Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology VoL 4, No. 2, pp. 222-232 (1982). The AUiklik-Tataviam Problem

TRAVIS HUDSON

There is nothing that will stimulate the flow Never have so few written so much about so of vital body juices, energize the enervator, httle to confuse so many. activate the sale of obsolete topographical Not wishing to see such confusion con­ maps, or drive the town librarian balmy, quite tinue, it is my purpose here to attempt to so quickly as a lost mine. clarify what is known from what is assumed, -Charles Outland (1969:41) what is explicit from what is implicit, and what the limited data at hand currently O begins Outland's description of "The support in the way of hypotheses on who SLost Padres' Mine," a story mixed with these people were and what language they fact and fable of gold and silver deposits spoke. Since the nature of the problem scattered about the rugged country from the focuses upon hnguistic identities and ethnic junction of Piru and Lockwood creeks in boundaries, the organization of this paper wih Ventura County to weh down San Emigdio fohow accordingly. Creek in Kern County. But this is not the only mystery to shroud this region, nor to LINGUISTIC IDENTITIES "stimulate the flow of vital body juices," and Ataplili'ish "drive the town librarian balmy." One need only to ask: Who were the people that There was a time when ignorance was occupied the upper valley of the Santa Clara bliss, and in the case of the AUiklik-Tataviam River and the rough country extending north­ problem, that period was between 1912 and ward into the vicinity of Tejon Pass and to 1925. Collecting spotty data in 1912 and what language group or groups did they publishing it three years later, Kroeber (1915) belong? came to the conclusion that an Uto-Aztecan In recent years, three Journal articles have language, which he called Ataplili'ish, was focused upon these very complex and frus­ spoken from Piru to Soledad Canyon (Los trating questions of ethnic boundaries and Angeles County) and over much of the upper hnguistic identities (Bright 1975; Beeler and Santa Clara Valley. His information was based Klar 1977; Johnson 1978) that were, as one upon attributing two utterances to this lan­ anonymous reviewer commented to an eariier guage, given to him by his Kitanemuk- draft of this paper, "canonized" in a Hand­ speaking consultant Juan Jose' Fustero, and book article (King and Blackburn 1978). upon the statement made by his consultant After reading these papers and hstening to that some of his grandparents had spoken this discussions in crowded hotel rooms during now-extinct language (Bright 1975:228). anthropological meetings, my conclusion is to The term, however, was found by Kroeber simply paraphrase the late Winston Churchill: to be too general, since Ataplili'ish was not only the Ventureno Chumash name for the Travis Hudson, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 2559 Puesta del Sol Rd., Santa Barbara, CA 93105. Gabrielino, but also for other Shoshoneans as

[222] THE ALLIKLIK-TATAVIAM PROBLEM 223 weh (Kroeber 1925:621; Bright 1975:228). It Thus, with limited data, Kroeber, Harring­ is perhaps possible that Kroeber learned of ton, and Van Valkenburgh had come to the the generalness of his term from Harrington conclusion that the eastern neighbors of the sometime between 1915 and 1925, for the Ventureno Chumash were Uto-Aztecan in latter's early field notes refer to it. From speech, though it remained impossible to Ventureno consultant Fernando Librado, Har­ determine much more than that. rington recorded 'At'aplili'ish as meaning But then came the discovery of an unpub­ "easterner" and referring to the Fernandeno, hshed vocabulary collected by C. Hart Mer­ Gabriehno, and Kitanemuk, whhe from Chu­ riam with the heading "Santa Inez Chumash mash consultant Jose' Juan Olivas, the name is and Alliklik Chumash"; regretably, however, said to refer only to the Fernandeno and this critical document lacked information as Gabriehno. A Barbareno consultant, Luisa to source, date, or place. Working with the Ygnacio, used the term 'Aluplishlish to de­ vocabulary presented, and under the assump­ note Shoshoneans living to the east (Harring­ tion that the tribal identification as "Alhklik" ton n.d.). Regardless of how Kroeber came was correct, Beeler and Klar (1977:296) about the information, he elected to rename concluded that "it was closely related to, if his Uto-Aztecans as Alliklik. not identical with, the Ventureno [Chumash] branch of that family." Two other assump­ Alliklik tions were made: (1) based upon loan words The new name was by far more specific from other tribes, the language had to be and just what Kroeber wanted. Alliklik, he spoken in the upper vahey of the Santa Clara noted (1925:614), was the Ventureno name River as far north as Castac Lake, the valley for a Shoshonean group occupying the upper of Pastoria Creek, and into the southern San Santa Clara River. Harrington may have been Joaquin—a distance of nearly 100 miles (Beel­ behind Kroeber's selection of this term, for er and Klar 1977:296, 299); and (2) that we again find it in his early notes, the verification of the Alhklik as Chumashan meaning given as "gmnters," and in typical speakers can be based upon the use of the Harrington style, the request of his various term Cuabajai by Franciscan explorer- consultants to translate "Pujadores" or missionary Francisco Garces for residents of "Gmnters" into their own languages. Ineseno the Tejon area which were similar in "dress," Chumash consultant Mari'a Solares came up "cleanhness of the women," and were traders with 'alliklikini, while a Ventureno consultant with those of the Santa Barbara Channel (whose name was abbreviated Sil.) provided Chumash (Beeler and Klar 1977:300). 'alakiwon. Another consultant, perhaps Fer­ It is well at this point to look at the nando Librado, said he had heard of a tribe at assumptions made behind this mysterious Newhah cahed Ararara; "they talked with 'r' word list. Fhst, one may ask who this but are now dead" (Harrington n.d.). consultant of Alliklik may have been, especi­ Van Valkenburgh (1935:3-4) had his own ally since their extremely important informa­ consultants and sthl another opinion. The tion was apparently missed by two careful inhabitants of Saugus, Newhah, and the Little scholars searching the same area, Kroeber and Santa Clara River region were not, according Harrington. Obviously, if the consultant's to him, a distinctive Shoshonean group, but identity were known, it would help to resolve Fernandehos. "Although known to the Ven­ another question: Is the "Ahiklik" vocabulary tureno as I'at'apalliklik, or 'gmnters,' Juan actually representative of speakers who once Jose Fustero alias Lugo had mislead Kroeber." resided east of the Ventureno Chumash, or is 224 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY it a mislabeled Ventureno word list? But, it was not in use at the time Merriam was Perhaps some insight into answering this collecting data in the field from Tejon and question can be gained by examining other Chumash consultants. This would suggest that Merriam materials which pertain to his re­ Merriam picked up the term AUikhk some search among the Chumash and their neigh­ time after his fieldwork and perhaps as late as bors. For example, he does hint that he 1925, although it may have been as early as collected Chumash language and placename 1915 due to the possibility that he exchanged data from two different consultants while he data with J. P. Harrington, with whom Mer­ was at Tejon in November of 1905. One riam had a close relationship (Heizer 1966:4). consultant was named Nancy, and she pro­ Thus, it was probably added later. If the term vided data on San Emigdio, which Merriam was added before 1939, then one cannot help noted was hke that of Santa Barbara. The but wonder why Merriam did not include it in other language mentioned is that of Ventura, his map of Cahfornia Indians. Although much and in a discussion on the Kas-tak (Castac) in agreement with Kroeber's 1925 map, Mer­ Chumash, Merriam also recorded that they riam lists six Chumash groups, none of which were nearly the same as at Ventura (Heizer is named Allikhk. In what would be Alhklik 1966: 429-438). Since one of the two vocabu­ territory according to Kroeber, Merriam laries pubhshed by Beeler and Klar (1977: shows Shoshoneans, the westernmost being 287-296) does correspond with Merriam's Ketahn '-hah '-mwits (Kitanemuk) (Heizer published reference to San Emigdio consult­ 1966:17, 21). Either Merriam had a rare and ant "Nancy," it may very well be that the important Alliklik vocabulary which he had second vocabulary came from his Ventureno either forgotten or misplaced, or he had a speaker, and specificahy that of Castac Chu­ vocabulary which he considered to be unre­ mash. If this is the case, then it would be lated to the Alliklik problem at ah. expected that the mysterious second vocabu­ 1 suspect the latter to have been the case, lary has a number of Ventureno Chumash and speculate it would seem that around 1905 words! Moreover, since the consultant was Merriam located two consultants in the Tejon perhaps residing in the Tejon area, it would who knew Chumashan languages. One of help to explain the loan words from other these was Nancy, who provided San Emigdio tribes in the region, a point which Beeler and data, whhe the other was someone who knew Klar (1977:296, 299) assumed as being a vahd Ventureno or Castac Chumash and provided means to determine the territory over which the Ahiklik portion of the second vocabulary. the language was spoken, rather than the Could this mysterious consultant have been circumstances of the consultant's background Jose Juan Olivas of the Tejon who spoke and place of residence. This identification of Castac Chumash? Whoever he or she was, consultant and location are important to Merriam treated the second vocabulary as evaluating the word hst itself. being of no more importance than his other But there is yet another aspect of this Chumash lists by his lack of considering it as a word list which also requires attention, name­ rare Alliklik vocabulary for a territory other­ ly, how did it become identified with Allik- wise believed to be Uto-Aztecan in speech. hk? Perhaps some insight into this question Some time after 1939, he or someone else can again come from a review of Merriam's must have added the Ahikhk identification, work. We know, for example, that the term possibly because of a reference to Castac Alliklik replaced Kroeber's Ataplili'ish in (Merriam's Kas-tak) and the belief that this 1925, and perhaps in his thinking even earher. was located within Allikhk territory. THE ALLIKLIK-TATAVIAM PROBLEM 225

This Castac Chumash connection relates Indian guides to find a possible route which in an interesting way with Beeler and Klar's could serve to link coastal California with far- third assumption, namely, that the Allikhk off New Mexico and to identify and describe were Chumash based upon the historical the native peoples with an eye turned toward reference by Francisco Garces that the Cuaba­ their later conversion. jai (or Quabajai) of the Tejon were similar to After nearly a year and several hundreds the people of the Santa Barbara Channel of mhes of walking and riding, the two priests (Beeler and Klar 1977:300). Carets had tra­ were once again reunited. The date was veled through this now disputed ethnic terri­ December 31, 1776, and the place was a tory in Aprh, 1776. Although Kroeber (1907: Sonoran mission cahed Tabutama (Bolton 135-136; 1925:612) had rejected an exten­ 1933: viii-ix, 533-534). Garces, who had sion of the term Cuabajai to the adjacent already arrived, was busy with the long task Chumash, Beeler and Klar (1977:300) sug­ of completing the diary of his travels, finish­ gested otherwise: ing in January, 1777 (Coues 1900:xiv, 58 In the past some investigators (e.g., Kroeber) n. 4). Font, however, needed time to convert have questioned the equation of Cuabajai the short diary kept during his trip into the and Chumash; but in light of the evidence much fuller account fihed with "extension brought together in this paper, the notion and clarification." He did not finish until May that they were one and the same is all the more attractive. of that same year (Bolton 1933:533-534). Having experienced so much in each Since the Garces account, and the associated other's absence, the two men had much to account of Pedro Font, are relevant to the share. Recognizing their mutual responsi­ Alhklik-Tataviam problem, it is weh to go bilities they set to work to produce a joint into them in some detah, especially in terms map of Alta Cahfornia. Garces described it as of the interesting changes in meaning and use fohows: the term Cuabajai received under the pens of There accompanies this record a map made these early missionary ethnographers. by Father Font with the greatest care and Prior to de Anza's second expedition to while I was at his side so that I might give California (1775-1776), the term Quabajai is him, in addition to the data herein, other unrecorded in the diaries of early explorers. It information that should help to ensure its is also missing in the diaries and writings accuracy. [The map also includes] names of the Indian nations. . . . Some of these areal afterward. The term (with variant spehings limits [for these nations] are based only on Quabajay, Cuabajay, etc.) is restricted to the the best judgement that could be made diaries of Pedro Font and Francisco Garces [Galvin 1965:2; emphasis added]. who accompanied de Anza. To understand how the name came about, it is necessary to The finished map is of importance here note certain points about the expedition and because it identified and located a "nation" the subsequent relationship of these two known as the Quabajay in the region of priests. present-day Santa Barbara. Another people, After a long trek northward from Mexico, cahed the Benyeme, were placed in the de Anza's party reached Yuma Junction on Ventura area, while to the mountainous north the Colorado River. Here, the two priests sthl another group, the Cobaji are shown parted company. Font to continue on with de (Coues 1900:1: frontispiece, 251-252 n. 29; Anza to estabhsh a colony at San Francisco, Bolton 1930:IV:534; Wagner 1937:11:344). whhe Garces moved off with his Mohave During the actual journey through the 226 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

Santa Barbara Channel in February of 1776, by these Colorado River Indians to the both Font and de Anza recorded their obser­ Kitanemuk. Kroeber went on to add that the vations. Neither, however, mentioned a Qua­ Mohave spoke of a Kwiahta Hamakhava, or bajay, Benyeme, or Cobaji (Teggart 1913:53, "like Mohaves," as being somewhere within 55; Bohon 1930:111: 106-110, 243-246). But this region; they may have meant the Allikhk, when the expedition was completed and Font although "there is no known fragment of turned his attention to writing his expanded evidence in favor of this belief." As for the account, he added the following text under other two names. Font's Benyeme (or Bene- the date February 24, 1776 (Bolton me) was equated with the Mohave term for 1933:250): the Vanyume, while Cobaji applied perhaps to the Kawahsu (Kroeber 1925:612). The Indians of the Channel are of the Quabajay tribe. They and the Berieme have Kroeber's findings bring up a most im­ commerce with the Jamajab [Mohave] and portant question, how did Font come to others of the Colorado River, with their apply a Mohave term for the Kitanemuk (or cuentas [sheh money] or beads. . . Castac Chumash?) to the Santa Barbara Taken at face value it would appear that Channel people? The answer is found by the Indians of Santa Barbara were known as tracing the association of Pedro Font and Quabajay. The statement, however, requires Francisco Garces, and the diaries they pro­ checking other sources for verification or duced. clarification in order to remove unintentional When Garces parted from Font and de human errors which confronted not only the Anza at the Colorado River, he picked up his original author but perhaps also a modern Mohave guides for the long trek across Cali­ reader. fornia's eastern desert to San Gabriel, thence One obvious method of verification would by way of the Tulare Vahey back again to the be the discovery that the Chumash also cahed river. The guides selected were weh ac­ themselves Quabajay, but such is not the case. quainted with much of the route, the Mohave Making ahowances for the absence of "b" or having fohowed these trahs in conducting "v" sounds in Chumash (QuaZ^ajay), a search trade-mentioned by Garces-with the Chu­ of the ethnic names presented in a number of mash, Kitanemuk, and Gabrielino (Coues sources on the Chumash (Heizer 1952, 1955; 1900: xiv, 243, 254, 257 n. 7, 265, 268). The Kroeber 1925; Grant 1978; Harrington n.d.) Mohave connection to southern California is reveal no correspondences. reasonably weU known (Kroeber 1925:596; Although we can find no Chumash count­ Forbes 1965:80-81; White 1974). erpart for Font's Quabajay, it must be stress­ After leaving the river, Garces encoun­ ed that Font was a serious and dedicated tered a group he called the Beneme (Font's scholar who would not intentionahy have Benyeme and Kroeber's Vanyume) "nation," invented the term. To judge from its non- stating that "This nation is the same as that of Chumash sound pattern, the name Quabajay San Gabriel, Santa Clara, and San Joseph" could likely have originated from some other (Coues 1900:240). Santa Clara referred to the group and was applied by Font to the Santa Clara Valley located in Ventura County Chumash. In 1907 Kroeber (1907: 135-136; today, and within the territory which Kroeber 1925:612) determined that this was indeed assigned to his Shoshonean Alliklik (Kroeber the case. The word Quabajay (or Quabajai, 1925:613-614,648). Cuabajai) comes from the Mohave term Kuva- Although anthropologists today recognize haivima (Kuvahai = Quabajai), the name given a number of ethnic groups speaking related THE ALLIKLIK-TATAVIAM PROBLEM 227

Uto-Aztecan languages within the region tra­ north, known to the Jamajabs [Mohave] by veled by Garces, he was himself faced with the name Cuabajay [Coues 1900:269; Galvin the unprecedented task of organizing informa­ 1965:44; emphasis added]. tion about these southern Cahfornia peoples. The text is important, for it not only tells Apparently, he relied upon similarities he us that the Cuabajay "nation" resided to the observed in material culture, perhaps to some north of the Santa Clara Valley, but also that degree language and trade communication the name itself was given by his Mohave between groups, and upon what was told to guides, just as Kroeber was able to determine him by his Mohave guides, who already had more than a century and a half later. It might formulated a classification for theh western also be pointed out that Garces considered neighbors. the people of the Santa Clara Vahey to belong to another of his groupings, the Beneme, After seeing such a variety of nations and learning about their friendships, wars, and which also included the Vanyume and Gabri­ trade ... it seemed best to me ... to give elino. separate information about each of these Garces moved north out of the vahey and nations, and joining together all the data soon reached the Tejon area, where he wrote: that I have acquired, to show the connection that some nations have with others [Galvin I arrived at some rancherias of the Cuabajay 1965:2; emphasis added]. nation. . . . There is much trading back and forth [between here and the Santa Barbara Garces categorized these people as "nations" Channel Indians] and perhaps these Indians in the European sense of the meaning, and belong to the same nation; from what I hear, not upon the details of language and culture they are similar also in their dress and in the cleanliness of the women [Coues 1900:287; available to us today. In addition, to eliminate Galvin 1965:46-47; emphasis added]. the problem of confusing and conflicting names aheady in use, he selected only a On May 12th, Garces began his descent few—and as we have seen—Mohave ones. out of the mountains heading toward the San Joaquin Valley, coming across another people Let it be borne in mind also that in the which his Mohave guides cahed Cobaji (Kroe­ names I set down there may be variation, ber's Kawahsu). These people, he wrote, seeing that the Indians cah by different spoke a different language from the Quabajais names one and the same nation, as I have observed in the case of the Jamajabs [Mo­ (= Cuabajay), as he now spehed the name haves] [Coues 1900:445]. (Coues 1900:271 n. 12, 304; Bolton 1930: I: 452). Departing Mission San Gabriel with his In short, Garc6s had recorded the names Mohave and local Indian guides, Garces head­ of Indian "nations" during his trek, while ed northwest but skirted the eastern bound­ Font had not. Garces had not traveled among ary of the Chumash and entered what he the Santa Barbara Channel Chumash, but cahed Beneme country in the Santa Clara merely speculated that perhaps they also Vahey. On April 24th, while stih in the valley, belonged to his Cuabajay "nation," just as he he wrote what might be expected in his had done in grouping together several Shosho­ developing tribal classifications: nean groups under the term Beneme. He reasoned connections and associations on the The Indians were very affable, and the basis of material culture, and after his trip had women cleanlier and neater than any I had seen before of this same Befieme nation. In ended and he began writing an expanded the evening there came two Indians from the diary whhe staying at Tabutama, he wrote: 228 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

The same [connection] is related to me by Font completed his expanded diary, he also those [probably Font] who had seen on the included the term Quabajay in his rewritten Canal [Santa Barbara Channel]. [They re­ description on the Indians of the Santa ported seeing] . . . people with the hair crisp and others who have it straight, that also Barbara Channel. have I seen myself; and the pointing out of The Mohave identification of two peoples their land toward the west would be for the within the Santa Clara Vahey area northward island of Santa Cruz, which lies in this into the Tejon may, however, be valid, but it direction, though the discoverers could not leaves us with yet another problem. If the discern this and others of the Canal, especi­ ally in a fog, as is now also the case. The Beneme equate with Kroeber's Allikhk, who tents which that relation [Font's diary] says were the Cuabajai? Insight into this question they saw have connection with those which I requires examining two other tribal names saw of sewn tule among the Cobajais [Cua­ proposed for this region, Tataviam and Castac bajay or Cobaji?], of which I make mention Chumash. in the Diary [Coues 1900:488489]. Garces doubtlessly wrote these words in Tataviam January, 1777, when he was putting the finishing touches to his expanded diary and in In 1916, Harrington asked his Kitanemuk the company of none other than Pedro Font, consultants if they had heard of a tribe cahed who was beginning his expanded diary and the "Pujadores," as he had done with other would not be finished for another five months consultants which resulted in the term AlUk- (Coues 1900: xiv; Bolton 1933: 533-534). hk. Though doubtful about it, they decided The two men exchanged valuable informa­ that the term must have referred to an extinct tion; but from Garces Font received the tribe which they cahed Tataviam, whose names and locations of Indian "nations" so language was said to be entirely different that Font could add them to their joint map. from Ventureno Chumash or Kitanemuk. Font also found time to read the completed Harrington then provided Fustero's Alliklik diary of Garces before he was to finish his; an words, and the consultants identified them as example of this is an addition Font made to being Tataviam (Bright 1975:229). It is evi­ his diary of an event which ". . .is stated also dent from this that the group east of the by Father Garc6s in his diary. . ." (Bohon Ventureno Chumash and identified by Kroe­ 1933:469). ber as Uto-Aztecan Alhklik were considered Can Beeler and Klar (1977:300) employ by Harrington's Kitanemuk consultants to Garces' use of the term Cuabajai as evidence have been the Tataviam (King and Blackburn that Ahikhk was a Chumashan speech? The 1978:537). Harrington (n.d.) linked the terms answer is no, unless we are willing to accept Alhklik and Tataviam together from his Ines- Mohave tribal classifications as being based on eiio Chumash consultant, Mari'a Solares, who hnguistic speech. As for the apphcation of the translated Pujadores into Ineseno 'alliklikini. term Cuabajai to the Santa Barbara Channel Bright (1975:23) came to the tentative con­ Chumash, Garces wrote that ''perhaps these clusion that the Tataviam were possibly a Indians belong to the same nation." Months division of Takic speakers, "or perhaps it is later when both priests worked together on the remnant, influenced by Takic, of a lan­ their diaries and joint map. Font incorporated guage famhy otherwise unknown in southern the names of Indian "nations" cohected by Cahfornia." Garces, mapping them "on judgement." As A simple name change from AUikhk to would be expected, five months later when Tataviam would seem to be in order, but such THE ALLIKLIK-TATAVIAM PROBLEM 229 was not to happen. While recognizing the ETHNIC BOUNDARIES term Tataviam as being applicable to a non- Chumashan group. Bright (1975:230) extend­ Kroeber (1925: 613-614) assigned his ed the term Ahikhk to reflect a group of Uto-Aztecan Ahikhk to the upper Santa Clara Chumashan speakers, obviously accepting River area, from a point between Sespe and Merriam's mysterious second vocabulary as Piru, most of Piru Creek, Castac Creek, and mdeed being representive of Alhklik speech. northward toward the San Joaquin Valley to To make matters even more confusing. King include Pastoria Creek. Harrington's consult­ and Blackburn (1978:537) assigned Merriam's ants, who equated Alliklik with Tataviam, Allikhk vocabulary as being that of Castac were in agreement that the Tataviam held the Chumash. Beeler and Klar (1977:301), how­ Piru region, and to some extent also the ever, rejected the notion that the term Ahik­ territory included La Liebre, Elizabeth Lake, hk should be replaced with Castac (or Cas- and up into the Antelope Valley (Bright taceno or Kashtek) Chumash. 1975:229; King and Blackburn 1978:535). If it were not enough to encounter confu­ Using ethnohistorical sources, Johnson sion over these various tribal identities, a (1978:194) came to a similar conclusion for similar situation is present with the problem the upper Santa Clara River Valley, focusing of equating the Mohave names given to Garces particularly upon previous misunderstandings (and other sources) for these various peoples. over the difference between Castaic Creek For example, the term Cuabajay was equated within Tataviam territory and Castac Lake with the Kitanemuk by Kroeber (1925) and within Chumash territory. Confusion over Hudson (1982), whh the Allikhk by Beeler these placenames had misled Beeler and Klar and Klar (1977), and with the Castac Chu­ (1977:303) into falsely assuming that since mash by King and Blackburn (1978). Accord­ Castaic (Creek) was a Chumash placename, it ing to sources summarized by King and indicated that Chumash speakers must have Blackbum (1978:537), the Mohave may have resided in the upper Santa Clara River Vahey cahed the Tataviam by the term Gwalinyuo- as weh. Aware of the problem of two places kosmachi, though it was also used for "Te- named Castaic and the ambiguity they created hachapi Indians" residing just north of the in dealing with ethnohistoric sources. Bright Kitanemuk. Yet another Mohave term which (1975:229) also feh victim by presuming may have been applicable to the Tataviam is "Castaic in the Santa Clara Valley" was what Beneme. Obviously, there is less certainty in was meant by a Kitanemuk statement that "at equating any of these names to specific Ka tek they talked Ventureno but somewhat peoples and thus specific language groupings differentiated." when we cannot even be sure of the geo­ Some of this confusion was taken care of graphical locations referred to, nor upon what by Johnson (1978) when he pointed out that criteria (language?) was being used by the the Chumash vihage of Castac (Kashtiq) was Mohave to separate these various "tribes." located at Castac Lake, near modern Fort Scholars, however, have attempted to Tejon. There is httle doubt that Chumash was make some sense out of aU of this by spoken there. Merriam noted himself that examining placename data and references Kas-tak was Chumash and that they were made by consultants as to where a specific "nearly the same as at Ventura" (Heizer group may have resided. This takes us to the 1966:435). King and Blackbum (1978:537), second part of the discussion, ethnic bound­ adding additional source data from Harring­ aries. ton, also recognized the Castac Chumash, 230 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY considering them as long-time residents of the dio Canyon (Johnson 1978:189). What per­ area and perhaps as the Cuabajay named by haps connects this village with Ventureno Carets' Mohave guides. Chumash is the statement by Presidio Com- Such "fixed" geographic territories for mandante Felipe de Goycoechea (1790) that the Tataviam and Castac Chumash bring up a among the attackers was a Christian fugitive most important question raised by Beeler and from Mission San Buenaventura named Do­ Klar (1977: 302-303), namely, how is it that mingo. It is known from other historic Castac and Ventureno Chumash are essenti­ sources that a number of fugitives from the ally identical languages when they are separ­ missions had fled into the interior (cf. Cook ated from one another by a totahy ahen 1960: 256-257), and among them most cer­ Tataviam group? tainly were Indians from Mission San Buena There is no simple answer to this ques­ Ventura. tion, for the data are spotty at best. Perhaps if CONCLUSIONS I may speculate here, an explanation can be posited on the basis of population relocation With spotty and conflicting data at hand, during early historic times. Consider, if you it is difficult to arrive at any final conclusion whl, the reliance which has been placed upon to the Ahikhk-Tataviam problem. 1 can only Garces' assumption that his Mohave-named speculate here as to how some of this confu­ Cuabajay were Chumash. In actuahty, this sion can be removed, and offer possible assumption is not founded upon linguistic explanations to account for some of the evidence, any more than it can be based upon historic and ethnohistoric data. culture. For as King and Blackburn First, 1 think it is evident that Kroeber's (1978:536) point out for the Tataviam, there Alhklik equate with Harrington's Tataviam, were "major similarities among Tataviam, and that they were most likely speakers of Chumash, and Gabriehno ritual organization," some sort of Uto-Aztecan language, perhaps and although warfare between the Cuabajay as Bright suggests, Takic. They may have been and the Beneme might equahy be advanced to hnguisticahy similar to theh Fernandeno demonstrate a north-south enmity, this expla­ neighbors, as Van Valkenburgh noted, or they nation could equahy be applied between the could have been related to the Kitanemuk. Kitanemuk and the Tataviam. Regardless, it is also evident that they occu­ Moreover, it is known that coastal peoples pied the upper Santa Clara River Vahey, such did relocate into this interior region in early as the Piru area, and extended perhaps to as historic times. The Emigdiano Chumash, for far as the Antelope Vahey. As for what to cah example, spoke Barbareno Chumash, although them, given the current confusion of Allikhk they too were separated from their coastal with Chumash, I would suggest that we cah cousins by intervening groups (Beeler and them Tataviam. Klar 1977:296). Merriam noted the presence Second, I think there is enough evidence of Gabriehno groups within the Tejon region to support the view that Merriam's Ahiklik during his fieldwork (Heizer 1966:430). vocabulary probably relates to Castac Chu­ If Ventureno Chumash did relocate into mash. The inabihty to determine the consult­ the Castac Lake area, displacing perhaps ant, date, place, attribution of Ahiklik to the Kitanemuk or Tataviam groups, it would most document, and other such data which have certainly have occurred sometime prior to suggested that Merriam may have collected 1790, for in that year Indians from the vhlage the material while in the Tejon from a Castac of "Castec" attacked soldiers near San Emig­ speaker, argues against full acceptance of this THE ALLIKLIK-TATAVIAM PROBLEM 231 mysterious vocabulary as being Ahikhk with­ interpreted from the point of view that they out additional, supportive evidence. were the original inhabitants, and that Castac Thhd, given the confusion over the differ­ Chumash residing among them were the intru­ ence between Castaic (Creek) and Castac sive group who had arrived several generations Lake, it is evident that separate ethnic identi­ earlier. Could this possiblity explain Juan Jose ties were present between Tataviam occupy­ Fustero's ethnic origins too? In addition, ing Castaic Creek and Castac Chumash occu­ although the vihage of Kashtiq is noted by pying Castac Lake. I agree that some mixture Johnson (1978:188) as being Chumash, the between these peoples must have occurred, identification is associated with the historic perhaps along territorial boundaries in late period—it is impossible to say whether or not precontact-historic times, and on a much this placename also applied to whatever pre­ larger scale during the historic period when historic components there may be. Moreover, disruption of traditional culture patterns was the "fugitive" theory does not conflict with most severe. King and Blackburn (1978:536), Kroeber's findings that the term Cuabajai for example, note that during the American applied to the Kitanemuk. period Tataviam and Castac Chumash were In conclusion, 1 share with Bih Bright evidently living together at Pastoria Creek, (1975:230) a hope that fellow scholars wih be within Castac territory. able to shed further light on the matter. Fourth, on the basis of hnguistic data it REFERENCES would appear that Castac Chumash were Ventureno Chumash who relocated during the Beeler, Madison, and Kathryn Klar very early historic period into the Castac Lake 1977 Interior Chumash. Journal of California An­ thropology 4(2): 28 7-305. region, much as is evident for other coastal groups such as Barbareno Chumash into the Bolton, Herbert San Emidgio region, and Gabrielino groups 1930 Anza's California Expedhions (5 Vols.). Ber­ keley: University of CaHfornia Press. into the Tejon. Their initial penetration or intrusion may have been the result of fleeing 1933 Font's Complete Diary: A Chronicle of the Founding of San Francisco. Berkeley: Uni­ the mission system, and as "Christian fugi­ versity of California Press. tives," perhaps several mixed communities were estabhshed in an otherwise remote area. Bright, William 1975 The Alliklik Mystery. Journal of California This would serve to explain why dialectal Anthropology 2(2):228-230. differences between Castac and Ventureno are Cook, Sherburne F. not evident, and why these groups became 1960 Colonial Expeditions to the Interior of separated by the ahen Tataviam; and, it California, Central Valley, 1800-1820. Ber­ historically and hnguisticahy matches a simi­ keley: University of Cahfornia Anthropo­ lar pattern between Emidgiano and Barbar­ logical Records 16(6). eno. Coues, Elliott, ed. Although admittedly flimsy, this "fugi­ 1900 On the Trail of a Spanish Pioneer: The Diary tive" hypothesis might also serve to account and Itinerary of Francisco Garces (2 Vols.). New York: Francis P. Harper. for the ethnic mixtures evident in the Tejon region, as well as for the confusion by various Forbes, Jack consultants as to the location of original, 1965 Warriors of the Colorado. Norman: Univer­ tribal boundaries. For example, the report of sity of Oklahoma Press. Tataviam peoples living on Pastoria Creek Galvin, John, ed. during the American period could also be 1965 A Record of Travels in Arizona and Califor- 232 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

nia 1775-1776: Fr. Francisco Garces. San King, Chester, and Thomas Blackburn Francisco: John Howeh. 1978 Tataviam. In: Handbook of North American Goycoechea, Fehpe de Indians, Vol. 8: Cahfornia, Robert Heizer, 1790 Letter to Pedro Fages, dated 2 September, ed., pp. 535-537. Washington, D.C: Smith­ 1790. Translated by Geraldine Sahyun for sonian Institution. the Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preser­ Kroeber, Alfred vation. Copy on file at the Department of 1907 Shoshonean Dialects of Cahfomia. Univer­ Anthropology, Santa Barbara Museum of sity of Cahfomia Pubhcations in American Natural History, Santa Barbara. Archaeology and Ethnography 4(3):65-166. Grant, CampeU 1915 A New Shoshonean Tribe in Califomia. 1978 Chumash: Introduction. In: Handbook of American Anthropologist 17:773-775. North American Indians, Vol. 8: Cahfornia, Robert Heizer, ed., pp. 505-508. Washing­ 1925 Handbook of the Indians of Cahfornia. ton, D.C: Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C: Bureau of American Eth­ nology BuUetin No. 78. Harrington, John P. n.d. Miscellaneous Chumash and Kitanemuk Eth­ Outland, Charles nographic Notes on file at the United States 1969 Mines, Murders and Grizzlies: Tales of Cah- National Anthropological Archives, Washing­ fomia's Ventura Back Country. Ventura: ton D.C. Ventura County Historical Society. Heizer, Robert, ed. Teggart, Fredrick, ed. 1952 California Indian Linguistic Records: The 1913 The Anza Expedition of 1775-1776: Diary Mission Indian Vocabularies of Alphonse of Pedro Font. Berkeley: Academy of Pa­ Pinart. Berkeley: University of Cahfornia cific Coast History Publications 3(1). Anthropological Records 15(1). Van Valkenburgh, Richard 1955 California Indian Linguistic Records: The 1935 Notes on the Ethnography and Archaeology Mission Indian Vocabularies of H. W. Hen- of the Ventureiio Chumash Indians. Micro­ shaw. Berkeley: Univershy of California film on file. No. 6042, Archaeology of Cali­ Anthropological Records 15(2). fornia, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1966 Ethnographic Notes on Cahfornia Indian Tribes, by C. Hart Merriam. Berkeley: Uni­ Wagner, Henry versity of Cahfornia Archaeological Survey 1937 The Cartography of the Northwest Coast of Reports No. 68, Pt. 1. America to the Year 1800 (2 Vols.). Ber­ keley: University of Cahfornia Press. Hudson, Travis 1982 Were They Once Cahed Quabajai? Santa White, Chris Barbara Historical Society Quarterly Bul­ 1974 Lower Colorado River Area Aboriginal War­ letin, Noticias 28(1): 1-6. fare and Alliance Dynamics. In: 'Antap: Cahfornia Indian Political and Economic Johnson, John Organization, Loweh Bean and Thomas 1978 The Trail to Kashtiq. Journal of Cahfornia King, eds. Ramona: Ballena Press Anthropo­ Anthropology 5(2): 188-198. logical Papers No. 2:111-136.