The Desert Serrano of the Mojave River Mark Q. Sutton and David D. Earle Abstract century, although he noted the possible survival of The Desert Serrano of the Mojave River, little documented by “perhaps a few individuals merged among other twentieth century ethnographers, are investigated here to help un- groups” (Kroeber 1925:614). In fact, while occupation derstand their relationship with the larger and better known Moun- tain Serrano sociopolitical entity and to illuminate their unique of the Mojave River region by territorially based clan adaptation to the Mojave River and surrounding areas. In this effort communities of the Desert Serrano had ceased before new interpretations of recent and older data sets are employed. 1850, there were survivors of this group who had Kroeber proposed linguistic and cultural relationships between the been born in the desert still living at the close of the inhabitants of the Mojave River, whom he called the Vanyumé, and the Mountain Serrano living along the southern edge of the Mojave nineteenth century, as was later reported by Kroeber Desert, but the nature of those relationships was unclear. New (1959:299; also see Earle 2005:24–26). evidence on the political geography and social organization of this riverine group clarifies that they and the Mountain Serrano belonged to the same ethnic group, although the adaptation of the Desert For these reasons we attempt an “ethnography” of the Serrano was focused on riverine and desert resources. Unlike the Desert Serrano living along the Mojave River so that Mountain Serrano, the Desert Serrano participated in the exchange their place in the cultural milieu of southern Califor- system between California and the Southwest that passed through the territory of the Mojave on the Colorado River and cooperated nia can be better understood and appreciated. We will with the Mojave in this exchange. also refer to other Desert Serrano populations living to the west of the Mojave River, but our focus is on Introduction the Serrano of the Mojave River region. We combine existing data and recent research (Earle 1990, 2004a, A desert division of the Serrano occupied portions 2004b, 2005, 2009, 2010a, 2015) bearing on culture of the central and western Mojave Desert, including and political geography. The recent research explored the length of the Mojave River, a travel corridor and particularly Franciscan mission register data (Hun- intermittent linear oasis extending approximately tington Library 2006), the field notes of ethnographer 190 km (120 mi) into the central Mojave Desert. J. P. Harrington (1986),1 unpublished colonial era Kroeber (1925:615) described this group as a lin- documents (Palomares 1808), and the once lost diary guistically differentiated division or branch of the of trapper and explorer Jedediah Smith (Brooks 1977). Serrano and called them the “Serrano of the Mojave This paper presents our current interpretations of these River,” or Vanyumé. He also stated that the people sources and reinterpretations of other published ethno- comprising this group had a small population and historical accounts of the Native people of the Mojave were “poor” and that their territory was only “vaguely River region (Coues 1900; Cook 1960; Galvin 1965; known,” although a territory was assigned by Kro- Earle 2005, 2010a). This work has involved a recon- eber (1925:Plate 1). Kroeber (1925:614) considered struction of salient features of political geography this Desert Serrano population to be virtually extinct of the Desert Serrano, including various interactions as a cultural group by the time formal ethnographic among villages in the area, as well as identification inquiries were undertaken at the end of the nineteenth of their distinctive cultural, political, and economic Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, Volume 53, Numbers 2 and 3 2 Sutton and Earle characteristics. Their role in long-distance exchange elders and others, including people from the Yuhaavi- and the support of their desert villages through the atam (Yohaviatam/Johaviatam) and Mareŋajam clans. transport of foodstuffs down the Mojave River are The ethnographic research of Kroeber (n.d., 1907, especially significant elements of Desert Serrano eco- 1925, 1959), Gifford (1918), Benedict (1924), Strong nomic and political life. Because direct ethnographic (1929), and Harrington (1986) involved interaction research with survivors of this group was limited to a with these and other Native people who provided Kroeber interview with one very elderly person, sig- information on the Mountain Serrano. Harrington also nificant gaps remain in our ethnographic knowledge of collected some ethnographic information about the the Desert Serrano. Mojave River region. The Serrano and Their Divisions This work with Mountain Serrano consultants did leave unresolved some questions about the original The Serrano were initially defined as a three or four boundaries of this group, especially to the west and member linguistic grouping living in the moun- south, and its original clan composition at Spanish tains and deserts of interior southern California and contact. This was on account of the degree of impact speaking one of several closely related languages of of Franciscan missionization on some clan groups. a “Shoshonean” (Northern Uto-Aztecan) language In addition, the important field research of John sub-family (Kroeber 1925:611). Kroeber surmised that Harrington with Santos Manuel2 and other Serrano like most California Native groups the Serrano were consultants was never published. However, in 1986 a cultural-linguistic entity, but they were not a tribe the corpus of published ethnographic information was or nation in the sense of possessing a central political supplemented by the microfilm availability of Har- authority at a level above the local clan or village rington’s unpublished field notes. Franciscan mission (Kroeber 1925:617–618). William Duncan Strong sacramental register data and other ethnohistorical (1929), a Kroeber student, confirmed this view. Kroe- sources had also become accessible to provide a more ber (1925) included the Kitanemuk, the Serrano, and complete picture of Mountain Serrano political geog- what he called the Vanyumé as linguistic divisions of raphy and their relation to the Desert Serrano. “Serrano” and suggested that the Tataviam (Alliklik) might also be of Serrano linguistic affiliation. How- The Mountain Serrano and the Desert Serrano have ever, the Tataviam and Serrano were later recognized typically been considered to be closely related, and as linguistically distinct, and ethnographic research on it has been assumed that various features of Serrano the Kitanemuk by J. P. Harrington indicated that they culture were shared by local groups within the two were a separate cultural entity (Harrington 1986:III:Rl. divisions. However, the Mojave River communi- 98). Thus, it was generally proposed (e.g., Bean and ties were poorly documented ethnographically, and Smith 1978:570; also see Johnston 1980) that the Ser- data collected by Strong, Harrington, and others on rano, as a cultural-linguistic entity, consisted of two villages and clan territories in the Mojave River area divisions, a mountain division (henceforth called the did not agree completely with Spanish-era informa- Mountain Serrano) and a desert division, that included tion. The villages along the Mojave River mentioned the population that Kroeber had called the Vanyumé. in Spanish-era sources had apparently been aban- We will refer to this division as the Desert Serrano. doned by the 1830s, long before the development of systematic ethnographic fieldwork at the begin- The early twentieth century brought an era of collab- ning of the twentieth century. The information on oration between ethnographers and Mountain Serrano Desert Serrano socio-political geography and culture PCAS Quarterly 53(2&3) The Desert Serrano of the Mojave River 3 derived from Mountain Serrano ethnographic sources desert adaptation that involved the exploitation of was limited and sometimes contradictory, and the mesquite and other riparian resources, downriver food possible distinctive features of the culture and their importation, and hosting others conducting long-dis- local environmental adaptation had thus been diffi- tance trade, clearly distinguished the Desert Serrano cult to reconstruct. from the Mountain Serrano. Recent research (Earle 2004a and 2004b) has revealed The Desert Serrano and Mountain Serrano had strik- that a careful reading of ethnographic testimony ingly different positions in the network of military, collected by Kelly (1934, 1953), Harrington (1986), political, ritual, and long-distance exchange alli- Kroeber (n.d.), and Van Valkenburgh (1986) on ances that linked Native peoples of Arizona and the other desert groups also provides limited clues about Colorado River with those of the southern California the Desert Serrano, including the fate of surviving interior and coast. For example, the Desert Serrano members of this group after the 1830s. Research (along with the Chemehuevi) were reported by the and publications from recent decades relating to the Mojave of the Colorado River as allies in this net- Mountain Serrano and Desert Serrano include Bright work, while at least some Mountain Serrano commu- (1975), King and Casebier (1976), Bean and Smith nities were reportedly allies and trade partners with (1978), Knack (1980), Bean et al. (1981), Earle (1990, the Halchidhoma, who were enemies of the Mojave