UC Merced The Journal of

Title The Kin Group and the Political Unit in Aboriginal California

Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5632v2b1

Journal The Journal of California Anthropology, 1(1)

Author Kunkel, P. H.

Publication Date 1974-07-01

Peer reviewed

eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California The Pomo Kin Group and the Political Unit In Aboriginal California

p. H. KUNKEL

MODELS AS MYTHS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVES

T has now been over ten years since residential, economic, and kinship affairs. It I Elman Service introduced into the folk­ replaced the three rather tentative models lore of anthropology the myth of the patri­ which Steward (1936, 1955) had previously local band as the principal, logical form of proposed by telhng us that two of them were social organization for food-collecting soci­ merely acculturationally disoriented relics of eties (Service 1962, 1966). Those of us who the third—Steward's patrihneal band, which know California weh have always with some embellishments became Service's known that this model was a myth. Yet the patrilocal band. most effective rebuttals to Service's model The many anthropologists who con­ have come from workers in other areas (Lee tributed to the Lee and DeVore symposium and DeVore 1968). These were mostly an­ presented abundant recently observed evi­ thropologists who have been doing field re­ dence for the variability and flexibihty of search among recent or contemporary food- actual food-collecting . Thus they collecting societies. It is surprising how much destroyed the positive, universal character of opportunity there still is to carry out such Service's formulation, reducing it to its pres­ field work. It is also surprising, perhaps, that ent mythological status. Of course, it is clear there is still such interest in the food- that the patrilocal band, or something like it, collecting ways of hfe. can be one phase in the cycle of change and Of course, food-collecting societies of the regrouping which such societies act out. But Paleolithic period were ancestral, ultimately, the "logical inevitability" of the model is to all subsequent types of human social rather effectively refuted. It has been re­ organization. We have, therefore, some reason placed, for an interim, by a "trial formula­ to be curious about what such societies were tion" which Lee and DeVore label the "no­ hke and how they arranged their social madic style." This nomadic style, they sug­ interaction patterns. Service's quite positive gest, has the following characteristics: and rather male chauvinist myth certainly had the merit of telling us quite specifically, 1. Limited personal possessions. logically, and in some detail how those 2. Small group size, usually under 50 Paleolithic humans arranged their marital. persons. THE JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA ANTHROPOLOGY

3. UsuaUy no exclusive claims to re­ mation. I maintain, however, that these peo­ sources. ples represent more closely the "normative" 4. Food surpluses not prominent. food-collecting situations of pre-agricultural 5. Frequent intergroup visiting and shifts times than do the peripheral badlands wan­ in residence. derers discussed by Service and by most of the participants in the Lee and DeVore The Lee and DeVore trial formulation symposium report. does perpetuate one imphed assumption that Why have Cahfornia scholars faUed to is also part of the Service myth—namely, that come forward with data relevant to the nature food-collecting societies have to be small and of food-coUecting people? There are probably mobile. Those of us who know the Cahfornia several main reasons. First, until recently data well have good reason to question this there were few recognized experts in Cali­ assumption also. Of course, it has always been fornia ethnology actively engaged in such recognized that the Indians of California and research. The few students who were inter­ of the northwest Pacific coast of North ested were struggling to get through the crisis America were "exceptions" to many general­ rites of our profession. We were definitely not izations concerning food-coUecting peoples. the sort of people who got invited to sym­ (It is interesting that populations whose total posia or came forward with manifestoes (to numbers may well have exceeded those of all which anyone would have listened). the "classical" food-collecting societies put A second reason for the relative silence together are characterized as "exceptions.") I from Cahfornia specialists is that Cahfornia would like to advance the counter-hypothesis ethnology is based mainly on "salvage ethnog­ that it is the nomadic food-collectors who raphy"—the mining of the memories of old were the exceptions, at least in Middle and people—not on contemporary, on-the-spot, Late Paleolithic times. participation-observation of on-going soci­ The "classical band-level" nomadic soci­ eties. Data obtained by salvage ethnography eties of hunters and gatherers are mostly methods are generally regarded as inferior in recent or modem occupants of peripheral or quality to data obtained by participant-obser­ "internally marginal" territories with inferior vation. The greater prestige of the latter is resources. As surviving examples of a once reflected in the Lee and DeVore symposium more widespread way of life they have gener­ report; most of the contributors were partici­ ally been pushed into these less favorable pant-observers during their field work. We areas by agricultural and "civilized" peoples. Califomia ethnologists have probably tended But there once were no and no to be overly inhibited about entering broad agriculture. In those days, food-collecting fields of controversy for both of the reasons I societies had available to them most of the cite. (Though we have muttered in our habitable parts of the earth. To get some idea beards-actual or figurative—or to each other.) of what food-collecting societies could ac­ Whatever the limitations of the California complish when fertile lands were available to data—or of those of us who have become the them we must turn to two major well- caretakers of the California ethnological tradi­ documented peoples—the Indians of the tion—there is pertinent information here, Northwest Coast of North America and the which should be brought to bear on general Indians of Cahfornia. For both there is a theoretical questions concerning hunting and considerable Hterature, albeit with tantalizing gathering peoples who live in favorable, rather gaps in the demographic and ecological infor­ than unfavorable environments. This paper THE POMO KIN GROUP presents some conclusions I have come to certain respects. In his monograph The conceming the nature of pohtical organiza­ and Their Neighbors, Kroeber (1932:258-259) tion among the of . I proposed the term "tribelet" as more appro­ concem myself mainly with the nature of the priate for the autonomous pohtical unit, since basic political units, ambilateral residential the "community" (i.e., the group of people kin groups. However, these units were in­ within a given territory) seemed more impor­ volved in several kinds of more complex tant and more permanent than the village, social, political, and religious systems, which which might in the long run be subdivided or reflected rather favorable ecological condi­ moved from one locale to another. As Kroeber tions and what may seem to be very "excep­ (1932:257) put it, each tribelet was a homo­ tional" demographic conditions. Most of geneous unit in matters of land ownership, these systems were characteristic of "- trespass, war, major ceremonies, and the en­ lets" which were semi-sedentary, rather than tertainments entailed by the latter. He also nomadic; organized at the levels of tribes or considered the possibility that his original , rather than just at the "band estimate for average population might be low. level"; and which had population densities In this he was largely influenced by Gifford's mnning well above the one per square mile (1926b) census data from the Pomo vUlage of flgure so often cited as the upper hmit for Shigom, which appeared in a monograph hunting-gathering populations. Clear Lake Pomo . Gifford's (1926a) most significant theo­ HISTORY OF CONCEPTS retical contribution to the political organiza­ IN CALIFORNIA ETHNOLOGY tion of aboriginal Cahfornia is his paper " Lineages and the Pohtical Unit in Important theoretical generalizations con­ Aboriginal California." In his paper, Gifford cerning California Indian pohtical organiza­ suggested that the underlying basic unit of tion have been advanced by A. L. Kroeber Califomia political institutions was a unilineal (1925, 1932), E. W. Gifford (1926a), and (usually patrihneal) kin group, the "lineage." Walter Goldschmidt (1948). I wiU briefly By the term "underlying" Gifford implied review the essence of their generalizations. that, although evidence for the existence of In his Handbook of the Indians of Cali­ Hneages was not always clearly present in fornia (1925), Kroeber first advanced the ethnographic data from many California Indi­ concept of the "vUlage community" as the an tribes, it seemed reasonable to hypothesize basic, autonomous political unit within the their former presence. He cited definite evi­ non-political, ethnologically recorded "dia­ dence for the presence of lineages among the lect-tribes" of Cahfomia (e.g., Yuki, Pomo, Sierra Miwok and various southern Cahfornia Miwok, -really linguistic units, not peoples-including the CahuUla, Serrano, Die­ tribal entities). He originally conceived these gueno, Cupeno, and Luiseho. He also attrib­ units as consisting of quite smaU populations, uted hneages to certain of the Clear Lake averaging about 100 persons, bound together Pomo, a point I wiU presentiy chaUenge. by kinship ties, and occupying a principal In a sense, Goldschmidt's (1948) general village plus one or more subsidiary hamlets. paper, "Social Organization in Native Cali­ These populations exploited fairly specific fornia and the Origin of Clans," is a further territories for their subsistence (see Kroeber extension of Gifford's thesis. By this time, 1925:161-163, 228-230, 830-834). Duncan Strong (1929) had demonstrated the Kroeber later modified this concept in validity of the lineage concept for much of 10 THE JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA ANTHROPOLOGY

Southern California with impressively detailed tional famihes" for the Patwin in the south­ data. Anna Gayton (1945) also had dis­ western portion of the . covered the presence of lineages among the These have been interpreted as lineages, al­ Yokuts and Westem Mono, something Gifford though McKem himself disavows such an in­ had apparently only suspected. Goldschmidt terpretation (personal communication 1966). thus marshalled evidence suggesting the pres­ He feels that: "The political structure of the ence of unilineal tendencies among various community was wholly independent from tribes of northern Cahfomia. Moreover, he both the functional activities and social status went beyond the bounds of Gifford's original of such families." Furthermore, he points out formulation to suggest the prominence of that only certain famihes among the Pomo clans in aboriginal Cahfomia. This hypothesis were specializing "functional families." Other seems to be based on the assumption that families were not. extended corporate kinship groups among Gifford beheved the Pomo had lineages at primitive peoples must inevitably tend toward one time, some patrihneal, some matrilineal lineality. In 1948 this was possibly stih a (Gifford 1926a; Gifford and Kroeber 1937). reasonable assumption. But, in the years since Goldschmidt (1951) in his Nomlaki Ethnog­ then, Murdock (1960), Davenport (1959), raphy reported hneages and even clanhke units Goodenough (1955), and others have made us for the Nomlaki, a Hih division. In aware of the importance of ambilocal or addition, Goldschmidt (1948) had already ambilineal corporate kin groups—"cognatic made the argument mentioned above for the forms of social organization" as Murdock predominance of unilineal tendencies through­ terms them. out the state. I wish now to propose the possibility that I wish to argue against the importance of there were two widespread types of corporate corporate, unilineal kin groups in northern kin groups present in aboriginal California. California. I will first present positive evi­ They may have been characteristic of geo­ dence that the Pomo had ambilocal residential graphically distinct parts of the state. Let us kin groups as their basic political subdivisions. assume a line running east through the Golden Then I will suggest that the best interpreta­ Gate, thence north up San Francisco Bay, east tion of evidence elsewhere is that similar again through Carquinez Strait and the joint residential kin groups were present in most of delta of the Sacramento and San Joaquin the other ethnolinguistic divisions of "tribes" Rivers, thence north up into the Sierra Ne­ of northern California. I use "tribes" in vada foothills. South of this line there is no quotation marks because the units which are doubt that Gifford's thesis held true: political frequently labehed as tribes in California subdivisions seem generally to have been ethnology were not truly functional socio­ patrilineages. Occasionally these were also political units. They were mainly dialect or independent political units. However, Kroe- language groups. Kroeber's "tribelet" is the ber's tribelet concept applied in most areas; true sociopolitical tribe for most of the area, that is, the hneages were usually political and these units were usually smaller than the divisions within tribelets. ethnolinguistic divisions both in population Tribelets also occurred north of the Gold­ and in territorial extent. The residential kin en Gate-Delta line. But, with respect to groups were, in turn, subdivisions within the corporate subdivisions, the situation is less tribelets. clear, partly because the data are less clear. The residential kin group is essentially the McKern (1922) claimed patrilineal "func­ "local group" which Linton discussed in the THE POMO KIN GROUP 11

Study of Man (1936:209-230). The usefulness California. Ethnographers who have studied of applying Linton's concept to Cahfornia these people include Barrett, Kroeber, Gif­ Indian political units was suggested some ford, Loeb, Essene, the Aginskys, Omer Stew­ years ago by Ralph Beals and Joseph Hester art, and the geographer Fred Kniffen. From (1955). However, they mostly saw it as reading their various reports one gets the applying to total, independent pohtical units. impression that Pomo political organization I see it as applying in most cases to political was very complex, but that only fragments of subdivisions within Kroeber's tribelets. the total system have been reported by any I must stress the fact that this unit is one ethnographer. Some years ago 1 at­ basically a residence group. In northern Cali­ tempted to reconstruct Pomo political institu­ fornia, as well as in many other "primitive" tions by means of structural-functional infer­ areas, such local political units consist largely ences (Kunkel 1962). By this I mean that I of people who are also related. The relation­ tried to piece together the known fragments ships may tend to be predominantly patri- in terms of functionally consistent and rea­ lateral, matrilateral, or ambilateral. They are sonable relations among them. In doing so I not properly to be conceived as lineal rela­ devised four models which perhaps approxi­ tionships. Their principal basis is co-residence, mate the real aboriginal political institutions not descent. For this reason, I will stress the in different parts of Pomo territory, and use of such terms as patrilocal, matrilocal, or which relate to the major Pomo ecological ambilocal as the proper descriptive adjectives, habitation zones set up by Barrett. and will use the "lineal" terms only in very My four models may be as mythical restricted ways as when describing inheritance as Service's universal patrilocal band. It is or chiefly succession. The next section of this quite clear, however, that the Pomo area was paper discusses the Pomo residential kin characterized by constantly shifting political group. alignments with residential kin groups the most stable elements in the system. Tribelets THE POMO RESIDENTIAL KIN GROUPS were important but somewhat fragile political entities, breaking up fairly often into their The Pomo ethnolinguistic "tribe" oc­ component parts—the kin groups—which then cupied a considerable territory in the Coast recombined in new ways. Three principal Ranges, north of San Francisco Bay. The factors seem to have been variables in this Pomo heartland was the Russian River drain­ situation: (1) the politically uniting functions age, but Pomo also occupied considerable of men's societies (Ghost Societies) and secret areas to the west and east of this drainage. societies involved in the Kuksu ; Three ecological habitation zones were long (2) the nature of secular chieftainship and its ago outlined by Barrett (1908): (1) the Vahey prestige relationship to ceremonial chieftain­ Zone, essentially the Russian River drainage; ship; and (3) the political relations among cor­ (2) the Coast Redwood Zone, a mountainous porate kin groups. I am mainly concerned, in and heavily wooded area between the Valley this paper, with the nature of the corporate Zone and the adjacent coast, which included kin groups, for these are the units which Gif­ the coast; and (3) the Lake Zone, in the ford has characterized as lineages, but which I drainage basin of Clear Lake, east of the claim are ambilocal residential kin groups. Valley Zone. My disagreement with Gifford concerning The Pomo were probably the most inten­ the nature of these kin groups is based largely sively studied ethnolinguistic "tribe" of native on census data for the multi-kin-group village i: THE JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA ANTHROPOLOGY of Shigom, which also constituted the Shi- (Gifford 1926b:300-301). The total sample gomba tribelet on the eastern shore of Clear consisted of 70 cases. Both the statistical Lake. Data from other Clear Lake commu­ variabihty and a matrilocal tendency are again nities found in text and tables of Gifford's emphasized in figures on 44 Shigom residents monograph Clear Lake Pomo Society (1926b) whose parents were from two different vil­ reinforce my position. If Gifford had not lages (i.e., one parent from some village other been so conscientious an ethnographer I than Shigom): 66% matrilocal, 34% patrilocal. would have far less evidence against his Now it may be argued that, although lineage hypothesis as applied to the Pomo kin these figures indicate ambilocal residence and groups. ambilateral ahegiance to chiefs, they are not Gifford's census data indicate that, directly relevant to descent, hence do not dis­ around 1850, the population of Shigom, some prove the existence of lineages. However, it is 210-235 persons, was divided among 47 precisely these residential clusters, with their hearth groups, which were essentially nuclear associated chiefly allegiance patterns, that or stem families occupying 20 houses Gifford claimed as political hneages. His eth­ (1926b: 291-295). The 20 households be­ nographic and demographic data from Shigom longed to three larger groups on the basis of fully support the political significance of chiefly allegiance (Gifford 1926b:343). Alle­ these units. giance to each chief was through kinship ties I can record that Gifford was aware of the which were predominantly matrilateral in possible non-lineal implications of his demo­ nature (Gifford 1926b:344-346). However, graphic data. In 1926 (when he published matrilaterality was a statistical trend, not an both his general paper on hneages and his inflexible mle. For 53 individuals whose Clear Lake monograph), he did not see these chiefly allegiances are listed by Gifford, 51% implications as disproving his lineage hypoth­ of the ahegiance ties were matrilateral, 13% esis. Instead, he took the position that the were patrilateral, and 36% could not be chiefly allegiance groups were "modified lin­ determined (i.e., the chiefly ahegiance was eages." However, in 1957, when I had a brief known but kinship relationship to chiefs was interview with him in Berkeley, Gifford took unknown). the generous position that I should interpret Residence patterns showed similar statisti­ his published data as seemed best to me, that cal variability. Viewing house residence in he had no strong convictions on the matter 30 terms of the connecting hnks between con­ years later, and no unpublished data to add. stituent hearth groups, 62% of the links were My interpretation is that whatever their matrilocal, 27% were patrilocal, 9% were past these chiefly allegiance groups were not "neutral" or "mixed," and 2% were unknown hneages by 1850. Further, in view of our pres­ (Gifford 1926b: 304). Here, the total sample ent knowledge about the frequent occurrence consisted of 58 possible hnking bonds be­ of non-lineal corporate groups, I see no need tween families. Oddly, when looking at hearth to set up an assumption that these groups group membership in terms of relationship were ever lineages. between male family head and persons (other Gifford's Clear Lake data go beyond the than wives or unmarried children) belonging village tribelet of Shigomba in respect to to their hearth groups, the picture is reversed certain matters. Among other things, he re­ and there is a predominant patrilocal pattern! cords 23 contemporary chiefs of equal secular That is, 66% of the cases were patrilocal, 26% rank for the Lake zone, as of ca. 1850 matrilocal, 4% avunculocal, and 4% "mixed" (Gifford 1926b:333-346). Thus 23 kin groups THE POMO KIN GROUP 13

are indicated for the zone. My analysis sug­ succession. On the other hand, 9 cases in­ gests that these kin groups were single vihage volved chief's own sons as successors, 3 tribelets like Shigomba; others belonged to­ involved chiefs brothers, and I involved some gether in rather complexly confederated tribe- other kind of patrilineal succession. A single lets, at least in proto-historic times (according case involved some other mixture of both to unpublished notes of C. Hart Merriam on matrilineal and patrihneal connections, a suc­ file with the Department of Anthropology, cession by a sister's son's son. In summary: 21 University of Cahfornia, Berkeley), although cases were matrilineal, 13 cases were patri­ most Pomo ethnographers have treated the lineal, and I was mixed. Data on chiefly villages in all cases as separate tribelets (e.g., succession were abstracted from the following Gifford 1926b; Kroeber 1925; Stewart 1943). sources: Loeb (1926:231-233, 240-241, 243- Gifford's scattered census data for other 245), Gifford (1926b:336-341), Gifford and Clear Lake communities suggest the same Kroeber(1937:196), Kniffen (1939:384), and ambilateral pattern for allegiance to chiefs as Stewart (1943:50, 51). that indicated at Shigom (1926b). Moreover, Two other ethnographically recorded the residence pattern is ambilocal as at Shi­ characteristics of Pomo culture are consistent gom. Furthermore, Gifford's descriptive eth­ with my thesis: (1) succession to various nographic data indicate that residence was a speciahzed economic or ceremonial roles was matter of choice throughout the Clear Lake vahdated by sponsorship at Ghost Society zone. This is, in fact, the key to understand­ initiations, and such specialization could be ing corporate kin groups of this sort. There is passed along by a sponsor who was either the possibility of choice, after marriage, be­ a matrilateral or a patrilateral relative; and tween residence with the husband's joint natal (2) the Pomo could not marry cousins of any family household and residence with the kind or degree. wife's. With the Pomo, such choice seems to have been tentative just after marriage. There COMPARATIVE DATA was a good deal of moving back and forth, especially if the kin groups involved were in I now wish to discuss evidence for residen­ different villages. But, ultimately, a final tial kin groups as basic political units for choice was made, thus determining initial other ethnolinguistic "tribes" of northern chiefly allegiance for children. Chiefly alle­ California. To a considerable extent, this giance for in-married spouses remained am­ evidence is negative in character. That is, biguous, a fact that is reflected in apparently except for the Nomlaki and perhaps the inconsistent statements of ahegiance pre­ Patwin, there is really no definite evidence for sented in some of Gifford's tables. the presence of lineages in the corporate sense The presence of the same types of ambi­ in northern California. This is in contrast to local and ambilateral residence and allegiance the very full and specific evidence known patterns in the other two Pomo ecological from the southern part of the state. I must habitation zones is inferred from general stress the implications of this contrast. Lin­ statements concerning chiefly succession and eages involve more than just tendencies to­ residence pattern in certain tribelets. Also, I ward unilineal descent, unilineal inheritance, have abstracted 35 clear cases of chiefly or unhocal residence. Lineages as corporate succession from the Pomo hterature. Of these, groups are always self-conscious entities and 14 involved sister's sons as successors and 7 usually have specific symbols of in-group more involved other kinds of matrilineal sohdarity: cohective representations such as 14 THE JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA ANTHROPOLOGY sets of lineage-owned personal names; direct information provided by McKern: or indirect totemic terms used as lineage labels; more general terms referring to the If I know anything about Patwin political corporate body as a category of group; structure and social concepts, and I believe that I do, the Patwin "functional family" lineage-owned ceremonial or pohtical func­ can not reasonably be considered as a tions; and the like. Such things are well- politically significant hneage, for the fohow­ known to have occurred frequently in most of ing reasons: (1) It was not the social unit of the ethnohnguistic "tribes" south of San the community structure since it included Francisco Bay and the Delta. North of the only certain families, excluding others. Its existence derived from the family inheri­ dividing line I know of only two good cases of tance of certain properties consisting of such symbolism associated with possible cor­ rituahstic matter and charms which added porate groups (and one of these is open to a persuasion of supernatural agencies to its different interpretation). One of these cases is chances of success in a specific social or suggested by the Patwin term se're for the economic function. The possession of such aids, inheritable within a family, exclusively, supposedly patrihneal "functional family" as according to any prevailing rule of inheri­ reported by McKem (1922). The other is the tance, would automatically produce a similar term olkapna applied to a localized clan as functional family in any society. (2) Al­ reported by Goldschmidt (1951) for the though the possession of such functional Nomlaki. assets added to the social prestige of a family, it yielded no pohtical powers or The Patwin term may not really refer to a influence as such. The chief of a village unilineal group. According to data collected might or might not belong to a functional by Kroeber, and reported in his The Patwin family. In any case, such membership would and Their Neighbors (1932), se're could mean have nothing to do with his political status. The special esoteric aids considered as pro­ a family or any body of kin or other perty by such a family related exclusively to associates (Kroeber 1932:273). For instance, a special social or economic specialty. The it could refer to the people of a village. This pohtical structure of the community was suggests the possibility of a village population wholly independent from both the func­ which consisted of one residential kin group. tional activities and social status of such families. How can such a specialized group, Kroeber (1932:272-273, 291-292) further re­ not sufficiently representative to qualify as ports that Patwin residence, after marriage, the social unit of the community structure, was not always strictly patrilocal and that and entirely independent, as such, from ceremonial functions or offices could some­ political duties and responsibilities, be con­ times be inherited from mother's brothers as sidered, even tentatively, as a hneage unit in the community social structure? [McKern, well as fathers. Thus, one gets an initial personal communication] impression that Kroeber's data contradict some of McKem's statements and certainly cast doubt on the possibility of Patwin McKern, himself, never made a claim that Hneages. McKem (personal communication) the Patwin had lineages. Rather, that claim indicates that there is no contradiction, but was made, at least implicitly, by Goldschmidt that he too doubts the reality of Patwin (1948) as part of his sweeping hypothesis hneages. He points out that he (McKern concerning the emergence of clans in Cali­ 1922:238) as weh as Kroeber (1932), de­ fornia. (I use "clan" here in the sense of "sib" scribes variations in post-marital residence as used by some American anthropologists.) after marriage. With respect to lineages, I have Goldschmidt's (1951) best evidence for a type abstracted the following statement from of corporate linear kin group comes from his THE POMO KIN GROUP 15 own work on the Nomlaki. He gives persua­ these populations must have been residing in a sive evidence for interpreting the Nomlaki non-patrilocal fashion. Further, the emphasis olkapna as a patrihneal corporate descent on rich men as relatively informal power group. figures must have rendered patrilineal or The Nomlaki were a Wintun tribelet and patrilateral ties subject to so much exception the Wintun were closely related linguistically as to be almost meaningless. The settlements to the Patwin. Data summarized and tabu­ among these peoples generally consisted of lated by Goldschmidt indicate that these and single residential kin groups or, in some cases, most other divisions in the Sacramento Vahey of clusters of such groups. It is a moot had patrilineal tendencies with reference to question whether these should be termed chiefly succession or other types of inheri­ patrilocal or ambilocal units. No symbolic tance. Further, they had patrilocal tendencies collective representations of a lineage-defining with respect to residence. sort were present. Also, contacts with mem­ Patrilineal norms with respect to chiefly bers of the tribe from 1962-64 yielded succession and inheritance, along with patri­ no clues whatsoever of present or past lin­ local norms with respect to residence, would eage-like groupings. certainly be consistent with the existence of In the northeast part of the state, the Pit patrihneal lineages. But they do not of them­ River tribelets had ambilocal and ambilateral selves constitute full proof of their existence. residence and kin ties, according to Garth The general pattern for the Central Valley (1944, 1953). But Erminie Voegelin (1942) seems to have involved tribelets consisting of records patrilocal and patrilineal institutions. one or more villages, villages which consisted This difference may reflect variations among of one or more extended residence groups, different tribes of the Pit River drainage. (To which tended to have patrilocal, patrilateral the east, perhaps, they were patrilocal; to the ties to chiefs, and the patrilineal/patrilocal west perhaps ambOocal.) Ray's (1963) data tendencies outlined above. However, there is on the Modoc suggest very definitely ambi­ no evidence for symbolic collective represen­ local residential kin groups. tations, such as totems, lineage names, and Back in the Coast Ranges, the social the like (except for the terms se're and organization of the Eel River Athabaskans is olkapna as applied to categories of groups practically unknown. A few scraps of circum­ among the Patwin and Nomlaki, respectively). stantial evidence suggest that they had com­ The residence groups of the Sacramento posite or patrilocal hunting bands that tended Valley may well be thought of as extended to settle down as small ambilocal or patrilocal kin groups which were the structural expres­ kin group villages. The Yuki of the upper Eel sion of a hneal descent pattern. But the River drainage had patrilineal and patrilocal existence of lineages is doubtful. preferences, respectively, to chiefly succession Let us now look at data from "tribes" in and residence, according to Foster (1944). the Coast Ranges and in the northernmost However, the Coast Yuki as described by reaches of Cahfomia. The Hupa, , Gifford (1939) seem to have had ambilocal, Karok, , and of northwestern single-kin-group villages and no larger political California all had patrilocal preferences with units. In the makeup of their villages, they respect to residence. But such institutions as were similar to some of the smaller Pomo "half-marriage," formally defined illegiti­ villages of the Coast Redwood zone (though macy, and slavery introduced alternative the latter were loosely hnked into tribelets). norms to such an extent that 20% or more of South of the Pomo territory, between the 16 THE JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA ANTHROPOLOGY

Russian River drainage and San Francisco Pomo type of group. At one time I considered Bay, dwelt peoples of the and Miwok this usage but have rejected it because the "tribes." According to Barrett (1908), these ramage concept seems to be basically applied peoples had social organizations similar to the to descent groups of an ambUineal nature Pomo. There is one bit of more specific (Murdock 1960) and only incidentally is such information. This consists of census data a group a residence group. collected by Driver (1936) for a Wappo village Most of the peoples dealt with in this in the Russian River VaUey. paper were organized into tribelets numbering This village, Unuts-waholma, had a popu­ into the hundreds. Demographic studies have lation of 92, involving 21 hearth groups in 11 indicated population densities well above one houses (Driver 1936:201). Various statistical per square mUe for considerable portions of tables indicate an ambUocal residential pat­ the area (Cook 1955, 1956, 1957; Kunkel tern (Driver 1936:211, 201-204). Property 1962). Much of the area was characterized by inheritance was ambilineal (Driver 1936:211). a very complex type of religious system, the Marriage was proscribed among all known so-called Kuksu Cult, with very considerable blood relatives. This last point strongly sug­ ramifications of a pohtical nature. The area gests that the vUlage population was a single, was quite varied ecoIogicaUy, but there were exogamous, ambilocal, residential kin group, many very favorable local ecological niches since all the houses seem to have been available, and these were efficiently exploited interrelated. There was one head chief and by the people who occupied them without one assistant chief, a pattern quite similar to too much moving around. Permanent or the chieftainship situation in a Pomo corpo­ semi-permanent villages with substantial rate kin group. houses are weU-recorded in the ethnographic Hterature. All peoples in the area were food- CONCLUSIONS collectors, and agriculture was quite absent in aboriginal times in the northem half of the I have presented evidence for the exis­ state. tence of ambUocal corporate residential kin All in all, this is quite a different picture groups among the Pomo. In addition, I have from the conventional depiction of hunt­ in summary fashion indicated the nature of ing and gathering populations as small, no­ evidence for this residential type of corporate madic, owning little property, and char­ kin group elsewhere in the northern half of acterized by only "band-level" types of social present day Cahfornia. Negative evidence organization. seems fairly strong against the existence of St. Ambrose College corporate lineages or clans. In many ethno­ Davenport, Iowa linguistic divisions or "tribes," especially in the Sacramento VaUey, it seems reasonable to suppose that patrilocal, extended family, resi­ dential kin groups were the key political REFERENCES subdivisions. But evidence for ambUocal polit­ ical groups of the residential kin group type Barrett, Samuel K. seems strong for peoples other than the 1908 The Ethno-geography of the Pomo and Pomo: e.g., Wappo, Coast Yuki, Modoc, and Neighboring Indians. University of Califor­ some Pit River tribelets. nia Publications in American Archaeology I have not used the term ramage for the and Ethnography 6:1-332. THE POMO KIN GROUP 17

1917 Ceremonies of the Pomo Indians. Univer­ . American Anthropologist 46: sity of California Publications in American 348-361. Archaeology and Ethnology 12:397-441. 1953 Atsugewi Ethnography. Anthropological 1952 Material Aspects of Pomo Cuhure. Mil­ Records. 14:129-212. waukee Public Museum Bulletin 20:1-508. Gayton, A. H. Baumhoff, Martin 1945 Yokuts and Western Mono Social Organi­ 1958 California Athabascan Groups. Anthro­ zation. American Anthropologist 47:409- pological Records 16:157-238. 426. Beals, Ralph L., and Joseph A. Hester Gifford, Edward W. 1955 Ecological Analysis of California Indian 1923 Pomo Lands on Clear Lake. University of Territoriality and Land-use. Los Angeles: California Publications in American Ar­ Department of Justice Indian Land Claims chaeology and Ethnography 20:77-92. Project. Mimeo. 1926a Miwok Lineages and the Political Unit in Cook, Sherbourne W. Aboriginal Cahfornia. American Anthro­ 1955 The Aboriginal Population of the San pologist 28:389-401. Joaquin Valley, California. Anthropologi­ 1926b Clear Lake Pomo Society. University of cal Records 16:31-80. California Publications in American Ar­ 1956 The Aboriginal Population of the North chaeology and Ethnology 18:287-390. Coast of California. Anthropological Rec­ 1939 The Coast Yuki. Anthropos 34:292-375. ords 16:81-130. (Reprinted by The Sacramento Anthropo­ 1957 The Aboriginal Population of Alameda logical Society, Spring 1965.) and Contra Costa Counties, California. Gifford, Edward W., and A. L. Kroeber Anthropological Records 16:131-156. 1937 Culture Element Distributions: IV, Pomo. Davenport, William University of California Publications in 1959 Nonunilineal Descent and Descent Groups. American Archaeology and Ethnology American Anthropologist 61:557-572. 37:117-254. Driver, Harold E. Goddard, Pliny E. 1936 Wappo Ethnography. University of Cali­ 1903 Life and Culture of the Hupa. University fornia Publications in American Archae­ of California Publications in American ology and Ethnology 36:179-220. Archaeology and Ethnology 1:1-88. Drucker, Philip Goldschmidt, Walter R. 1937 The Tolowa and Their Southwest Oregon 1948 Social Organization in Native California Kin. University of California Publications and the Origin of Clans. American Anthro­ in American Archaeology and Ethnology; pologist 50:444-456. 36:221-300. 1951 Nomlaki Ethnography. University of Cali­ Essene, F. fornia Publications in American Archae­ 1942 Culture Element Distributions: XXI, ology and Ethnology 42:303-443. Round Valley. Anthropological Records Goodenough, Ward H. 8:1-97. 1955 A Problem in Malayo-Polynesian Social Foster, George M. Organization. American Anthropologist 1944 A Summary of Yuki Cuhure. Anthropo­ 57:71-83. logical Records 5:155-244. Kniffen, Fred B. Garth, Thomas R. 1939 Pomo Geography. University of California 1944 Kinship Terminology, Marriage Practices Publications in American Archaeology and and Behavior Toward Kin Among the Ethnology 36:353-400. 18 THE JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA ANTHROPOLOGY

Kroeber, A. L. Publications in American Archaeology and 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Ethnology 36:149-178. Washington, D. C: Bureau of American 1938 Bear River Ethnography. Anthropological Ethnology. Records 2:91-124. 1932 The Patwin and Their Neighbors. Univer­ Ray, Verne F. sity of California Publications in American 1963 Primitive Pragmatists. Seattle: University Archaeology and Ethnology 29:253-423. of Washington Press. 1936 Karok Towns. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Service, Elman R. Ethnology 35:29-38. 1962 Primitive Social Organization: An Evolu­ tionary Perspective. New York: Random Kunkel, Peter H. House. 1962 Yokuts and Pomo Pohtical Institutions: A Comparative Analysis. Ph.D. dissertation. 1966 The Hunters. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: University of California, Los Angeles. Prentice-Hall. Lee, Richard B., and Irven DeVore, Eds. Steward, Julian H. 1968 Man the Hunter. Chicago: Aldine. 1936 The Economic and Social Basis of Primi­ tive Bands. In Essays in Anthropology Loeb, Edwin M. Presented to A. L. Kroeber, R. H. Lowie, 1926 Pomo Folkways. University of California Ed. Berkeley: University of Cahfornia Publications in American Archaeology and Press, pp. 331-350. Ethnology 19:149-405. 1955 Theory of Culture Change: The Methodol­ 1932 The Western Kuksu Cult. University of ogy of Multilinear Evolution. Urbana: California Publications in American Ar­ University of Illinois Press. chaeology and Ethnology 33:1-137. 1933 The Eastern Kuksu Cult. University of Stewart, Omer C. California Publications in American Ar­ 1943 Notes on Pomo Ethnogeography. Univer­ chaeology and Ethnology 33:139-232. sity of California Publications in American Linton, Ralph Archaeology and Ethnology 40:29-62. 1936 The Study of Man. New York: Appleton, Strong, William D. Century, Crofts. 1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. Loud, Llewellyn University of CaUfornia Publications in 1918 Ethnography and Archaeology of the Wi­ American Archaeology and Ethnology yot Territory. University of California 26:1-358. (Reprinted by Malki Museum Publications in American Archaeology and Press, Banning, California 1972.) Ethnology 14:221-436. Voegelin, Erminie W. McKern, William C. 1942 Cuhure Element Distribution: XX, North­ 1922 Functional Families of the Patwin. Univer­ east California. Anthropological Records sity of California Publications in American 7:1-251. Archaeology and Ethnology 13:235-258. Waterman, T.T. Murdock, George P. 1949 Social Structure. New York: Macmillan. 1920 Yurok Geography. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and 1960 Social Structure in Southeast Asia. Viking Ethnology 16:177-314. Fund Publications in Anthropology 29. 1925 Village Sites in Tolowa and Neighboring Nomland, G. A. Areas of Northwest California. American 1935 Sinkyone Notes. University of California Anthropologist 27:528-543.