Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology UC Merced Peer Reviewed Title: Tataviam Geography and Ethnohistory Journal Issue: Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 12(2) Author: Johnson, John R., Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, California Earle, David D., City of Lancaster City Museum/Art Gallery, California Publication Date: 1990 Publication Info: Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology Permalink: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9b23j0pt Keywords: ethnography, ethnohistory, archaeology, native peoples, Great Basin Abstract: Basic information about Tataviam linguistics and geography obtained from Fustero and other Kitanemuk speakers has been discussed in previous publications (Kroeber 1915, 1925; Harrington 1935; Bright 1975; King and Blackburn 1978; Hudson 1982). What is not so well known is that Harrington continued his Tataviam investigations among Indians of Yokuts, Tübatulabal, and Serrano descent, who had been associated with Tataviam speakers during the nineteenth century. More information about Tataviam history, territory, and language therefore is available than has previously been summarized. This justifies a new presentation and evaluation of existing evidence. We begin with a review of Tataviam ethnogeographic data. Copyright Information: All rights reserved unless otherwise indicated. Contact the author or original publisher for any necessary permissions. eScholarship is not the copyright owner for deposited works. Learn more at http://www.escholarship.org/help_copyright.html#reuse eScholarship provides open access, scholarly publishing services to the University of California and delivers a dynamic research platform to scholars worldwide. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 191-214 (1990). Tataviam Geography and Ethnohistory JOHN R. JOHNSON, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 2559 Puesta del Sol Rd., Santa Barbara, CA 93105. DA'STD D. EARLE, City of Lanca.ster City Museum/Art Gallery, 44801 N. Sierra Hwy., Lancaster, CA 93535. I^EVERAL important articles have appeared words and phrases in the Tataviam language in recent years that have summarized infor­ have hitherto been pubhshed (Bright 1975). mation about the Tataviam, or Alliklik, one of Basic information about Tataviam lin­ the most enigmatic California Indian groups guistics and geography obtained from Fustero (Bright 1975; King and Blackburn^ 1978; and other Kitanemuk speakers has been dis­ Hudson 1982). So little actually is known cussed in previous pubhcations (Kroeber 1915, about these people that their very existence as 1925; Harrington 1935; Bright 1975; King and a distinct hnguistic community has remained Blackburn 1978; Hudson 1982). What is not in doubt. Indeed, some researchers have so well known is that Harrington continued suggested that aU or most of their territory his Tataviam investigations among Indians of may have belonged to the Venturefio Yokuts, Ttibatulabal, and Serrano descent, Chumash, Kitanemuk, or Serrano (Van who had been associated with Tataviam Valkenburgh 1935; Beeler and Klar 1977). speakers during the nineteenth century. More Because of the scarcity of data hitherto information about Tataviam history, territory, avaUable, there has been a need to di.scover and language therefore is available than has new approaches to the problems of who the previously been summarized. This justifies a Tataviam were, what their linguistic affiliation new presentation and evttluation of existing was, and what territory they occupied.' evidence. We begin with a review of Tatav­ 'What is known today regarding the iam ethnogeographic data. Tataviam comes primarily from the ethno­ CORROBORATION OF TATAVIAM graphic research of two anthropologists, Alfred L. Kroeber and John P. Harrington. ETHNIC IDENTITY' Kroeber's Tataviam data came from a single Recent statements on Tataviam cultural consultant, Juan Jose Fustero, whom he inter­ geography by King and Blackburn (1978) and viewed for part of a day in Los Angeles in Hud.son (1982) identify the Santa Clarita 1912 (Kroeber 1912, 1915). Harrington fh-st Basin area (the upper Santa Clara River met Fustero in 1913 at his home near Piru in drainage) as the core territory of this group. Ventura County and subsequently visited him Their analysis is based on Kroeber's and on several occasions accompanied by his Harrington's interviews with Fustero and Tejon consultants during placename trips other Kitanemuk consultants. For reference (Bright 1975; Harrington 1986:RI. 98, Fr. 536, on current maps of the area, the core territory 615, Rl. 181, Fr. 10-14; MUls and Brickfield is north of the Los Angeles metropolitan area. 1986). Harrington also coUected some It partially overlaps the western part of the Tataviam lexical items and ethnogeographic Angeles National Forest and includes the information from several of his Kitanemuk northwest portion of Los Angeles County as consultants at Tejon Ranch. Only eleven weU as part of Ventura County. 192 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNLA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY The Santa Clarita Basin was first identi­ Tochonanga, documented in an 1843 land- fied as the home of a distinct linguistic and grant diseho (map), appears to have been lo­ ethnic community in an important early cated to the southeast of NewhaU (Fig. 2). Spanish account. This was the expedition We have identified other viUages and camp­ diary of the Spanish missionary explorer. sites named by Harrington's informants (see Father Francisco Garces, who passed through Fig. 1). They include the foUowmg:c2fa^re'eng, the region in early 1776. He visited the located at the original NewhaU townsite Cienaga de Santa Clara before heading spring; apatsitsing, situated on upper Castaic northeast across the Liebre-SawmUl mountain Creek near tikatsing and north of Redrock range in the northern reaches of Tataviam Mountain; and naqava'atang, farther down­ territory and into the Antelope VaUey (Coues stream and east of Townsend Peak.'^ Several 1900:268; Earle 1990:89-92). rancherias also were located on Piru Creek. In traveUing northeast from the upper The Piru viUages and several other rancherias Santa Clara region, Garces was guided by located on the northern edge of Tataviam Indians from the Antelope Valley who territory are discussed in the next section. "promised to conduct me to their land." The TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES vUlage in the Antelope VaUey to which these Indians took him (in the Lake Hughes- A delineation of the territorial extent of Ehzabeth Lake area) was later identified by Tataviam speech mvolves the problematic him as being Beheme (the Mojave Desert issue of boundaries. Two difficulties have branch of the Serrano), and its inhabitants presented themselves in analyzingterritoriahty were clearly distinguished from the Indians of among Takic groups. First, the disruptions Santa Clara. In discussing boundaries of and population decline that occurred in indigenous hnguistic territories in Southern Mission times often made later recoUection California, Garces elsewhere stated that the difficult regarding what may have been former Beheme were bounded by the Indians of San physicaUy marked boundaries. Later consul­ Gabriel and Santa Clara (Coues 1900:444). tants were much clearer about core territories Garces thus identified an Indian territorial than about the locations of peripheral borders. and linguistic unit, "Santa Clara," which was, Second, in discussing the "real world" he indicated, distinct from that of San Gabriel significance of territoriahty, one must distin­ (Gabriehno) and that of the Beiieme (Mojave guish between the formal and substantive Desert Serrano). manifestations of territorial occupation and use. The boundaries of linguistic/ethnic units TATAVLAM SETTLEMENTS reflected the organization of society into a King and Blackburn (1978:536) have hsted series of multi-lineage territorial pohtical units several major Tataviam rancheria sites on the ("localized clans"). These clan units claimed basis of information from the Harrington certain territories as their own, but were not notes and other sources. These include the the only groups to gather resources in them major viUage of tsawayung at the site of or estabhsh temporary camps therein. The Rancho San Francisquito (NewhaU Ranch), granting of permission by one group to anoth­ near Castaic Junction, tikatsing on upper er to gather and estabhsh seasonal camps in Castaic Creek, andpi'ing, located at the inter­ its erstwhUe territory was very common. section of Castaic Creek and Elizabeth Lake Harrington's consultants at the Tejon Ranch Canyon (Fig. 1). The important rancheria of noted this phenomenon in discussing areas TATAVIAM GEOGRAPHY AND ETHNOHISTORY 193 194 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNLA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY h C/l fr r ca JD > HJ v.. C <U o > Kn Oi .•n ca c ca 3 U K a Sant O fe­ a. ci) Q. 3 ^-5 O Si C o c <U o U a 4= loc ca •n a 0) > 3 c o •o r; c o ca •^ JO o 3 .3 u j; 'U •? o P cj nc ca a i< UH n fS«; Sa o x; o u ca o a; s o ) ap id s_ E 0 ir f^i ^j •o .^ C •x^ '^" n CIO -gra •a r 1^ c r^ ^ ca -s^ ro o e^ K, 0^0 o e Th (N an IJL, TATAVIAM GEOGRAPHY AND ETHNOHISTORY 195 shared between the Kitanemuk and the Kitanemuk consultants, Eugenia M6ndez, to Kawausu, and many other examples could be have spoken a dialect of Serrano/Kitanemuk^ cited (Earle 1990:94-95, 98). Thus, whUe (Harrmgton 1986: Rl. 98, Fr. 675-676; Earle formal territorial frontiers appear to have 1990:92-93). existed in at least some areas of southern Three of these four communities are Cahfornia, their expression "on the ground" mentioned in Mission-era documents (Cook is complicated by this permission-granting and 1960:256-257; Temple MS:49-53). The vUlage seasonal movement of visiting groups. in the Antelope VaUey visited by Garces and The trans-boundary occupation of camp­ identified as Beneme(Serrano/Kitanemuk) in sites, as weU as historical changes in the hnguistic affiliation was most probably location of ethnic frontiers, have made it kwarung, located near Lake Hughes. Garces difficult to use the linguistic affihations of clearly indicated that the vihage was not local placenames to reconstruct hnguistic or Tataviam.