‘yay or nay’ that participants gave for whether or not something should be commemorated, but instead includes the interview process, the incorporation of community opinion and involvement, and the initiation of discussion and interest about local history. Similarly to Levuka, Sonoma County has a diverse community with multiple voices, some heard more often than others. By initiating conversations such as these in an inclusive manner, the history of place, shared across communities and stakeholders, becomes apparent. The RTBFR project provides an opportunity to bring to light lesser-known narratives, incorporate neglected voices, and pay heed to the

38 community’s perspective on how their history should be presented. For the purposes of this project, my interests lie in bringing Californio and Indigenous voices more prominently into the fold.

The case studies presented here show some of the costs and benefits that can result from taking a community-based approach, while also discussing process and product of this type of research design, and the role that archaeologists play in its development. These case studies have demonstrated that taking such an approach provides an opportunity to challenge the master narrative, while including multiple voices, and incorporating the public as part of the process.

Incorporating the public is essential for creating an inclusive field, which is one that will benefit from a public community that cares about its historical and archaeological heritage.

Summary

The foregoing review of the scholarly literature situates the RTBFR project in terms of three primary concepts. Social memory relates to how individuals and groups remember past events happening; these remembrances can be accurate, inaccurate, or somewhere in between.

Historically, certain perspectives are valued over others, and community identity can be formed based on these collective memories. Commemorative landscapes are the way in which social memory is inscribed on the landscape; this can have further community implications regarding which histories and stories get repeated or forgotten, as well as whose stories are important enough to receive statuary and whose are not. Community-based archaeology seeks to address inequality and blind-spots in the commemorative process by including the community and interested in stakeholders in deciding how commemoration should be carried out, by both the government and broader community forces. The RTBFR Project represents a chance to bring

39 these frameworks together in a new way, incorporating a new community, and an opportunity for a unique contribution to CRM and the field of archaeology in California.

Chapter 4: Methods of Data Collection and Analysis

The search for Cowie and Fowler, as initiated by Sonoma County community members

Bill Northcroft and Ray Owens, was the first step in the RTBFR project, with the goal of bringing Cowie and Fowler’s story to light in Sonoma County. Considering how many members of the Sonoma County community have been active and invested stakeholders in the commemoration of their past, a collaborative approach seemed very appropriate for this project, which has subsequently guided the methods used in this project. Fortunately, an approach of this type inherently lends itself to the application of methods from several disciplines. For the purposes of this study, methods drawn from academic fields such as archaeology, history, and cultural anthropology were incorporated into this project as they applied to aspects of commemoration and memory. An aim of this project was to explore the remembered past, including the role that archaeologists/cultural resource managers play in creating history, and identify the ways in which history can be created in a collaborative way. Prior to conducting any fieldwork, I completed the Institutional Review Board (IRB; see Appendix A) process at Sonoma

State University (SSU); this process ensures ethical compliance with human subjects research, by ensuring informed consent of participants. Then, I conducted interviews (see Appendix B), visited sites that were discussed in interviews, compared the interviewees’ remembered past with

“official” histories, and engaged in participant observation, via an attempt to interact with and observe Sonoma County community members during public events.

Archival Research in Sonoma State Library’s Gaye LeBaron Collection

Archives serve as one type of institution that can yield information which can be used to better understand local narrative creation. Archives often hold special collections that focus on local history, which I was hoping would be true in the SSU archive for sources concerning the

Revolt. For the purposes of my project, I explored SSU’s archive and library to get a basic understanding of historical perspectives of the Revolt, but more importantly to see what types of information are held within this local archive. My search, with assistance from the SSU library curator Lynn Prime, included transcribed oral histories from interviews conducted in the past, and history books. The archives’ Gaye LeBaron Collection, which consists of BFR research material used and generated by Gaye LeBaron, a local historian and writer for the Santa Rosa

Press Democrat, was instrumental in conducting background research for the project. Access to this collection regarding the Revolt provides insight into the information that could be accessed by this journalist, as well as how stories of the Revolt have been historically constructed. In addition to this insight, research in the SSU archive also provided an opportunity to investigate the types of sources a local archive may hold regarding a local event with community importance. The search was supplemental for the purposes of this project and was not a resource that was exhausted. My intent for this project was not to rewrite the story of the Revolt, but rather to explore how it had been discussed, which further reveals how the event was regarded by other narrative creators. In searching through the archive’s collection of the Revolt, I gained insight into the significance it had for the local community’s history. While the information in the archive proved useful to my research, I was also interested in what information was left out, and what could stand to be added in the future.

Historical Records: Newspapers and Secondary Sources

Newspapers from SSU’s online newspaper archive were one type of source material consulted for this project. While a newspaper is, at a base level, a collection of local, national, and global stories, it can also be a resource that provides insight into community. Newspaper articles reveal interest on particular topics, as has been seen with the case of Cowie and Fowler,

42 and can demonstrate changes in these stories as they have been told over time. Through consultation of newspaper articles, I gained insight into how the local community learned about the Revolt, and with which perspectives they were presented. The Santa Rosa Press Democrat was the primary newspaper consulted for this project. When reading historic news stories (and current ones, for that matter), it is necessary to consider how a story has been written, what perspectives are presented, and how these aspects influence the story that is ultimately told.

Similar to artifacts of material culture in the archaeological record, a newspaper article is one that provides insight beyond the text that is provided. However, it is imperative to read between the lines, and consider what perspectives are being left out, intentionally or otherwise.

In addition to the newspapers, I consulted history books and commonly used textbooks that served as secondary sources presenting their own narratives. With an understanding that the written record comes from specific perspectives, I aimed to investigate how the story was retold to fit the narrative of the books and articles that discuss the Revolt. These books also provided insight into the time in which the books were written, as well as what factors may have driven the author to write it.

Site Visits

To understand the current commemorative landscape, it was necessary to visit places in

Sonoma County that commemorate the Bear Flag Revolt generally, as well as those that commemorate Cowie and Fowler more specifically. During my first few interviews, I was able to connect with community members who had diverse perspectives from one another; however, some participants mentioned, independently of one another, something I had not considered: places of significance. In the first set of interviews, participants discussed sites of significance related to the Bear Flag Revolt, including the Sonoma Plaza, the Carrillo Adobe, and Olompali

State Historic Park. It was based upon their responses that I decided to visit these sites in order to further explore current commemorations of the Revolt. Following the first three interviews, I added a question that asked stakeholders to identify what sites they found significant, which resulted in a list of places I planned to visit.

After compiling a list of sites to visit from these initial interviews, I scouted the locations in preparation for more focused visits. Site scouting activities included vehicular survey, as well as conducting additional online research to identify basic place information, such as visitor hours

(when available). From the sites identified, there were certain limitations to which sites could be included as part of this project’s research. Limitations included physical barriers, such as fencing of private property, the inability to accurately determine the location of an adobe or other significant place, and locations outside of Sonoma County, which were beyond the scope for this particular project. An exception was made for the site of Olompali, since it was the only known site of an actual battle of significance near Sonoma County, and was located relatively close to the Sonoma County boundary line.

Following the initial scouting of sites and archival background research, I made formal visits to the sites identified by stakeholders in the interviews conducted. In total, I was able to visit four of the locations identified by interviewees, including the Sonoma Plaza, the Carrillo

Adobe, Olompali State Historic Park, and the location identified as the burial site of Cowie and

Fowler (although excavations did not locate any burials). The purpose of these visits was to explore how the past has been remembered, and how the Revolt was discussed and presented at these locations. I wanted to explore how the events of 1846 were presented at these sites, which actors were included in narratives of the events, and how these individuals were portrayed. The

44 purpose of these visits was to gain a basic understanding of how the Revolt is commemorated in present day, and to furnish ideas of what could be contributes to future commemorations.

The intent of the site visits was to explore commemoration as it already exists, in order to gain a sense of which perspectives are currently accepted as accurate. To do this, I conducted a pedestrian survey of the information presented at the study sites identified from stakeholder interviews, documenting how these displays of information were arranged. I looked for informative plaques and interpretive displays and videos. In addition to visiting these places of significance, I also collected pamphlets and other information made available to the public for free. The information presented was diverse in its telling of the events surrounding the Revolt, and also presented different perspectives. When appropriate, I also drew sketches of display layouts, in an attempt to gain a spatial understanding of where information was located on-site, in addition to how it was presented. The purpose of drawing layout sketches is to better understand how a narrative is constructed by the way it is presented. In other words, it asks, what is the focal point of the portrayal, and why might this be the case? While I did visit specific site locations that stakeholders indicated were important, my site visits likely did not cover every location significant the Bear Flag Revolt, nor was it an exhaustive survey or thorough search of the various locations. I did basic site visits, and obtained easily accessible information, without seeking further explanation from other experts, nor from site representatives. The information sought from the survey of these sites was supplemental to the interviews, which were instrumental in choosing which sites had community importance regarding commemoration of the Revolt. This provides an example of the benefits that incorporating diverse perspectives and opinions into a research project may bring, as stakeholders often bring to light questions the researcher had not considered previously.

Collecting Stories and Sharing Histories

While test excavations that were conducted to search for the remains of Cowie and

Fowler were ultimately not successful, the project raised several important questions, including how these men could be commemorated, if found, and how they have been commemorated thus far. Other questions raised include: how has the Bear Flag Revolt been remembered and commemorated in the past? How will it be remembered in the future? Does the remembered past have any influence in the present, in an individual and/or collective way? To explore these questions, it was necessary to interact with community members, and listen to what they had to say.

My primary contribution to the “Remembering the Bear Flag Revolt of 1846” project included collecting oral histories (Table 1) from members of various stakeholder groups, including the descendants of participants of the Bear Flag Revolt, special interest group members, and other interested parties. To guide how to prepare, conduct, and interpret the data collected from interviews, I utilized Donald A. Ritchie’s (2003) book Doing Oral History, which provided an overview of oral history methods. The book also included a code of ethics by which

I tried to abide. The goals of conducting the oral history interviews were threefold: to identify key themes from various ethnic communities, and explore their areas of intersection when discussing the Bear Flag Revolt; to understand if the Revolt has influenced the community at an individual and/or group level, including community member interactions; and to create an account of the Revolt that takes into consideration different perspectives, in an attempt to avoid a binary structure to the story. One of the goals was to embody an approach that democratizes the consultation process that occurs within an archaeological project, and to test an approach that goes beyond the requirements of the existing legislation. Not every interview went as planned,

46 and some of my initial goals ended up being outside the scope of this project, however, they did influence the questions I asked, the questionnaire that was created, and the individuals that were interviewed.

Table 1. List of interviewees.

Name Date Interest Group Affiliation Birthdate Birthplace Sonoma Sister Cities Adolfo “Patrick” Garcia Association; Los “late (L/C)* 10/25/2015 Californianos 1930s” Not provided Friends of the Carrillo Adobe; Historical Society Larry Carrillo (L/C) 11/7/2015 of Santa Rosa 12/17/1943 Corvallis, Oregon Santa Rosa Rural Cemetery Preservation Committee; Sonoma County Genealogical Woodland, Ray Owen (NL) 11/11/2015 Society 3/17/1940 Washington Santa Rosa Rural Cemetery Preservation Bill Northcroft (NL) 11/11/2015 Committee 1957 Chico, California Santa Rosa Rural William Montgomery Cemetery Preservation Philadelphia, (NL) 3/31/2016 Committee 1943 Pennsylvania Society of California Pioneers; Cloverdale San Francisco, Crawford Cooley (L/B) 4/15/2016 Historical Society 1927 California Friends of the Carrillo Donna Marie Carrillo Adobe; Historical Society Santa Rosa, Endicott (L/C) 4/21/2016 of Santa Rosa 8/5/1933 California Sonoma County Historical Society; Historical Society Gaye LeBaron (NL) 6/11/2016 of Santa Rosa 1935 Scotia, California New York, New Winston Dutton (L/C) 6/14/2016 Los Californianos 1955 York n/a (did not conduct this George Webber (NL) 11/15/2016 section of the interview) 1954 Des Moines, Iowa Sonoma State Historic Park Association; retired “a long Thomasville, Breck Parkman (NL) 11/30/2016 State Parks archaeologist time ago” Georgia New York, New Ken Brown (NL) 12/1/2016 Not Applicable 1947 York

Sonoma League for Historic Preservation, Sonoma Valley Historical Society, The Institute for Historical Study, American Academy for Peter Meyerhof (NL) 12/4/2016 the History of Dentistry 1951 London, England Santa Rosa Historical Santa Rosa, Kathleen Guelfi (L/C) 12/5/2016 Society July 1957 California Donald Nelson Edwards Sonoma County (NL) 12/7/2016 Genealogical Society 11/21/1948 Denver, Colorado Sacred Sites Protection Committee, Historical Society of Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa, Nick [redacted] (L/O) 12/12/2016 SCA, etc. 12/20/1947 California *NL= non-lineal stakeholder; L= lineal descendant stakeholder; C= Californio; B= Bear Flagger; O= other

I interviewed stakeholders from a variety of backgrounds, including lineal descendants of participants in the Revolt, including individuals who identified as Californio and as

Euroamerican. I prioritized interviewees who identified as Californio, and attempted to interview other community members who may also be underrepresented. Who qualifies as an underrepresented stakeholder may not always be obvious initially, as it changes from project to project, and from location to location. My preliminary research indicated that the underrepresented group in the retelling of the Revolt appeared to be the Californio descendants.

Additionally, I identify Bill Northcroft and Ray Owens as non-traditional stakeholders; these men initiated the search for Cowie and Fowler, and although they are not lineal descendants, they have had a highly active role in the community, and their roles as volunteers in the continued preservation and commemoration of our shared past are highly valued.

Additional participants in interviews included other interested parties, such as members of local historical societies, other special interest groups, and archaeologists. I was able to connect with these diverse individuals through a combination of personal references, and

48 networking while attending public events that commemorated the past. However, a majority of the interviewees were identified through recommendations from other interviewers, including

Gaye LeBaron, whom several individuals indicated would be a good interview candidate. Some of the individuals were also associated directly or indirectly with cultural resource management, archaeology, and other related fields, so it seemed natural to seek their input as part of this project.

The oral history interviews were structured by a questionnaire consisting of 20 baseline questions, which could grow up to 45 questions, dependent on the answers interviewees provided. The questionnaire was comprised of three distinct sections, each intended to elicit different information from the participants. The first section of the interview focused on the interviewee’s background, which included their birthplace, upbringing, and early experiences in

Sonoma County. The purpose of this section was to gain a better understanding of the demographic makeup of Sonoma County’s community at the time the interviews were conducted, and to get community perspectives on present-day Sonoma County. This section also served as an “icebreaker,” which was intended to relax the interviewee, and hopefully result in them opening up more about their experiences and their perspectives. Additionally, this first section serves as an opportunity to explore Sonoma County’s current community members’ history, their contributions to the local community, and their opinions on the recent history of

Sonoma County, including its growth and change. The second section of the interview focused on the Bear Flag revolt, particularly on how it is remembered and retold by community members. This section also included opinions on how the Revolt is commemorated generally, as well as the casualties of the Revolt, specifically, Cowie and Fowler. The purpose of this section was to get a better understanding of what knowledge the community holds about the Revolt, the

49 public’s perception of the events that took place in June of 1846, and how the community members feel the Revolt should be remembered and commemorated. The third section of the interview focused on special interest groups, such as historical societies. This final section was intended to be optional, although many interviewees were members of at least one special interest group at the time the interview took place and chose to participate. The purpose of the last section of the interview was to gain a better understanding of the ways in which community members are actively participating in their community’s heritage, as well as the interest they show towards similar heritage-based topics, as might be seen in a historical society, or in other organizations that deal directly with commemoration and remembrance of the past.

The questions posed to stakeholders, the range of responses received, and the tone of each interview varied between participants. While interviewees could potentially be asked up to

45 questions, most interviews consisted of about 20 questions total; the length of the interview was completely dependent on the interview’s trajectory. Some questions required only yes/no answers, which led into subsequent questions, while others only applied to specific groups (e.g.,

Are you part of any special interest group? If yes, it could lead the interview into section three.).

For some interviewees, I did not have to ask as many questions, because they answered them without needing to be prompted, or they covered them in the process of elaborating on other questions. Over the course of two years, I was able to conduct 15 interviews with 16 people (two of the participants interviewed together.) The questionnaire was designed to have interviews lasted from five minutes to an hour, however, eight out of the 15 interviews lasted for over an hour, and five of these exceeded two hours in duration.

My flexible approach to the interview process allowed participants to have freedom in their responses and I made a concerted effort to limit interrupting their commentary. I wanted

50 them to have an opportunity to fully flesh out their thoughts, in the hopes that they would share their personal opinions openly. As a result, some interviews lasted longer than expected, with participants providing an excess of information, even if not all of it was directly relevant to this project. In line with the goals of this project, I aimed to provide insight into the overall community found in Sonoma County today, based upon the accounts given by the interviewees.

Additionally, I wanted to take an opportunity to highlight the contributions of these individuals to their community; history is a dynamic process, a fact that was not lost on me as I spoke with these individuals, who were considerate enough to take the time to engage in informal discussion with me. By taking this approach, I feel that it made it possible to interact with community members in a more meaningful way, and made it so the responses may be more significant for the project, as well as for the community.

Collecting oral histories provides an opportunity to engage in a collaborative approach that can lead to the democratization of a project, however, there are limitations, as with any type of study, that should be addressed. For this project, I was limited by the number of participants with which I was able to get in contact, as well as the time with which they could be available to speak with me. The responses given by the interviewees were also affected by their own personal biases, and this limitation is also apparent in the selection of questions by the interviewer who had an explicit bias (i.e., I was interested in the BFR and its commemoration.). Additionally, while I attempted to incorporate a diverse group of perspectives, there are definitely underserved and underrepresented community members with whom I was not able to incorporate into my study, due to limited time and resources.

Transcription is a necessary component of the interview process and, ultimately, all 15 interviews were fully transcribed. Transcribing provides an opportunity for the researchers to

51 revisit the interview, while the transcription process itself creates additional meaning. This change in format also allows for further interpretation, which can be dependent on the transcriber’s opinion on which words, tics, pauses, and even the spelling of certain words is used.

From the interviews conducted, I have extracted the sections most relevant to the RTBFR project, in an attempt to answer some of the questions posed by the project. Following the completion of the thesis, the interviews will be submitted to the Oral History Center at UC

Berkeley archive for public access. Transcribing the interviews provides a format that may be more accessible to future researchers, and in an attempt to retain all aspects of the interview, these have been transcribed as close to verbatim as was reasonably possible. I took the liberty of removing some speech tics, such as excessive filler words (e.g., um, uh, etc.), but have kept most in place, as I feel they are part of the interview process, and function as a piece of information themselves. Tics and pauses can give insight into the thought process, as well as the participant’s experience, in terms of comfort and general experience (on the part of both interviewer and interviewee). While I have attempted to retain the information and feeling of the interviews in the transcripts, I cannot deny that some things are invariably lost in the transcription process.

Nevertheless, the transcribed interviews provide an alternate method of consuming the information, while also providing an opportunity to learn information that may have been missed while listening to the raw interview recording.

These interviews provided an opportunity to discuss different individuals’ perspectives, knowledge, and opinions on the Bear Flag Revolt, as well as their lives in Sonoma County. In the interview process, I inquired about the ethnic groups who lived in Sonoma County at the time of the Revolt, and how they may be reflected in ethnic groups within the community today. I also explored, in the opinions of the interviewees, how the Bear Flag Revolt is and is not

52 commemorated in Sonoma County, as well as what aspects are remembered, and why that may be the case. Based on these interviews, I have examined the similarities and differences between the perspectives provided by community members of different ethnic and stakeholder groups, and examined how these individuals identify with participants in the Revolt, and the Revolt in general.

Summary

In addition to collecting and analyzing oral histories from stakeholders, I looked at how the stories of Sonoma’s past compared to the official narratives of the Revolt found in textbooks, monuments, museum displays, public performances, and other portrayals. Incorporating different datasets helped provide guidance for future public presentations of the Revolt, as well as developing an understanding of what impact it has had on the community of Sonoma County.

Chapter 5: Results

Applying a collaborative approach to the RTBFR project provided an opportunity to hear directly from the Sonoma County community, with the goal of incorporating their input into the project at all levels. In this chapter, I present the results from my data collection, which is organized thematically. While the majority of data was drawn from oral histories I conducted over two years, additional data collection in the form of site visits and archival research helped to supplement the data supplied by the study participants. Concepts covered in this chapter include the incorporation of input from non-descendant stakeholders, overall participant impressions and understanding of the revolt, the commemorative landscape of the Revolt, and ways in which narratives may influence the creation and maintenance of ethnic identity.

Interviews with Non-descendant Stakeholders

Part of the cultural resource management process includes varying levels of consultation with descendent communities, who are most often direct, lineal descendants who have cultural ties to a specific project. However, there are also non-descendant stakeholders that can take interest in a project and provide additional perspective. The importance of non-descendant stakeholders can be explicitly seen in the RTBFR project, which was initiated by Bill Northcroft and Ray Owens. These two men are Sonoma County community members, who are not direct descendants of the deceased, nor are they known descendants of any Bear Flag Revolt participant. During the data collection phase of this project, I was able to interview both lineal descendants and non-lineal stakeholders; within this section, I take special interest in the viewpoints of non-descendant community members, in an attempt to better understand what, why, and how they perceive the BFR. I conducted interviews with journalist Gaye LeBaron, and community advocates Bill Northcroft, Ray Owens, Ken Brown, George Webber, among others;

54 these non-descendant stakeholders have played a vital role in creating Sonoma County’s narrative surrounding the BFR, either directly or indirectly. Their contributions should be highlighted and praised, because these heritage creators and hobbyists have become the specialists CRM practitioners need to understand the context of a given place, time, or person.

One such example can be exemplified in Dr. Peter Meyerhof’s interest in history that led him to write a detailed history of Robert Semple, who was recognized as one of the leaders of the Bear

Flaggers (Marcus-Willers 2019).

A question that can be asked of these stakeholders is why they do it? And it seemed part of the motivation for some of the community members was an interest in local history. Similar to many CRM practitioners, they seek to find untold stories left out of the master narrative, and that leads them to ask questions. As Mr. Northcroft stated:

Well, it comes down to Cowie and Fowler. It’s kind of a back door. I don’t think either

one of us [Bill Northcroft and Ray Owens] started out wanting to delve deeply into the

events of the Bear Flag. It was purely these two individuals that’d been lost, and to find

them. ’Cause there seemed, a very … thin, but a bread crumb trail, leading to where their

whereabouts were. Somebody seemed to know something.

The research begun by Northcroft and Owens resulted in a larger investigation that brought archaeologists into this research in an official, formal capacity. It was through their actions and interests that this project has come to light, and it is through their extracurricular investigations of local history that the Sonoma County community is able to benefit. As Mr. Owens indicates,

55 the project also provided an opportunity for him to do what he enjoys, investigate something, and conduct research. Mr. Owens stated his interest and involvement in the search for Cowie and

Fowler: “well, it’s kind of addictive if you’re a retired investigator. I got interested in it, and started researching on newspapers and accounts, and we eventually came across an account by

Gaye LeBaron.” Mr. Owens’ curiosity about local history provides insight into the interest

Sonoma County community members have in their heritage. Interested individuals provide CRM practitioners an opportunity to initiate additional conversations within the communities with which they work, and can also initiate the consultation process for archaeological projects. In addition to the search for Cowie and Fowler, Bill and Ray have been long term volunteers at the

Santa Rosa Rural Cemetery, which goes to show how interested and passionate they are about their community, and their community’s history. This interest in local history is also echoed in

Dr. Meyerhof’s project on Robert Semple, which he started when he began researching dentistry in California and eventually led to a deep dive into the history of the Bear Flag Revolt. Dr.

Meyerhof stated, “I’ve always been interested in the history of the locations where I've lived, and the more I read on the history of Sonoma, the more I saw that that there were some very interesting stories that weren’t really that well known that I wanted to find out more about.” It seems the sentiment of an untold story or forgotten history is a common thread in the replies of most non-descendant stakeholders who participated in the RTBFR project. This interest can be termed the “breadcrumb trail” (in the words of Mr. Northcroft), which is an initial curiosity that leads to a deep dive into local history; this interest is the same type of that CRM practitioners could draw upon during the course of their own research. Dr. Meyerhof’s interest in history has resulted in a book draft on Robert Semple, which is likely to exceed 600 pages in length (Peter

Meyerhof, personal communication 2016) The book continues to develop as Dr. Meyerhof

56 incorporates new details in the course of his research, turning him into the type of expert who can provide specialized insight into a subject that a CRM practitioner may lack. Another expert by accident is Gaye LeBaron, a journalist who has written for the local newspaper, Santa Rosa

(California) Press Democrat, for several decades. Through her journalistic style of writing,

LeBaron became an institution in the community, even though that was not her intention.

LeBaron described herself as more of a story-teller than a historian, and it seems her approach is rooted in a core ideal, as she stated in our interview, “I think every life should be worth telling.”

Several other interviewees referenced her as an expert, or as a key person with whom to consult.

LeBaron’s reputation among the community goes to show how much impact one individual can have on an entire community, as well as the sense of pride and respect the community has for this local narrative creator. Through the oral history interviews, I found that the participants’ motivations generally aligned with the pursuit to answer questions about history, their consideration of the local community, and a sense of overall duty to the community. As mentioned above, interviewees felt a strong need to finish a story, as well as fulfilling an interest in and/or curiosity about the past.

As introduced above, non-descendant stakeholders who were interviewed as part of this project included members of the Santa Rosa Rural Cemetery Preservation Committee (SRRCC), a group that has worked towards restoring and maintaining the Santa Rosa Rural Cemetery, as well as engaging in public outreach and historical tours since 1994. During the oral history interview I conducted with Mr. Montgomery, he discussed the origins of this committee. The

Santa Rosa Rural Cemetery Committee was initially created to clean up the Santa Rosa Rural

Cemetery by removing overgrown vegetation. However, as the group completed projects, they would continually create a new goal to achieve, all with the intent to contribute to and benefit the

Sonoma County community. Even though the work they did was for the betterment of the community, it did not mean that the organization was welcomed with open arms by all of

Sonoma County’s community members, nor did it mean that the group did not encounter any roadblocks. William Montgomery discussed an issue that arose early in the restoration of the

Santa Rosa Rural Cemetery:

We had a group arise that called themselves the “Committee to Save the Cemetery,” and

their issue was, they thought all that vegetation in the cemetery was appropriate and

necessary because it was good for wildlife, which there is truth to it, plus their dogs liked

to run through the cemetery, and through that vegetation, so they actually opposed us

removing a lot of the vegetation, in the cemetery. So, they had their hearing before the

City Council; the City Council said, “thank you for your comments, however, these

people are doing a fantastic job, and this is a historic site.”

This type of pushback (that is, certain community members whose primary interests are not historic preservation or commemoration, as with the dog owners) is not uncommon in the field of

CRM. Maintaining an active working relationship with stakeholders can help reinforce why business is conducted in a certain way, and may help provide the public with additional context for local projects. While there was some pushback against the goals of the SRRCC, ultimately the community viewed their project as a valuable resource, which also served to build a healthy relationship with the local government. This approach taken by non-descendant community members can serve as an example as well as a reminder to CRM practitioners of what can go right.

Mr. Montgomery is not the only stakeholder who has had to deal with obstacles. While

Mr. Northcroft and Mr. Owens were optimistic regarding the possibility of finding the remains of

Cowie and Fowler, their search did not result in the answers they sought, or the physical remains of the causalities of the BFR. Things don’t always go as planned, but sometimes that allows new opportunities or new information to come to light. While Ms. LeBaron is a highly respected professional journalist in the community, she acknowledges she sometimes got things wrong.

During her interview, she divulged that “You learn more about something after you write about the column than you knew before,” in reference to critiques of a column after it has been published. Similarly, CRM practitioners may be made aware of mistakes made in the report writing process, however, such mistakes should be viewed as a learning experience, and not seen as a limitation or deal breaker.

Non-descendant stakeholders, including Linda Lauren (who was not interviewed, but complied a history of the Carrillo family sometime in the 1980s–1990s) and Gaye LeBaron, play an important role in the narrative creation of the Bear Flag Revolt. Lauren’s life project was spent pursuing the untold story of the Carrillo family, while Gaye LeBaron pursued her journalism-inspired impulse to write about what she felt was important enough to share with the community. Ms. Lauren’s life project resulted in helping the Carrillo family rediscover elements of their history, however, there are certain cases in which information is not positively received.

As Ms. LeBaron stated, “I’m sure, whatever I do will piss some people off. Again, there’s a lot of people who really want to look at that whole period, under, with, rose, rose-tinted glasses, and you can’t tell [a] story without going into the depths… there’s some, there’s some pretty awful stuff.” Ms. LeBaron’s comment can apply to the difficulties that journalist and CRM practitioner alike are faced with holders of authority to contribute to a narrative. The highly contested nature

59 of many commemorative landscapes and local history narratives is a fact that narrative creators need to be actively aware of; this can be archaeologists or someone else coming from a position of authority contesting a local history (as with Wesson’s [2012] study of the supposed de Soto trail), or it can mean a stakeholder or group contesting the interpretation of archaeologists (as with Beisaw’s [2010] study of NAGPRA’s shortcomings). LeBaron’s approach to writing seems to be based on an honest and direct manner of storytelling, which is tempered by receiving constructive criticism following a story’s publication. LeBaron said, “we didn’t spend a lot of time worrying about the people we took [the history] away from. That came much later, a little sensitivity training along the way.” This is a reference to changes in the general public’s understanding of history, and a personal awareness of her own effects on the creation of the historical record. Ms. LeBaron’s approach seems to have been influenced after receiving critiques from local historian and emeritus Professor of History at SSU, Dr. Dan Markwyn, who suggested that every story has multiple sides. The critical feedback Ms. LeBaron received from

Dr. Markwyn helped influence her writing style, specifically regarding the way in which she has written about the BFR. Following Dr. Markwyn’s advice, Ms. LeBaron made an attempt to incorporate multiple perspectives into the BFR narrative, which was apparent when reading over three decades of articles she authored for the Press Democrat (see, for example: LeBaron 1982a- b, 2014). Some key elements include the terminology used when discussing the participants in her accounts, as well as incorporating components of the Californio perspective. Ms. LeBaron’s opinion and experience seems to parallel the role archaeologists play in creating narratives.

Archaeologists often think of themselves as outsiders functioning as observers of the archaeological record, but, as Ms. LeBaron learned firsthand, we are also moderators, or facilitators, who determine which perspectives are presented, and how.

First Impression of the BFR

In this section I briefly review how different groups have learned about the BFR, and what may have led to further study on the subject. It became apparent by the end of this project that there are generally two tracks in which the public is introduced to the BFR as a part of

California history. One approach includes a formal narrative presented in an academic setting

(i.e., California history curricula in primary school), while the second approach consists of direct and indirect commemorations of the BFR found in state parks, or in something as simple as the state flag. For lifetime California residents, it appears that primary school history class is the primary source for first BFR encounters, as was stated by Mr. Northcroft. He recalls, “Of course.

Anybody who attended California schools heard it, but it was pretty cursory, and not much in depth.” Additionally, Mr. Carrillo, a Californio lineal descendant, mused, “California history is taught in the fourth grade, I don’t know why we teach it that early?” On an overwhelmingly consistent basis, which is somewhat surprising, it seems that early introduction to the events of the BFR results in individuals being left with very little knowledge about the subject. Mr.

Dutton, a Carrillo descendant, recalled learning about the Revolt in grade school, and remarked,

“but boy that made no impression on me. I mean, I knew nothing until I was in my mid-twenties or something.” I am not making an argument that this event in California history should not be taught in primary school, but rather that all history should be taught in such a way that it leaves an impression on the students, otherwise one may argue, why bother? Ms. Guelfi, a retired grade school teacher who taught California history, provided insight to her approach on teaching history, in addition to her early understanding of California history. In her interview, she discussed her teaching philosophy in that she tried to connect her students to history on a personal level to make it more alive for the students; this philosophy could be in part inspired by

61 her learning about the BFR in her youth. Ms. Guelfi mentions the role her mother, Donna Marie

Carrillo Endicott, played in elevating and expanding the history of California, and how enmeshed California history was with Ms. Guelfi’s family. This included public displays that discussed the BFR; regarding such displays, Ms. Guelfi stated in her interview:

Fourth grade, when I was in fourth grade. Because I can remember reading, and at that

time we would bring home our textbooks and read about different things, and there wasn't

much about the Bear Flag Revolt, but there was enough in there to know that it was really

close by, and my mom, taking us over to Sonoma and seeing the mission, and the

barracks, and kind of making it alive. I can remember thinking there was an, image of the

flag that, that the California flag would look so much like the Bear Flaggers’ flag, that,

but it was very crudely, like, stitched and stuff, and that made an impression, that it

quote, “occurred in Sonoma,” and then the classic, “…and no one died,” which was very

impressive to me; that they could have something like that happen, and no one died, and

that was, like, the statement.

Having an opportunity to visit the locations of historic events, and connect these events to her heritage seems to have provided Ms. Guelfi with a greater connection to California history, as well as resulting in a more substantial first impression. How closely tied the Revolt is to Sonoma

County community is something students can ascertain from school field trips to the same historic locations. These historic points of interest raise the stakes when discussing narrative creation for public consumption. While the history of the BFR that was presented in California primary schools did not leave a significant impression on most of the individuals who

62 participated in this study, some interviewees learned about it for the first time later in life. For study participants who were not born and/or raised in California, it seems that their first introduction to the BFR was in the form of public displays depicting the events of the Revolt, including the official narrative from the Barracks at Sonoma Plaza, as well as the imagery present on the California state flag. Dr. Meyerhof stated, “I was told the California flag is a remnant of something that was based on a flag that was raised by the Bear Flaggers, I’m sure I would have been interested what California Republic meant.” In a separate interview, Mr. Dutton discussed a conversation he had with his son:

It was funny, my older son went to University of North Texas, and his roommate was

also from California. So, they put up a big Bear Flag in the living room, and I said, “you

know that’s nice, but those are the guys who took your great-great-great-grandfather as

prisoner, you know?” But I was kind of kidding.

The importance of how history is presented became apparent when most interviewees recalled their impressions after visiting the Sonoma Plaza, and the awe of knowing “that’s actually where it happened, and there were still buildings remaining from that” (as per Mr. Montgomery). The connection to place and history seems to elevate the experience and understanding of history, which increases the importance of how narratives were and currently are being created. In the case of the BFR, there are still changes that can be made to move towards a more equitable understanding of history. Such changes becomes increasingly important as the public becomes more aware of their community’s history and as they seek to expand the understanding of their own history and heritage.

BFR: How a Narrative is Presented

The Bear Flag Revolt of 1846 only lasted for approximately 26 days, but left its mark on the history of Sonoma County; that said, it seems that individual stakeholders place different measures of value on the events surrounding and comprising the Revolt. Nevertheless, whether the events are considered significant at the local or national level, it seems the story of the Revolt has been continually told and retold; it is almost like the retelling of the events of the Revolt have operated like a game of “telephone,” in which historians have written narratives based on oral histories from different perspectives. As Dr. Meyerhof suggested, one of the earliest accounts of the BFR can be attributed to one of the Bear Flag participants himself, Robert Semple, who penned an account in September of 1846. Dr. Meyerhof also quoted Semple from a newspaper:

“There’s another article he wrote, which I found years later, and he says in it, I remember very clearly, ‘for those interested in historical research, you might be interested to know,’ you know, such-and-such, and just the choice of terms of ‘those interested in historical research.’” Even dating back to publications contemporary with the Revolt, like Semple’s, it seems that those who were involved with the Revolt in some way had an interest and were invested in how they would be portrayed in the historic record, which is apparent in Semple’s account.

Semple’s retelling of the events of 1846 was not the final interpretation of the story; historians Hubert Bancroft and Kevin Starr—working nearly a century apart—were also interested in conducting their own research, and each retold their own interpretation of the events of the Revolt. In Mr. Garcia’s opinion, Bancroft’s account seems to take into account several perspectives, including those belonging to Californios and Euroamerican descendants; nevertheless, it was considered by some interviewees as mixed, in terms of accuracy. Californio descendants generally spoke negatively of the Bear Flaggers, describing them as “squatters, a rag

64 tag group, or otherwise disorganized and buffoon-like,” and Euroamerican descendants also used these terms to describe them as well. This repetition in terms used could be rooted in the source material with which many stakeholders used to conduct their personal research on the Revolt, such as Bancroft’s interpretation. Mr. Garcia cited Bancroft as a source when recommending research material on the BFR. He stated during the interview, “Bancroft is one good area to look at because he did a tremendous amount of research, and he has some incredible books. You know, he even, I mean, they are just great books”. The praise Bancroft received in this instance reflects the importance narrative creators play in the public’s understanding of history. A positive perspective on Bancroft was not held by all interviews, as Mr. Webber described Bancroft’s interpretations of history as flawed:

But at the heart, the Bear Flaggers did not deserve what happened with a delivered

historical revision, of revisionism of Josiah Royce and Hubert Bancroft, which began in

the eighteen-eighties [1880s], when the Bear Flaggers, who had been lauded for their

actions, they started what was a deliberate reaction against them, and calling them drunks

and buffoons, and denying the existence of the proclamation completely, that is the most

interesting part.

Webber’s critique seems to be based in his research of accounts of the Revolt in newspaper articles, oral histories provided by BFR participants, which appeared to have presented a more complex understanding of the Revolt, as opposed to the simplified understanding that had been more widely disseminated. Several interviewees describe the BFR as a significant event that is not well understood or presented with sufficient context. For most stakeholders, it seems that

65 their knowledge of the Revolt grew over time, however, for most it did not fully develop until adulthood, in which participants were active in conducting their own research on the Revolt. This includes Kathleen Guelfi, the primary school teacher who taught California history. As mentioned above, Ms. Guelfi described her first understanding of the Revolt as, “I learned no one died, this was what was so cool about this whole thing with the [Bear] Flag folks, they, the

Bear Flaggers, no blood was shed.” However, it was not until she went back to school that she learned there indeed was bloodshed. Ms. Guelfi was reintroduced to the Revolt as an adult, whereby she was more engaged in asking questions and more open to considering different perspectives; she recalled, “When I was in my 40s, and I went back to school, and I was challenged by a professor that I had to write a paper on history, the way it was, is taught, versus the truth, or the angle, like we refer to, the point of view, you know, whose point of view is it, and I kind of went after it”.

It was through this class assignment, with the task of intentionally questioning a long- held narrative, that helped this interviewee not only get a better understanding of history, but also learn that her own family was directly involved in the events. Narratives of the Revolt were created over several years, and each retelling has had direct and indirect impacts on the community. The way that most of the community understands the history of the Revolt is based on the narratives created by institutionally designated authorities, who are typically historians and archaeologists. Just as Ms. Guelfi was instructed to do in her school assignment, one must question narratives such as these and challenge the status quo; doing this can have an impact at the individual level, as well as for the larger community that consumes the stories that are told.

Over the course of this project, I was able to recognize that partiality to one perspective over others is often inherent in the stories that are told, but I was not able to fully answer how to

66 fully reconcile multiple competing versions of the past. However, interviewees did provide some insight. Mr. Garcia intoned, “They talk about the winners always writing the first history, and telling about the bad guys, instead of saying that they were part of the bad guys too. They wan[‘t to] be only the righteous, and the leaders of justice! Yeah, that’s crazy, crazy. And they only write their own justice.” The core of Mr. Garcia’s statement suggests that the story of the BFR, as written by participants, may be flawed by the intent and positionality of the writer.

Dr. Meyerhof stated that Robert Semple wrote the one of the earliest interpretations of the BFR, however, Mr. Garcia’s comment suggests that Semple’s version of BFR may include its own biases. Therefore, it becomes increasingly important for researchers to question the official narrative found in textbooks, monuments, museum displays, public performances, and other portrayals; by incorporating multiple perspectives, researchers can get closer to the truth.

Mr. Parkman, the retired State Parks archaeologist, provides insight into the narrative creation approach utilized by State Parks when he mentioned, “we’re probably going to change the

[wording] next time we do the brochure.” His comment was made in reference to the BFR and the way in which certain historic figures are portrayed; Parkman’s interest is to get closer to the truth, “because it’s not black and white, it’s never black and white, and I’ll bet the Bear Flag floats right in the middle of that”. Parkman also discussed how emotion can play a role in how the public absorbs narrative, which provides insight into how primary sources may be influenced and draws attention to how they are flawed. When discussing what the Bear Flag party may have been going through, Mr. Parkman stated, “that’s what happens when you get all this, the lies, and the emotional baggage building up around an issue, and I have a feeling it was a microcosm, whole Bear Flag Revolt, there were probably rumors, and mistruths, and half-truths, and that can lead to violence.” His commentary provides an added opinion that should be considered when

67 reading or writing a narrative: how may the differing contemporary perspectives been influenced by other world events? Whether it was nationalism or a misunderstanding between two different cultural groups, these different perspectives might provide different truths: “Truth is, it’s everything, everything has a little bit of truth on both sides”. Seeking the truth in events can be one of the goals in creating a narrative for any story or project, which can influence the direction a CRM practitioner can take. I argue that employing a collaborative approach with multiple stakeholders can help CRM practitioners—who I believe should act as moderators of the archaeological record—work towards creating something closer to an accurate retelling of the past.

Identity

From the oral history interviews, I requested recommendations for future commemoration of the BFR, but I was also interested in how ethnic identity was expressed at individual and public levels. To explore this idea, I asked interviewees questions about their ethnic identity and upbringing; I found that they had on occasion rediscovered a lost heritage by seeking out the details of their family and local histories, which resulted in a reemergence of a particular identity. This led me to ask the question, how does identity reemerge, and what role does narrative play in that?

A core concept I wanted to explore was the idea of self-identity, and how it manifested in the different interviewees. One of the recurring concepts that arose was reemergent identity, where an individual learns about their heritage, which in turn has a direct impact of the personal understanding of who they are. This idea of a reemergent identity was discussed most commonly by Californio descendants, but it was also brought up by the indigenous community member that participated. A key comment Nick, a member of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria,

68 made on the topic of learning about his identity was, “What was it like? It’s like, it gave meaning to some of the feelings I’ve had.” This raises the point that knowing more an individual’s heritage could influence their opinion and feeling of a place, and potentially provide a sense of belonging that would not have been present otherwise. Ms. Guelfi also mentioned how understanding local history made her feel in stating, “Yeah. I think it’s what kind of ends up drawing, had, in the past, drawn me back [to Santa Rosa]. I was connected to here, it is a part of who I am.”

Similarly, other interviewees seemed to have a similar experience when learning about the local history, as well as their ancestors’ role in its development. However, this seems to be a byproduct of actively attempting equal representation in the narrative creation process. Equal representation elevates the importance of incorporating multiple perspectives when writing history. The primary goal of a CRM professional may not be in developing and influencing an individual’s identity, but this effect seems to be a secondary product of report writing, cultural studies, and bringing to light often untold or forgotten histories. This is why it is important for archaeologists, historians, and CRM practitioners to be conscientious of the language used in publications and understand there may be other stakeholders who may be directly impacted by our narrative creation. Taking a collaborative approach can facilitate multiple perspectives being presented.

For this project, part of a reemergent identity revolved around understanding how interviewees discovered their heritage, and it was surprising how different yet similar everyone’s story was. There seems to be two dominant approaches to reemergent identity and understanding one’s heritage. One approach is based on an individual’s upbringing that included an understanding of their family history, genealogy, and an understanding of what role their family

69 played in the development of the community. The second approach is one in which family history and heritage is discovered at a later date by the individual, typically as an adult. Mr.

Carrillo provides insight into the first approach, when he discussed the Carrillo Adobe. Mr.

Carrillo said:

The fact that we still have the original house for the land grant that’s not preserved, or

really very well protected at this point in time. We don’t know enough about the history

of that particular piece of land. So, I think there’s a responsibility as being a family

member to work in that direction. That’s not something you pick up for a year, and then

you walk away from … You kind of inherit it, and you’re stuck with it.

This inheritance of a family trying to keep their history alive was not limited to Mr. Carrillo, but it does present a case in which they have discussed and worked towards a goal, for multiple generations, to produce some understanding and a commemoration of their heritage. Mr.

Carrillo’s experience also brought up an interesting point, one based on an interest in family history when he stated, “when I was twenty, I didn’t pay any attention to this stuff.” This idea of ignoring one’s family history did not appear to be limited to Mr. Carrillo, as others expressed similar experiences, but with different manifestations. A possibility of why there may be a disconnect between one’s heritage between generations could be based on cultural norms, as described by Mr. Garcia when he discussed working with the Hispanic community:

The first generation, it’s hard for them, a lot of ’em, if they’re not university trained or

something like that. Then you have the second generation that become bilingual, because

they go to school here. The third generation, they sometimes completely lose the

language if their parents don’t want ’em to speak the home language. And then the

fourth, it depends on how they’re married, and if they’re married in other cultures. I had

to know all of the cultures of Latin American, and their cultural maneuvers, and so on.

Their language, their body language, and everything else, I had to learn all of those

things.

While Garcia’s breakdown is simplified, it is based on decades of his own personal experiences, which are similar to experiences mentioned by other interviewees. Similarly, Nick (2016) discussed their upbringing as an ethnic minority, during a time where white Americans were not allowed to marry people of color. Nick (2016) discussed their parents’ approach:

When I give speeches, I tell people that I didn’t really know a lot about my Native

American heritage until fairly recently, because my parents were so interested in us

learning the society of the fifties. The white society of the fifties. And to be non-white in

that period of time, you didn’t, talk about or call attention to your difference. It was a

time where my dad spoke Tagalog, my mom spoke Spanish, and they didn’t teach us

either language because our job was to learn English, because that was the key, is to learn

the language of the majority.

Nick’s experience was not unique, as it was also experienced by the Californio descendants who largely re-engaged with their heritage or perhaps learned about it at a later stage in life. This was sometimes a result of parents actively trying to make their children’s life “easier” by teaching

71 them the norms of the majority, as was recounted in Mr. Garcia’s and Nick’s experience of generational change. But it is important to note that it might not have been only Nick that grew up with a family who did what they had to do to fit in with the majority culture. Ms. Endicott speculates how this may have been the experience of some Californios, when discussing a post-

BFR period: “I only know of two, with Vallejo himself, and with Julio, of them wanting to make it work,” which suggests that some Californio families in California felt the need to assimilate, or completely change their cultural practices, in an attempt to survive a shift in power and a change in government. This shift can be evidenced as being a form of perseverance and also an attempt to survive. During my research of the Bear Flag Revolt, it seemed that assimilation into

American culture by Californios was welcomed by many. Mariano Vallejo is a prime example of this, and was often mentioned by interviewees and in public displays, in part due to him being favorable towards the inclusion of California into the United States. However, I eventually heard alternative perspectives from some interviewees that suggested certain individuals were making the changes they needed to survive. While there were probably some Californios who wanted to be taken over by the Americans, it certainly does not represent the experience of all Californios.

During the Bear Flag period, the Californio population experienced a life where the conquerors became the conquered and it seems some did what they had to do to survive.

The idea of a reemergent identity struck me personally, as a second-generation

Salvadoran-American who has never felt they fit into any one cultural group. My background definitely influenced my interest in the Californio identity and the Californio experience, and one that can be described as unique, but not alone. The idea that one can have a certain national or ethnic background does not necessarily define who that person will be, and is demonstrated in some of the Hispanic/Latinx community who are multi-generational Californians and who have

72 only known California as home. This is not to reject their ethnic background, but to recognize that they are a product of both American and Hispanic/Latinx culture. This same idea can be applied to any community that has experienced multiple generations in a new locale, and has witnessed first-hand how their cultural practices have changed. In other words, new identities continue to develop as our communities continue to change. Mr. Garcia discussed individual identity development and said, “a lot of the people of color are naming themselves, because of their-their relationships they have. You know, it’s really important to see that. So, once you get that into you, you could, you find out that … hey … it’s a big change.”

As CRM practitioners, we play a role in narrative creation, and in doing so, may play a role in the development of individual identities. It is important to remember that development projects on which archaeologists consult can have indirect consequences on how a community develops, which can be something as simple as a plaza. Ms. Endicott mentioned, “with the change, once the United States came in, and Julio donating the plaza, which I read now is going to be reunified, here in Santa Rosa … So, I think Julio is probably very happy his plaza is coming back [laughs].” An unassociated community development project—the reunification of the Courthouse Square project in Santa Rosa—had deeper meaning for at least one descendant of the Carrillo family, who prided themselves on their family history, and especially their family name. The Carrillo’s continued to maintain their family’s presence, going as far as championing the naming of a local community high school as Maria Carrillo High School, named after the once powerful matriarch Doña Maria Carrillo. The naming of the high school was described as one of Ms. Endicott’s greatest accomplishments—to have her ancestor honored and recognized in such a public way—and can reflect the significance a name can have.

A name can be a powerful thing, whether it is Doña Maria Carrillo, Bernardino Garcia,

Ramon Carrillo, Thomas Cowie, or George Fowler; by simply recognizing an individual’s name can be an important commemoration. This concept regarding the significance of a name arose a few times when discussing the various Californio descendants. First, it was Mr. Garcia whose full name is Adolfo Patrick Garcia, but had to go by his name Patrick, due to the negative connotations of his first name (Adolf in English). The importance of a name is also reflected in

Mr. Garcia’s statement about the names given to the indigenous communities of California, “See, these names were given to us, and we only listen to the names that [are] given to us without reading the deep history.” The same idea can be placed on the names given to individuals, as well as places, as mentioned by Mr. Dutton:

I do get upset when people get upset, or, you know, get upset about bilingualism in this

state, and people should speak English, this American and all that, and I say “you know,

you live in [with a Spanish accent] Santa Barbara, which is next to Los Angeles and

Ventura. Get with it, there’s a major tradition here that you're forgetting all about.”

Dutton’s experience reflects the reality of an extensive Hispanic/Latinx history in the state of

California, and at times we as a community can forget that history.

This lost social memory can also be reflected in Donna Marie Carrillo Endicott, who did not recognize that her and her father’s names were rooted in a Mexican heritage. Ms. Guelfi, Ms.

Carrillo Endicott’s daughter, told an anecdote that demonstrates just how a name can have more meaning that they thought:

I mean the story, we laugh over the fact that they [Carrillo’s descendants] didn’t even

know Spanish, and my mother is Donna Marie Carrillo, thinking that they were naming

her after Doña Maria. So, her first name is really a title! I mean that’s funny to me,

totally funny, and that’s how, in very few generations, two generations they had lost all of

that. My grandfather’s father was Manuel. Known as “Manual Carrillo” [pronounced

“manual”, like the instructional book] and it’s like, woah, really? Right away! I don’t

even call that assimilation, in a sense, that was like playing nice with everybody, and you

needed to be white now, is how I take it; but I am proud that I do have that much

[Hispanic heritage], that as a background and a part of me.

Ms. Guelfi’s anecdote reflects how a name can have a deeper meaning, as well as partially reflecting the dramatic changes that may occur when there is a shift in power. In the case of the

BFR, it was a government shift from Mexican to American control. So, what’s in a name? A lot can play into a name, and the names individuals choose to highlight in their own narratives can have both intentional and unintentional impacts on an individual’s identity.

An added layer of responsibility is placed onto CRM practitioners, as they act as authorities in narrative creation, and can play a prominent role in legitimizing ideas. Mr. Garcia mentions the idea of a state-recognized identity when discussing his pride in being a Californio, a word he did not know or understand at a younger age. He said, “I love to be called Californiano1.

And I tell people every day that I’m a Californiano … I’m not just a Californian, I am a

Californiano, and I have a plaque by the state genealogists certifies that I’m a Californiano.” In this instance, the certificate stands as an example of how identity can require authoritative

1 Californiano is the term used by the organization Los Californianos, and it is used interchangeably with Californio (Los Californianos 2020).

75 approval to be considered legitimate, and brings to the forefront the significance of how and what narratives CRM practitioners and archaeologists are responsible for creating. While not necessarily a top priority, or with a particular intent of creating an identity, archaeologists are tasked with taking part in consultation with stakeholders, as well as being the moderators of the archaeological record. The significance of this unspoken power cannot be undersold, and archaeologists must be conscientious of this when working on projects. So, again, what really is in a name? A lot is in the names we use, whether it is Bernardino Garcia or Three-Fingered Jack, defensores or Mexican outlaws. How we tell a story, and the words we choose can have both direct and indirect influences at the individual and community levels, and at times can affect the public’s perception of a story.

The BFR Commemorative Landscape: History Visited and Surveyed

The way interviewees presented stories of the Revolt was an interesting component of our discussions. As referenced in several interviews, the BFR’s presentation to the public is generally lacking detail. Additionally, public presentations often have an unintentional bias towards the Bear Flag Party and against the Californios. To get a better understanding of the interviewee’s perceptions of public interpretation, I asked them how they felt about how the story of the BFR has been told and presented? This question resulted in a discussion of places that the interviewees considered significant places in reference to the Revolt. Interviewees identified locations within or near Sonoma County that they felt played a pivotal role in the story of the BFR. I found this to be the perfect opportunity to survey the locations identified, so I could get a better understanding of their perspectives and understandings of the existing commemorative landscape. Key places mentioned by most interviewees included the Sonoma

Plaza, Olompali State Park, the Carrillo Adobe, and the presumed location of Cowie and

Fowler’s burial in Santa Rosa. Three of the four locations identified fell within Sonoma County:

Sonoma Plaza, the Carrillo Adobe, and Cowie and Fowler’s presumed burial location in Santa

Rosa. Even though Olompali State Park is technically located outside of Sonoma County, it was near enough that it was included in my site visits.

The Sonoma Plaza serves as the central location from which the Bear Flag Party surrounded the home of Mariano Vallejo, the Casa Grande. It is the location in which they overthrew the Mexican government and created the independent California Republic. The story of the BFR is a part of the narrative presented by the Sonoma State Historic Park (SSHP). While the epicenter of the BFR was in the Sonoma Plaza, the interpretive display is largely limited to the Sonoma Barracks. In the Barracks, the Revolt is briefly mentioned on a California history timeline, but there is otherwise little to no interpretation discussing it. As a state institution, Mr.

Parkman said, the narrative presented at the park attempts to present the basic facts of the event, and attempts to avoid favoring any one side of the story. Nevertheless, the narrative presented on the California history timeline at SSHP included elements suggesting Californios were open to becoming a U.S. state, and often presents Vallejo as a key supporter of Americanization (Figure

2). While it may be true that Vallejo was favorable to being invaded and colonized by the U.S., he did not represent all Californios, nor did he represent all citizens of California under Mexican rule.

An added component identified in my survey was how the BFR narrative was presented alongside American western expansion (Figure 3). The western expansion of the United States was frequently cited by interviewees as a component for why the clash between the U.S. and

Mexico was inevitable. This presentation allows for a skewed interpretation that plays into ideas of American exceptionalism. Dr. Meyerhof stated, “You still hear about American

77 exceptionalism, like there’s something special that only our form of government. That our form of government is superior, and that we’re doing other countries a favor if we try to even introduce our democracy.” His quote suggests that Euroamerican notions of American exceptionalism may influence the interpretation of the story. This concept of American exceptionalism can be seen in the presentation of the BFR by Sonoma State Historic Park.

Figure 2. Picture of Interpretive Display in Barrack at Sonoma State Historic Park (photo by author).

The park’s presentation includes elements of western expansions and highlights the narrative that some Californios wanted and welcomed California’s inclusion into the United

States, while it neglects to present opposing viewpoints that did not favor a change in government. Even in the case of the narrative presented by the Sonoma State Historic Park, which was intended as an evenhanded interpretation, it became apparent that the story of the

Revolt emphasizes some perspectives over others.

Figure 3. Picture of Interpretive Display in Barrack at Sonoma State Historic Park (photo by author).

This emphasis becomes more apparent when we considering the statue honoring the Bear

Flag Revolt in the Sonoma Plaza, which presents a Bear Flagger holding an American flag. The statue serves as a central meeting place for the Sons of the Golden West (an interest group for the descendants of early California residents), as well as being a point of pride for those who champion and celebrate the Bear Flag Revolt. The Monument for the Bear Flag Party could become a point of problematic interest, if it is used as a tool to divide or unite a community, but that may be beyond the scope of this project (a point made by Mr. Parkman). The Sonoma Plaza presents a narrative that attempts to avoid favoring one perspective over others, and can act as an introduction of the subject to a greater public, especially as the wine industry continues to grow, tourism becomes increasingly important, and international visitors become more and more

79 prominent in the Sonoma County. It is worth noting that the SSHP display appears to have been made some time in the 1980s or 1970s, and as such is also an artifact of how perspectives on the

Revolt have changed since then. Sonoma County serving as such a popular tourist destination raises the bar for future site interpretations, because with the growing audience, consumers of the

BFR are becoming increasingly diverse. At that point, it is no longer just a “local” story, but rather a story consumed by an international audience.

The Carrillo Adobe, located in Santa Rosa, is also known as El Rancho de Doña Maria

Carrillo, was another location often mentioned and was one of the last places Cowie and Fowler were known to be alive. While the Sonoma Plaza discussed the BFR in some detail, Santa Rosa

(where the Adobe is located) does not present the same degree of interest in the BFR, at least not publicly. Access to the Carrillo Adobe was limited, and I was only able to access the structure during the public archaeology event, “A Day at the Adobe.” Through this public event, the community was allowed access to a part of local history that appeared to have been neglected for several decades, where the history was left in limbo while the developer decided what to do with the property. Access was limited in part to the fencing surrounding the property, and the natural barriers provided from overgrown vegetation. My visit to the Adobe provided an opportunity to see how history can become neglected and fall into disrepair. Mr. Carrillo addressed the state of the adobe during the oral history interview when he stated, “what we could teach with a historical site that … shows the foundation? Maybe shows some things in disrepair; possibly shows us what happens when we don’t treat history as well as we could.” Nevertheless, the rancho was recognized by several interviewees as significant to the BFR, largely because of its association with the first two confirmed deaths resulting from the BFR.

Another significant location was the presumed burial site of Cowie and Fowler, which I visited multiple times while preparing for the test excavations for their possible burial site, and which is located in the backyard of a privately-owned home (Figure 4). Public interpretations of the BFR and mention of Cowie and Fowler had originally been limited to a single wooden sign erected in the 1920s by the Native Sons of the Golden West, an interest group for the descendants of early California residents. However, the sign, according to the property owner, was taken down, left in a shed for decades, and later donated to (what is now called) the Museum of Sonoma County. The wooden sign had been erected at the presumed burial site of Cowie and

Fowler in Santa Rosa during one of the initial searches for the remains of Cowie and Fowler, as mentioned by Mr. Northcroft and Mr. Owens. The location which is identified as the presumed burial site was also the location of the archaeological excavation project area conducted for the

RTBFR project. Similar to past attempts, the RTBFR project’s search did not succeed in identifying the remains of Cowie and Fowler. There is only one other reference to the Revolt in the area, which I identified during my information search at the Northwest Information Center’s

(NWIC) database, which took the form of an archaeological report (The NWIC is a regional database of archaeological site records and reports). The report was not directly related to the

BFR, but it does include a mention of the burials of Cowie and Fowler and the BFR, which were incorporated as part of the background. The report briefly cautions that there is a potential to find

Cowie and Fowler’s remains in the area of interest. Similar to my experience at the Carrillo

Adobe, information on the BFR was extremely limited, likely due to the fact that it was a residential area and on private property. It was not initially intended for or presented as a location for public consumption of history. Nevertheless, it did provide an opportunity to interact with Sonoma County community members and observe the interest they had in local history.

The BFR narrative may become a larger source of interest, as history becomes increasingly discussed as a component of Santa Rosa’s community activities. This was best exemplified by the interviews conducted with members of the Santa Rosa Rural Cemetery

Committee members Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Northcroft, and Mr. Owens. This organization played a significant role in developing the cemetery into a point of interest for the community, according to Mr. Montgomery. Their goals include raising public awareness of local history and provide different approaches to narrative creation, like interpretive plaques, guided walking tours, or web-based interpretations, among others. During my interviews, it was also expressed by Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Northcroft, and Mr. Owens that they would be interested in the commemoration of Cowie and Fowler being held at the SRRC, at whatever scale it may be.

Commemoration at the SRRC could include a reburial, if the remains were found, as well as a simple burial marker which could include an interpretive plaque, if those are the wishes of the community.

Figure 4: Presumed burial site of Cowie and Fowler located on private property (photo by author).

The final location I visited was Olompali State Park, the location of the only known battle associated with the BFR and the site of at least one death associated with the BFR. Surprisingly, the park had minimal references to the BFR. Aside from being included in the timeline displays of the park, the only other thing I observed was a laminated poster in the visitor’s center with the narrative of the Revolt and the Battle of Olompali (Figure 5). The on-site docent suggested it was the only significant mention of the BFR at the park, and that it was created by a local high school teacher who took it upon themselves to create something that at least mentioned the park’s role in the BFR.

Figure 5: Poster located in visitor center at Olompali State Historic Park (photo by author).

While the location has an extensive history—including Indigenous history and that it was the one-time residence of the Grateful Dead (according to Mr. Parkman)—I was surprised to find mention of the BFR to be so minimal. The limited on-site interpretation of the BFR at Olompali

State Park left me with the impression that while the BFR can be considered a significant event by some, but it does not need to be a central component of an organization’s narrative. While the

Battle of Olompali is the most significant battle of the BFR, the park highlighted other aspects of its history.

Summary

The data I collected via oral histories, archival research, and survey of the commemorative landscape offered new suggestions for understanding the Revolt and its effects.

The oral history participants shared how they became interested in the history of the Revolt; some because they had ancestors involved, and others because of the significance of the Revolt to history and/or the local community. Several of the participants discussed how their self- identity changed later in life as a result of their involvement with history. The site visits suggested that an older, dated approach to the Revolt is most commonly presented, across the commemorative landscape, on both publicly and privately held land. The meaning and significance of these findings are discussed in the following chapter, as well as management recommendations should the project move forward in the future.

Chapter 6: Discussion At the outset of this project, taking a collaborative, community-based approach seemed like the best way to achieve this project’s goals. As a result, the project’s methods were heavily influenced by collaborative approaches utilized in archaeology and CRM. Drawing inspiration from published case studies, oral history interviews seemed to be the most appropriate form of data collection for this type of project, which would include a survey of the existing commemorative landscape, as well as preliminary background research to further understand the topic, as it is known today.

In terms of oral history interviews, one should consider what perspectives are taken into account, and how these perspectives might be influenced by individual (conscious and subconscious) positionality. For example, the selection of interviewees has relevance in determining which narratives of the Revolt I was exposed to. It was my explicit intent that I wanted to collect a diverse set of perspectives, and specifically looked for Californio and non- traditional Euroamerican perspectives. Simply put, I felt that the Euroamerican perspective of the

BFR had enough opportunities to tell “their side” of the story, and it is the perspective presented to the public the most often. Another example, as Donna Marie Carrillo Endicott suggested, is that the narrative presented here is a lot of “his-story,” but not much of “her-story.” The opportunity to take different perspectives allots a chance to see how a novel perspective can provide an alternative to the official narrative of any story. Unsurprisingly, I found that each person had an individual perspective and a slightly different take on the story of the Revolt. That said, there were a number of commonalities as well.

One of the biggest surprises I had during this study was that the core storyline of the

Revolt, and its general outline were consistent among all interviewees: Euroamericans gathered

85 near or in Sutter’s Fort, went to Sonoma and “captured” Vallejo, and symbolically “obtained” the state. The details in the different accounts from the interviewees are where some of the more interesting pieces of information were introduced, and more specifically, when discussing the individuals or the opposing sides of the story. One example was how Euroamerican participants of the Revolt were described by the interviewees as thieves, squatters, drunks, fools, filibusters, wild bunch, frontier’s men, rugged, gentleman, among other terms. The Californio descendants typically described the Bear Flag Party with negative terms, while also trying to be respectful and at times complimentary towards the Bear Flaggers.

Surprisingly, the descriptions of the Bear Flaggers by the Euroamerican descendants were mixed, including the idea that they were “the bad guys.” George Webber’s reenactment of the

BFR, in his opinion, is supposed to portray Vallejo as the hero and the Bear Flaggers as the villains. While simplistic, binary, approaches can be taken to telling a story, I submit that it is always more complicated than that. The complexity of the Revolt, and considering the Bear

Flaggers as a homogenous group, is subject to further critiques when considering Dr. Meyerhof’s claims that some of the Bear Flaggers were Mormon teetotalers who had moral and religious reasons for why they were definitely not drunkards. Taking a deeper dive into individual histories of the various participants of the BFR may show that the simplified narrative is not reflective of the experience for many. Some Bear Flaggers may have been drunks and looters, but some seem to have been respectful, considerate, and tried to maintain a level of civility.

Eventually, there were victims as a result of the Revolt: Berryessa and the DeHaro brothers,

Cowie, Fowler, and one or more individuals that died at the Battle of Olompali. Taking a similar perspective, Californios and the Mexican community in California should also receive credit for maintaining a degree of calmness, both Vallejo as a peacekeeper, and also the defensores who

86 limited bloodshed amongst Bear Flaggers in the town of Sonoma. The story of the Revolt is a complicated tale that I explored through multiple interviews, surveys of the existing commemorative landscape, following extensive background research. In this chapter, I present some of the findings from the interviews I conducted, as well as the pedestrian survey conducted at the sites of significance identified by interviewees. These oral history interviews helped bring to light often neglected components of the story, as well as guiding me towards questions I had not considered previously, and also exposed me to perspectives and considerations of which I had not thought.

Interviewee Involvement

There can be many benefits to taking a collaborative approach in archaeology, whether it is democratizing the field, incorporating diverse and multiple perspectives, or documenting the questions the community may have for a project. However, there is an additional benefit that can help build a more cooperative relationship between cultural resource managers and the general public. Throughout this project, I found the level of appreciation the community members had for being heard and having their opinions incorporated as part of the process remarkable. I was continually thankful and pleased with how appreciative interviewees were to be included as part of the project. At the completion of an interview, I left the premises to a genuine “thank you” from at least 15 of the 16. I believe that community members actually care about their community, and wish to be a part of the archaeological process. This is highlighted by the response of Winston Dutton who said:

No, thanks for coming by. It’s fun to talk about this stuff. I tend to not talk about it much,

and it’s fun to kind of see what I remember, number one, and, I’m so in the trenches, so

to speak, on some of these things, that it’s good to step back, and think about, well what

did the Bear Flag mean? In a bigger sense. What were some of the other forces? Rather

than just Salvador and Ramon, and their movements, and that sort of thing … So, thank

you for that.

Taking a collaborative approach results in a relationship in which both parties are at a more equal setting, and all may come away with some benefit. While I was explicitly looking for commemoration recommendations for Cowie and Fowler, I also received a sense of purpose, drive, and passion for this project. While there were low points, including when the remains of

Cowie and Fowler were not found, reflecting on and listening to the interviews provided the incentive to finish. As for the interviewees, they had a venue whereby they could share their stories in a formal, official manner, with the guarantee that their interviews are going to be archived for future researchers. As part of this thesis, their perspectives are also part of an

“official” narrative. Their stories will be incorporated into an official document, as well as cataloged for future researchers. As Mr. Dutton and others suggested, the interview process also initiated the interviewees’ interest in topics they were either peripherally or directly associated with, whether working on them or literally being a direct descendant. The interviewees’ sense of wonder can be used to further strengthen the bond between CRM practitioners and stakeholders, as they become increasingly invested in the local community and their heritage. First

Impressions of the BFR

While understanding the narrative of the Revolt was a key goal of the study, I was also interested to document the manner in which individuals first heard about the Revolt. The

88 participants were extremely knowledgeable in regard to their understanding of the Bear Flag

Revolt story, but I was surprised to find how unremarkable their first impressions of it were.

Figure 5: California history textbook (photo by author).

This seems to be a direct result of how the BFR has been presented to the public and taught in schools. As is seen in today’s fourth grade textbooks (Figure 5; Porter et al. 2007), the totality of the Revolt is summarized in a few pages. Yet, the BFR is significant enough for the

California state flag to be modeled after the Bear Republic’s flag, have a more than 20-foot tall statue erected on the Sonoma Plaza, as well as a flag with the story of the Revolt placed as a component of the official narrative presented at the Sonoma Barracks. These examples highlight just how important narrative creation is, and why it is important to provide nuanced details that

89 aid in the understanding of what the BFR was and why it is important. The surface-level presentation was sufficient to grasp an interviewee’s attention, at least in such a way that they would ask more questions, but left some feeling that it was not discussed well enough. While initial discovery of the Revolt did not leave much of an impression, their follow-up research helped them understand that there is more to the BFR story than is presented in the existing narrative.

I have concluded, after analyzing each interviewee’s accounts of their experiences with the BFR, that what we write matters, whether it is the CRM practitioners, State Park interpreters, or historians. This importance became apparent when most interviewees were left with an impression after visiting the Sonoma Plaza, and discussing how “that’s actually where it happened, and there were still buildings remaining from that” (William Montgomery, personal communication 2016). This connection to place and history seems to elevate the experience and understanding of history. This is increasingly important as the public becomes more aware of their community’s history and they begin to seek expanded understandings of their history and heritage.

The BFR seems to be reasonably well-recorded event when considering the basic story. It seems that some of the core elements belonging to the master narrative have been left mostly unquestioned; nevertheless, a constant theme arose during the interviews conducted, and that was questioning the accuracy of the story which was told. The Californio descendants overwhelmingly found that the story was told accurately, but it did favor the Bear Flag party.

Some non-descendant stakeholders found that the story of the BFR was a victim of historic revisionism in which the Bear Flag Party members were portrayed in a negative light. The question that came to mind during the course of the interviews was, what is actually true? As

90 discussed by Paul Cohen (1997), truth is a matter of perspective, which is not only the perspective of the individuals involved in an event, but also the perspective of narrative creators.

This thesis provides an example of how an individual providing a different background can have different goals in the creation of a narrative, which could lead to a different “truth.”

In the BFR, there were individuals with a diversity of backgrounds, experiences, and goals; their versions of the story can be interpreted differently while also being dependent on the context provided. While attempting to take a balanced approach that is informed by facts and data, narrative creators need to make a concerted effort to use culturally appropriate terms and language appropriately. This can be seen in the way Californios/Mexicans are portrayed in the

Bear Flag narrative, as well as in other stories. The presentation of individual actors in the Revolt is apparent when the stories of Cowie, Fowler, Bernardino Garcia, Ramon Carrillo, and many others were examined more closely: what did they do? What was their role? And what motivated them? In answering these questions, an individual participant’s motivations and actions can be characterized differently depending on the narrative creator. The way in which a narrative is created may influence how an individual may begin to perceive certain cultural groups, and ultimately influence the individual’s identity.

This is what drew me to this project: an opportunity to better understand a significant event in California history, but moreover, to also understand the impact it had on the Sonoma

County community. While we may not have found the remains of Cowie and Fowler, the project team members were able to interact with interested, excited, and invested community members, with whom we should be actively working.

Management Recommendations

From the start of this project, my goal was to aid with the consultation component for the eventual commemoration of Cowie and Fowler. The project was successful on many fronts, including creating a collaborative project that incorporated multiple stakeholders, while also bringing archaeology to the wider community. However, the remains of Cowie and Fowler were not found, and we were left in the same place as previous groups, wondering, “where are they?”

Nevertheless, a broader question I had was regarding what the main events in the story of the

BFR were, and how it is understood by the public today. The interviewees were well-informed, and often knew more than I did, in regard to events and details of the BFR. Nevertheless, there were gaps in places, and slight variations on certain elements of the narrative. These slight differences were insightful to the story of the Revolt, but so was the constant idea of truth and perspective. Through a combination of the interviews, observations made at public events as well as public displays narrating the story of the Revolt, I tried to develop some basic recommendations for the future remembrance and commemoration of the BFR.

A constant theme that arose during the interviews was the importance of perspective. The interviewees frequently referred to possible biases that may be part of the narrative created, as

Mr. Garcia stated:

It depends on what they [the people in power] want to hear, and what they want to

promote. And that’s what they do, a lot of people. In doing so, we get all of these

versions of how it should or shouldn’t be. Or how it was or how it wasn’t, and that’s

exactly what’s happening in many parts of our world now, not just here.

These variations can be rooted in the subconscious or conscious biases a writer has, but nevertheless, they are a key element that creates variants of the same story. Incorporating several perspectives to tell a story can help lead us closer to the truth. Ms. Endicott raises the question of perspective when she discussed the points of view provided in the narrative of the Revolt. Ms.

Endicott stated:

I think it’s their [the Bear Flaggers] history, as written by them. I think a lot of time

elapsed, too, before they started chronicling, like thirty years, or whatever it was. I could

jazz up a few things, I think, myself in recounting it, but you noticed there’s no her-story.

There’s always his-story, his viewpoint, not her. I … It’s been bothering me for a few

years.

The notion of what perspectives have been included likely has layers of racism and sexism that are beyond the scope of this thesis. Nevertheless, the frequently silenced perspectives did, and should, guide the voices with whom archaeologists should have consulted, and were often sought after when creating recommendations for archaeological projects. In considering the voices that have not been heard, CRM practitioners are urged to actively work towards a more diverse and democratized discipline that tells as many sides of the story as possible. My recommendations are rooted in the idea that a diverse set of perspectives could work towards a common understanding. For this project, my first set of recommendations are in regard to Cowie and Fowler.

This project was spurred on by the search for Cowie and Fowler, which is in itself a form of remembrance. The search for their remains elevates their status as individuals worth a 150- year search. This project brought their stories to light for to an unassuming public, especially when considering that this story has been retold in newspapers and incorporated in narratives created by “authorities” on the subject. Therefore, it is important to recognize that Cowie and

Fowler have been, and will continue to be, remembered and commemorated. However, the question may arise to how to commemorate them if their remains are ever found. One striking consistency among most interviewees, 13 out of 16, was how they all seemed to agree on at least one thing: a proper burial and simple marker for Cowie and Fowler was largely seen as an acceptable form of commemoration. When asked specifically about a simple headstone or marker, interviewees did not seem to object, and found a proper burial and simple marker to be an understandable and reasonable form of commemoration. The marker could be as simple as a headstone or small placard with the words, “Cowie and Fowler. Bear Flaggers, [Died], June

1846. Not far from this place,” as suggested by Mr. Owens. An alternate idea for text could be something even as simple as only their names. There is power in a name, and Mr. Parkman suggested as much when discussing their recommendation. Mr. Parkman said, “a lot of people in this area read about them for the first time; so, you’re invoking names, and you’re invoking history that people need to know about.” In recognizing the individuals involved with the Revolt, we are exposing the public to their presence, which may be the impetus they need to further explore their heritage.

It is difficult to definitively state a location for any possible reinternment, but some participants did provide options. Santa Rosa Rural Cemetery has the history, willingness

(William Montgomery, personal communication 2016), as well as the support necessary, to serve

94 as the host for the final internment of Cowie and Fowler. As Mr. Montgomery suggested in his interview, the Santa Rosa Rural Cemetery has become a community institution with a particular focus on Santa Rosa History; this is made even more appropriate as they also host guided tours highlighting individuals significant to the city. The SRRC’s role as a community point of interest, with an emphasis in storytelling, makes it an appropriate place for the final reinternment of Cowie and Fowler. A possible added benefit is that the SRRC may bring to light other voices and stories left out of the BFR, including other individuals who died as a result of the Revolt.

Just as Cowie and Fowler were victims, the story of Berryessa and the De Haro twins seems to be just as tragic, and feels like a natural complement to the story of Cowie and Fowler. Any future commemoration of the BFR and/or Cowie and Fowler should contain additional consultation, and hopefully a compromise to which all or most parties can agree. The core of the project revolved around Cowie and Fowler, but it also provided an opportunity to further explore the BFR.

In researching the BFR, it seems few interviewees were fully satisfied with what is currently presented and understood about the Revolt. Several interviewees suggested that they did not fully trust the primary sources or secondary sources, and felt that the narrative presented did not provide sufficient detail to gain a full understanding of the Revolt. One possible reason for this could be the relatively binary approach that has been used to explain aspects of the

Revolt, one in which the Americans are heroes and the Mexicans are the villains. This split becomes more apparent when discussing individuals in different contexts, and selectively interpreting their stories and titles without proper historic context. When discussing commemoration recommendations, Mr. Garcia discussed his ancestor Bernardino Garcia: “Even though Bernadino Garcia is on the Blue Wing [Inn’]s back plaque … it’s because he was the bad

95 guy.” The portrayal of Bernardino Garcia, also known as Three-Fingered Jack in the commemorative plaque, seems to be reduced to a Mexican outlaw, a bandito, who committed horrible crimes against individuals who were often white Americans. While that may be a case for part of his story, it is not true in the context of the BFR, where he was a soldier protecting his country, which is a seemingly honorable act. The case of Bernardino Garcia highlights the problem of not being able to correctly interpret the story without proper context and without sufficient detail. Mr. Carrillo’s opinion reflects that of almost every interviewee:

Well, I’d just like to teach the truth, near as we can come on history. I think we’ve, we’ve

had enough of the story-izing, so to speak. Some of the stuff that just really wasn’t very

true. If our ancestors were not good people, we need to accept the fact that maybe there

were a few that weren’t good, and I don’t think anybody had a family tree that’s

gloriously pristine all the way through.

While I mention Californio participants as an example of how a narrative can portray certain sides negatively, the Bear Flag Party also falls victim to the narrative creation process. As suggested by Dr. Meyerhof, the Bear Flag Party was also subject to historical rewritings that inaccurately describe the events of the Revolt. Dr. Meyerhof described Robert Semple as a teetotaler, who likely did not drink alcohol during the Revolt, nor did he appear to partake in any looting associated with the Revolt. To discuss the Bear Flag Party as a group of drunken fools can be just as inaccurate as describing Bernardino as a cold-blooded murderer. When provided more context, we can see that some of the Bear Flaggers appear to have tried to maintain a level of peace, and at least for Robert Semple, he may have been the reason Mariano Vallejo was not

96 killed. The Bear Flaggers deserve an expanded narrative that provides insight into their motivation, goals, and actions; the Californios do too. The statehood of California seems sufficiently significant to have a story that can be written to cover more than a few informational panels, especially when the topic being presented is local and regional history.

My recommendations would be based on the history I have observed and read, and would ideally result in a more equitable retelling of history. The primary objective would be to focus on the terminology utilized by narrative creators, and to try and apply the correct terms, given their context. This would mean that Californio and/or Mexican individuals should not be described as banditos or Mexican outlaws; a more accurate term would be defensores. Similarly, the Bear

Flag Party narrative should not just mention the looting and drunken behavior exhibited by some the individuals, but it should also highlight the role of BFP leaders and their attempt at maintaining peace.

Additional context should also be given for what occurred before the eventual overthrowing of the Mexican government in California by the Bear Flaggers, and especially given the larger national and global context. Several interviewees mentioned the national ideology of western expansion as a driving force for California joining the U.S., however, the story as it is presented does not discuss the collateral damage that results from this type of conquest. Specifically, conquest can result in the removal of inhabitants, or sometimes unwilling integration into the new culture; these effects can have a direct impact on their culture, and their lived experiences. The added layers of context provided could require elements at different scales, in an effort to have a better understanding of conquest. The BFR was ultimately a case in which one empire conquered and took control over another empire’s land. This is not the first time a conqueror took something in Sonoma County that did not belong to them, as mentioned

97 by several interviewees. With this understanding, we can create a narrative that uses terminology in the proper contexts, while still striving to have a deeper understanding of history. As mentioned before, history is not static, and rarely does it occur as an isolated event. The BFR had a direct impact in the development of Sonoma County, California as a state, Mexico and the

United States of America as a country. Providing these additional layers of detail can provide the context necessary for a more informed public, which is why the narrative creation process matters. As suggested by Ms. Endicott, taking into account diverse perspectives, including the voices of women, would only further our understanding of our shared past.

History comprises actions taken by individuals; some of these actions had ripple effects felt today, and some did not. Not all deeds were good, nor were they all bad, but they happened and how we describe them can have larger overarching impacts, whether it is at an individual or social level. Mr. Carrillo recognizes the complexity when he discusses history in general, including his ancestor’s family. He acknowledged, “If our ancestors were not good people, we need to accept the fact that maybe there were a few … that weren’t good, and I don’t think anybody had a family tree that’s gloriously pristine all the way through. So, I mean, they’re people. So, accept it for what it is, and lets just find out more about it, and attempt to find out why they did what they did.”

Mr. Carrillo’s statement reflects a belief many interviewees expressed, that no one is perfect and there are several layers to every person. Narrative creation should be done with the understanding that characters in this story are real people, and with an attempt to understand their actions in the context of their time. While the Bear Flag Party can be seen as a rebellious group, one constant character often mentioned was General John C. Fremont. Mr. Owens, one of the originators of this project, discussed his suspicion of what Fremont’s involvement actually was

98 in the Revolt, specifically, Fremont’s potential role as an instigator. Reflecting on the story, it seems that members of the Bear Flag Party, similar to Californio defensores, were pawns in a larger fight where the authorities were struggling to maintain control. The Bear Flag Party apparently sought to protect their livelihoods, even if their fears were rooted in mistruths, and actions taken by others trying to add fuel to a growing conflict between communities. Similar to suspicion of Fremont, several Californio descendants questioned the role of Vallejo, and what exactly he did that may have led to the BFR, and what led to several Californios losing, among other things, livelihoods, land claims, and ways of life.

Incorporating diverse perspectives may lead to a more accurate retelling of the past. In the case of the BFR, it seems some voices have been louder than others. This is in part a shortcoming of the narrative creation process, the positionality we have, but also the primary sources utilized. Unfortunately, it seems the voices of some are left out, both in the present and the past, but taking a collaborative approach to projects may raise questions and perspectives an individual researcher may not have considered. These conversations, consultations, and interviews can provide added layers of interest, and which raise questions that can then be added to the final product; however, it does require one to reach out. Fortunately, in my case, the

Sonoma County community is filled with invested community members that care about their heritage, and they are actively seeking to get closer to the truth of their history. While this may not be as pronounced as it is in other communities, one of the things I have found in my work in

CRM is that individuals are interested.

Archaeologists and CRM practitioners should take advantage of the opportunities available when working on these projects, and strive towards a democratized field. Similar to the interviewees, the public has shown continued interest in the topic of the BFR, whether at the

Barracks on a busy tourist weekend, the “Day at the Adobe” at the Carrillo Adobe, or even on a monitoring project. In my experience, it’s always easy to find a community member interested in their city, their culture, and their heritage; but to find them, you have to look. This observation leads me to believe that we should expand the consultation process, and put greater weight on

“interested parties,” as the legislation describes these different stakeholders. Reaching out to these individuals may create an increasingly invested community, and create a bridge between archaeologists and the community we are intended to work with. Taking the collaborative approach also added another layer of accountability for me, and another source of motivation.

This thesis was not just a result of my work, but everyone involved who has provided their time, their stories, and their views. Personally, it gave me another reason to finish, and when I lost the passion, I could always fallback and get the motivation to move forward when I saw the importance history and heritage had for all of the participants.

100

Chapter 7: Conclusion

The RTBFR project was initiated by Mr. Northcroft and Mr. Owens’ search for the remains of Cowie and Fowler, who were the two and only Euroamerican casualties of the Revolt.

As a result of the project origins, a collaborative approach was applied from the very start when

Dr. Boutin sought to assist in Northcroft and Owens’ search, and I followed her example and continued to take an approach that put the community first. For my contribution to the RTBFR, I initiated the consultation process with the intent to get recommendations for the commemoration of Cowie and Fowler should their remains be located, and recommendations for how the Revolt in general should be commemorated. To do this, I conducted 15 interviews with 16 individuals.

Additionally, I surveyed locations identified by interviewees, and conducted research on the history of the Revolt in Sonoma County. The theoretical framework for data collection and analysis in this project was informed by a collaborative approach. Theories of social memory and commemoration were employed to critically analyze the existing narrative in a commemorative landscape, historical sources, and oral history interviews. This project fits into the well- established community-based archaeology framework as another example from California, but offers a unique approach in its exploration of a varied public-private commemorative landscape, with a range of stakeholders from lineal descendant and non-descendant community interest groups.

In the process of data collection, I found that the community in Sonoma County is highly active and involved with their history, which provides an opportunity for archaeologists to apply collaborative approaches to most, if not all projects occurring there. Specifically discussing the

BFR, I found that the individuals who participated in this study wanted to hear the truth, and were invested in a historical narrative that included the nuances of many different viewpoints. I

101 look forward to sharing the interviewees’ viewpoints with each other, too; each participant will receive a copy of their interview transcript and a copy of this thesis upon its completion.

While the truth is an impossible goal for any project, archaeologists can serve as moderators of the archaeological record, and in doing so, work towards factually-informed compromises with stakeholders that incorporate multiple perspectives. Additionally, working with a diverse group of stakeholders can help build an archaeology that is understood and respected by the community. Archaeologists should avoid top-down approaches that exclude community involvement and input. Cultural resources managers are tasked with deciding what stories are presented, and in taking a collaborative approach, they can be both engaged in and aware of the needs and wants of the community.

The excavations in the search for Cowie and Fowler were ultimately not successful in identifying the burial. However, finding the remains is not a requirement for commemorating those lost in our past. As Mr. Parkman mentioned in his oral history interview, State Parks commissioned and created a memorial for the Indigenous community of Sonoma County, which is located at the Mission San Francisco Solano in the city of Sonoma. The memorial mentions the names of indigenous people that died. Similarly, Cowie and Fowler can be commemorated without confirming their burial locations. Mr. Montgomery from SRRCC mentioned the option of the Santa Rosa Rural Cemetery playing as host for the commemoration of Cowie and Fowler, and their existing Lamplight Tours would provide yet another opportunity to tell their story.

This project sought answers to questions of memory, identity, and commemoration, but I realize it was also the initiation of a larger conversation. While the remains of Cowie and Fowler were not located during the archaeological excavations in this project, there may be additional attempts to find them in the future; additionally, narratives are actively created, and the use of a

102 collaborative approach has certainly had positive implications on the narrative that has been created. Therefore, future directions for the commemoration of the BFR and the RTBFR project should continue to be rooted in community-based archaeology that actively seeks to incorporate multiple perspectives. To continue the conversations initiated during this project, any future commemoration of the BFR should include follow-up interviews with this study’s participants, in addition to identifying more interested parties. While I hoped to incorporate a wider diversity of perspectives, ultimately, I fell short of that goal. I would urge future researchers to incorporate underserved community members that were not able to be included in this project, such as

Hispanic/Latinx community members who are not lineal descendants of Revolt participants.

Interviews should also include group activities in which stakeholders are brought together to further discuss recommendations for commemoration. Through collaborative efforts, archaeologists are able to give a voice to the community they serve, and in doing so, help create archaeology that is relevant to and informed by the public. Making the public contributing members encourages the community to become more invested in the preservation of a shared past. The overarching takeaway of this project is in the usefulness of employing a collaborative approach, which can assist in bringing to light stories of the underserved and underrepresented people found in every community.

Taking a collaborative approach can help archaeologists fulfill our duties as stewards, by changing how consultation looks, and what sources of information can be incorporated. Oral histories and landscape-level studies are too often under-utilized resources in CRM. History is dynamic, constantly being created and recreated. With an awareness of how narratives created in the past have failed certain groups, such as people of color, women, and other marginalized

103 communities, archaeologists can contribute to a more equitable history, one that is as interesting, diverse, and varied as California is today.

104

Appendix A-Institutional Review Board Application

105

Title: Remembering the Bear Flag Event of 1846: Today’s Narratives of Sonoma County’s Past

Researcher: Faculty Supervisor: Rudy Dinarte Dr. Alexis Boutin (740) 490-3413 (707)664-2729 [email protected] [email protected]

Description: This project involves participant observation and ethnographic interviews as part of thesis research towards a Master’s Degree in Cultural Resources Management at Sonoma State University (SSU). The purpose of the research is to explore in what ways the Bear Flag Event of 1846 has shaped ethnic identity formation and relations in Sonoma County community members in the past and in the present.

During this study, you will be asked to share memories and impressions of the Bear Flag Event of 1846 and its legacy on members of Sonoma County communities. Each interview is designed to last from five minutes to an hour in length. However, please feel free to expand on the question or talk about related ideas. Also, if there are any questions you feel you cannot answer or that you do not feel comfortable answering, feel free to indicate this and we will move on to the next question. Depending on the circumstances, and with your permission, the interview may be filmed and photographs may be taken.

Confidentiality: All the information will be kept confidential. I will keep the hard copies of data in a locked office and digital copies of data on a password-protected computer. Only I and the faculty supervisor mentioned above will have access to this information. Upon completion of this project, all data will be destroyed or will continue to be stored in a secure location. Upon completion of this project, all data will be submitted for public access at the Regional Oral History Office at UC Berkeley, and stored in a secure location.

Participant’s Agreement: I am aware that my participation in this interview is voluntary. If, for any reason, at any time, I wish to stop the interview, I may do so without having to give an explanation. I grant permission for this interview to be filmed and for photographs to be taken. I understand the intent and purpose of this research.

I am aware that the data will be used as part of a Master’s thesis. I have the right to review, comment on, and/or withdraw information prior to the thesis submission. The data gathered in this study are confidential and anonymous with respect to my personal identity unless I specify/indicate otherwise. I grant permission for the use of this information for a [Participant to initial permission(s)] ____ Master’s thesis ____ Published article or conference presentation ____ Public Record

I grant permission to use one of the following [Participant to initial permission]:

106

____ My full name ____ My first name only ____ Just a pseudonym

Additional conditions for my participation in this research are noted here: [possible conditions: destruction of digital audio file, distribution of final product as well as other original material(s) e.g., transcription of interviews].

If you have any questions, please ask us. My name is Rudy Dinarte and I can be reached at (760)490-3413; [email protected]. You may also contact Dr. Alexis Boutin at [email protected].

I have read the above form, and, with the understanding that I can withdraw at any time, and for whatever reason, I consent to participate in today’s interview.

______Participant’s name in print Date

______Participant’s signature Date

______Interviewer’s signature

107

Appendix B-Interview Questionnaire

108

Remembering the Bear Flag Revolt of 1846: Today’s Narratives of Sonoma County’s Past Background-Living in Sonoma County: 1. When and where were you born? 2. What did your parents do for a living? 3. How many generations has your family lived in Sonoma County? Are you a Californio or Bear Flag descendant? 4. What brought you or your family to Sonoma County? 5. What were your first impressions of the area? What about the community? 6. What are some of your earliest memories of the area? 7. How has the community in Sonoma County changed since you’ve been here? 8. What was it like growing up as a Californio/Bear Flag descendant? Did you feel a special connection to Sonoma? Did you visit your family’s Ranchos or Adobe’s growing up? What was it like to visit those places? 9. How did your family feel about being a Californio/Bear Flag/early California Euroamerican descendant? Bear Flag Revolt: 10. Can you tell me about the local community before the Bear Flag Revolt? What ethnic groups were present? How did they interact? 11. What do you feel may have led to the Bear Flag Revolt? 12. What happened during the Bear Flag Revolt? 13. When did youfirst discover your family’s connection to the Bear Flag Revolt? 14. What were your initial thoughts when you heard about it? 15. Did your family ever talk about the Revolt? 16. What do you know about the Bear Flag party and its goals? 17. How did your ancestors respond to the Revolt? How do you feel about their actions? 18. How do you feel about the actions of the Bear Flaggers and the Californios/Mexicans? 19. Did you ever feel conflicted between the two sides of the Bear Flag Revolt? 20. How do you feel the Bear Flag Revolt changed the community in Sonoma County? 21. Can you tell me about the people involved in the Revolt? Any specific individuals? What role did they play?

109

22. What ethnic groups were involved in the Revolt? What was their relationship like before the Revolt? How about after? 23. What did the ethnic groups call themselves? 24. Would you identify yourself as a part of one of the ethnic groups mentioned? 25. Do you know of any casualties as a result of the Bear Flag Revolt? If so, who were they? 26. What else would you like to know about them? 27. Should they be memorialized? If so, how should they be memorialized? Where should they be memorialized? 28. How do you feel about the way the Bear Flag Revolt is currently memorialized? How about how it is discussed and presented to the public? (e.g. Sonoma Plaza Memorial, museum displays) 29. What else should be part of the memorial or commemoration? 30. What else would you like to know about the Bear Flag Revolt? 31. What else would you like to know about the people involved in the Bear Flag Revolt? 32. How did you first become interested in the “Remembering the Bear Flag Revolt of 1846” project? Historical societies and other interest groups: 33. Have you ever been a part of an organization similar to a historical society? 34. How did the organization first develop? 35. How did you become involved with the organization? 36. What are the goals of the organization? 37. What were your main goals, both personally and as an activist? 38. What other organizations have you worked closely with? Do you still work with them? 39. What obstacles have you experienced in achieving your goals, both personally and as an organization? 40. What have been some of your major accomplishments as an organization? 41. Is the organization still around? 42. Are you still involved? 43. What advice would you give young women and men today? 44. What do you feel is the lasting legacy the Bear Flag Revolt has had on the community of Sonoma County?

110

45. Any closing remarks, final thoughts?

111

References Cited

Balicki, Janet 2018 Historic Photos Celebrate 150 Years of Santa Rosa History. The Press Democrat. https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/historic-photos-celebrate-150-years-of- santa-rosa-history, accessed November 28, 2020.

2020 Old Courthouse Square through the Decades. The Press Democrat. https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/old-courthouse-square-through-the- decades, accessed November 28, 2020.

Bancroft, Hubert H. 1886 History of California: 1846–1848. The Works of Hubert Howe Bancroft Vol. V. The History Company, San Francisco.

Beisaw, April M. 2010 Memory, Identity, and NAGPRA in the Northeastern United States. American Anthropologist 112(2):244–256.

Brundage, W. Fitzhugh 2012 What Are Commemorative Landscapes? https://docsouth.unc.edu/commland/features/essays/brundage_one/, accessed July 23, 2020.

Buchanan, Briggs, and Mark Collard 2007 Investigating the Peopling of North America through Cladistic Analysis of Early Paleoindian Projectile Points. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26(3):366– 393.

California Department of Parks and Recreation 2020 California Admission Day September 9, 1850. https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=23856, accessed November 30, 2020.

Chirikure, Shadreck, and Gilbert Pwiti 2008 Community Involvement in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Management: An Assessment from Case Studies in Southern Africa and Elsewhere. Current Anthropology 49(3):467-485.

Christman, Carrie A. 2010 Voices of New Philadelphia: Memories and Stories of the People and Place. Historical Archaeology 44(1):102-111.

Cipolla, Craig and James Quinn 2001 Field School Archaeology the Mohegan Way: Reflections on Twenty Years of Community-Based Research and Teaching. Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage 3(2):118–134.

112

Cohen, Paul A. 1997 History in Three Keys: The Boxers as Event, Experience, and Myth. Columbia University Press, New York.

Dixon, James E. 2001 Human Colonization of the Americas: Timing, Technology, and Process. Quaternary Science Reviews 20(1–3):277–299.

Duin, Renzo S., Kilian Toinaike, Tasikale Alupki, and Aimawake Opoya 2015 Introduction: Archaeology of Engagement: Indigenous People, Social Memory, and Making History in the Upper Maroni Basin. Current Anthropology 56(5):753– 761.

Flores, Richard R. 1998 Memory-place, Meaning, and the Alamo. American Literary History:428–445.

Fowler, William R., Greg Borgstede, and Charles W. Golden 2010 Introduction: Maya Archaeology and Social Memory. Ancient Mesoamerica 21(2):309–313.

Greer, Shelley, Rodney Harrison, and Susan McIntyre-Tamwoy 2002 Community-based Archaeology in Australia. World Archaeology 34(2):265–287. DOI: 10.1080/0043824022000007099, accessed December 1, 2020.

Hackel, Steven 2013 Junípero Serra: California’s Founding Father. Hill and Wang, New York.

Hendon, Julia 2010 Houses in a Landscape: Everyday Life in Mesoamerica. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina.

Horning, Audrey J. 2000 Archaeological Considerations of “Appalachian” Identity. In The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective, edited by Marcello A. Canuto and Jason Yaeger, pp. 210–230. Psychology Press Ltd., London.

Jones, Siân 2012 “Thrown Like Chaff in the Wind”: Excavation, Memory and the Negotiation of Loss in the Scottish Highlands. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 15: 346–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10761-012-0181-2, accessed November 20, 2020.

King, Thomas F. 2013 Cultural Resource Laws & Practice. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

113

LeBaron, Gaye 1982a Hidden Valley Drive Burial Ground. The Press Democrat. 17 November:18. Santa Rosa, California.

1982b Casualties of the Bear Flag Revolt. The Press Democrat. 28 November. Santa Rosa, California.

2018 Long Line of Leaders Shaped Santa Rosa over 150 Years. The Press Democrat. https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/specialsections/long-line-of-leaders- shaped-santa-rosa-over-150-years, accessed November 28, 2020.

2020 Gaye LeBaron: Julio Carrillo, John Richards Made Their Mark on Sonoma County. The Press Democrat. https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/julio- carrillo-john-richards-both-men-of-color-made-their-mark-on-sonoma, accessed November 28, 2020.

LeBaron, Gaye, Dee Blackman, Joann Mitchell, and Harvey Hansen 1985 Santa Rosa: A Nineteenth Century Town. Historia, Ltd, Santa Rosa California.

Lightfoot, Kent G, and Sara L. Gonzales 2019 Metini Village: An Archaeological Study of Sustained Colonialism in Northern California. Rutledge, Oxford.

Login, Ivan S., and Jessica Login 2008 Governor Pio Pico, the Monster of California … No More: Lessons in Neuroendocrinology. Pituitary 13(1):80–86.

Los Californianos 2020 History of Los Californianos. http://www.loscalifornianos.org/history-- activities.html, accessed November 30, 2020.

Marcus-Willers, Aaron 2019 New Exhibit on First Privately-Owned Vineyard in Sonoma Valley. Sonoma Index-Tribune. https://www.sonomanews.com/article/lifestyle/new-exhibit-on-first- privately-owned-vineyard-in-sonoma-valley, accessed November 30, 2020.

McKittrick, Myrtle Mason 1944 Vallejo, Son of California. Binfords & Mort., Portland, Oregon.

Monroy, Douglas 1995 Brutal Appetites. In Working People of California, edited by Daniel Cornford, pp. 32–56. University of California Press, Berkeley.

114

Porter, Priscilla H., Michael J. Berson, Margaret Hill, Tyrone C. Howard, Bruce E. Larson, and Julio Moreno 2007 Reflections Grade 4: California: A Changing State. Harcourt School Publishers, Orlando, Florida.

Praetzellis, Mary, and Adrian Praetzellis 2001 Mangling Symbols of Gentility in the Wild West: Case Studies in Interpretive Archaeology. American Anthropologist 103(3):645–654.

Pubols, Louise 2009 The Father of All: The de la Guerra Family, Power, and Patriarchy in Mexican California. University of California Press and Huntington Library, San Marino.

Purser, Margie 2012 Emptying the Magician’s Hat: Participatory GIS-Based Research in Fiji. In The Oxford Handbook of Public Archaeology, edited by Robin Skeates, Carol McDavid, and John Carman, pp. 496–512. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Ritchie, Donald A. 2003 Doing Oral History. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Rosenus, Alan 1999 General Vallejo and the Advent of the Americans. Heyday Books, Berkeley, California.

Schneider, Jeannine K.E. 2010 A Colliding Cultures: The Changing Landscapes of Mission San Francisco Solano, 1823-1846. Master’s thesis, Department of History. Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.

Shackel, Paul A. 2003 Archaeology, Memory, and Landscape of Conflict. Historical Archaeology. 37(3):3-13.

Silberman, Neil and Margaret Purser 2012 Collective Memory as Affirmation: People-centered cultural heritage in a digital age. In Heritage and Social Media: Understanding Heritage in a Participatory Culture, edited by Elisa Giaccardi, pp. 13-29. Rutledge, Oxford.

Sonoma County Tourism 2020 Sonoma County History. https://www.sonomacounty.com/history, accessed November 30, 2020.

115

Thompson, Erica 2017 Allensworth: Preserving the Cemetery of “The Town That Refused to Die.” Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology. Sonoma State University, Sonoma, California.

Voss, Barbara L., Anita Wong Kwock, Connie Young Lu, Lilliam Gong-Guy, Alida Bray, Megan Kane, and Rebecca Allen 2013 Market Street Chinatown Archaeology Project: Ten Years of Community-Based, Collaborative Research on San Jose’s Historic Chinese Community. Chinese America: History and Perspectives. 2013:63–74.

Walker, Dale L. 1999 Bear Flag Rising: The Conquest of California, 1846. Tom Doherty Associates, New York.

Warner, Barbara R. 1996 Men of the California Bear Flag Revolt and Their Heritage. The Arthur H. Clark Publishing Company, Sonoma, California.

Wesson, Cameron 2012 DeSoto (Probably) Never Slept Here: Archaeology, Memory, Myth, and Social Identity. International Journal of Historical Archaeology. 16:418–435.

Wilson, Gregory D. 2010 Community, Identity, and Social Memory at Moundville. American Antiquity. 75(1):3-18.