Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology VoL 4, No. 2, pp. 222-232 (1982). The AUiklik-Tataviam Problem TRAVIS HUDSON There is nothing that will stimulate the flow Never have so few written so much about so of vital body juices, energize the enervator, httle to confuse so many. activate the sale of obsolete topographical Not wishing to see such confusion con­ maps, or drive the town librarian balmy, quite tinue, it is my purpose here to attempt to so quickly as a lost mine. clarify what is known from what is assumed, -Charles Outland (1969:41) what is explicit from what is implicit, and what the limited data at hand currently O begins Outland's description of "The support in the way of hypotheses on who SLost Padres' Mine," a story mixed with these people were and what language they fact and fable of gold and silver deposits spoke. Since the nature of the problem scattered about the rugged country from the focuses upon hnguistic identities and ethnic junction of Piru and Lockwood creeks in boundaries, the organization of this paper wih Ventura County to weh down San Emigdio fohow accordingly. Creek in Kern County. But this is not the only mystery to shroud this region, nor to LINGUISTIC IDENTITIES "stimulate the flow of vital body juices," and Ataplili'ish "drive the town librarian balmy." One need only to ask: Who were the people that There was a time when ignorance was occupied the upper valley of the Santa Clara bliss, and in the case of the AUiklik-Tataviam River and the rough country extending north­ problem, that period was between 1912 and ward into the vicinity of Tejon Pass and to 1925. Collecting spotty data in 1912 and what language group or groups did they publishing it three years later, Kroeber (1915) belong? came to the conclusion that an Uto-Aztecan In recent years, three Journal articles have language, which he called Ataplili'ish, was focused upon these very complex and frus­ spoken from Piru to Soledad Canyon (Los trating questions of ethnic boundaries and Angeles County) and over much of the upper hnguistic identities (Bright 1975; Beeler and Santa Clara Valley. His information was based Klar 1977; Johnson 1978) that were, as one upon attributing two utterances to this lan­ anonymous reviewer commented to an eariier guage, given to him by his Kitanemuk- draft of this paper, "canonized" in a Hand­ speaking consultant Juan Jose' Fustero, and book article (King and Blackburn 1978). upon the statement made by his consultant After reading these papers and hstening to that some of his grandparents had spoken this discussions in crowded hotel rooms during now-extinct language (Bright 1975:228). anthropological meetings, my conclusion is to The term, however, was found by Kroeber simply paraphrase the late Winston Churchill: to be too general, since Ataplili'ish was not only the Ventureno Chumash name for the Travis Hudson, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 2559 Puesta del Sol Rd., Santa Barbara, CA 93105. Gabrielino, but also for other Shoshoneans as [222] THE ALLIKLIK-TATAVIAM PROBLEM 223 weh (Kroeber 1925:621; Bright 1975:228). It Thus, with limited data, Kroeber, Harring­ is perhaps possible that Kroeber learned of ton, and Van Valkenburgh had come to the the generalness of his term from Harrington conclusion that the eastern neighbors of the sometime between 1915 and 1925, for the Ventureno Chumash were Uto-Aztecan in latter's early field notes refer to it. From speech, though it remained impossible to Ventureno consultant Fernando Librado, Har­ determine much more than that. rington recorded 'At'aplili'ish as meaning But then came the discovery of an unpub­ "easterner" and referring to the Fernandeno, hshed vocabulary collected by C. Hart Mer­ Gabriehno, and Kitanemuk, whhe from Chu­ riam with the heading "Santa Inez Chumash mash consultant Jose' Juan Olivas, the name is and Alliklik Chumash"; regretably, however, said to refer only to the Fernandeno and this critical document lacked information as Gabriehno. A Barbareno consultant, Luisa to source, date, or place. Working with the Ygnacio, used the term 'Aluplishlish to de­ vocabulary presented, and under the assump­ note Shoshoneans living to the east (Harring­ tion that the tribal identification as "Alhklik" ton n.d.). Regardless of how Kroeber came was correct, Beeler and Klar (1977:296) about the information, he elected to rename concluded that "it was closely related to, if his Uto-Aztecans as Alliklik. not identical with, the Ventureno [Chumash] branch of that family." Two other assump­ Alliklik tions were made: (1) based upon loan words The new name was by far more specific from other tribes, the language had to be and just what Kroeber wanted. Alliklik, he spoken in the upper vahey of the Santa Clara noted (1925:614), was the Ventureno name River as far north as Castac Lake, the valley for a Shoshonean group occupying the upper of Pastoria Creek, and into the southern San Santa Clara River. Harrington may have been Joaquin—a distance of nearly 100 miles (Beel­ behind Kroeber's selection of this term, for er and Klar 1977:296, 299); and (2) that we again find it in his early notes, the verification of the Alhklik as Chumashan meaning given as "gmnters," and in typical speakers can be based upon the use of the Harrington style, the request of his various term Cuabajai by Franciscan explorer- consultants to translate "Pujadores" or missionary Francisco Garces for residents of "Gmnters" into their own languages. Ineseno the Tejon area which were similar in "dress," Chumash consultant Mari'a Solares came up "cleanhness of the women," and were traders with 'alliklikini, while a Ventureno consultant with those of the Santa Barbara Channel (whose name was abbreviated Sil.) provided Chumash (Beeler and Klar 1977:300). 'alakiwon. Another consultant, perhaps Fer­ It is well at this point to look at the nando Librado, said he had heard of a tribe at assumptions made behind this mysterious Newhah cahed Ararara; "they talked with 'r' word list. Fhst, one may ask who this but are now dead" (Harrington n.d.). consultant of Alliklik may have been, especi­ Van Valkenburgh (1935:3-4) had his own ally since their extremely important informa­ consultants and sthl another opinion. The tion was apparently missed by two careful inhabitants of Saugus, Newhah, and the Little scholars searching the same area, Kroeber and Santa Clara River region were not, according Harrington. Obviously, if the consultant's to him, a distinctive Shoshonean group, but identity were known, it would help to resolve Fernandehos. "Although known to the Ven­ another question: Is the "Ahiklik" vocabulary tureno as I'at'apalliklik, or 'gmnters,' Juan actually representative of speakers who once Jose Fustero alias Lugo had mislead Kroeber." resided east of the Ventureno Chumash, or is 224 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY it a mislabeled Ventureno word list? But, it was not in use at the time Merriam was Perhaps some insight into answering this collecting data in the field from Tejon and question can be gained by examining other Chumash consultants. This would suggest that Merriam materials which pertain to his re­ Merriam picked up the term AUikhk some search among the Chumash and their neigh­ time after his fieldwork and perhaps as late as bors. For example, he does hint that he 1925, although it may have been as early as collected Chumash language and placename 1915 due to the possibility that he exchanged data from two different consultants while he data with J. P. Harrington, with whom Mer­ was at Tejon in November of 1905. One riam had a close relationship (Heizer 1966:4). consultant was named Nancy, and she pro­ Thus, it was probably added later. If the term vided data on San Emigdio, which Merriam was added before 1939, then one cannot help noted was hke that of Santa Barbara. The but wonder why Merriam did not include it in other language mentioned is that of Ventura, his map of Cahfornia Indians. Although much and in a discussion on the Kas-tak (Castac) in agreement with Kroeber's 1925 map, Mer­ Chumash, Merriam also recorded that they riam lists six Chumash groups, none of which were nearly the same as at Ventura (Heizer is named Allikhk. In what would be Alhklik 1966: 429-438). Since one of the two vocabu­ territory according to Kroeber, Merriam laries pubhshed by Beeler and Klar (1977: shows Shoshoneans, the westernmost being 287-296) does correspond with Merriam's Ketahn '-hah '-mwits (Kitanemuk) (Heizer published reference to San Emigdio consult­ 1966:17, 21). Either Merriam had a rare and ant "Nancy," it may very well be that the important Alliklik vocabulary which he had second vocabulary came from his Ventureno either forgotten or misplaced, or he had a speaker, and specificahy that of Castac Chu­ vocabulary which he considered to be unre­ mash. If this is the case, then it would be lated to the Alliklik problem at ah. expected that the mysterious second vocabu­ 1 suspect the latter to have been the case, lary has a number of Ventureno Chumash and speculate it would seem that around 1905 words! Moreover, since the consultant was Merriam located two consultants in the Tejon perhaps residing in the Tejon area, it would who knew Chumashan languages. One of help to explain the loan words from other these was Nancy, who provided San Emigdio tribes in the region, a point which Beeler and data, whhe the other was someone who knew Klar (1977:296, 299) assumed as being a vahd Ventureno or Castac Chumash and provided means to determine the territory over which the Ahiklik portion of the second vocabulary.