TheIndians of Mission San Fernando by JohnR. Johnson

INTRODUCTION 'Ra'wiyawi was the name of the capitan of Tujunga.Juan [Menendez l's mother used to tell stories (especially this story) y aqui salia un cancion, aqui y aqui O uan M.illustrates by draw­ ing withhis fingeron thetable, thesongs branching offhere and here, etc.). [They] learnedthe stories fromher but cannot tell them like she did.... 'Ra'wiyawi must have been his name, because that is what the calandria [meadowlark] called him when the calandriawent to notifythe cerviol [stag] (thecapitan grande ) of the mischief 'Ra'wiyawi had been doing-that is what the calandria sings now: kasisoko' 'ra'wiyawi, kasisoko' 'ra'wiyawi ['soon 'Ra'wiyawi comes'] .1 Thiscolorful introduction, quoted here in nearly its original formto give a flavorof its telling, is theprelude to a fascinatingnarrative by Juan Menendez, one of the lastremaining Fernandefiodescendants stillknowledgeable of the old cycle of Indian mythsfor the San Fer­ nandoValley region (Fig. 1).2 CarobethTucker Harrington wrote it down in a mixture of Spanish, English, and Fernandefio on the evening of November 9, 1917 at theold Calabasasadobe. 3 Thetale Menendez told about 'Ra'wiyawi was divided into threeparts, respec­ tively, relating the misdeeds and untimely endings of 'Ra'wiyawi's daughter, his son, and 'Ra'wiyawihimself. Its scenes shiftfrom little Tujunga Canyon to a rancherianear LosAngeles, to El Escorpi6n in theSimi Hills, to thedesert side of theSierra de San Fernando (San Gabriel Mountains), to the Malibu Coast. The myth explains how Tujunga became named (fromTuxuunga 'old woman place'), because thewife of 'Ra 'wiyawiturned herself to stone there out of grief forher dead offspring. The setting for the 'Ra'wiyawi story encompasses much of the territory inhabited by Indians whobecame associated withMission San Fernando.

249 SouthernCalifornia Quarterly

Fig.Í.Juan and Juana Menéndez, Calabasas, 1917. /. P. HarringtonCollection, Santa Barbara Museumof NaturalHistory.

Whowere the original peoples who were incorporated into the AmericanIndian community atMission San Fernando over the thir- ty-sevenyears of its existence and what became of them after secu- larizationofthat mission in 1834?Only recently have ethnohistoric sourcesbecome accessible that allow us toreconstruct the complex NativeAmerican history of MissionSan Fernando.Besides the 'Ra'wiyawi myth and other tidbits of Fer nandeño lore now available in J. P. Harrington'santhropological papers, perhaps even more importantare themission's baptismal, marriage, and burial regis- tersthat document village names, family relationships and demo- graphicpatterns.4 With the advent of computers, these registers are being systematicallystudied, and when combinedwith other archivaldocuments, provide us an opportunitytoanswer questions aboutNative American lifeways in "the Valley."5 A further source of

250 TheIndians of Mission San Fernando informationis the oral historical record surviving in families of Fer- nandeñoancestry. Woven together, these various strands of ethno- historicinformation contribute to our knowledgeof the Native peoplesassociated with Mission San Fernando at the time of its foun- dation,during its period as an activemission, and after seculariza- tion. Culturaland LinguisticAffiliations InSeptember 1795, a twoweek-long reconnaissance was under- takento selecta site forthe futureMission San Fernando.Fr. Vicentede SantaMaria of Mission San Buenaventura kept a diaryof thisexploration, which included surveys of SimiValley, Triunfo Canyon,San FernandoValley, and upper Santa Clara River Valley. His observationsof Native peoples reveal the extent to which their lifestyleshad changedduring two and a halfdecades offrequent interactionwith Spanish-Mexican colonists. At the Rancho San Jose ofFrancisco Reyes, the site eventually selected for the mission, he commentedthat: Inthis place we came to a ranchería[Achooykomenga]6 nearthe dwellingof said Reyes - withenough Indians. They take care of thefield of corn, beans, and melons, belonging to said Reyes, whichwith that of the Indians could be coveredwith two fanegas ofwheat. These Indians are the cowherds, cattlemen, irrigators, bird-catchers,foremen, horsemen, etc. To thislocality belong, andthey acknowledge it, the gentiles of other rancherías, such as Taapu,Tacuyama, Tacuenga [sic] , Juyunga,Mapipinga, and others,who have not affiliated with Mission San Gabriel.7 Afterleaving Reyes's rancho, Santa Maria traveledsoutheast to the Paraje de la Zanja: Thefirst thing we met in this place [Haahamonga ], which is the ranchoof Corporal Verdugo (although we sawnot a whiteper- sonthere) ,was a greatfield of watermelons, sugar melons, and beans,with a patchof corn, belonging to an oldgentile called Requiand to other gentiles of the same class, who live contigu- ousto the ranch of Verdugo.8 . . .on thisexpedition I observedthat the whole pagandom, betweenthis Mission [San Buenaventura]and thatof San Gabriel,along the [coast] ,along the Camino Reál, and along the

251 SouthernCalifornia Quarterly

borderof the north, is fondof the Pueblo of Los Angeles, of the ranchoof Mariano Verdugo, of the rancho of Reyes, and of the Zanja.Here we see nothingbut pagans passing, clad in shoes, withsombreros and blankets, and serving as muleteersto the settlersand rancheros,so thatif it were not for the gentiles therewould be neitherpueblo nor rancho . . .9 In otherwords, by the time Mission San Fernandowas founded on September8, 1797,the Native peoples of the surrounding region hadalready undergone a major shift in their subsistence practices to supplementtheir traditional hunting and gatheringeconomy throughgrowing their own crops and tending the livestock of the pobladoresof Los Angeles. The firstgroup of ten children baptized on theday the mission wasestablished were said to be fromAchoicominga (Achooykomen- ga) , thesame ranchería described by Santa Maria two years earlier whereIndians had settledwho workedas laborersat Francisco Reyes'srancho. Clues fromsubsequent mission register entries indicatethat some ofthese children had originallybeen bornin otherrancherías and included speakers of several different Indian languages.Indeed Santa Maria's own comments during his original visitto Achooykomengasuggest that people there had formerly belongedto Chumashand Tataviamcommunities in additionto thosenative to theSan FernandoValley proper.10 Thus, from the verybeginning a mixedspeech community had beenformed that wasto persist throughout the period of the mission's history. Earlyin 1814,in response to the questionnaire sent to the mis- sionarieson Indian customs, Fr. Pedro Muñoz and Fr. Joaquín Pas- cualNuez replied that three native languages were spoken among Indiansliving at the mission.11Apparently these missionaries referredto the threedominant languages: Gabrielino/Tongva, Tataviam,and Ventureño Chumash, respectively comprising about 40 percent,25 percent,and 24 percentof Native converts (Fig. 2). Actuallyby 1814 a fourthlanguage, Serrano, was spoken at the mis- sionby people who had come from the Antelope Valley region, con- sistingof about 9 percentof the converts.12 Speakers of all these languagesand their children intermarried with those who spoke dif- ferentlanguages, so bythe end of the Mission Period, most families wereof mixed tribal ancestry.

252 TheIndians of Mission San Fernando

Fig.2. Rancheríaswhose peoples were incorporated into Mission San Fernando andapproximate linguistic boundaries. The spellingsof ranchería names follow usage inmission documents.

253 SouthernCalifornia Quarterly

Determiningthe linguistic affiliations and locations of the more than130 ranchería names documented in the Mission San Fernando registersis notan easymatter. Not only do spellingsof such names differaccording to the orthographic and linguistic abilities of the misr sionaries,but sometimes names for the same village were completely differentinthe various languages spoken at the mission. The princi- pallinguistic division was between Ventureño Chumash in the Chu- mashanfamily and the various Takic languages in the Uto-Aztecan stock(Gabrielino/Tongva, Tataviam, and Serrano) . A missionregis- terentry for a personfrom a givenranchería might list its name in its Spanishpopular name, its Ventureño Chumash version, or one of sev- eralTakic forms. Typically ranchería names in these Takic languages appeareither as a referenttothe place itself (using the locative suffix - nga)or to a personofthat place (with a -vitor -pet suffix) .13 For exam- ple,the rancheríaname for El Encinowas usuallywritten in the missionregisters as either"Siutcanga" or "Siutcabit," depending on whichform of the name was being used.14 Both forms were based on theGabrielino/Tongva word syutka live oak', i.e., encino.15 Severalmethods may be used to makecorrelations between namesfor the same ranchería in different languages, including recon- structingfamily groups and identification ofindividuals who trans- ferredbetween missions. A good exampleof the way such an equivalencemaybe established isprovided by the case of Ongobepet, a rancheríaname in the Gabrielino/Tongva language associated with fourindividuals baptized at MissionSan Fernando.On March30, 1803,a seventy-year-oldcapitán (chief) of Ongobepet was christened Eduardo.When this chief transferred toSan Buenaventura Mission, he was listedfrom Umalibo (Humaliwo), the ranchería from which manyof his children had been baptized at that mission. Lucio Tupin- auytand Lucia were two other individuals atSan Fernando said to be fromOngobepet and may be determinedtobe parentsof a childfrom Humalibu(Humaliwo) .A fourthperson listed from Ongobepet, Mar- tina,likewise had a daughterfrom Humaliu (Humaliwo). It maybe reasonablyinferred from these family relationships that Ongobepet wasin fact the Gabrielino/Tongva name for the Ventureño Chumash townof Humaliwo at the mouth of Malibu Creek.16 Thelocations of many rancherías whose populations were incor- poratedinto Mission San Fernandoare known(Fig. 2). For the

254 TheIndians of Mission San Fernando remainder,their relative locations and linguistic affiliations must be surmisedby their degree of intermarriage with the better known communitiesand the relative chronology in which their residents werebaptized at the mission.17 During the first four years of the mis- sion'sexistence, the missionaries concentrated most of their con- versionefforts among the Gabrielino/Tongvainhabitants of rancheríaswithin the San FernandoValley proper, especially the largerancherías of Cahuenga, Tujunga, Siutcanga, and Jajamonga. In 1802and 1803 the focus was on Tataviam rancherías of the upper SantaClara River watershed, while Ventureño Chumash from the MalibuCreek drainage and SimiValley were mostly proselytized between1803 and 1804. Names of rancherías inhabited by Tataviam andSerrano peoples from the Antelope Valley and those of Interior Chumashfrom the Castac and Sespe regions appear in the baptismal registerwith greatest frequency in 1811. DemographicProfiles The demographicmakeup of the Indian populations arriving at MissionSan Fernandomay be examinedby summarizing age and genderdata provided in the baptismal register (Table 1). To a con- siderableextent these reflect the population structure existing in nativerancherías during the earlier years of the mission. Mission San Fernandowith three-quarters of its populationfrom groups speakingTakic languagesexhibits some interestingdifferences whencompared to the next five missions immediately tothe north withprimarily Chumash populations. San Fernandohad greater numbersof young children among its incoming population (almost tenpercent more than most of the "Chumash missions"), and its adultpopulation was more gender-balanced, whereas women great- lyoutnumbered men among Chumash adult age categories(2 to 1 ratioat some missions) ,18 Fewer children among the Chumash may haveresulted from greater sedentism and higher population densi- tieshastening disease transmission and/or the practice of abortion thatreduced the proportionof childrento adults.19Causes for greaternumbers of women baptized among the Chumash than for neighboringTakic groups may reflect losses from warfare, greater riskin economicpursuits (e.g., canoe travelin theSanta Barbara Channel), or patterns of postmarital residence.20

255 SouthernCalifornia Quarterly

яЫе 1:Mission San Fernando Age and Sex Distribution

Percento/ Age Males Females Total TotalBaptisms Group inAge Group

04 146 140 286 18.0 5-9 99 56 155 9.8 10-14 33 26 59 3.7 15-19 58 57 115 7.3 20-24 58 72 130 8.2 25-29 52 44 96 6.1 30-34 51 71 122 7.7 35-39 30 47 77 4.9 4044 44 66 110 6.9 4549 28 33 61 3.8 50-54 41 38 79 5.0 55-59 9 13 22 1.4 60-64 59 81 140 8.8 65-69 3 7 10 0.6 70-74 25 38 63 4.0 75-79 2 1 3 0.2 80-84 10 23 33 2.1 85+ 4 21 25 1.6 Unknown 14 23 37

TOTAL* 752 834 1586 100

0-19 336 279 615 38.8 20+ 416 555 971 61.2 *Doesnot include people of unknown age.

Notonly do missionregisters permit us to reconstructdemo- graphicstructures of nativepopulations; they also providethe meansto examine population trends after relocation to the missions, becausecross-referencing between baptismal and burial registers allowsprecise determination ofage ofdeath./Although Mission San Fernandopossessed one of the better records of survivorship ofall Californiamissions, (Table 2) ,21its population nonetheless suffered

256 TheIndians of Mission San Fernando

Table2: Age at Death of Neophytes Baptized at Mission San Fernando

Percento/ Age TotalDeaths Group Males Females Total inAge Group

04 448 416 864 41.5 5-9 55 45 100 4.8 10-14 17 29 46 2.2 15-19 22 54 76 3.7 20-24 28 50 78 3.7 25-29 25 62 87 4.2 30-34 38 46 84 4.0 35-39 41 48 89 4.3 4044 39 34 73 3.5 4549 41 32 73 3.5 50-54 37 35 72 3.5 55-59 34 27 61 2.9 60-64 38 51 89 4.3 65-69 39 43 82 3.9 70-74 37 35 72 3.5 75-79 20 23 43 2.1 80-84 19 26 45 2.2 85+ 10 37 47 2.3

TOTAL 988 1093 2081 100 fromthe same susceptibility tointroduced European diseases that causedhigh infant mortality throughout the region. Indeed, infant mortalityatMission San Fernando exceeded 40 percent for the first twoyears of life, but survivorship greatly increased for those chil- drenwith acquired immunity who successfullyweathered child- hoodillnesses.22 Post-SecularizationCommunities Bythe 1820s, the declining population of the missions and the growingnon-Indian (gente de razón) population of the presidios and townsput increased pressure on the Mexican government to redis- tributelands to Spanish California residents and their families. The

257 SouthernCalifornia Quarterly argumentsfor mission secularization were couchedin termsof greaterliberty for the Indians, but the effective result of the land grantprogram was to take away property that was to have been held intrust for the Mission Indians under the old system. A fewMission Indianswere granted release from missionary authority during the administrationof GovernorJosé Maria Echeandiafrom 1825 to 1830,who intended that an Indianpueblo be establishednear Mis- sionSan Fernando for former neophytes from all the missions of the SantaBarbara presidiai district.23 Fullsecularization ofthe missions did not occur until the admin- istrationof José Figueroa, who servedas governorof California between1832 and 1835./The temporal affairs of the missions were removedfrom missionary control and placed in the hands of com- missionersappointed by the governor. Indian neophytes were not automaticallyfreed but could become licenciados based on there- commendationsofthe commissioners and missionaries according to theirability to supportthemselves. Indian pueblos were to be establishedwith lots for houses and gardens provided to each fami- ly/Annuallyan alcalde,two regidores, and a collectorwere to be selectedfor economic government within these Indian communi- ties.Freed Indians were still obligated to assistin sowingand har- vestingmission crops and in providingpersonal service for the missionaries.Each family was to receive fields for sowing crops. Pas- tureland for community livestock was also to be provided.24 SeveralSan Fernando Indians appear to have formally obtained theirrelease fromthe missionas a resultof the secularization process.The emancipation papers associated with these licenciados havemostly not survived, although a rareexception is thecase ofd OdónChihuya ("José Odón"), whose petition for emancipation was approvedby the interim governor, Manuel Jimeno: Whereas,José Odón, a neophyteof the Mission of San Fernan- do,has askedto be segregatedfrom the community, knowing hisgood character, and that he is ableto take care of himself, I havedetermined by these counts to emancipate him from said establishment,tothis end that he maysupport himself, and live insuch a manneras maybest suit himself. Swornin Monterey on the 5th of July, 1839 [Signed]Manuel Jimeno [and] Francisco Arce25

258 TheIndians of Mission San Fernando

Sentwith this letter was anotherto William Hartnell, visitador gen- eralof the California Missions, that stated: I enclosea letterof emancipation for the Indian of San Fernan- do,José Odón, so thatit may be fulfilledand delivered to him, andadvise him that in regard to the livestock that he requests fromthe mission, it is notto takeplace for now because the goodsof the missions belong to the community [of Indians] . Godand Liberty, Monterey, 7July, 1839 [Signed]Manuel Jimeno26 EmancipatedIndians had been encouragedto applyfor land grantsonce they met the Mexican qualifications forcitizenship. Itwas notuntil 1843 that several such grants were distributed to Mission San FernandoIndians. Governor Manuel Micheltorena approved mostwhen he was stationed in Los Angeles during the first part ofthat year(see Table 3).27The firstsuch grant, 1000 square varas, was givento a TataviamIndian named Samuel, who had builta stake houseon the site, sowed wheat, corn, and beans, and planted a small orchard.His land, described as "northof the mouth of the cañada that goes towards[Rancho] San Francisco,"actually had been occupied withpermission received a fewyears earlier from Governor Juan BautistaAlvarado.28 Atthe same time Micheltorena validated Samuel's grant, he reaf- firmedfarming privileges for those families remaining in themis- sionvicinity. The petition that initiated this event came from [Pedro] Joaquín,alcalde of the San FernandoIndians and thirty-eight other menwho desired to have their cultivation rights recognized.29 In an earliercommunication tothe governor, [Pedro] Joaquín, two other alcaldes,and fifteenothers complained that the mayordomo then servingas missionoverseer had causedgreat harm to theIndian community.30Ofthe thirty-nine names listed in the petition for com- munityland, twenty-six may be identifiedwith a highdegree of cer- taintyand ninemore tentatively (Table 4). Of the thirty-fivefor whomidentifications have been suggested,eleven were Fernan- deño,eight were Tataviam, five were Ventureño Chumash, five were ofmixed Fernandeño-Chumash parentage, two were Serrano, two wereof mixed Fernandeño-Tataviam parentage, one was Kitane- muk,and one was ofundetermined affiliation. More often than not, thewives of these men were either from a differentlinguistic back-

259 SouthernCalifornia Quarterly

Table3: LandGrants to San Fernando Mission Indians

GrantName SpanishArchives Petition Date of Grantees orLocation Size Reference Date ofGrant

Samuel Northwestof 1,000varas Exp.427 21Apr., 1843 15May, Mission 1843

PedroJoaquín South of tract 1league Exp.576, 24Apr., ЗМау, and38 others grantedto Unclass.Exp. 178 1843 1843 Samuel

JoséMiguel Northeastof 1/4league Unclass.Exp. 191, May, ? Triunfo Mission? 203 1843

Tiburcio, El Encino 1league Exp.458 2 May, 17July, Román, 1843 1843 andFrancisco

Urbano,Odón, El Escorpión 1/2league Exp.461 3Aug., andManuel 1845

groundor ofmixed parentage. These factsillustrate the "melting pot"process that occurred at the mission as intermarriageand living in communitybrought together peoples who had oncepossessed distinctivecultural differences. Besidesthose who remained at the mission, several individuals appliedfor separate grants, either in partnership with one another or singly,as hadSamuel. These include a grantof 1/4 league settled by JoséMiguel Triunfo, a square league at El Encinosought by Tibur- cio Cayo,Román, and Francisco Papabubaba, and two leagues at El Escorpiónto Urbano Chari, Odón Chihuya, and Manuel (Table 3) .31 Subsequentevidence indicates that some of these applicants were representinga wider group of families. To a certainextent these seg- mentsof the larger mission community appear to have been contin- uationsof earlier sociopolitical groups. For example, some of those livingat Rancho El Escorpiónwere descended from people who had livedthere before going to the mission, and this was also the case for thosewho received the Rancho Encino.32

260 Table4: IdentificationsofIndian Men Listed in an 1843Petition for Landat Mission San Fernando Baptism Marital Name Number Age Status0 Origin0

PedroJoaquín 2080 30 married Fa:Jajamobit,Mo:Taapu Inerado[sic] 553? 44? widower? Cabuenga? Jacinto 2480 21 married Fa:Humaliu,Mo:Talepop Camilo 1597 37 married Fa:Jotativit,Mo:Japsivit Odón [No. 1] 780 45 widower Siutcabit? Calistro 1834 36 married Chibuna Tsanslado [sic] 20? 49? widower? Taapu Jesuslado[sic] unid. ? ? ? Patricio 1493 55 widower Ypuc Norberte[No. 1] 1836 32 married Tebacbena Meliton 1282 59 married Giribit JoséFlores [sic] 121? 45 married Tujunga Jerman 1875? 44? widower Cuecchao? Rojerio 2565 19 married Fa: Quimisac,Mo: Tujunga Martiniano 2023 31 married Fa:Tochonanga, Mo:Chaguayabit JoséFrancisco 113 47 married Tujunga Narciso 1096 45 widower Piiru Guido 915 55 married Piiru Pedro 2040?c 31? married? Fa: Achoicominga?, Mo: Cuecchao Bruno 2431 23 married Fa: Tujunga,Mo: Passenga Odón [No. 2] 824 46 married Humaliu Pareció 2005 41 single Fa:Jucjaubit,Mo:Jucjaubit Tomás [No. 1] 37 56 widower Momonga Vicente 2385? 45? married? Pababana? Mejias S.Gabriel ? married Fa: Cabuenga,Mo: ? Romaldo 2257 28 married Najayabit Juande Mata 1633 36 married Fa: Siutcabit,Mo: Cabuenga Melchor 2552 19 married Fa:Tochonanga, Mo: Cuecchao Norberte[No. 2] 2317 25 married Fa: Jucjaubit,Mo: Cabuenga Norberte[No. 3] 2158? 28? single Fa: Cabuenga,Mo: Passenga RamónSotelo 1712 35 married Fa: ?,Mo: Chaguayabit? Cornelio 765 65 married originnot recorded Bacelio 2318 25 married Fa: Tujunga,Mo: Quimisac Cosme 1519 38 married Fa: Sujuiyojos,Mo: ? Martín unid. ? ? ? Juan unid.d ? ? ? Olórico unid. ? ? ? Tomás [No. 2] 2550 20 married Fa: Siutcabit,Mo: Pimunga Manuel 2494?e 21? married? Fa: Siutcabit?,Mo: Humaliu?

aMaritalstatus is based on information from the data base regarding whether spouses were survivinginthe year the list was compiled. bForchildren born at the mission, the parents' rancherías are provided. Otherwise the rancheríanames provided are the person's birthplace. cSeveralother possibilities exist for the identify ofPedro. dSeveralpossibilities exist for the identify ofJuan.eSeveral other possibilities exist for the iden- tifyof Manuel. 261 SouthernCalifornia Quarterly

Even afterCalifornia became incorporatedinto the United States,a sizableportion of the San FernandoIndians continued to resideat the mission and at the nearby ranchos given to them (Table 5). Some,especially those of Castac Chumash,Kitanemuk, and Yokutsancestry soon emigrated to theTejon region of the Southern SanJoaquín Valley. Many families with Tataviam ancestry moved to communitiesin thevicinity of the former mission rancho of San FranciscoXavier. Several families settled at Tikatsingon Castaic Creek,and more located themselves in a seriesof ranchitos along Piru Creek.33A number worked as vaquerosand ranch hands for the Del Vallesat RanchoCamulos. Others, mostly those with Santa MonicaMountains Chumash ancestry, gravitated down the Santa Clara Rivervalley to Maxaxal at the mouthof Sespe Creek, Sa'aqtik'oy(Saticoy), and Mission San Buenaventura.A few migrat- ed tothe Pueblo of Los Angeleswhere they worked as laborersfor CaliforniaSpanish families. Emigrationof San FernandoIndians to Tejon Afterthe establishmentof the SebastianMilitary Reserve at Tejonin 1853, a numberof San Fernando Indians moved to join those who had alreadyestablished themselves there in earlieryears. VicenteFrancisco Tinoki was oneof those who had returned to the Tejonregion by the mid-nineteenth century. He was a Kitanemuk manbaptized in 1819, who became one of the mission alcaldes.34 His brother,Kawana, was chiefof Mavea, the principal Kitanemuk set- tlementdownstream from the mouth of Tejon Canyon. Vicente Fran- ciscoTinoki appears to have split his Spanish name, his brother, who hadnever been baptized taking the name Vicente, while Tinoki kept the name Francisco(Fig. 3).35Both brotherssigned the Tejón Treatyin January 1851 that was intended to set aside 763,000 acres betweenTejon Pass and the Kern Riverfor Indian occupancy. VicenteKawana was the firstchief listed in thisdocument. His immediateband consisted of 101 people.36 Othersignatories to theTejon Treaty were former neophytes fromMission San Fernando.The treatywas signedin an adobe housebuilt by Antonio Zapatero, who had beentrained as a shoe- makerwhen he was at the mission. He wasof mixed Kitanemuk and HometwoliYokuts parentage and may be identifiedas a ten-year-old boybaptized in 1834from Unupea, probably the Kitanemuk settle-

262 TheIndians of Mission San Fernando

Table5: SanFernando Indian Communities inthe 1850 Censusa

Residence "Overseer"or No. of No. of No. Location PersonListed First Indians Non- Indians

283 RanchoSan FranciscoXavier? FranciscoLópezb 7 4 286 ElizabethLake vicinity0? Dolores Ochoad 13 4 288 San FernandoMission vicinity JoaquínRomero6 53 1 289 RanchoEl Escorpión UrbanoChari 39 0 292 RanchoEl Encino Román 12 0 293 Tujungavicinity JoséMiguel [Triunfo] 12 2

TOTAL 136 11

aMauriceH. Newmarkand Marco R. Newmark,Census of the City and Countyof Los Angeles, Californiafor the Year 1850 (Los Angeles: The Times-Mirror Press, 1929), pp. 69-73. bFranciscoLópez was mayordomo ofRancho Francisco Xavier in the 1840s. The Indians list- edwith him were described as "laborers"in the census. cSeveralof the Indians listed were living in the Elizabeth Lake vicinity just prior to moving to theSebastian Reservation atTejón. TomasaArrióla, wife of Dolores Ochoa, had been previously married to an emancipated Indi- anfrom San Buenaventura and was mother-in-law ofJosé Miguel Triunfo. eJoaquínRomero, the non-Indian "overseer" of the Indians at Mission San Fernando, was mar- riedto Marcelina, daughter of Odón Chihuya. He wasgiven part ownership ofEl Escorpión bythe original grantees. mentof Mumumpea?1 Another signatory was EmeterioSaki'yil of the"Senahow" tribe, who later with his subchiefs headed a groupof 300Tulamni, Chuxoxi, and Yawelamni Yokuts Indians who settled onthe Sebastian Reserve.38 Emeterio had been baptized at San Fer- nandoin 1804 when he was only five years old fromTubampet.39This rancheríaname, written in its Takic form, is probablya reference to theYokuts settlement ofTulamniu on Buena Vista Lake.40 AnotherMission San FernandoIndian, Rafael Maria Aguin- amogihuason,was saidto be chiefof the "Castake" tribe when he signedthe 1851 Tejon Treaty. He apparentlywas a TataviamIndian fromTochonanga whose parents were living at Achoicominga when the missionwas founded.41Rafael's eventual marriage to a Ven- tureñowoman and his experienceas an alcaldeseem to havepro- pelledhim into a positionof authority among the predominantly

263 SouthernCalifornia Quarterly

Fig.3. Descendantsof Vicente Francisco Tinoki, Tejon Canyon Ranchería, 1917. Seated:Magdalena Olivas, daughter of Tinoki; Standing (left to right) : her children AngelitaMontes, Marcelino Rivera, and Isabel Gámez. Harrington Papers, Nation- al AnthropologicalArchives, Smithsonian Institution 91-33573.

Chumashfamilies who settled at Maťapxwelxwelat the foot of the Cañadade las Uvas.42He wasmentioned in 1862 government docu- mentsas a co-chiefwith "Chico" of the "Surillo" or "Cartaka"[sic] tribeof 162 people at the Sebastian Reservation.43 Severalarticles reported in the Los AngelesStar in 1854men- tionthat more than 1,800 Indians were gathered on theSebastian Reservationunder seven principal chiefs. One ofthese communi- ties,consisting of 100 people who cultivated 21 acres, was headed by "Stanislausfrom the mountains near San Fernando" and "under him Clementefrom Lake Elizabeth." Estanislao ("Stanislaus") Nangivit was a SerranoIndian from Puninga in thesouthern Antelope Val- ley.44Clemente was Tataviam.45 These two and several other ex-neo- phytesfrom Mission San Fernandohad been listed in the 1850 Los AngelesCounty census as beinglaborers working for Dolores Ochoa (see Table 5). Whenthey moved to theSebastian Reserva- tion,they settled at the mouthof PastoríaCreek, founding a rancheríacalled Chipowhi. This communityappears to havebeen composedmostly of Tataviam Indian families.46

264 TheIndians of Mission San Fernando

The SebastianReservation was closed in 1864. Rancho El Tejón hadbeen approved as a landgrant in 1843by the Mexican govern- mentof California but was onlybriefly inhabited by a workerhired bythe grantee, who lived among the Indian rancherías in 1845-46. Despitethis slim basis for possession, the Board of Land Commis- sionersruled that the grant was valid in 1858, and a patentwas issued a fewyears later in 1863.Although they were no longertrustees of thefederal government, the rights of the Tejon Indians for contin- ued residencywere recognized under the terms of the grant.47 The ranchowas laterpurchased by Edward E Beale,who had founded thereservation during the period of his appointmentas Commis- sionerof Indian Affairs for California. His good relationswith the Indiansled to their continued employment as vaqueros, shepherds, andlaborers on hisranch. They in turn continued to resideon the ranch,although their settlements were gradually closed out and the lastoccupants relocated to a singleranchería in Tejon Canyon by 1877.Former Mission San FernandoIndians from Piru, Camulos, andSaticoy and the vicinity of the former mission were to emigrate toTejon throughout the late nineteenth century to seek workand participatein the life of the Indian community there. Their descen- dantshave continued to live on the Tejon Ranch down to the present day. FamilyHistories of SomeProminent Fernandeños Upto this point, this relation of the San Fernando Indian history haslargely been concerned with a descriptionofthe diverse popula- tionthat came to be associatedwith the mission and some major trendsand eventsexperienced by its descendantcommunities. Additionallight is shed on post-secularizationsocial historyby examiningindividual biographies and reconstructing family histo- ries.Using strands of ethnohistoric information gathered from vari- ous sources,four such lineage histories are presented here. These illustratesome problemsencountered in compilingbiographical datafrom mission register sources.48 The interestedreader may consultpreviously published ethnohistories of the Tataviam and SimiValley Chumash for additional San Fernando family stories.49

OdónChihuya and Juana Eusebia Oneof the key families associated with the Mission San Fernan-

265 SouthernCalifornia Quarterly do Indiancommunity was that of Odón Chihuya, one of the original granteesof Rancho El Escorpión,and his wife, Juana Eusebia. This couplehad manychildren and grandchildren. The LeonisAdobe, homeof their daughter, Espíritu, and herson, Juan Menéndez, is nowa Cityof Los Angeleshistorical landmark and museum in Cal- abasas,and Odón and his family have been the subject of several his- toricalsketches.50 Despite the importance of the Chihuya lineage, thereare few other genealogies that have presented as manyprob- lemsof historiographie documentation. Some ofthese difficulties areillustrative ofcommon problems encountered in using San Fer- nandomission registers. Information is frequently lacking regard- ing genealogicalrelationships and rancheríasof origin,and no padrónis extantthat might compensate for missing data.51 Com- poundingthese problems is the occasionalincidence of clerical errorsby San Fernandomissionaries. It is notunusual for two or moredifferent people to be identifiedby the same baptismal num- ber,and the case ofOdón is oneof these.52 Nofewer than three different men, all contemporaries inthe sec- onddecade of the nineteenth century, were identified by the mis- sionariesas "Odón,"and each was cross-referencedto the same baptismalentry, No. 780, at Mission San Fernando. This naturally has ledto some confusion for latter day ethnohistorians. Baptismal entry forNo. 780reads that a boywas baptizedon January 16, 1803, who was abouteight years of age, and son ofa catecumeno(adult under Catholicinstruction) named Anajaqui. Unfortunately notown of ori- ginis mentioned,and there is nosubsequent entry of an adult at Mis- sionSan Fernando who is named Anajaqui or who is said to be Odón's father.A previousstudy tentatively identified the father of this Odón as CecilioNajaguit, who was baptizedwith his wife, Cecilia, at Mis- sionSan Gabrielin 1805from Siuccabit, probably a referenceto Syutkangaat El Encino.53However, there is somereason to suspect thatOdón Chihuya was not the same Odón, son of Anajaqui, whose baptismwas recorded as No.780. The onlyother baptism of someone named Odón occurred on February6, 1803,within a fewweeks after the first Odón was bap- tized.Actually there were two boys with very similar names baptized immediatelyafter one another, one named Odilón, said to be about sixyears old, and the other named Odón, about five years old. Both

266 TheIndians of Mission San Fernando werefrom the Chumash town of Umaliu (Humaliwo) . No parentsor relativesare mentioned in either entry.54 These baptisms bear more scrutinyas candidatesfor Odón, the grantee of El Escorpión,for two reasons:1) thenames Odón and Odilón were likely to have been pro- nouncedessentially the same and easily confused in the Ventureño Chumashlanguage, because that language lacks the [d] phoneme, 2) oraltradition relates Odón to Humaliwo,because he once was knownas the"Malibu Chief."55 The nextmentions of these various "Odóns" occur early in the second decade of the nineteenthcentury when all seemingly becamemarried as teenagers.It was notunusual for teenage boys andgirls to be marriedsomewhat young during mission times, per- hapsindicating that this had also been thenative practice. One of these"Odóns" was marriedin 1811and later widowed and remar- riedin 1824.56The second was married in 1812.57 No marriageentry wasfound for the third "Odón," but he was statedto be thefather of twolegitimate children born in 1813 and 1815.58Apparently the priestneglected to make an entryin the marriage register when he marriedthe third Odón, a fairlyrare occurrence but not unknown, especiallyat Mission San Fernando. The firstOdón to be marriedwas identified as BaptismNo. 780, whichis probablyaccurate, because the date was June 27, 1811. The otherOdón candidates would have still been too young to be mar- riedat thisdate, even for those days (when they would have been onlythirteen or fourteen years old) . Odón,No. 780, would have been sixteenin 1811,and his brideFlora, a Tataviamgirl from Piibit (Pi'ing),would have been thirteen.59 This Odón was likely the son of thecouple from Siuccabit who had been baptized at San Gabriel. The next"Odón" to be marriedwas undoubtedlythe famous granteeof El Escorpión,Odón Chihuya.He maybe so identified becausethe name of his bride, Eusebia, is well known. She was from a nativeGabrielino/Tongva town at SantaMonica.60 She was also commonlyknown as "Juana,"according to one entryin theregis- ters,adding a furtherwrinkle to the identification problem. "Juana" Eusebiawas themother of all ofOdón Chihuya's known children, andshe is listed with her husband and her children's families in Unit- ed Statescensus records from 1850 onward. Odón and Eusebia were marriedon June 23, 1812 when they were only about fifteen and six-

267 SouthernCalifornia Quarterly teenyears of age respectively.Based on the fact that he was one year olderthan the other Odón from Humaliwo, the Odón who married "Juana"Eusebia was probably the boy baptized as Odilon(SFe Bap. No. 824). He wasmisidentified as "No. 780" in his marriage record. As has beenstated, he couldnot be No. 780because the latter had alreadymarried Flora and later remarried in the 1820s when "Odón" andEusebia were still having offspring. The last Odón to be wed was probablythe youngest of our "Odóns"(i.e., SFe Bap. No. 825). He was marriedto Olímpias, although,as has been mentioned,no marriagerecord exists for theirunion. Olímpias would have been only about eleven or twelve whenher first child was born, according to her estimated age atthe timeof her baptism.61 Like her probable husband, she was from the Chumashtown of Humaliwo. This lastOdón's baptismal number wasgiven as "180"in his children's entries, an obvious copying error for"780," which was itselfan identificationerror, as we haveprevi- ouslydeduced.62 Olímpias died shortly after the birth of her second childin 1815, and there is norecord of her husband remarrying. No burialentry has beenfound for any of the "Odóns," but it is knownthat at least two of them were still living at San Fernandoin 1843,when they were both named in a listIndians granted land on whichto sowtheir crops (see Table 4). One ofthese two "Odóns" presumablywas Odón Chihuya,who was also co-granteeof El Escorpiónwith his son-in-law,Urbano Chari, and another Mission Indiannamed Manuel. Onlyone manbaptized at MissionSan Fernandois explicitly statedto be thefather of an "Odón":Liborio Chavot, who was bap- tizedfrom El Escorpión,about sixty years of age, on February18, 1803.Neither Liborio's baptismal entry nor that of his wife, Liboria, givethe names of any relatives, but his burial entry in 1825 mentions thathe was the father of Eugenio and Odón.63 Liborio's son Eugenio maybe identifiedas EugenioAguisunum of Humaliu {Humaliwo), whowould already have been an adult,at the time his brother Odón was born.64The factthat Eugenio was fromHumaliwo lends cre- denceto the fact that we havecorrectly identified Odón Chihuya as also beingfrom Humaliwo. Liborio Chavoťs association with El Escorpiónas hisnative town may have been one of the reasons why hisprobable son, Odón Chihuya, became one of the grantees of Ran-

268 TheIndians of Mission San Fernando choEl Escorpiónin post-mission times and was consideredchief of theIndians there. Thoseof Odón's and Eugenio's children who survived to adult- hoodcontinued to remain associated with El Escorpión.Eugenio's son,Fernando Carlos, is probably the man known simply as "Carlos" inlater census records, and was living with his wife, Fernanda, at El Escorpiónin 1860. The names of three of his children are known, the lastborn in 1861, but further work will need to be donein the records ofthe Plaza Church in Los Angeles to determine ifthese survived or ifhe hadother children as well. The storyof manyof Odón Chihuya'sand JuanaEusebia's descendantsis fairlywell known, at least for the nineteenth century. Theireldest daughter, Marcelina, married Urbano Chari, co-grantee ofEl Escorpión,and later lived with Joaquín Romero, a part owner of therancho. Marcelina's son, José Rafael, was a vaqueroon the Escor- piónrancho but was killed by a horseon the Domec Ranch.65 MariaDolores, another daughter of Odón Chihuyaand Juana Eusebia,was firstmarried to a San FernandoIndian named José "Polo,"then lived with José Arnaz, recipient of the San Buenaventu- raEx-Mission grant, before finally settling down with Pierre Domec, a Frenchmanwho operated a limekiln operation near El Escorpión. Hereldest daughter, Maria del Rosario, was saidto be thedaughter ofJosé Arnaz, according to Fernando Librado, one ofJ. P. Harring- ton'sVentureño Chumash consultants, although her baptismal entrystates that she was theson ofMaria Dolores's first husband, José "Polo."66Maria del Rosariomarried Carlos Leboubon,a Frenchmanwho had once worked for Domec and became involved in a fightand courtbattle with him.67 After winning his lawsuit againsthis wife's stepfather, Leboubon and his wife moved near Sati- coy,where the he workedon thePunta de la LomaRanch. No chil- drenhave been identifiedfor this couple.68 Leboubon died as a widowerwhen he was seventy-one years old in 1889.69 MariaDolores had threedaughters by Domec who reached adulthood,but only the youngest married. Maria Antonia Domec marriedFrancisco More, also of half-Indian/half-Euroamerican ancestry,who had been raised at Saticoy. This couple is listedin the 1880census at Ventura as boardersin a ChumashIndian household headedby Petra Pico, a famousbasketweaver.70

269 SouthernCalifornia Quarterly

Odón'sand Juana Eusebia's son Bernabé first married Teodora, a womanof Tataviam and Kitanemuk (or Kawaiisu) ancestry.71 After Teodora'sdeath, he livedwith Marta, of mixed Tataviam/Fernan- deñoancestry who had previously been married to an Indianfrom Tejón.The 1860census lists five children of Bernabé and Marta liv- ingwith them at El Escorpión,but by 1866 the couple had splitup, andMarta remarried a [Luiseño?] Indian fromTemecula.72 Bernabé continuedto live at El Escorpióninto the 1880s. His eldest daughter, Josefa,died as an adult,but the fate of his otherchildren remains unknown.73Bernabé's last wife, "Lola" (Dolores) , mayhave been the granddaughterof Urbano Chari and his firstwife Olava.74 "Lola" latermarried Sétimo López after Bernabé's death.75 Bernabé ended hislife in dramatic fashion by hanging himself from one of the rafters atMission San Fernando one New Year's Eve.76 Tiburcio,Odón's and Juana Eusebia's youngest son is listedin boththe 1850 and 1860 federal censuses. By 1860 he hadmarried an Indianwoman named Manuela and was listed with two children. No furtherrecords of this family have been located. Mariadel Espíritu Santo, usually called "Espiritu," isperhaps the bestknown of Odón Chihuya's daughters (Fig. 4) . Shehad one son, JuanAntonio Manuel Menéndez, born in 1867,and several daugh- terswho did not reach adulthood. Photos of Espiritu, Juan Menén- dez, and Marcelina,her youngest daughter, are preservedat the LeonisAdobe in Chatsworth.Espiritu lived with Miguel Leonis, a Basque sheeprancher from France, for many years. He laterac- quiredRancho El Escorpiónfrom Odón. Espiritu was able to inherit Leonis'sestate after his death in 1889,but not until after she hadto wagea courtbattle to prove they had lived together as husbandand wife.77Espiritu's son, Juan Menéndez, and his wife, Juana Valenzuela Menéndez,served briefly as ethnographicconsultants for John and CarobethHarrington about 1916 (Fig. 1) .

RogérioRocha Accordingto oral history information collected by J. P. Harring- tonin 1916,Odón Chihuya had been "chief of all the Indians of the southwestend of the valley [and] Rogério [Rocha] . . . was chiefat San Fernando."78As was thecase withOdón, some confusion has surroundedthe identification ofRogério Rocha in mission records.

270 TheIndians of Mission San Fernando

Fig. 8. SétimoLópez, San Fernando,October 1916. HarringtonPapers, National AnthropologicalArch ives, SmithsonianInstitution 91-31239.

Fig.4. EspírituChihuya de Leonis, daughterof Odón Chihuya and Juana Eusebia,copy of original photo taken in LosAngeles, 1905. Harrington Papers, NationalAnthropological Archives, SmithsonianInstitution 91-33622.

A newspaperarticle published shortly after his death in 1904 report- ed himto be 112,while the priest who later entered his burial entry gavehis age as HO.79Neither is accurate.Five individuals named Rogérioare listed in the baptismal registers of San Fernando, and one ofthese, a seven-yearold child baptized in 1801 has previouslybeen identifiedas RogérioRocha.80 However, a thoroughexamination of theburial register reveals that all butone ofthe people christened Rogériowere deceased by 1830. This leaves only one individual, born in1824, who as ayoungadult was listed in Micheltorena's grant to the San FernandoIndians in 1843 (see Table 2).81Thislast person is undoubtedlyChief Rogério Rocha who is mentionedin latenine- teenthcentury records. Rogerio'sparents were Germán, apparently from the Ventureño Chumashranchería of Quimisac (Kimishax) ,and Maria Guadalupe, whohad been born at Tujunga (Tuxuunga) ,82 He wasthe only child

271 SouthernCalifornia Quarterly

Fig. 5. RogérioRocha. Pierce CollectionNo. 1789, HenryE. HuntingtonLibrary.

ofsix siblings to survive childhood. In 1841 Rogério was married just shyof his eighteenth birthday to Manuela, a fourteenand a half-year old girlwhose parents had come to themission from Taapu and Piiru.83The baptismalregister lists only one childof Rogério and Manuela,a daughterborn in 1843who diedwithin the following year.84In none of the early records is there a surnamelisted for Rogé- rio.He apparentlyadopted his Hispanicsurname late in thenine- teenthcentury. RogérioRocha was trained as a blacksmithatthe mission, a pro- fessionhe practicedthroughout his life.85 He was also a violinistin themission orchestra. As one ofthe recipients of land set aside for theSan FernandoIndians, Rocha established his own allotment on aboutten or twelve acres on Pacoima Creek where he built an adobe housefor his family.86 Anearly reference to his role as capitán(chief) appearsin connection with his attendance at a traditionalVentureño Chumashcelebration held in 1869at Saticoy,where he apparently madea speechalong with other capitanes on the last day of the fies- ta.87Rogério Rocha had risento leadershipof the Indianswho remainedin the vicinity of the old missionafter the older alcaldes diedor moved to Tejon.

272 TheIndians of Mission San Fernando

Byall accounts Rocha lived a productivelife on his Pacoima allot- ment.Afine spring of water supported a small orchard and cultivat- ed fields.Rogério had theparcel surveyed, and he paidproperty taxeson it for years. His title to the land was based on the 1843 grant givento the Indiansby Micheltorena;however, it had notbeen patentedunder the United States government. Instead the 1846 sale ofmission lands by Mexican Governor Pío Picoto Eulogio de Célis was patentedin 1873.A conditionto the original purchase was that Indiansrights were not to be infringed.In 1875Célis's son sold the Ex-MissionRancho to G. K. Porterand EdwardMaclay, a former CaliforniaState Senator. The buyers brought suit a fewyears later to evictRogério from his parcel. Rogerio's attorney was no matchfor thosehired by Porter and Maclay and the case was decidedagainst theIndian. During the middle of a rainstorminthe winter of 1886, the sheriffevicted Rogério, his wife, and three elderly women who lived withthem.88 A contemporary writer reports what happened: Theold women, his tools and household goods, his chickens in sacks and all his movablebelongings were tumbledinto a wagon(the old man, protesting against his removal, would not be putinto the wagon, but followed after) ,taken some two miles fromtheir home, and thrown out by the roadside, and here lay unprotectedfrom the incessantrain for eight days, during whichthe old man made his way to Los Angeles,and got per- missionfrom the priest to occupyan old shedconnected with theMission Church. In the meantime people passing along car- riedoff baskets, tools, fuel, whatever they chose to take, either as curiositiesor for use; theirchickens were dead when taken fromthe sacks, and pounded parched corn was their only food. Itwas thought by some that the old man must have money hid- denabout his house, as hehad for so manyyears been an indus- triousmechanic, and prospectingparties made searchfor it, diggingup the floor of the house, and exploring every possible hidingplace. The oldwife contracted pneumonia, from which shesoon died.89 Rochaconducted the funeral service for his own wife in the Mis- sionChurch, said to have been undertaken with impressive dignity andbeauty. Several sketches of an Indianhome in the ruins of Mis- sionSan Fernandowere made within a yearor two of these events, probablydocumenting Rogerio's residence soon after his eviction.90 Latera friendpermitted him to move onto a smallparcel of land in the

273 SouthernCalifornia Quarterly

nearbymountains where he eked outa livelihood.He diedin the springof 1804 at about the time of his eightieth birthday.91 Ina news- paperarticle published when he died,Rogerio's character was eulo- gized:"Those who knew Rocha longest speak of his good traits, his keennessof intellect and kindnessof heart. ... He was a giantin statureand almosta Herculesin strengthuntil recent years, and evena century[sic] did not bend his form."92

JoséMiguel Triunfo Althoughthe identities of Odón Chihuyaand RogérioRocha havebeen the source of some confusion over the years, each has beenresolved by recourse to data internal to the mission registers. Onestill unresolved case ofidentification pertains to a SanFernando Indiannamed José Miguel Triunfo. His surnameappears to derive fromhis pastassociation with the Triunfo rancho near where the Chumashtown of Hipuk (El Triunfo)was oncelocated.93 Although JoséMiguel is mentionedas a "neófitolicenciado," no official record ofhis emancipation papers survived. Perhaps he wasone of a hand- fulof Indians whom Governor José Maria Echeandia liberated from themissions during the late 1820s as a preludeto full secularization. A numberof historical documents exist that allow us to recon- structa recordof José Miguel's life after he movedto the San Fer- nandoValley. However, his origins and background remain clouded in obscurity.According to his age givenin the 1850census, José MiguelTriunfo had been bornabout 1811, yet there is no "José Miguel,"or "Miguel,"baptized at eitherMission San Fernandoor SanBuenaventura that may be matchedwith him. It seems plausible thathe mayhave been partly of Santa Monica Mountains Chumash ancestry,because of his association with the name Triunfo. JoséMiguel Triunfo's wife was RafaelaCañedo, a non-Indian. Harrington'selderly Kitanemuk consultant, Eugenia Méndez, whoseparents had once been San Fernandoneophytes, described hismarriage to Rafaela thus: Miguel[was] a FernandeñoIndian. Rafaela, a mujerdel pais [i.e.,"de Razón"],wanted to many the Indian and went to the priest.The priestdid not advise it [and]told her [she]better marrysomeone of her own race. [He] askedher if [the] man hadproposed to her. She saidhow would he - theywere mar- riedand had children.94

274 TheIndians of Mission San Fernando

Thefirst baptism of a daughterfor Rafaela Cañedo was in 1837 at MissionSan Fernando. According to the baptismal record, this child wasnamed "Gertrudis" and had been born out of wedlock at the mis- sion'sRancho Cahuenga. No fatherwas mentioned, but an interest- ingcomment was made at the time that leads to further information aboutRafaela's background. Itis notedin her daughter's baptismal entry that Rafaela Cañe- do's mother,María [Tomasa]Cañedo, was marriedto a "neófito licenciado"named Conrado. So notonly did Rafaela Cañedo take an emancipatedIndian as a husband,her mother had doneso as well. MaríaTomasa Cañedohad firstmarried Victorio Aluluyachuit, a ChumashIndian from Matilija (Maťilxá), who was baptizedat Mis- sionSan Buenaventura.95Victorio Aluluyachuit and María Tomasa Cañedowere wed at Mission San Gabriel in 1825.96 Rafaela, who had beenborn about 1821, was not the daughter of Victorio.97 The identi- tyof "Conrado" was is notknown, nor is itknown when Victorio died andConrado married María Tomasa Cañedo (orperhaps Victorio and"Conrado" were the same individual?). By 1851María Tomasa Cañedowas living as thewife of Dolores Ochoa, who was tabulated inthe 1850 federal census as "overseer"of a groupof San Fernando Indians,who seem to have been living in the Elizabeth Lake vicinity (seeTable 5). No marriagerecord has yetbeen foundfor José Miguel and RafaelaCañedo. They were not married at MissionSan Fernando, nor has limitedchecking of the San Gabrieland Plaza Church recordsbeen successful in locating their marriage entry. The sec- ondof their children, Ildefonso, born in January 1839 was saidto be a legitimatechild of" Silvestre [sic], Neófito licenciado de estaMisión y Rafaela su esposade Razón, residentesen El Rancho de los Verdu- £ös."98Themissionary evidently made a mistakehere, perhaps con- fusingJosé Miguel's name with that of Silvestre Cañedo, a presumed relativeof Rafaela, who was marriedto one ofthe Verdugo daugh- ters.If we concludethat Rafaela's husband must indeed have been JoséMiguel, then they seem to have been married by the Church about1838, between the births of her first and second children. In July1841, the baptism of José Miguel Triunfo's and Rafaela Cañedo'sthird child, Ramón, took place. In thisrecord, the priest finallygot the father's name right. Ramón had been born at the "Ran-

275 SouthernCalifornia Quarterly

chode laViña de Caguenga.""Ramon's name does not appear in the 1850census, suggesting that he may have died in childhood. No bap- tismalentry has beenfound for Rosaria, a daughtermentioned in laterrecords, born about 1842. Baptismal records at San Fernando werefound for two other children: José Antonio de Jesús,born in 1844,and Maria del Refugio, born in 1846.100In Mariadel Refugio's entry,José Miguel's surname, Triunfo, appears for the first time in missiondocuments. The lastknown child of José Miguel Triunfo andRafaela Cañedo was a son,Francisco Javier, who died as aninfant inl849.101 In 1843José Miguel Triunfo received a modestgrant of land fromGovernor Micheltorena, located somewhere in the vicinity of theRancho Cahuenga and the Rancho de los Verdugos.For a few yearsthe boundaries of his grantwere disputed by Vicente de la Ossa ofLos Angeles, who had been given title to the adjacent Rancho ElTrigo, but it seems that José Miguel Triunfo won out in the end.102 The 1850federal census (actually enumerated in 1851) lists five chil- drenin the family of José Miguel and Rafaela. A girlnamed Maria A[ntonia], fourteen, was theeldest child in the family, yet based on herage, thisgirl's name should have been "Gertrudis,"who was bornin 1837,yet another example of the perplexing problems of nameidentification encountered in reconstructingthis particular family'shistory.103 JoséMiguel Triunfo's history following the mid-century mark hadtragic overtones. His claim with José Limantour for the Rancho Cahuengawas deemedfraudulent by the Board of Land Commis- sioners.104Then one ofhis sonsdied, and a secondapparently was sentto prison. Triunfo went crazy after this, and his wife sold their ranch.After José MiguelTriunfo died, his widowremarried an ApacheIndian and had one son by him.105 The recordsof the Plaza Churchdocument that two of José MiguelTriunfo's daughters, Nicolasa and Rosaria,had children bornout of wedlock in thelate 1850s. Nicolasa was themother of JoséEnrique Lyon, the illegitimate son of Cyrus Lyon, who served as foremanat RanchoCahuenga after it was acquiredby David Alexander.106Rosaria was themother of an illegitimatechild, José Abelardo,born in 1859. The baptismal register states that this baby's fatherwas Alejandro(Alexis) Godey, who had cometo California

276 TheIndians of Mission San Fernando withJohn С Fremont.107It is wellknown that Godey had intimate relationswith a numberof California Indian women and sired a few childrenby them.108 Rosaria later married Miguel Ortiz from New Mexico.She diedin February 1911. Her son, José [Abelardo] Ortiz didnot acknowledge Godey as hisfather on his applicationfor the 1928-1933enrollment ofCalifornia Indians. 109 JoséMiguel Triunfo's and RafaelaCañedo's eldest daughter, MaríaAntonia ("Chata"), married Jesús Cordova in 1869.110Cordo- vahad immigrated toCalifornia from Sonora and worked as a vaque- rofor the priests at Mission San Fernando . Frank Latta has identified Cordovaas the"Indian" vaquero, whom Fremont described as his guideover Tehachapi Pass in 1844.Cordova later worked for Fré- monťsscout, Alexis Godey. When Godey lost his ranch in Cuyama, Jesúsand María Antonia Cordova and their nine children moved to Tejon.Their sons worked as vaqueroson the Tejon Ranch. Only one ofthe Cordova children, Marcos Cordova, had childrenof his own (thirteen)who reached maturity.111 The Cordova Ranch was located onCastaic Creek, where the Castaic Reservoir is today. PedroAntonio Chuyuy and Euqueria PedroAntonio Chuyuy was baptizedat MissionSan Fernando fromEl Escorpiónwhen he was a littlemore than a yearold in Feb- ruary1800. His sister,a yearolder than he, had beenbaptized the previousyear in the "Ranchería llamada Las Calabasas."112Although bothchildren were raised at the mission and later married, the iden- tityof their parents was never mentioned in mission register entries. One mayassume that the parents of Pedro Antonio and Euqueria wereamong the various adults baptized from El Escorpiónfor whom no familyrelationships were recorded. According to Harrington's consultantswho knew him, Pedro Antonio Chuyuy spoke both Fer- nandeñoand Ventureño Chumash, appropriately enough if, as we suspect,El Escorpiónheld a mixedFernandeño and Chumash pop- ulation. PedroAntonio Chuyuy married Euqueria in 1817. Euqueria had beenbaptized in 1803, when she was two months old, from Jucjauy- bit.Hers was the baptism immediately following that of the daughter ofthe chief of El Escorpión,but as wasthe case withPedro Antonio, thereis nomention anywhere in the records regarding who her par-

277 SouthernCalifornia Quarterly entswere.113 Pedro Antonio Chuyuy and Euqueria had ten children bornat MissionSan Fernandobetween 1819 and 1842.114Their youngestchild, Candelaria, was bornon Lord'sCreek near Sespe about1847, according to information collected in an earlyinterview andfrom early census records (Fig. 6).115 No baptismalentry has beenfound for her. In addition to Candelaria, three sons were raised toadulthood, José Cupertino, Melquíades, and Pantaleon. The fami- lysettled at Saticoy and was listedwith other Saticoy Indians in the 1852state census and the 1860federal census. Euqueria died in I860.116Her husband moved with his grandson, José Juan Olivas, to Tejonabout 1870. The oldestson of Pedro Antonio Chuyuy and Euqueria was José Cupertino,who was marriedtwice at MissionSan Buenaventura. Hissecond wife was Leandra, the daughter of Ramón and Eugenia of MissionSan Fernando.117Ramón was Tataviamand Eugeniawas Fernandeñoand Vanyume in ancestry.118 Eugenia's mother, Teofila, was thehalf-sister (by the father) of Vicente Francisco Tinoki, for- meralcalde at Mission San Fernando and later a Kitanemukchief at ElTejón. JoséCupertino, later known as "JoséChiminea," was a promi- nentmember of the Indian community atSaticoy. Fernando Librado describedhis performancesof the Blackbird, Seaweed, and Bar- racudaDances at a Chumashfiesta at Saticoy in 1869.119 José Cuper- tinoand Leandra had sonsborn in 1856and 1859who both died in 120 1859. Thiscouple was listed in the 1860 census among the Saticoy Indians.It is knownthat José Cupertino(aka "JoséChiminea") movedto Tejon and was eventually killed there, although the date of hisdeath has not been determined. In 1865Leandra had a daughter bornin San Fernandonamed Maria Josefa ("Josefina") Leyva.121 Thischild's father was said to be Juan Leyva, who was a teamsterand vaqueroon the Tejon Ranch. MariaJosefa ("Josefina") Leyva married Isidoro García, who mayhave been partly of Mission San FernandoIndian ancestry on his mother'sside. Josefina and IsidoroGarcía had threechildren: Frances,Petra, and Santiago ("Jim") . Frances Garcia married Alfred Cookeand had a largefamily. Petra García married José Valenzuela, thebrother-in-law ofCandelaria Valenzuela, and also had numerous offspring.Jim Garcia moved to the Tejon Ranch, where he married

278 TheIndians of Mission San Fernando

Fig.6. CandelariaValenzuela and Ina Cassidy./ P. HarringtonCollection, Santa Barbara Museumof NaturalHistory.

MariaMiranda, the stepdaughter ofJuan Lozada, chief of the Tejón Indiancommunity. He alsohad many children. Many descendants of Josefinaand Isidoro García live in Ventura, Santa Barbara, Los Ange- les,and Kern counties today. The OakbrookPark Chumash Inter- pretiveCenter in ThousandOaks is directedby one of their descendants,Paul Varela. Many other family members are actively involvedin Native American heritage concerns in the Santa Monica Mountainsand neighboring regions.122 Candelaria[Valenzuela] was to becomethe mostfamous of PedroAntonio Chuyuy's and Euqueria's children, because of her rep- utationas a makerof fine basketry (Fig. 6) .123Her first child, born in 1863,was the son of Jesús Maria, probably the brother of Pomposa, thechief of the Saticoy Indians.124 In 1865 Candelaria married José EpifacioRíos Qosé "Grande"),another Saticoy resident. Five chil- drenare listed for this couple in the baptismal register of San Bue- naventurabetween 1865 and 1881. By 1880 Candelaria had moved to

279 SouthernCalifornia Quarterly

Ventura,where she boardedwith Petra Pico, another famous Chu- mashbasketmaker. She separatedfrom José Epifacio Ríos and had twochildren by José Olivas. Her onlyknown descendants come fromher youngest son, José Eduardo Olivas, born in 1888. 125 Candelaria'slast husbandwas JoséValenzuela from Sonora, Mexico.J. P. Harringtonmet her in 1913and consultedwith her regardingVentureño Chumash basketry and culture. She alsowas interviewedby George Henley and Dr. Bizzell in 1914. In 1915Can- delaria'sclothes caught fire when she was cookingon thePeirano Ranch,and she succumbedfrom the burns she received.126Upon learningof her death, John Harrington confided to his close friends, Inaand Gerald Cassidy : Candelaria'sfate is justtoo bad. I keepthinking of it night and dayand it seems such a pity,such a deplorableloss I hada queerexperience with regard to Candelaria recently. About two weeksago I suddenlybegan to think that it was theseason of wildflowers and that this spring might be mylast chance to get the[Indian] names of all those wild flowers [through working withCandelaria] . This idea came to me so stronglythat I could notreason myself out of it and decided to go atany cost. When yourletter with the clippingreached me I had theVentura botanicalnotes laid aside and was going to leave the following morningfor Ventura and try to getboard with Mrs. Dunshee whileworking with the old lady. . . . Itis a horrible,silly loss, and I shallnever cease regrettingitas longas I live.She was the sole surviving [woman] of her tribe, or ofany surrounding tribe, saved as ifby miracle of God for our work,so untainted,unsophisticated and good natured, so fullof correctold-time information and ideas. I feeltoo bad overthe thingto [cry?]. It just weighs on me.127

Harrington'ssense ofloss at Candelaria'spassing is expressed in partof a poemwith which he ended his letter:

Theyear hath turned, and with it pass the flowers. Andshe who knew their ancient names is gone. Outlivinga dead age shelingered on. Bymiracle of God with curious dowers To lendassistance to this work of ours.

280 TheIndians of Mission San Fernando

Conclusion Bythe turn of the century, Indians once affiliated with Mission San Fernandowere distributed throughout a wide area. A number wereliving in the valley itself, quite a fewwere residents of the Tejon ranchería,some lived in Ventura, and others in the upper Santa Clara RiverValley. The oldestmembers of the remaining San Fernando Indianfamilies were sought out by anthropologists like С H. Merri- am,A. L. Kroeber,and J. P. Harrington.Altamirano Badillo, who livedat Tejon, provided Merriam with Cahuenga (Fernandeño) and Kitanemukvocabularies in 1905 (Fig. 7). 128 Juan José Fustero at Piru providedKroeber and Harrington the first word lists known for the Tataviamlanguage.129 Valley residents Sétimo López (aka Sétimo Moraga),Juan Menéndez, and MartínFeliz all providedJ. P. Har- ringtonwith Fernandeño lore (Fig. 6) . AtTejon in 1916-17 and 1922, EugeniaMéndez, Magdalena Olivas, and José Juan Olivas provided Harringtonwith further information regarding San FernandoIndi- anhistory.130 Accordingto Harrington'snotes, Antonio Maria Ortegawas probablythe last individualto speak the Fernandeñodialect of

Fig.7. AltamiranoBadillo, 'Tejón Indi- an"of mixed Tataviam, Fernandeño, and Serranoancestry, November 1905. C.H. MerriamCollection, National AnthropologicalArchives, Smithsonian Institution94-3773.

Fig.9. AntonioMaria Ortega, descendant of SanFernando Indian grantees of Rancho El Encino.Courtesy ofBeverly Salazar Folkes.

281 SouthernCalifornia Quarterly

Gabrielino/Tongvalanguage (Fig. 9).131 He had beenborn at Ran- cho El Encinoin 1857,the son ofFernando Ortega from the Yaqui Riverin Sonora and Maria Rita, whose father and grandfather were theoriginal Indian applicants for El Encino.132To hisown children, AntonioMaria Ortega later recounted how his family was forced to movefrom their rancho after it was acquired by Vicente de la Ossa. Theymoved to the mission at first,but later he was takeninto the Gerónimoand CatalinaLópez household where he was raised,as werea numberof other Indian children.133 While living and working atthe López Station, Antonio Maria Ortega met his future wife Isido- raLeyva, who was housekeeper for the López family. They were mar- riedand raised a largefamily in San Fernando, indeed many of their descendantsremain active in Indian affairs there today134 Missionregisters, ethnographic notes, and family oral histories assistus in understandingwhat became of the native peoples and communitiesassociated with Mission San Fernando. By recourse to suchsources, some of the mysteries surrounding the identities of particularindividuals have been dispelled.Despite tremendous urbanizationin thetwentieth century, the descendants of the San FernandoValley's original inhabitants continue to be numbered amongits citizens. Pride and interest in the heritage of the San Fer- nandoIndians is undergoing a resurgence. The days when only Indi- ansresided in the valley are now past, but in some open places, if one listenscarefully, the meadowlark's song reminds us: kasisoko''ra'wiyawil kasisoko' frďwiyawi'

282 TheIndians of Mission San Fernando

NOTES

1Thecomplete text of the 'Ra'wiyawi myth is recordedin the John P. HarringtonPapers, Part3, SouthernCalifornia/Basin [Washington, D. C: SmithsonianInstitution, National AnthropologicalArchives (Microfilm edition, Millwood, N.Y.: Kraus International Publica- tions,1986) ], Rl. 106, Fr. 188. It has been revised only slightly here from the original version. 2Johnand Carobeth Harrington misspelled Menéndez's name as "Melendrez."Juan Anto- nioManuel Menéndez was born in 1857, the natural son of Espíritu Chihuya and José Alexan- droMenéndez (Mission San BuenaventuraBaptismal Register, Vol. 2, No. 1687,June 17, 1857). Espíritu,whose name was incorrectly recorded as "Mariade Jesús" in Juan Menéndez's baptismalentry, was the daughter of Odón Chihuya, one of the Indian grantees of Rancho El Escorpión.Juan Menéndez's father was from Spain and worked as ranchforeman for Andrés Picoat San Fernando. Juan Menéndez died about 1924. See GerryKeesey Hoppe, ed., Leonis orThe Lion's Brood by Horace Bell (Los Angeles: Leonis Adobe Association, 1993) , pp.42-43, n. 11,and Ray Phillips, "Epilogue - LaterHistory of the Family, The El EscorpiónRanch and theLeonis Adobe in Calabasas," ibid., p. 271. 3OnNovember 9, 1917, Carobeth wrote her husband, anthropologist John P. Harrington, that"I gothere at 5 p.m andhave been writing myths and other infn. since 7:00 (it is now nearly10:00) . M. andhis wife will rent me room and board me and are glad to work - They knowthe kasisoko 'hrawiyawi . . . storyand many others" (unpublished correspondence, J.P. HarringtonPapers, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History) . 4Harrington,Southern California/Basin, Reel 106 contains notes on Fernandeño culture, language,and history recorded by Carobeth and John Harrington. Acomputer data base of the informationonthis reel has been prepared by lisa L.Woodward and Martha J. Macri for the J. P. HarringtonDatabase Project, sponsored by the Native American Language Center at the UniversityofCalifornia, Davis and Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. ^Thecomputer database of mission register information used for this study has been the resultof a collaborationbetween several scholars. Using a typewrittentranscript originally preparedby Thomas Workman Temple in 1964, Robert Edberg, a graduatestudent in anthro- pologyat California State University, Northridge, inthe 1980s began a SanFernando mission registerdata base for information Temple had selectively extracted. In 1993some categories ofinformation from the data base begun by Edberg were used as a startingpoint by the author ofthis article to assemble a comprehensivelist of all individuals baptized at Mission San Fer- nandoand to cross-reference entries to their parents, marriages, and burials. Other contribu- torsto this effort were Eleanor Arellanes, Sally McLendon, Linda Agren, and Chester King. Muchof the information collected by Temple has been checked and corrected. This project, whichis stillongoing, has beenpartly funded by a NationalPark Service contract, see Sally McLendonand John R. Johnson, Cultural Affiliation and Lineal Descentof Chumash Peoples in theChannel Islands and Santa Monica Mountains(3 vols.,Hunter College, City University of NewYork, and the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, complete draft report July 1997, finalreport due March, 1998) . 6Rancheria(village) names are italicized only when they appear in a standardizedlinguis- ticorthography adapted for English speakers. Otherwise they appear unitalicized when in theiroriginal spellings by Spanish missionaries. Reconstructions ofnames in the Fernandeño dialectof Gabrielino/Tongva follow recommendations byPamela Munro, Professor of Lin- guisticsat the University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles,and by Kenneth Hill, Professor of Lin- guisticsat theUniversity ofArizona. For an explanationof basic rules for representing the Gabrielino/Tongvalanguage, see WilliamMcCawley, The First Angelinos (Banning and Novato:Malki Museum Press/Ballena Press cooperative publication, 1996) ,p. 1. 7ZephyrinEngelhardt, San FernandoRey: The Mission of the Valley (Chicago: Franciscan HeraldPress, 1927), p. 5.Taapu (Ta'apu) was a largeChumash ranchería in the Simi Valley area.Tacuyama (Takuyaman) was the Ventureño Chumash name for the Tataviam ranchería ofChaguayabit or Chaguayanga (Tsawayung) near Castaic Junction. Taguenga (sic) was for theGabrielino/Tongva ranchería of Cahuenga (Kaweenga) where Mariano Verdugo had his

283 SouthernCalifornia Quarterly rancho(not to be confusedwith the rancho of his brother, José María Verdugo who had a ran- choat La Zanja). Juyungawas a Tataviamranchería near Newhall where Fr. Vicente de Santa Mariabaptized a dyingyoung girl on August 26, 1795 (San Buenaventura (hereinafter SBv) Baptisms(hereinafter Bap.) , Vol. 1, No. 895) . Mapipingaisunlocated, either aTataviam or Fer- nandeñoranchería. «Ibid.,p. 6. 9Ibid.,p. 9. Although Engelhardt translated the Spanish word gentiles as 'pagans',a better translationwould be 'unconvertedIndians/ 10Seenote 7 above. nMaynardGeigerand Clement W. Meighan, trans, and eds., As The Padres Saw Them: Cal- iforniaIndian Lifeand Customsas reportedby the Franciscan Missionaries 1813-1815 (Santa Barbara:Santa Barbara Mission Archive Library, 1976) ,p. 19. 12DavidD. Earle,"New Evidence on thePolitical Geography of the Antelope Valley and WesternMojave Desert at Spanish Contact"in Archaeology and Ethnohistoryofthe Antelope Valleyand Vicinity,eds. Bruce Love and William H. DeWitt(Antelope Valley Archaeological SocietyOccasional Paper No. 2, 1990) ,pp. 87-104. 13J.P. Harringtoncited in Bernice E. Johnston,California's Gabrielino Indians (Los Ange- les:Southwest Museum, 1962), p. 10. 14Afairly accurate list of most ranchería names at Mission San Fernando as recordedby the missionarieshas beenpublished in С HartMerriam, "Village Names in Twelve California MissionRecords," University ofCalifornia Archaeological Survey Reports, No. 74 (1968):93- 102. 15Harrington,Southern California/Basin, Rl.106, Fr. 47. The Spanish name, El Encino, was a loantranslation from the Gabrielino/Tongva name Syutkanga 'live oak place.' 16Thegenealogical data for these individuals from Ongobepet and Humaliwo is presented inJohn R. Johnson, "Lineal Descendants from the Santa Monica Mountains," inMcLendon andJohnson, Chumash Peoples, Chap. 11 andAppendix XIII. All these close links between Humaliwoand Ongobepet appear to make this a straightforwardcase forthese four people beingbaptized under the Gabrielino/Tongva name for their Chumash town. However, the nativeGabrielino/Tongva name recorded by J. P. Harringtonfor Redondo Beach was said to be Ongoovanga,adding some confusion to the matter because "Ongobepet" could mean 'per- sonfrom Ongoovanga' Most likely the two places are indeed different but have the same lin- guisticderivation, coming from ongoova 'salt' (see McCawley,First Amelinos, 63) . 17SeeMelendon and Johnson, Chumash Peoples, Appendix VIII, Table 6, for numbers of peoplefrom rancherías named in the Takic language. 18Comparativedata are provided in McLendon and Johnson, Chumash Peoples, Appendix DCSee alsoSherburne F. Cookand Woodrow Borah, Essays in Population History: Vol. 3: Mex- icoand California (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1979) John R Johnson,"The Chu- mash and the Missions,"in ColumbianConsequences, Vol. 1: Archaeologicaland Historical Perspectiveson theSpanish BorderlandsWest, ed. David HurstThomas (Washington,DC: SmithsonianInstitution Press, 1989), pp. 365-376; Phillip L Walkerand John R. Johnson, "EffectsofContact on the Chumash Indians," in Disease and Demography inthe Americas, eds. JohnVerano and Douglas Ubelaker (Washington, DC: SmithsonianInstitution Press, 1992), pp.127-139. 19TheChumash practice of inducingabortion was documentedby earlySpanish observers.See Madison Beeler, ed., The VentureñoConfesionario of José Señan, O.F.M. (Berkeley:University ofCalifornia Publications in Linguistics47, 1967), p.378; Finbar Ken- neally,ed., WritingsofFermín Francisco de Lasuén(2 vols.,Washington, DC: Academyof AmericanFranciscan History, 1965) ,II: 378; Simpson, Lesley Bird Simpson, eá.journalofjosé LonginosMartinez, 1791-1792, trans. P. D. Nathan(Ventura and San Francisco:Ventura CountyHistorical Society and John Howell Books, 1961) ,p. 56. 20Walkerand Johnson, "Effects ofContact," p. 130.

284 TheIndians of Mission San Fernando

21DavidHornbeck, California Patterns: A Geographicaland HistoricalAtlas (Place: May- fieldPublishing Company, 1983) ,p. 46. 22JohnR.Johnson, "Chumash Population History," inMcLendon and Johnson, Chumash Peoples,Chap. 7: Tables 7-8, 7-15, 7-22. 23HubertH. Bancroft,History of California (7 vols.San Francisco: The HistoryCompany, 1886),3:102-104; Zephyrin Engelhardt, Missions and Missionaries of California (4 vols.San Francisco:James H. BarryCo., 1913), 3:239-240; C. AlanHutchinson, Frontier Settlement in MexicanCalifornia (New Haven: Yale UniversityPress, 1969), pp. 128-134; David J. Weber, TheMexican Frontier, 1821-1846 (Albuquerque: University of NewMexico Press, 1982), Chap.3. 24Fora complete list of the secularization regulations, see Bancroft,History of California, 3:342-344,n.4; Engelhardt,Missions and Missionaries, 3:473-476. ^"Proceedingsinstituted by Urbano, Odón, and Manuel, natives of San Fernando,peti- tioningfor a tractof land named Escorpión." Expediente 461, Spanish Archives, Translations, Book5, pp. 320-327, California State Archives, Sacramento. (Hereinafter cited CSA.) 26ManuelJimeno to William Hartnell, July 7, 1835,Archivos de los Misiones,Folder 57, BancroftLibrary, Berkeley, translation bythe author. 27Bancroft,History ofCalifornia, 4:350, 369-371. 28Samuelto GovernorManuel Micheltorena, April 21, 1843.Expediente 461, Spanish Archives,Translations, Book 5, pp. 187-188, CSA. The tractof land given to Samuel was later acquiredby Gerónimo López and called "López Station," because it served as a stagestop on theold Butterfield Stage route through the San Fernando Valley. Today it is the site of the Van NormanReservoir. See W. W. Robinson,Southern California Local History, ed. DoyceB. Nunis,Jr. (Los Angeles: Historical Society of Southern California, 1993) ,p. 150. ^"Proceedingsin relation to one league of land in the Mission of San Fernando, granted to Joaquín,Alcalde, and forty [sic] companions." Expediente 576, Spanish Archives, Transla- tions,Book 5, pp. 633-635, CSA Althoughthe title to this expediente mentions "forty compan- ions,"only thirty-eight names are listed in addition to [Pedro] Joaquín. ^'Proceedingsinstituted byJoaquín, an Indian of the Mission of San Fernando, soliciting a tractof land jointly with several neophytes of said establishment." Unclassified Expediente 178,Spanish Archives, Translations, Book 7, pp. 595-596, CSA. This was Joaquin's first petition tothe governor, dated April 10, 1843. It was written for him by the neophyte Manuel. 31Accordingtothe claimants for El Escorpión,itconsisted originally ofa concessionof two squareleagues of land granted by Micheltorena in1843 (Expediente 461, Spanish Archives, Translations,Book 5, p. 321, CSA) . Bythe time it was officially granted several years later by PíoPico, it had been reduced to one-half league square. See ChesterCohen, El Escorpión:Indi- an Villageto Los Angeles Park (Woodland Hills: Periday Company, 1989) ,pp. 3-4. 32OdónChihuya's father, Iiborio Chavot, was apparentlyfrom El Escorpión,Tiburcio Cayo'swife, Teresa, was from El Encino(Siutcabit) . 33Thefamily that settled on Castaic Creek was headed by Faustino ("Agustín") Oyogueni- nasu,who appears to have been considered the capitán grande of the Tataviam families of the upperSanta Clara River Valley in the mid-nineteenth century. See JohnR. Johnson and David D. Earle,'Tataviam Geography and Ethnohistory,"Journal of California and GreatBasin Anthropology,12(1990): 191-214. 34SanFernando(herein after SFe) Bap.No. 2385, December 21, 1819. Vicente Francisco is probablythe Vicente listed among Indians who received a tract of land from Governor Michel- torenain 1843 (see Table 8) . 35Thesefacts have been reconstructed from a varietyof sources, especially the mission recordsand Harrington's ethnographic notes gathered at the Tejón Indian Ranchería in the earlytwentieth century. In later years, Francisco Tinoki adopted the surname Cota; see Frank F. Latta,The Saga ofRancho El Tejon(Santa Cruz: Bear State Books, 1976) , p. 133.

285 SouthernCalifornia Quarterly

36HelenS. Gifřenand Arthur Woodward, The Story of El Tejón(Los Angeles:Dawson's Book Shop, 1942); RobertF. Heizer,The Eighteen Unratified Treaties of 1851-52 between the Califor- nia Indiansand theUnited States Government (Berkeley: University of California Archaeologi- cal Research Facility, 1972) pp. 3841; John R Johnson and Sally McLendon, "Post-SecularizationChumash History," in McLendon and Johnson, Chumash Peoples, Chap. 9. 37SFeBap. 2812,March 29 , 1834.Harrington was toldvariously that Zapatero's name was Antonioor José by his Tejón Indianconsultants who rememberedhim from when they were children.Latta mistakenlyreports Zapatero's first name as Pablo. See JohnP. Harrington Papers,Part 2, NorthernCalifornia and CentralCalifornia [Washington, D. C: Smithsonian Institution,National Anthropological Archives (Microfilmedition, Millwood, N.Y.: Kraus InternationalPublications, 1985) ] , Rl. 100,Fr. 1053-1054,1 178;Latta, Saga ofRancho El Tejon, p. 128. ^Giffenand Woodward,Story of El Tejon,pp. 29-30;Harrington, Northern California and CentralCalifornia, Rl. 100,Fr. 1133. 39SFeBap. 1226,February, 1804. A marriedcouple, probably his parentswere baptized two weeks laterfrom the same ranchería.These werethe only people fromTubampet baptized at San FernandoMission. 40Whenbroken down to theircomponent parts, Tubampet and Tulamniuare the same place nameif /b/'s substituted for ///and the Fernandeño locative suffix -pet is replacedby the Yokuts-ш. 41RafaelMaria was the fifthperson listed in the baptismalregister, one ofa groupof chil- drenbaptized on theday Mission San Fernandowas founded.He was mentionedas beingone ofthe Indianalcaldes in 1836and his name appearsamong those listedin the 1850census at themission. 42JohnR.Johnson,EthnohistoryofMaťapxwelxwel,CA-KER-4465 [Santa Barbara: Science ApplicationsInternational Corporation (prepared for the PacificPipeline Project, Kern and Los AngelesCounties, L W. Reed Consultants,Inc., Fort Collins, CO) , 1997], p. 6. 43Jno.P. H. Wentworthto Wm. P. Dole, ReportNo. 67,Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairsto the Secretary of the Interior, 1862 (Washington,D. C: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1863) p. 325. Once allowanceis made fortypographic errors, the mentionof the "Surillo"or "Cartaka"tribe is an obvious referenceto people fromthe interiorVentureño Chumash rancheríasof Sujuiyojos (Shuxwiyuxus) and Castec (Kashtiq). See Figure2 (map). 44Hewas originallybaptized as Ladislao when he was fifteenyears old (SFe Bap. 1242, March3,1804). 45SFeBap. 2544, November23 , 1823. Clemente'sparents were fromSiutasegena and Tochaborunga. 46Johnsonand Earle, "TataviamGeography and Ethnohistory,"pp. 204-206.Further researchwith the San FernandoMission records has revisedour previously published identi- ficationof Estanislao and his ethnic/linguisticaffiliation. 47Giffenand Woodward,Story of El Tejon,p. 41. 48Threeof these lineage historieshave been revisedfrom versions included in Johnson, "LinealDescendants from the Santa Monica Mountains." 49Johnsonand Earle, 'Tataviam Geographyand Ethnohistory;"John R Johnson,"Chu- mash Indiansin SimiValley," in Simi Valley:A JourneyThrough Time, ed. by PatriciaHavens and BillAppleton (Simi Valley: Simi Valley Historical Society and Museum,1997) , pp.4-21. ^For otherdescriptions of the Chihuyafamily history, see Cohen,El Escorpión',Phillips, "Epilogue- LaterHistory of the Family;" and Laura B. Gayle,The Last ofthe Old West:A Book ofSketches about the Calabasas Area (WoodlandHills: Bar-Kay Enterprises, 1965) . 51Apadrón was an alphabeticallyorganized list of Indians affiliated with the mission, orga- nizedby families. 52Anextended discussion of the Chihuyagenealogy is warrantedbecause itrevises infor- mationprovided in another report regarding Odón's identificationand parentage;see Chester King,Prehistoric Native American Cultural Sites in theSanta MonicaMountains, prepared for

286 TheIndians of Mission San Fernando

the Santa Monica Mountainsand Seashore Foundation(Topanga: Topanga Archaeological Consultants,1994), p. 87. 53Ibid.Cecilio Naiaguit and his wifewere Bap. Nos. 3857 and 3897 at MissionSan Gabriel ^SFe Bap. 824 and 825. 55Gaye,Last ofthe Old West,p. 22. ^SFe (Marriages(hereinafter Mar.) 549 and 719. 57Ibid.,557. ^SFe Bap. 2057 and 2153. 59Ibid.,903. ^Ibid., 1052. 61Ibid.,844. 62Ibid.,180 was actuallyan entryfor a womannamed Engracia. 63Ibid.,1183 and 1184,SFe Bur. 1655. «»SFeBap. 1385. 65Harrington,Southern California/Basin, Rl. 98, Fr. 575. Travis Hudson,Breath of the Sun: Lifein EarlyCalifornia as Toldby a ChumashIndian, FernandoLibrado to John P. Harrington(Banning: Malki Museum Press,1979) , p. 92; SFe Bap. 3027. 67Cohen,ElEscorpión, pp. 11-15. 68Thedate ofMaría delRosario's marriageto Carlos Leboubon is uncertain.In 1869 she was the motherof a naturalchild of Robert Thompson (Los Angeles Plaza ChurchBap. Bk. 4:1360). 69SBvBurial (hereinafter Bur.) Bk. 2:1789. 70Cohen,El Escorpión,p. 26; Phillips,"Epilogue- Later History of the Family;" John R. John- son, "Ventura'sChumash Communityin the 1880s,"The VenturaCounty Historical Society Quarterly,39, (Winter1993/Spring 1994): 44. 71Johnsonand Earle,"Tataviam Geography and Ethnohistory,"pp. 203-204. 72SBvMar. 1305. 73Cohen,El Escorpión,p. 21; Harrington,Southern California/ Basin, Rl.98, Fr. 575. 74Johnson,"Lineal Descendants from the Santa Monica Mountains,"Fig. 11.20. 75Lópezserved as a consultantto J. P. Harringtonin 1916 (see Fig. 8) . 76JohnP. HarringtonPapers, Part 8, Notes and Writingson SpecialLinguistic Studies [Wash- ington,D. C: SmithsonianInstitution, National Anthropological Archives (Microfilm edition, Millwood,N.Y.: Kraus InternationalPublications, 1989) ] , Rl.2, Fr.31. 77Cohen,El Escorpión,p. 22; Phillips,"Epilogue - LaterHistory of the Family." 78Harrington,Southern California/Basin, Rl. 106,Fr. Ill, 120. 79"GoldenSecret in His Grave:Aged San FernandoMission Indian Buried," Grace Nichol- son Papers,Addenda, Indian Scrap Book, Vol. 2, p. 132, HenryE. HuntingtonLibrary, San Marino,California (hereinafter cited HEH) ; Engelhardt,San FernandoRey, p. 96. mH.N. Rust,"Rogerio's Theological School," in Л Collectionof Ethnographical Articles on theCalifornia Indians, ed. RobertF. Heizer (Ramona:Ballena Press, 1976), pp. 63-68(reprint- ed fromOut West,21 (1904): 243-248). 81SFeBap. 2565,March 31, 1824. 82SFeBaptisms 817 and 312,SFe Mar. 645.The identityof Rogerio's father remains uncer- tain.Although his baptismalnumber is referencedin his marriageentry, another individual named Germán,who transferredfrom San Fernandoto San Buenaventura,may actually be theindividual listed in Entry817. ^SFe Bap. 2639,SFe Mars. 668 and 881. ^SFe Bap. 3049,SFe Bur.2340.

287 SouthernCalifornia Quarterly

^Rogerio's renownas a blacksmithhas led to some apocryphaltales about his working gold and silverfrom secret mines known to thepadres, e.g., "Some FancifulLegends" in The Missionof the Valley: A DocumentaryHistory of San FernandoRey de España, ed. Msgr.Francis JWeber (SantaBarbara: Kimberly Press, 1987) , pp. 98-101 (reprinted from Kansas CityTimes, May 21, 1927). ^His properlywas locatedabout threemiles east ofthe missionaccording to the above- citednewspaper article published at thetime of his death.Also see Rust,"Rogerio's Theologi- cal School,"p. 64. 87TravisHudson, Thomas Blackburn,Rosario Curletti, and Janice Timbrook, eds., TheEye ofthe Flute: Chumash Traditional History and Ritualas Toldby Fernando Librado Kitsepawit to JohnP. Harrington(Santa Barbara:Santa BarbaraMuseum ofNatural History, 1977), pp. 91- 93. ««Rust,"Rogerio's Theological School," pp. 65-67. ^Charles С Painter,The Present Condition of the Mission Indians ofCalifornia (Philadel- phia:Office of the Indian Rights Association, 1887), p. 7. ^HenryChapman Ford, An A rtistRecords the California Missions, ed. NormanNeuerburg (San Francisco:The Book Club ofCalifornia, 1989) , p. 95. 91Thereis conflictinginformation about the date ofRogério Rocha's death.A contempo- rarynewspaper article states his burialtook place on March 22 (see "GoldenSecret in His Grave,"Nicholson Papers, Addenda, Indian Scrap Book,Vol. 2, p. 132,HEH), butFranciscan historianFr. Zephyrin Engelhardt states he died on April6 (Engelhardt,San FernandoRey, p. 96). H. N. Ruststates Rocha's death occurredin May("Rogerio's Theological Seminary,"p. 63). 92"GoldenSecret in His Grave,"Nicholson Papers, Addenda, Indian Scrapbook, Vol. 2, p. 132,HEH. 93Accordingto William Mason (personalcommunication) , who has examinedearly docu- mentsin the Los AngelesCity Archives, José Migueltraded his holdingsat El Triunfowith a son of FranciscoReyes at Los Angeles forproperty in the San FernandoValley. The Reyes Adobe,now a historicallandmark, marks the site of José Miguel's former property at El Triun- fo. 94Harrington,Southern California/Basin, Rl. 98, Fr. 540,lightly edited. 95SBvBap. Bk. 1:291. %SanGabriel Mar. 1713. 97RafaelaCañedo's dateof birth may be estimatedbased on herage in 1851.See Newmark and Newmark,Census of Los Angeles, 1850, p. 73. 98SFeBap. 2960. "SFe Bap. 3031. 100SFeBap. 3062,3092. 101LAPlaza ChurchBur. 1100. 102UnclassifiedExpedientes 169, 191, 202, and 203,Spanish Archives, CSA. 103MauriceH. Newmarkand Marco R. Newmark,Census of City and Countyof Los Angeles . . . , 1850, (Los Angeles:The Times-MirrorPress, 1929), p. 73. It maybe thatGertrudis and MariaAntonia were not the same individualand thatJose Miguel Triunfo was thelatter's step- father.Maria Antonia'smarriage record stated that her fatherwas one FranciscoLugo (LA Plaza ChurchMar. 1025), contradictingoral history information obtained by both Harrington and Lattathat José Miguel Triunfo was herfather. Another daughter, Nicolasa Triunfo, who is notlisted in the 1850census, is also mentionedin laterrecords (Christie Miles Bourdet,per- sonal communication). 104RobertG. Cowan,Ranchos of California (Los Angeles: HistoricalSociety of Southern California,1977), p. 66. 105Harrington,Southern California/Basin, Rl. 106,Fr. 96; Rl.98, Fr. 540.

288 TheIndians of Mission San Fernando

^Christie Miles Bourdet,personal communication, October 1997. 107LAPlaza ChurchBap. Bk. 3:218. 108Harrington,Northern and CentralCalifornia, Rl. 98, Fr. 575-576;Frank F. Latta,Alexis Godeyin KernCounty. Kern County Historical Society Fifth Annual Publication (Bakersfield: KernCounty Historical Society, 1939) , pp.23-52. ^California Indian EnrollmentRecords, 1928-1933,Bureau of Indian Affairs,National Archivesand RecordsAdministration, Washington, D.C. 110Thecouple were marriedformally at a place on the Rio Bravo (Kern River).LA Plaza ChurchMar. 1025. niLatta,Saga ofRancho El Tejon,pp. 164-170. 112SFeBap.l75,231. 113SFeMar. 653; SFe Bap. 832. 114Johnson,"lineal Descendantsfrom the Santa Monica Mountains,"Fig. 11.34. 115ThomasC. Blackburn,"A ManuscriptAccount of the VentureñoChumash," Archaeo- logicalSurvey Annual Reports,No. 5 (Universityof California,Los Angeles, 1963): 139-140; 'The Storyof Candelaria," Ventura County Historical Society Quarterly, 2, (November1956) : 2- 8; Johnson,"Ventura's Chumash Community," p. 62. 116SBvBur.Bk.2:1183. 117SFeMar. 1231;SFe Bap. 2987. 118SFeBap. 1712,2298. 1 19Hudson,et al ,Eye of the Flute, pp. 91-92. 120SBvBur.Bk.2:1157, 1161. 121LAPlaza ChurchBap. Bk. 4: 53. 122Theauthor is indebtedto Charlie Cooke, Ted Garcia, Suria Gottesman,Lyda Man- riquez, Celestina Garcia Montes, Mary Garcia Montes, KathrynMorgan, Karen and Paul Varela,and Donna Yocumfor information regarding later generations of descendants of Jose finaand IsidoroGarcía. 123ChristopherL. Moser, NativeAmerican Basketry of SouthernCalifornia (Riverside: RiversideMuseum Press,1993) , pp. 4647. 124Johnson,"lineal Descendantsfrom the Santa Monica Mountains,"Fig. 11.2. 125Johnson,"Ventura's Chumash Community," pp. 62-63. 126Blackburn,"A ManuscriptAccount." 127JohnP. Harrington to Ina and GeraldCassidy, March 31, 1915,Cassidy Papers, Bancroft library,Berkeley. The authoris indebtedto KathrynKlar forproviding copies of her tran- scriptsof the Cassidy correspondence. 128Johnsonand Earle,"Tataviam Geography and Ethnohistory,"pp. 206-207. 129Ibid.,pp. 191, 198; WilliamBright, "The AlliklikMystery," The Journal of California Anthropology,2 (1975): 228-230;Alfred L Kroeber,"A New ShoshoneanTribe in California," AmericanAnthropologist, 17 (1915): 773-775. 130ElaineL. Millsand Ann J. Brickfield, Л Guideto the Field Notes: Native American History, Language,and Cultureof Southern California/Basin, in ThePapers of John P. Harringtonin the SmithsonianInstitution, 1907-1957 (9 vols.,White Plains, NY: Kraus InternationalPublica- tions),Vol.3. 131JohnP. HarringtonCollection, Ethnographic Papers, untitlednotebook (1913), Santa BarbaraMuseum ofNatural History. 132Ortegawas baptizedunder the nameJosé RosarioOrtega about ninemonths after his birth(OLS Bap. Bk. 2:1831,May 30, 1858). A notarizedstatement by noted historianand genealogistThomas WorkmanTemple attestedto the factthat throughout his lifeOrtega wentby the name Antonio Maria insteadof the name listedin the baptismal record. A copyof thisdocument was providedto the author by his descendants.See also Latta,Saga ofRancho El Tejon,p. 61.

289 SouthernCalifornia Quarterly

133Atleast twoSan FernandoIndian children were known by the surnameLópez because theywere raised by the López family.These wereSétimo López, who servedas a Fernandeño consultantto J. P. Harrington,and Juan José López, who livedand workedat Tejón. See John- son and Earle,'Tataviam Geography and Ethnohistory,"pp. 207-208;Latta, Saga ofRancho El Tejon,pp. 251-252. 134SandyBanks, "Native Americans Resurrect Heritage," Los AngelesTimes, September 3, 1997,A1,A3,A14.

Historical Societyof

ì Ш ч Southern California

290