FINAL REPORT Descendants of Native Communities ...

FINAL REPORT

Descendants of Native Communities in the Vicinity of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton An Ethnohistoric Study of Luiseño and Juaneño Cultural Affiliation December 2001 Prepared for Assistant Chief of Staff Environmental Security Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton United States Marine Corps in fulfillment of Purchase Request N68711-98-Q-5759 Ethnohistoric Studies and Research Services Prepared by John R. Johnson, Ph.D. Stephen O’Neil Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History Submitted by Craig Woodman Science Applications International Corporation 816 State Street, Suite 500 Santa Barbara, California 93101

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was funded by the Assistant Chief of Staff, Environmental Security, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, United States Marine Corps. Invaluable assistance was provided by a number of individuals and groups, including Leland Bibb, Phil Brigandi, Diania Caudell, Marie Duggan, Patty Duro, David Earle, Lorraine Escobar, Glenn Farris, Dennis Gallegos, Mary Haggland, Bruce Love, Mary Magee, William Mason, Randy Milliken, Joyce Perry, Charlene Ryan, Jerry Schaeffer, Robert Schafer, Florence Shipek, Tanis Thorne, Georgie Waugh, Sister Barbara Jackson, Cindy Ehlers, Marie Holmes, Linda Agren, the Rincon Culture Preservation Committee, the Pechanga Cultural Committee, the San Luis Rey Band, and our computer database consultant Scott Edmondson. We especially thank the members of the La Jolla, Rincon, Pechanga, Pala, and Pauma Reservations, the San Luis Rey Band, and the three Juaneño/Ajachemem Bands who were willing to meet with us and share information regarding Luiseño and Juaneño communities and family histories (Appendix II). Linguistics expertise was supplied by the following people: Eric Elliott, Margaret Langdon, and Amy Miller provided information regarding Luiseño and Diegueño placenames; Luiseño speakers Raymond Basquez, Josephine Burton, Henry Rodriguez, and Sam Reed imparted their knowledge of Luiseño clan names and placenames; and Katherine Siva Saubel answered questions regarding Cahuilla placenames. Craig Woodman of SAIC administered the contract for this study and assisted in many ways. Cay FitzGerald drafted the figures included in this study in their final format.

Camp Pendleton Ethnohistoric Study

i

ii


TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................... i Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 1 1

Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 2

2

Archival Sources for Reconstructing Luiseño and Juaneño Settlement Locations ................ 6

3

Village Names and Locations in the Region Surrounding Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton ..................................................................................................................................... 17

4

Sources for the Study of Luiseño and Juaneño Lineal Descent and Cultural Affiliation ..................................................................................................................................... 50

5

Lineal Descendants from the Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton Area............................. 60

6

Conclusions and Recommendations......................................................................................... 100

References Cited..................................................................................................................................... 105

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix I: Manuscript Collections Consulted at Archives and Libraries Appendix II: List of People Interviewed for Oral Histories [Confidential—not for public distribution] Appendix III: Mission San Juan Capistrano Database [under separate cover] Appendix IV: Addresses for Lineal Descendants from Luiseño and Juaneño Towns in Marines Corps Base Camp Pendleton Area [Confidential—not for public distribution]

LIST OF FIGURES 1

Descendants of Leocadio Chevis of Topome............................................................................. 65

2

Descendants of José Antonio Tobac of Topome........................................................................ 69

3

Relationships Documented between José Manuel Subish and his Siblings, Nieces and Nephews at Yapicha .............................................................................................. 72

4

Descendants of Saturnino Subish of Topome............................................................................ 74

5

Descendants of Tomasa Subish and the Individuals Tentatively Identified as her Parents and Siblings ........................................................................................................ 77

6

Descendants of Casilda Anó of Topome .................................................................................... 79

7

Descendants of Saturnina Anó of Pomameye ........................................................................... 83


iii

8

Descendants of Sotero Thaminara Ganonis of Chacape .......................................................... 85

9

Desendants of Eulalia Coroni of Pange ...................................................................................... 87

10

Descendants of Alberto Panaula of Pange ................................................................................. 89

11

Descendants of María Fulgencia Zodut...................................................................................... 90

12

Descendants of Tecla María Huenauhuegen of Zoucche ........................................................ 92

13

Descendants of Sergia Xiquiguividam of Tobe ......................................................................... 95

LIST OF TABLES 1

Baptisms Recorded from Villages in the Luiseño and Juaneño Region ................................... 7

2

Luiseño Villages Reported during the Mariner-Grijalva Expedition, 1795 ........................... 14

3

Neophytes Affiliated with Las Flores and Las Pulgas at San Luis Rey Who Originally were Baptized at San Juan Capistrano. ......................................................... 20

4

Identifications of San Luis Rey Indian Leaders Listed in the 1852 Treaty ............................. 54

5

Descendants from Camp Pendleton Villages Baptized at San Luis Rey ................................ 61

6

Age and Sex Distribution of Surviving Descendants of Camp Pendleton Villages at Mission San Luis Rey in 1835 ............................................................................................ 61

7

Identifications of Men from Topome Who were Listed at “Cucam” in 1843 ........................ 64

LIST OF MAPS 1

Native Towns and Villages on Camp Pendleton and in the Surrounding Region .............. 11

2

Native Marriages between Uchme and Other Luiseño Communities from Mission San Luis Rey Registers ............................................................................................................... 21

3

Native Marriages between Topome and Other Luiseño Communities from Mission San Luis Rey Registers ............................................................................................................... 25

4

Post-Secularization Luiseño Communities and Reservations................................................. 63

iv


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Certain federal laws, such as the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, mandate consultation with designated representatives of culturally affiliated tribes when certain kinds of cultural resources are affected or have the potential to be affected by undertakings on federal lands. The discipline of ethnohistory can be applied systematically to determine the descendant tribal groups of today that have the greatest degree of cultural affiliation with identifiable earlier groups that inhabited federal lands. To achieve the goal of determining those tribes and bands that can trace a shared group identity from the native settlements that originally existed in the vicinity of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, two objectives were set forth: (1) compilation of all information pertinent to the location of rancherías (villages) that were occupied at the time of the establishment of the two missions in the area, San Juan Capistrano and San Luis Rey, and (2) identification of particular lineages of descendants whose ancestors once were members of the rancherías on or in the immediate vicinity of the area now under Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton stewardship. Sources of information included the surviving mission registers of San Juan Capistrano and San Luis Rey, early expedition diaries, land grant records, ethnographic papers, church and parish records, census records, the 1852 Treaty of Temecula, the 1933 California Indian Roll, and fifteen oral history interviews with tribal elders. Principal accomplishments of the study included the first comprehensive map of settlements that existed in the region that surrounded Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, the creation of a database of information from the San Juan Capistrano mission registers for 1776-1847, a demographic analysis of the San Luis Rey descendants from Topome and other rancherías that once existed in the vicinity of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, the identification of a colony of families from Topome that relocated to Yapicha on what became La Jolla Indian Reservation, and detailed information pertaining to thirteen surviving lineages that descend from the original inhabitants of Topome and other rancherías that once existed on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. Four federally recognized Luiseño tribes possess families who are descendants of people who lived at Topome: La Jolla, Pauma, Pechanga, and Rincon. Based on this information, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton has justification to sign a memorandum of agreement with the governing bodies of these four reservations to arrange for consultation mandated by NAGPRA and other federal laws. The base can enter into agreements with all recognized tribal governments through its obligation for government-to-government consultation. Not enough information has been accumulated to determine with certainty whether Pala and Soboba may also possess shared group identity with Topome or other identified rancherías that once existed on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. In addition to the federally recognized Luiseño tribes, several groups exist that have filed their notice of intent to petition for federal recognition. The San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians and all three Juaneño groups include members who have ancestry from rancherías that once existed on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, and this finding supports the policy of the base’s cultural resource staff to include these groups in consultations pertaining to sites of importance to Native Americans. Further research will be necessary to elucidate certain aspects of Luiseño and Juaneño ethnohistory that are not yet well understood and to identify other lineages of descendants in addition to those included in the current study.


1

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The discipline of ethnohistory has much to contribute to understanding California Indian culture and social change. A rich documentary record has been preserved in much of the region that came under the influence of the Franciscan missions during the Spanish/Mexican period. Mission registers preserve the names of native towns and villages and of California Indians themselves. After the secularization of the missions, land grant applications, census records, Bureau of Indian Affairs files, court cases, maps, and other archival documents allow the history of native peoples to be reconstructed during the remainder of the nineteenth century. Ethnographic records and oral interviews have preserved the history of California Indians in their own words during the latter part of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth century. All of these sources of information may be applied to the problem of determining the descendant groups of today that have greatest degree of affiliation with Native American cultural resources found on federal lands. The cultural resources staff of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton currently consults Luiseño and Juaneño representatives when undertakings are planned that pertain to Native American cultural resources. One law that specifically mandates such consultation is the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA). When Native American burials and associated funerary objects are intentionally excavated or inadvertently discovered during the course of federal undertakings, NAGPRA sets forth a procedure for consultation with descendants of “the Indian tribe … which has the closest cultural affiliation with such remains or objects…” (U.S. Code 1990:3050). A key concept in NAGPRA, therefore, is the definition of what constitutes cultural affiliation, which is defined in the implementing regulations as “a relationship of shared group identity which can be reasonably traced between members of a present day Indian tribe … and an identifiable earlier group” [U.S. Department of Interior 1995:62160 (emphasis added)]. In order to establish the shared group identity of contemporary tribes with the identifiable earlier groups specified by NAGPRA, studies must be undertaken by federal agencies with NAGPRA responsibilities (Johnson et al. 1998; McLendon and Johnson 1999). In a previous study conducted for Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton by the authors, the information contained in the San Luis Rey padrones (census records) and a portion of San Juan Capistrano’s sacramental registers were placed in databases so that information regarding the population and descendants from Luiseño and Juaneño villages could be analyzed and used to study cultural affiliation (Johnson et al. 1998). The practice of using clan names as Luiseño family surnames (initiated in mission times) suggested a means of tracing descendants of people who once lived in villages once located in the territory now under Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton stewardship. Indeed, twentieth century ethnographic records collected by Edward W. Gifford (1918) and William Duncan Strong (1972) pointed to a number of clans from Camp Pendleton villages that were later incorporated into certain Luiseño reservations and communities (Johnson et al. 1998; Johnson and Crawford 1999). Further study was necessary to verify this observation, which in part led to the proposal for the current research effort.

2


TRIBAL DESIGNATIONS AND LINGUISTIC GROUPS Traditional Native American social groups along the California Coast have been given tribal names based upon the Franciscan mission establishments with which they became associated. Designations such as “Luiseño” or “Juaneño” arose through a historical process acting on the population arbitrarily gathered into a particular mission. In time, these mission-based appellations for California Indian populations were borrowed by various specialists beginning in the 1840s – linguists, ethnographers, and government officials – each using these terms for their own separate and specific purposes (O’Neil 1999). One of the earliest descriptions of linguistic groups in southern California is appended to the annual report of 1790 for Mission San Juan Capistrano, signed by the two missionaries assigned to that mission, Fr. Vicente Fuster and Fr. Juan Norberto de Santiago: This Mission [San Juan Capistrano] is founded on the coast of the South Sea. It is surrounded in all directions by a multitude of gentiles… These gentiles do not distinguish one another by nationality, but rather by language. Toward the North there are some Christianized people, whom those of this language call Chiluiche, and those people call the ones of this language Chiroreche, and the one and the other both call the people of the coast on down Chichamquechem, and the mountain people Cuimquichim. The missions contiguous to this one are that of San Diego to the south and that of San Gabriel on the north. Each of the two possesses a distinct language without either having a connection with this one [Mission San Juan Capistrano 1790]. The people called “Chiluiche” by the Juaneño are those later known as Gabrielino or Tongva, the coastal people called “Chichamquechem” are those who spoke the language called Diegueño,1 and the “mountain people” or “Cuimquichim” refers to the Cahuilla and/or Cupeño. “Cuimquichim” is the Spanish spelling for the Luiseño/Juaneño name Kwímkachum, meaning “easterners” (Bean 1978:586). The Juaneño and Luiseño came to refer to their own language as Payómkawchum, meaning “westerners” (Bean and Shipek 1978:550; Kroeber 1953:648). The group names Juaneño and Luiseño originally were applied to native peoples affiliated with Missions San Juan Capistrano and San Luis Rey respectively. Each of these two missions came to include speakers of other languages. Some of the peoples who eventually became associated with Mission San Juan Capistrano came from rancherías (villages) where Gabrielino, Serrano, and Cahuilla were spoken, while Mission San Luis Rey included native speakers of Ipai (Northern Diegueño), Cupeño, and Cahuilla among its neophyte congregation. Alfred Kroeber’s Handbook of California Indians, first published in 1925, standardized the use of Juaneño and Luiseño as names for dialectal variants of the same Cupan language2 (Kroeber 1953). These same names, however, have also come to designate the descendant communities respectively of Missions San Juan Capistrano and San Luis Rey. Today there are three separate Juaneño tribal groups, all attempting to gain federal recognition; six federally recognized reservations that are

1 2

Kroeber reported that the Cupeño called the Diegueño by a similar term – Kichamcochem (Kroeber 1953:689). Harrington recorded the name as kichámkucham ‘sourtherners’ (Harrington n.d.:150). Cupan is the name of a subgroup of the Takic branch of the Uto-Aztecan Language Family. The Cupan subgroup consists of Cahuilla, Cupeño, and Luiseño/Juaneño (Bright and Hill 1967; Goddard 1996: 322; Miller 1983; Mithun 1999:539-545).


3

all or in part Luiseño; and one Luiseño band with an application pending for federal recognition.

RESEARCH DESIGN The present study was designed to make use of the information already compiled from the San Luis Rey mission registers and continue to build a comparable database for Mission San Juan Capistrano in order to determine the names of the people who were living at the end of the Mission Period who were from villages located in the Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton area. These people and their descendants can then be traced through the remainder of the nineteenth century and into the early twentieth century by identifying them in various census records and other historical documents that mention specific individuals and where they were living. Before undertaking this social historical and genealogical study, it was necessary to determine whether all native settlements once located on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton had been correctly identified. In order to test the preliminary observations presented in our previous report, we conducted further ethnohistoric research to locate additional information about village locations. We endeavored to determine the locations of all principle rancherías named in the San Luis Rey registers in order to narrow the possibilities regarding whether other villages existed on Camp Pendleton that had not previously been recognized. This effort has produced the most accurate map to date about settlement patterns in the region and has provided insights regarding the size of the territory from which Mission San Luis Rey drew its converts. Besides mission register data analysis, our study was designed to gather information from other types of archival documents and to interview Luiseño and Juaneño people today about their family and community histories. The authors conducted research at libraries and archives in these institutions: •

Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley

•

Family History Centers, Los Angeles and Santa Barbara

•

National Archives, Pacific Region, Laguna Niguel

•

Santa Barbara Mission Archive-Library

•

Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History

A list of those document collections examined at each library and archive may be found in Appendix I. In addition to research conducted at the institutions listed above, copies of archival documents were provided by a number of individuals listed at the beginning of this report under the Acknowledgements section. In particular, Lorraine Escobar, a Native American genealogist, greatly assisted our study by sending two databases that she had prepared: (1) a partial list of the 1844 padrón of the Pueblo of Los Angeles and its jurisdiction and (2) the 1852 California State Census for San Diego County. Several Luiseño and Juaneño descendants provided copies of records they had gathered during their own research efforts. An initial list of Luiseño and Juaneño elders to be contacted for interviews was developed based upon recommendations by several individuals acquainted with contemporary reservations and communities. Before any interviews took place, meetings were held with representatives of the 4


Rincon and Pechanga culture preservation committees. Several interviews were then conducted with elders recommended by these committees, who in turn recommended others who might be contacted. Eventually the oral history sessions included individuals affiliated with those Luiseño reservations in the vicinity of Palomar Mountain: Pechanga, La Jolla, Rincon, Pauma, and Pala. In addition to elders from federally recognized tribes, an effort was made to identify representatives of groups seeking federal recognition. The tribal council of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, a state-recognized group, arranged a meeting of band members for a joint interview. Two Juaneño elders, each affiliated with a separate Juaneño organization, met with Johnson, and O’Neil visited other Juaneño descendants who provided additional genealogical data. Both O’Neil and Johnson had undertaken prior research with individuals of Juaneño and Luiseño ancestry and made use of their files in the course of the current study. All of those who were interviewed were most cooperative and helpful and often provided copies of records from their own research efforts that would not otherwise have come to light. A complete list of those who provided family and community historical information is contained in a confidential appendix to this report (Appendix II).

ACCOMPLISHMENTS The sheer volume of material collected from oral history interviews and archival research has proved daunting to assemble, assimilate, analyze, and summarize for this study. Unanticipated sources of information turned up during the course of the project, some of which came to our attention too late to be used fully for the current effort. The process of identifying individuals and families in census records has proven more difficult than expected, and reliance on transcripts, rather than original census records, has proven less than satisfactory because of obvious mistakes in reading the original handwriting. Information from the San Juan Capistrano baptism, marriage, and burial registers was incorporated into the database begun in the last project (completed through 1801) to bring it forward to 1847, but many identifications proved illusive for parents of children born at the missions, for certain people who were married, and for a number of those who died. More work is needed with the San Juan registers to resolve these problematic cases. Despite such difficulties encountered during the course of our study, considerable progress has been made in meeting our research goals. The good news is that our research has turned up a wealth of material relevant to the reconstruction of native lifeways within the territory now encompassed by Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton and the history of native communities that descend from the original groups that lived on the base. A number of new discoveries about the histories of Luiseño and Juaneño social groups and the first comprehensive map of Luiseño settlements has resulted from our ethnohistoric analysis. Chapters 2 and 3 synthesize information regarding Luiseño and Juaneño settlement locations. Chapter 4 contains a description of the ethnohistoric sources used for the study of lineal descent and cultural affiliation. Chapter 5 summarizes information regarding the descendent communities and populations of villages once located on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton and presents discoveries regarding families that can trace lineal ancestry to the citizens of those villages. Chapter 6 contains a discussion of the findings in Chapters 2-5, implications of the study for consultation with culturally affiliated groups, and recommendations for future ethnohistoric research that would benefit the Environmental Security program on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton.


5

CHAPTER 2 ARCHIVAL SOURCES FOR RECONSTRUCTING LUISEÑO AND JUANEÑO SETTLEMENT LOCATIONS INTRODUCTION Ironically the very richness of the accumulated ethnographic record has hampered previous studies of Luiseño and Juaneño settlement patterns. Linguists and ethnographers have documented many placenames for a wide variety of locations, including temporary camps, permanent villages, religious sites, and mythic localities. As a result, it is not always clear which named places correlate with contemporaneous settlements or political group territories (Kroeber 1907:145-151; Oxendine 1983; Sparkman 1908:190-192; True 1990; True and Meighan 1987; True and Waugh 1982, 1987; White 1963). Because the published literature did not contain enough information regarding all Luiseño and Juaneño village locations, we undertook archival research to assemble more data. Using the ranchería names listed in the mission records as a starting point, we used all the sources we could find that included information about native placenames in the region. First, we located primary documents pertaining to descriptions of Luiseño and Juaneño settlements contained in Mission Period expeditionary reports and journals (Crespí 1927; Font 1931; Grijalva 1795; Mariner 1795; Lasuén 1965:52-54; Lisalde 1797; Sánchez 1821). Second, we examined field notes and placename lists contained in unpublished ethnographic papers of John P. Harrington and C. Hart Merriam (Harrington 1986; Heizer et al. 1969; Johnson et al. 1991; Merriam 1929; Mills and Brickfield 1986), and we consulted with native speakers and linguists who had worked in the area. Third, we examined data internal to the mission records to determine which rancherías were likely to be neighbors of other rancherías. Mission register data analysis used information about patterns of recruitment to the missions, clan affiliations and intervillage kinship relationships. Fourth, we looked for placename information in the records of land grants requested or obtained by Luiseño Indians from the Mexican government of California. Finally, pertaining to using our mission records database, we identified a number of individuals listed in the California State Census of 1852 in order to obtain clues regarding which post-mission communities were continuations of villages that once existed in their vicinities. In this chapter, we summarize the information about ranchería names contained in the mission registers and in explorers’ accounts. Table 1 presents the names of native towns inhabited during the Mission Period in the region surrounding Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton and the number of baptisms tabulated for each.

VILLAGE NAMES IN THE CAMP PENDLETON VICINITY LISTED AT MISSION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO Several different sources have been used to identify villages that once existed in the northern part of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton that became affiliated with Mission San Juan Capistrano. For two decades after its foundation in November 1776, San Juan Capistrano primarily drew converts from villages to the south of the mission (Engelhardt 1922; O’Neil 1998). During this period, virtually all of the native inhabitants of rancherías in the northern part of Camp Pendleton were baptized (Johnson et al. 1998).

6


Table 1. Baptisms Recorded from Villages in the Luiseño and Juaneño Region1 (page 1 of 2)

Village

San Juan Capistrano

San Luis Rey

Total

Years

San Mateo and Christianitos Vicinities Pange Zoucche Tobe2

131

0

131

1777-1794

8

0

8

1779-1795

59

1?

60

1777-1823

Santa Margarita and Las Pulgas Canyons Uchme

35

15

50

1779-1817

Mocuache

24

0

24

1779-1793

9

16

25

1779-1823

23

3

26

1791-1808

Topome

8

347

355

1779-1828

Quigaia

13

0

13

1785-1797

8

0

8

1805-1807

Chacape Pomameye

Jololla

Lower San Luis Rey River Quechinga

26

165

191

1779-1815

Ojauminga

5

84

89

1779-1812

Pumusi

2

159

161

1797-1828

Puyalamo

0

91

91

1798-1826

Southern Area (Ipai?) Bataquitos

2

53

55

1797-1818

Jalpay

0

113

113

1803-1826

San Alexo

0

21

21

1805-1819

Middle San Luis Rey River Pala

3

134

137

1799-1825

Paumega

4

184

188

1786-1831

Cuqui

6

270

276

1797-1831

Cohanga

0

67

67

1800-1826

Corenga

0

50

50

1806-1826


7

Table 1. Baptisms Recorded from Villages in the Luiseño and Juaneño Region1 (page 2 of 2)

Village

San Juan Capistrano

San Luis Rey

Total

Years

Luiseño Settlements in San José Valley Caguenga Changa Guariba Potumeba

1 0 1 0

66 117 88 10

67 117 89 10

1783-1828 1806-1823 1799-1823 1811-1831

Cupeño, Mountain Cahuilla, and Ipai Settlements in San José Valley Cupa Yugicna Tocanonga Tahui

15 0 0 0

125 13 45 11

140 13 45 11

1810-1833 1810-1829 1823-1833 1812-1831

162 187 78 118 30

1801-1833 1803-1828 1802-1833 1796-1828 1789-1817

Aguanga and Temecula Vicinities Aguanga Toulepa Temecula Pimixga Paixba 1.

2.

3 13 8 45 26

159 174 70 73 4

Excepting certain small villages associated with Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, only those rancherías named in the San Luis Rey padrones with more than ten baptisms are included in Table 1. Also, ongoing research being conducted at the Huntington Library for the Early California Population Project indicates that some people from these villages were baptized at Mission San Diego. These people are not included in this table because the research is still underway. Figures for Tobe may not be accurate because of its similarity to the names of one or two other villages with representation at Mission San Juan Capistrano and San Luis Rey. For example, people recorded from “Tobgna” or “Tobna” have been counted with those from the nearby coastal village of Tobane near Doheny Beach (Earle and O’Neil 994:84, 90), but conceivably could be variant names for Tobe. A second “Tobane” appears a few times in San Luis Rey records late in the Mission Period, presumably for Tōvaŋa, a subsidiary settlement of the Aguanga village (Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 74).

One list of village names that contains locational information was recorded by Fr. Gerónimo Boscana in one of the two extant versions of Chinigchinich, his classic manuscript on the customs of the Acágchemem (Juaneño) Indians of Mission San Juan Capistrano (Harrington 1934:61-62; O’Neil 1988:116-117). In addition to the clues provided in Chinigchinich, the mission registers contain both direct and indirect information about village locations. Another important source is John Harrington’s ethnographic placename notes, recorded from Juaneño and Luiseño elders whom he interviewed between 1919 and 1934 (Harrington 1986: Rls. 115, 121-123; Mills and Brickfield 1986:85-103). Those villages from the vicinity of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton with more baptisms at San Juan Capistrano than at San Luis Rey are the following: Pange or San Mateo, Uchme or Las Flores, Mocuache or Las Pulgas, Pomameye, Quigaia, Jololla, Zoucche, and Tobe (Table 1). This list is revised from our previous study (Johnson et al. 1998). It contains two additional village names (Jololla and Tobe) and is missing Kechenga, which we had correlated with the placename Hechmai or Khechmai placed by Kroeber (1907:150; 1953: Pl. 57) at San Onofre. 8


Neither Jololla nor Tobe are certainly located on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton but at least were close enough to warrant further discussion of the evidence. We now consider Kechenga to be a variant name for the large ranchería of Quechinga near where Mission San Luis Rey became established. Only six individuals were originally baptized from “Kechenga” or a close variant of this spelling for this ranchería name. At least one of these individuals later transferred to Mission San Luis Rey where he was listed from Quechinga. Furthermore, doubt has been introduced about whether “Hechmai” is even an accurate placename based on information Harrington recorded from his Luiseño consultants María de Jesús Omish and José Albañas (designated with the abbreviation “Mj.” and “Joez.” respectively): Mj. knows well xe’éeshpamay, San Onofre. Mj. volunteers this name. Eduarda Garcia, now at Soboba Hospital, told Joez. this placename and Mj. also knows it independently. “Hechmay” is mistaken for this. [Mj.] knows this placename well [Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 420]. 3 Based on the information provided by Harrington’s Luiseño consultants, it would appear that Kroeber’s earlier recording was in error, and we further conclude that San Onofre was not the site of a Mission Period village because no name approximating either xechmay (Hechmai) or xe’éeshpamay occurs in mission records.

VILLAGE NAMES LISTED IN THE MISSION SAN LUIS REY REGISTERS More than one hundred ranchería names are listed in the padrones of Mission San Luis Rey, however those settlements that contributed ten or more individuals to the mission are limited to twenty-seven (Table 1). A number of prior studies have been accompanied by maps of Luiseño villages and placenames (e.g., Kroeber 1953; Oxendine 1983; White 1963), unfortunately none include all of the principal settlements named in mission records. In our previous study (Johnson et al. 1998), we mapped only those communities that could be identified based on prior ethnographic and ethnohistoric work and suggested that further work should be done to locate the unidentified rancherías. In Chapter 3 we have reconstructed insofar as possible the settlement pattern in the territory of Mission San Luis Rey, using a combination of ethnographic, ethnohistoric, linguistic, and archaeological data. Map 1 is the result of this effort, the first time that such a map has been created to show all contemporaneous settlements in the Luiseño region to the south and east of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. Hitherto unreported evidence has been discovered that places some principle rancherías not previously identified. By process of elimination, we are now able to suggest probable locations of the unknown settlements with recourse to additional clues. This effort was necessary to determine whether additional named villages may have existed on portions of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton that needed to be considered in tracing lineal descendants and culturally affiliated communities. The relative population sizes of villages shown on Map 1 are reflected by the number of baptisms identified in Mission records.

3

In this and other quotations from Harrington’s original papers, we have lightly edited this note for readability and modified his linguistic orthography for ease of use by an English speaker.


9

VILLAGE NAMES FROM EXPEDITION DIARIES Portolá Expedition, 1769 The Portolá Expedition of 1769 provides the earliest descriptions of Luiseño and Juaneño villages in the coastal region (Carrico 1977; Crespí 1927; Earle and O’Neil:34; Harvey 1974:125132). Unfortunately native names of rancherías were not recorded during the Portolá expedition, but some of the Spanish names bestowed upon these communities continued to be used and appear in the mission records. Several villages were visited south of the San Luis Rey River that later contributed to the neophyte population at Mission San Luis Rey. These were probably Ipai (Northern Diegueño) or Kumeyaay (Southern Diegueño) villages or held a mixed Luiseño/Diegueño population.4 Among these southern villages were San Dieguito, San Alejo, and Bataquitos,5 all of which are listed as ranchería names in the San Luis Rey padrones.6 Another village was seen at the place called “Santa Sinforosa” by the explorers. This was on Buena Vista Creek and may correlate with Jalpay (or Gelpay), which is listed in mission records. On July 18, 1769, the Portolá expedition camped near a village just inland from the mouth of the San Luis Rey River that the explorers named “San Juan Capistrano.” This place is not to be confused with the mission later founded with the same name. The original San Juan Capistrano village was Quechinga, the closest ranchería to the future Mission San Luis Rey. Some people baptized from Quechinga in the early years of Mission San Juan Capistrano were listed from “San Juan Capistrano el Viejo.” As the Portolá expedition crossed the coastal portion of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, several other villages were encountered. While scouts explored ahead to find the best route to travel, the expedition camped on Santa Margarita Creek where a ranchería of 60 people were nearby, possibly the village of Quigaia (Kihaa’ay) in the Ysidora Basin. Santa Margarita Creek received its name at this time because the expedition party camped there on Saint Margaret’s Day, July 20. On the next day the expedition came to a canyon where there were “innumerable Castillian rose bushes,”7 where a small village was seen, probably the village of Uchme (’Ushmay) called “Las Flores” in mission records. Near the mouth of San Mateo Canyon, Fr. Crespí was told about two Indian children who were dying at an inland ranchería and so visited them to baptize them before they succumbed. This is the origin of the name Los Christianitos for a major tributary of San Mateo Canyon (Carrico 1977:37). Mariner-Grijalva Reconnaissance, 1795 More than a quarter century following the Portolá expedition and establishment of Mission San Diego, two forays were undertaken to explore the Luiseño region in order to select a site for Mission San Luis Rey and to gain familiarity with Indian rancherías that had still not been brought into the mission system. Two accounts of the first trip, undertaken in July 1795, have

4

5

6

7

10

Although some researchers have used the term Kumeyaay to refer to all of the Diegueño region, we use the term Ipai (’iipay) to refer to the Northern Diegueño and Kumeyaay to refer to the Southern Diegueño based on dialectical differences and following native preference (Langdon 1975). Although “Batequitos” or “Batiquitos” are typical spellings used today, it appears consistently as “Bataquitos” in mission records. The name means ‘little water holes’ and was first mentioned by Fr. Pedro Font in 1776 (Bright 1998:21; Font 1931:190). San Dieguito was represented by less than ten baptisms at Mission San Luis Rey and so does not appear in Table 1. In addition to the few people from San Dieguito actually baptized at San Luis Rey, a number of others from that village transferred from Mission San Diego and are listed in the San Luis Rey padrones. Rosa californica, California wild rose.


Pimixga

#? S CA

LI FO

# S

eo

Tobe

an Zoucche

# Pange S

S

# S

Pomameye # S

Mocuache

?

#? S

# S

# S

Lu i s

# S

Topome

Quijaia

# S

# S

Aguanga

# S

Pumusi

# S

# S

Cuqui

# S

n

# S

Changa

Paumega

Re y

Ojauminga

IA

ÚÊ

#Tobane S

Pala

Sa

ta

n

Sa

# S

Ma

# Paixba S

Puyalamo

r g a r i ta

Chacape S#

Toulepa

Temecula

Jololla #? S

Uchme

# S

# S

Ma t

RN

# S

Guariba Corenga # ? ?S Cohanga

# S

# S Cupa

# Caguenga S

# S

# S

Tahui

Quechinga Jalpay?

# S

n

n

# S

Bataquitos

o

ea Oc

sc o

o di d

E

ifi c

Pa c

Di

Sa

n

egu it

San Alexo S#

Map 1. Native Towns and Villages on Camp Pendleton and in the Surrounding Region

Number of Baptisms # 10 - 25 S # 26 - 100 S # 100 - 150 N S 150-250 250 - 354

# S

# S 3

0

3

6 Miles

12


survived: a diary kept by Fr. Juan Mariner of Mission San Diego (Engelhardt 1921:3-5; Mariner 1795) and a summary of a report by Ensign Juan Pablo Grijalva of the San Diego Presidio (Bancroft 1884:563; Grijalva 1795). After traveling through Ipai (Northern Diegueño) territory, the expedition reached the San José valley near the headwaters of the San Luis Rey River, where Lake Henshaw is today. Following a visit to the Cupeño village of Jacopin (the Ipai name for Kupa) and the Ipai ranchería of Tagui (Tawí) towards the south end of the San José valley, Fr. Mariner mentioned that they entered territory where people spoke the same language as at Mission San Juan Capistrano. The expedition continued on down the San Luis Rey River and also undertook a reconnaissance of the Santa Margarita and Las Flores areas. In his summary of the trip, Mariner noted the existence of fourteen rancherías that spoke “the language of San Juan Capistrano,” i.e., what has come to be known as Luiseño/Juaneño or Payómkawchum (Bean and Shipek 1978). The surviving summary of Grijalva’s report includes names for the fourteen rancherías mentioned by Mariner. Unfortunately his original report was destroyed along with most other official manuscripts derived from the Spanish and Mexican Periods during the great earthquake and fire that swept through the San Francisco in 1906. Only transcriptions and summaries of these manuscripts made for Hubert Howe Bancroft have survived, and one cannot always be sure that the copyists were accurate in their brief summaries or in their transcriptions of the names of the Indian rancherías. The following translation is from the summary in Bancroft’s California Archives: At three leagues [ten miles from the San José valley] we encountered rancherías, in which they spoke the language of San Juan Capistrano, called Curila, Topame, Quque, Cupame, Paume, and Pale and from this place [Pale] lower down are those of Palui [or Palin?], Pamame, Pamua, Asichiqmes. In the Cañada of Santa Margarita there are two: Chacápe and Pamamelli. In Las Flores there are those of Chumelle and Quesinille [Grijalva 1795]. Previous studies have attempted to identify the rancherías in this list with mixed success (e.g., Harvey 1974:134; Oxendine 1983:84-97; True and Waugh 1987; White 1963:109). Many of the names match ranchería names found in the two padrones of Mission San Luis Rey, but several villages appear to be out of their expected geographic order. One likely explanation is that Bancroft’s copyist who summarized the information from Grijalva’s original report may have misunderstood the geographic locations of some of the rancherías listed. Another possibility is that the diary was reporting principal town names provided by Luiseño informants at different points along the trip and is not necessarily in the sequence in which they were visited. Table 2 lists the authors’ opinion as to which ranchería names in the San Luis Rey padrones appear to correspond to the names transcribed from Grijalva’s original report. If the interpretations in Table 2 are correct, then several mistakes are evident in Bancroft’s transcript from the Grijalva’s report. “Topame” is erroneously included between two villages, “Curila” and “Quque,” which were in the vicinity of where La Jolla Reservation is today (see discussion of individual villages below). Similarly “Cupame” was misplaced, because it appears obvious that it stands for Kupa near Warner’s Hot Springs (White 1963:108). The four village names below Pala might well correspond to four rancherías that have been documented along the lower San Luis Rey River and its tributaries (Puyalano, Pumusi, Ojauminga, and Quechinga), but one must allow for considerable errors in transcription to make this correlation. Camp Pendleton Ethnohistoric Study

13

Table 2. Luiseño Villages Reported during the Mariner-Grijalva Expedition, 1795 Grijalva Report, 1795 Curila Topame Quque Cupame Paume Pale Palui [or Palin?]

San Luis Rey Padrones Corenga Topome Cuqui Cupa Paumega Pala Puyalamo?

Pamame

Either Pomameye or Ojauminga [Guajome] Pumusi? Quechinga? Chacápe Pomameye Uchme Quechinga?

Pamua Asichiqmes Chacápe Pamamelli Chumelle Quesinille

Comments La Jolla vicinity Santa Margarita Potrero Near Warner’s Hot Springs Pauma Old Pala Handwriting unclear, Bonsall vicinity? Duplication of Pamamelli or mistranscription of Guajome “-si” mistranscribed as “-a”? Miscopied from original? Las Pulgas Above Las Pulgas Las Flores San Luis Rey vicinity

The two villages named in Santa Margarita Canyon (“Chacapé” and “Pamamelli”) are known to have been in Las Pulgas Canyon instead (Oxendine 1983). “Chumelle” is almost certainly Uchme (Las Flores). White (1963:109) and Harvey (1974:134) believed that “Quesinille” might be Quechinga at San Luis Rey, while Oxendine suggested that it could be Khechmai at San Onofre (Oxendine 1983:193). Lasuén-Lisalde Reconnaissance, 1797 Following the Mariner-Grijalva reconnaissance, another expedition was undertaken to survey part of the interior region not yet explored and then recommend the locality best suited to support the future mission establishment of San Luis Rey. Fr. Norberto de Santiago of Mission San Juan Capistrano and five Juaneño neophytes, accompanied the president of the California missionaries, Fr. Fermín de Lasuén, on this trip, which began October 2, 1797. They traveled with a group of eight soldiers headed by Corporal Pedro Lisalde of the Presidio of San Diego (Lasuén 1965:52-54; Lisalde 1797). Mounted on horseback, the expedition crossed the Santa Ana Mountains behind San Juan Capistrano and then traveled up Murrieta Creek after viewing Lake Elsinore, then at an unimpressive, low water stage. They spent the second night of their trip at the ranchería of “Temeco” (Temecula), which Lasuén described as being inhabited by about fifty people (Brigandi 1998:16-17; Lasuén 1965:52). After a survey in the vicinity of Temecula, Lasuén’s party then traveled over rugged terrain to the San Luis Rey River where they surveyed the vicinity of “Palé” (Pala), which had been previously suggested as the site for Mission San Luis Rey by Fr. Mariner in 1795. The missionaries and soldiers stayed at the ranchería of Pauma that evening, according to Lisalde’s report (Lisalde 1797). Lasuén’s account mentioned that they rested near an uninhabited settlement of eight houses, but this appears to be too small to be the entire village of Pauma (Paumega), which was probably much larger based on the number of people baptized from there (Lasuén 1965:53). Perhaps only a subsidiary community of Pauma was seen, and its residents may have been absent at their acorn-gathering camps on Palomar Mountain at the 14


time of Lasuén’s visit. After additional reconnaissance the next day, Lasuén concluded that the Pala vicinity, which he had determined was called “Souquich,” was not suitable as a site for the future mission. After continuing down the San Luis Rey River, the Spanish group stayed near another ranchería called “Pullala,” probably that known as Puyalamo in mission records. Based on his firsthand observations, Lasuén recommended that the new mission be founded in the valley that had been called “since the time of its discovery … San Juan Capistrano” (the lower San Luis Rey River). Payeras-Sánchez Reconnaissance, 1821 The last Mission Period diary to record village names was kept by Fr. José Bernardo Sánchez when he accompanied the missionary president Fr. Mariano Payeras during a twenty-one day trip through the interior valleys between Mission San Diego and Mission San Gabriel, September 10 through October 1, 1821 (Sánchez 1821). After traveling up the Santa Ysabel Valley to the Ipai ranchería of Elcuanam (Santa Ysabel), the expedition proceeded north to the San José Valley where they visited Jacopin (Cupa) at Agua Caliente (Warner’s Hot Springs) on September 17. After returning to Elcuanam for a day’s rest, the expedition retraced it steps down Carrisa Creek “along the same trail that had taken the Reverend Father [Payeras] to Jacopin,” passing the village of Ajata. After surveying the valley in the vicinity of Tagui (Tawí), the party proceeded parallel to the San Luis Rey River to “the villages we referred to as Potrero, … called Cuqui.” After passing fields cultivated by gentiles and Christian Indians in the vicinity of Pauma, Payeras and company arrived at the asistencia of San Antonio de Pala, an outpost of Mission San Luis Rey (Sánchez 1821). Up until this point the expedition had largely retraced the same route through Luiseño territory followed by Fr. Juan Mariner twenty-six years earlier. After two days rest at Pala, the expedition party went northward, passing a rock with pictographs and offerings left by the Luiseño at the summit of the ridge. This was conceivably the famous Nahachish rock, featured prominently in Luiseño folklore (DuBois 1908:151-152; Parker 1965:5-7; Saunders and O’Sullivan 1930:128-137; True and Meighan 1987). Because he considered such traditional sacred locations to be obstructions to the Luiseño acceptance of Christianity, Fr. Payeras left instructions that the shrine should be destroyed. He then continued to Temecula. Heading northwest on the following day, the party passed San Jacinto, the last outpost of Mission San Luis Rey, known as Jaguara to the Luiseño. Only a single baptism was recorded from a ranchería by this name at Mission San Luis Rey (in 1831) and none at San Juan Capistrano, so either the mission ranch of San Jacinto was not originally the site of a native village or went by another (non-Luiseño) name when its citizens were baptized at the missions.8

DISCUSSION The expedition diaries extant for the territory inhabited by the Payómkawchum (Luiseño and Juaneño peoples) provide useful clues but are less than satisfactory for several reasons. The Portolá expedition provides good locational data for villages observed along the coast but did not record native names for these. The Mariner-Grijalva reconnaissance produced a lengthy list

8

No more than seven baptisms were recorded at San Luis Rey that appear to be from Soboba, another ranchería in the vicinity of San Jacinto (each had a different spelling: “Sobohou,” “Sebobau,” etc.). All but two of these baptisms were recorded late in the Mission Period in 1828-29. The original linguistic affiliation of Soboba has not been determined with certainty.


15

of village names, but the surviving transcript does not provide enough specific geographic information, contains some obvious misspellings, and mislocates some of the rancherías. The Lasuén-Lisalde reconnaissance and Sánchez-Payeras survey are incomplete because they mention only some of the villages visited and in each case were undertaken after some of the villages in the region appear to have been abandoned – respectively those closest to San Juan Capistrano in 1797 and those in territory that had been heavily recruited by San Luis Rey in 1821. Other archival sources of information greatly supplement the sketchy data from these expedition diaries. Chapter 3 combines ethnohistoric and ethnographic information to summarize what has been discovered to date regarding each village’s location, clan composition, and early history.

16


CHAPTER 3 VILLAGE NAMES AND LOCATIONS IN THE REGION SURROUNDING MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP PENDLETON INTRODUCTION Having briefly reviewed the types of information contained in Mission Period documents to reconstruct Luiseño and southern Juaneño settlement geography during the historic period, we now use these data in combination with other sources to present what is known regarding each native town lying within the study area. For purposes of this project, we have limited our consideration of ranchería names found in the San Juan Capistrano mission records to just those that were situated in the vicinity of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton and/or were recorded in the San Luis Rey padrones. Our discussion is organized geographically beginning with the territory in the immediate vicinity of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton and then moving south and east to document other rancherías found in the region that came under the influence of Mission San Luis Rey. The village names are usually spelled the way they appear in mission records, with a modified linguistic version provided (where known) provided in parentheses in the headings.9

SAN MATEO CANYON AND ITS TRIBUTARIES Pange (Pánxe) Pange was the largest village that once existed on the northern part of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton (and second largest in the entire region encompassed by the base). According to the traditional history of the Acágchemem (Juaneño) recorded by Boscana, Pange was one of the rancherías founded at the time the Juaneño population expanded after it had become established at Pituidem on San Juan Creek. Boscana stated that the name signified “canyada” and its founding chief was Seqüilqüix, meaning “plant which dries up” (Harrington 1934:61; Kroeber 1959:287, 289). The village was named “San Mateo” at the time of Spanish colonization, and appears with this alias in mission records. Pange has been correlated with archaeological site CA-ORA-22 at the mouth of San Mateo Creek (O’Neil 1988:117). The population of this important coastal town appears to have been fully recruited into Mission San Juan Capistrano by 1794. Extrapolating from the total number of baptisms, Earle and O’Neil (1994:90) estimate that this ranchería may have numbered about 250 persons at the advent of the Mission Period. Although all 131 baptisms tabulated from this village occurred at Mission San Juan Capistrano, at least two individuals from Pange later transferred to Mission San Luis Rey where they are listed in the padrones. A tabulation of “traditional” marriages where one spouse was from Pange (i.e., those existing prior to baptism at the missions) allows us to reconstruct the approximate social interaction sphere of people from the San Mateo village. Six marriages connected Pange to other villages that once existed on or near Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton: Uchme (2), Mocuache (1),

9

The following sources were used as guides for linguistic spellings: Bright (1968), Elliott (1999), Harrington (1986: Rl. 119), and Hyde (1971). Luiseño words and names were not attested in all sources, so some inconsistency may be noted. Certain changes were made to make the linguistic orthography more accessible for readers of English, e.g., č was changed to ch, š was converted to sh, and ŋ was represented by ng.


17

Zoucche (1), and Tobe (2). Most other marriages linked Pange to Juaneño villages along the San Juan River and elsewhere: Tobane (3), Ajachme (3), Huhunga (3), Pagevepet (2), Pahamue (2), Auge (1), Pituidem (1), Guajabepet (1), Guegunga (1), Lucupna (1), Tumume (1) (Earle and O’Neil 1994:133). Zoucche (Showcha10) Only eight people were baptized from the small village of Zoucche at Mission San Juan Capistrano between 1779 and 1795. The name of this ranchería was almost never spelled the same way twice. “Zeucche,” “Zeuchinga,” “Zouquich,” and similar variants are other versions of this ranchería name. A village called “Souche” is the next listed after Pange among those rancherías named by Boscana as being founded after the Juaneño had become established in prehistoric times at Pituidem on San Juan Creek. Boscana interpreted the name to mean “little canyada or gulch,” although this etymology has not been attested by linguistic studies with native speakers (Kroeber 1959:287). The founding chief of “Souche” was said to be Toroc, whose name meant “to limp or sprain one’s foot” (Harrington 1934:61; Kroeber1959:289). Zoucche was probably located in Christianitos Canyon about where it joins San Mateo Creek and was apparently the village where Fr. Juan Crespí baptized two dying children in 1769 (O’Neil 1988:116). Two traditional marriages have been documented for Zoucche, one each to the Juaneño villages of Pange and Tobane (Earle and O’Neil 1994:133, 137). Tobe Tobe (or Tove) is believed to have situated on the upper portion of Christianitos Creek north of the Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton boundary (Earle and O’Neil 1994:90; O’Neil 1988:116). The probable location is just inside Gabino Canyon. The similarity between Tobe and the names of two other villages, make the baptismal total of 60 people for this village approximate until further genealogical work is accomplished (see Table 1 and fn. 4).11 Tobe was listed immediately following Pange and “Souche” on Boscana’s list of Juaneño villages and was explained as meaning “a kind of clay or fine argil, white, similar to white lead” (Harrington 1934:61; Kroeber 1959:287). Boscana reported that the founding chief of Tobe was named Quopcochops (kwavchokat), meaning “caretaker” or “watchful” (Harrington 1934:61; Kroeber 1959:289). It is difficult to determine the traditional marriage patterns of people from Tobe because of the confusion between its name and the nearby ranchería of Tobane near Doheny Beach. Our preliminary work would indicate that people from Tobe had married spouses from Pange, Pomameye, and Topome, all villages on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, and from Putuidem along the San Juan River. A brother and sister originally baptized from Tobe at Mission San Juan Capistrano were later listed from Topome after they transferred to Mission San Luis Rey. Another San Juan transfer from “Tove” was listed from “Chajap” in the first padrón of San Luis Rey.

10 11

18

We have followed Kroeber’s suggestion that Boscana’s “Souche” may have been based on a Juaneño original like šowtša, which is spelled Showcha according to the modified linguistic orthography used in this study (Kroeber 1959:287). Our figure of 59 baptisms for Mission San Juan Capistrano differs significantly from the count reported by Earle and O’Neil 1994:90), which is probably a result of applying different criteria to distinguish between rancherías with similarly spelled names.


LAS PULGAS AND SANTA MARGARITA VICINITIES There are at least six ranchería names, and perhaps seven, recorded for the watersheds of Las Pulgas and Santa Margarita canyons within the southern portion of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. Four of these have been located along Las Pulgas Creek (Uchme, Mocuache, Chacape, and Pomameye), two were along the Santa Margarita River (Topome and Quigaia), and the last had an unknown location (Jololla). The diversity of ranchería names attributed to the relatively small watershed of Las Pulgas presents a problem of ethnogeographical interpretation. Additional data will be necessary to establish correlations of placenames with identified archaeological sites to demonstrate occupational contemporaniety within the protohistoric period or to determine if two different names might have been referring to the same place. For example, two separate names appear to be known by the alias “Las Pulgas” in ethnohistoric records: Mocuache, which is the Luiseño word on which the name Las Pulgas is based (mokwá’chish “flea”), and Chacape. Compounding this identification problem is that people baptized at San Juan Capistrano from these villages in the Santa Margarita and Las Pulgas watersheds are more times than not affiliated with different ranchería names after they transferred to San Luis Rey than those from which they were originally recorded (see Table 3 for some examples). Uchme (Ushmay) Uchme was often simply listed as “Las Flores” in mission records, but when its Luiseño name was given, it was spelled in a variety of ways. These variant spellings have resulted in understandable confusion in previous studies, because of a similarity between some spellings and “Hechmai,” (or “Khechmai”), an apparently erroneous placename applied to San Onofre by A. L. Kroeber (1907, 1925).12 As mentioned earlier in this chapter, Harrington collected evidence that xe’éeshpamay was the proper Luiseño name for San Onofre, rather than “Hechmai” or “Khechmai.” Variant spellings of Uchme include “Huichme,” “Guichime,” “Uchmeie,” “Uichme,” “Ushem,” “Uxme,” “Uxmal,” “Vchme,” “Vchmeinga,” “Occhame” and “Esme.” The San Luis Rey registers document eight native marriages between Uchme and neighboring villages: Chacape (2), Quechinga (2), Topome (1), Ojauminga (1), Pala (1), Paumega (1) (Johnson and Crawford 1999). The geographical extent of these marriages is shown on Map 2. Because Las Flores continued to be occupied throughout the Mission Period, some of the people listed under its name in the San Luis Rey padrones appear to have been originally from other rancherías or had been born of parents who were already baptized but living at Las Flores. The evidence for this statement comes from our identifications of people affiliated with Las Flores at San Luis Rey, who had transferred from San Juan Capistrano (Table 3). Only four of the 23 people affiliated with Las Flores in Table 3 were originally listed from that village when they were baptized at San Juan Capistrano, but most of the remainder had come from villages in the vicinity, within the confines of what is now Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. At the end of the Mission Period, Las Flores had become an independent pueblo for neophytes affiliated with Mission San Luis Rey, so its location is well established in ethnohistoric documents (now designated as archaeological site CA-SDI-812H). A chapel was built at Las Flores for use of the Indians, who were also recipients of a land grant surrounding the town for 12

Oxendine (1983), Earle and O’Neil (1994) are among those studies that confused name variants of Uchme with “Hechmai,” and Johnson et al. (1998) incorrectly assigned “Kechinga,” (variant of Quechinga), to “Hechmai.”


19

Table 3. Neophytes Affiliated with Las Flores and Las Pulgas at San Luis Rey Who Originally were Baptized at San Juan Capistrano.

Name as Recorded at San Luis Rey Antonia María Quexquibam Bernardina Bonifacio Pacut [Alcalde] Candido Sacsuquix Canuto Andrés Hirapaxat Casto Tucaus Cleta Eladio (“Hilario”) Nicupat Eufracia Yobayban Eustaquia Sijabam (Egionbam) Hilaria Pehoquet Isahac Tata Jacinto Puyanet

Village Name Recorded at San Juan Capistrano

897 188 1492

Ygaicat Mataca Pigi

1751 1715 unidentified

Yamajarata Cutucute

Rudecindo (“Gumesindo”) Pacat Sebastian Paypar Torcuato Chibeut

1253 624? 750

Pacubit Yacu Carcar

Ynés Quibanim

690 Las Pulgas 2618 2611 2788

Lapalpa

Huichme Taccae? Mocuache Quechec [page missing] Pomameye Chacape Pange Quijaie Cquijaie Uhimi Guichmai Mission (son of Bonifacio) Queech Mocuachem Mission (mother from Pange) Ushem Occheme (grandmother of Bonifacio) n.g. Pagevet Mission (mother from Mocuachem) Quijaie

Tohuinam Naguauquit Yerainim

n.g. Jololla n.g.

Juan Capistrano Cali Juaquina Nacuase Leona Quiot Liborio Yumagat Longinos Visnit Maria Antonia Pajacsom

Ciriaca Thovenim Revocato Nayauquit Romualda Hequis

20

Baptism Number at Native Name San Juan Recorded at San Capistrano Juan Capistrano Las Flores 648 Coichquivam 369? 1138 Murilac 1733 Susequichs 534 Yevarpaget 1816 1192 Yaralba 1263 Orocut 507 Yaguaivam 1639 1254 Najaiveram 1354 Mapret, Tacta 2725


their agricultural use. In 1839, there were 138 people in residence at the pueblo (Engelhardt 1921:52, 100, 105-106, 123-124). The Luiseño alcaldes (political leaders) of Las Flores in 1843 were Andres Fermín and Revocato (Stephenson 1936:25). The second alcalde Revocato may be either Revocato Najauquit, who was baptized from Jololla at San Juan Capistrano but affiliated with Las Pulgas in the San Luis Rey padrón (Table 3), or his son Revocato Cuasacác. The chief of Las Flores, who signed the 1852 treaty negotiated at Temecula by the heads of various Luiseño, Cahuilla, Serrano, and Cupeño bands was named Cisto Go-no-nish (Heizer 1972:60; Parker 1967:15; Sutton 1985:392). This individual can be identified as Sixto Guanonis, who as a small child had been baptized at Mission San Luis Rey from the neighboring village of “Chacup” (i.e., Chacape) (Johnson et al. 1988: 36). Sixto, the “Capitán de Las Flores,” and his two adult children were tabulated in the 1852 California State Census (p. 16, lines 1-3). Mocuache (Mukwá’chi) Twenty-four individuals were baptized from Mocuache (also recorded as “Mocuachem”) between 1779-1793.13 Thereafter the village would appear to have been abandoned, unless its population was subsumed under the name Chacape, which has also been equated with Las Pulgas. Although Harrington’s Juaneño and Luiseño consultants knew that the name mukwá’chi was a locational version of the name for “flea” and equated it with Las Pulgas Canyon, none of them knew exactly where the village had been located. Mocuache does not appear among the rancherías mentioned during the Mariner-Grijalva survey in the vicinity of the Las Pulgas canyon in 1795, nor is it included in Boscana’s list of villages mentioned in Acágchemem (Juaneño) traditional history. Our location for Mocuache on Map 1 must be considered tentative until further work has been done to establish likely correlations of post-contact archaeological sites with ranchería names mentioned in mission records. Two “Las Flores” individuals who transferred from Mission San Juan Capistrano to San Luis Rey were originally baptized from Mocuache (Table 3). One of these, Bonifacio Pacut, served as an alcalde (leader) of the neophytes at San Luis Rey, according to a comment in the first padrón of that mission. Bonifacio, a widower, and his son Jacinto were both listed from “Las Flores” in their initial entry in the padrón before Bonifacio remarried. Since Jacinto actually had been born at Mission San Juan Capistrano, his association with Las Flores may indicate that his father was living at that location and served as the alcalde there. Chacape (Chakápe) Almost the same number of people was baptized from Chacape as from Mocuache, but over a much longer period of time — until as late as 1823 at Mission San Luis Rey. The name was spelled “Chacape,” “Chcape,” “Chacapa,” “Chajapa,” and “Chacapnga” at Mission San Juan Capistrano and as “Chajap” and “Chacup” at San Luis Rey. Chacape was mentioned in the transcript of the Mariner-Grijalva survey of 1795 as being in Santa Margarita Canyon. This is almost certainly an interpretive error that occurred in abstracting the original diary. Ethnographic information collected by Kroeber and Harrington specifically equates Chakápe

13

22

In our previous report, we noted that the only individual baptized at a ranchería called “Mugore” at San Juan Capistrano in 1798 was later listed from Puyalamo at San Luis Rey (Johnson et al. 1998: 29). Because the original handwriting is difficult to read, this ranchería name actually might be intended as “Mugoxe,” which could be another variant spelling of Mocuache (White 1963:107). We omitted this individual from our total for Mocuache in Table 1 but recognize that he could have been from that village.


with Las Pulgas (Kroeber 1907:147; Oxendine 1983). The name may have been derived from the Luiseño word saqápi-sh for “tree fungus,” which was a delicacy food for the Luiseño (Bright 1968:67; Harrington 1986: Rl. 122, Fr. 84). Harrington recorded several placenames in the vicinity of Las Pulgas Canyon, including the relative location of Chacape, when he interviewed Francisco Gonzales at Pala in 1925: kukúrpe, … [was a placename below pumámay] in the same canyon, by Las Flores. chakápe [is a name Francisco volunteered], mas abajo [further down from pumámay] in the same canyon. [Does not know] Las Pulgas … Ind[ian] name [but] mukwáches =”flea” [Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 134].14 Chacape, rather than Mocuache (unless the two names refer to the same place), is probably the site of the Mission Period ranch known as Las Pulgas, said to be one league (about 2½ miles) from Las Flores where cattle were pastured (Engelhardt 1921:52). Pomameye (Pumámay) Twenty-five people were baptized from Pomameye, which is about the same number as were baptized from Mocuache and Chacape (see Table 1). Variant spellings for this ranchería name include “Pamaimaye,” “Pamamaye,” “Pamaeie,” and “Pamaimaye.” All but three of the people affiliated with this ranchería were baptized at Mission San Capistrano, but when some of these transferred to San Luis Rey they were nearly all listed from Topome. This suggests the possibility that Pomameye was a village that was politically subsidiary in some way to Topome and that some people who were listed from Topome in the San Luis Rey padrones actually had been residing at Pomameye. Pomameye appears to have been listed twice in the Luiseño villages documented by Grijalva in 1795 – once as “Pamame” and later as “Pamamelli” (Table 2). The surviving extract from Grijalva’s account places “Pamamelli” in the Santa Margarita canyon, but this might be a further hint that Pomameye could have been a satellite community of Topome. There is no evidence that Grijalva actually visited every ranchería named in his account, and his apparent listing of Pomameye twice may be further evidence of his confusion about Luiseño geography. Ethnographic testimony about Pomameye’s location on upper Las Pulgas Creek is well attested in J. P. Harrington’s Luiseño notes. Indeed one of his consultants from Pala Reservation (Francisco Gonzales) had been born there, so apparently some Luiseños occupied the settlement past the mid-nineteenth century mark. Examples from Harrington’s notes include the following quotations about Pomameye: pumaamay, “place of his little hand”[María de Jesús Omish in Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 412]. pumámay is a place beyond Santa Margarita. Called the people pumámayam. This means “el brazo” [the arm], he thinks [Marcelino Quasish in Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 10]. pumámay. Francisco Gonzales was born there [Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 134].

14

Edited for readability with abbreviations spelled in full, linguistic notation modified, and Spanish terms translated.


23

The Am[erican] who lives at Las Pulgas says that 2 or 2½ miles upstream of Las Pulgas house is a [illegible]. Frank Gonzales says that this [illegible] pumamay [Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 413]. El Roblar must be at S[anta] Margarita, because Mj. knew a woman named Francisca who was a pumáamayyaxwish, and heard of the name pumaamay, meaning “little hand,” also a woman named Magdalena, Urbana’s grandmother, was from pumaamay [María de Jesús Omish in Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 312]. Topome (Tópomay) Based on sheer number of baptisms (324), Topome or Santa Margarita appears to have been the largest native town anywhere in Luiseño territory. Topome’s population size, based on the number of people baptized, is comparable to the most populous Barbareño Chumash towns, which are generally regarded as having the largest concentrations of population in Southern California at the time of European contact (Brown 1967; Johnson 1988:84). As was implied in the discussion of Pomameye above, it may be that the designation Topome is not limited to the most important settlement along the Santa Margarita River but may encompass a larger political entity in which several clan territories were included. Certainly the central settlement of the Topome territory has been identified near the Santa Margarita Ranch House at CA-SDI10156 (McCawley 1996; Strudwick et al. 1996; York and Kirkish 2000), but it may not be the only location where people said to be from Topome were living. The large number of people and clan names recorded from this ranchería suggests the possibility of dispersed residential communities, similar to what has been documented for other sizable Luiseño village territories, e.g., Cuqui (or Potrero) at the base of Palomar Mountain (Harvey 1974; Oxendine 1983; Shipek 1977:Chap. 6; True et al. 1974; White 1963). As documented in previous studies, Topome appears to have been continuously occupied throughout the Mission Period (Johnson et al. 1998:22; McCawley 1996). A number of baptisms of people from Topome took place well into the 1820s. The last person listed in the padrón from this native town was Felipe Alacuis, a thirty year-old man who was baptized at San Luis Rey on the 12 March, 1828 (Englehardt 1921:230). Testimony before the U.S. Land Commission in 1853 associated with the Santa Margarita y Las Flores land grant documents an Indian settlement at Topome until at least the mid-nineteenth century (McCawley 1996). Continued research with the padrones has revised and expanded the sample of traditional marriages involving people from Topome (i.e., those unions that had occurred prior to baptism of the couple).15 In 35 cases, both spouses were native to Topome, indicating a high degree of village endogamy. A total of 27 exogamous marriages were tabulated that involved people from other rancherías. Most of these involved marriage partners from Quechinga (12). Other intervillage marriages were distributed as follows: Cuqui (4), Puyalamo (3), Pumusi (2), Chacape/Las Pulgas (2), Las Flores (1), Ojauminga (1), Temecula (1), Paixba (1) (see Map 3). All of the marriages tabulated between Topome and Cuqui were recorded for a group of people baptized in 1826. In all four cases it was the wife who had come from Cuqui and the children of the couple had been born at Topome, indicating patrilocal postmarital residence. The occurrence of several marriages between people from Topome and Cuqui (and the absence of 15

24

These figures revise those presented in our earlier study of the San Luis Rey padrones (Johnson et al. 1998: 31). The criteria for used to identify pre-existing or “traditional” marriages is set forth in that study.


such marriages between Topome and Pala or Paumega) may be a result of the seasonal migration of part of Topome’s population to take advantage of the acorn crops and hunting on Palomar Mountain during the summer and fall (Oxendine 1983; True et al. 1974). An alternative hypothesis is that as the population of villages closer to San Luis Rey became incorporated into that mission, men from Topome who wished to remain apart from the mission may have sought marriage partners in more distant rancherías. The following clan names appear to be primarily associated with people from Topome: Chacol, Chaqualis, Chevis, Cohut, Guatequix, Hajac, Hulix, Miracat (or Medacat), Pauquela, Pollec, Ponabix, Sacadaqueix, Saume, Subix, and Tobac. Subix is among the three most numerous clan names recorded in the San Luis Rey registers, and virtually all people bearing this name originated from Topome. While a comprehensive study of clan relationships is beyond the scope of the current project, it is useful to consider briefly the data from Topome as it pertains to certain hypotheses regarding the nature of Luiseño social structure. Some authors have proposed that the Luiseño clans might have once been organized into intravillage moieties in the same way as were Cahuilla clans (Strong 1972:288-291; White 1963:Chap. 5). If clans were once organized along moiety lines among the Luiseño, then marital relations should show a bipartite division, i.e., one could only marry into clans that existed in an opposite moiety. The evidence of a sample of ten marriages among the five most common Topome clans clearly illustrates that no moiety division governed marriage mate selection within this Luiseño community. Of six traditional marriages involving members of the Subix clan, two spouses were from the Hulix clan, two were from the Ponabix clan, one was from the Tobac clan, and one was from the Miracat clan. Marriages among just those four clans were distributed as follows: Miracat and Hulix (2 marriages), Miracat and Tobac (1 marriage), and Tobac and Ponabix (1 marriage). In other words, Topome clan marriages do not show the bipartite reciprocity one would expect if moiety affiliation determined spousal selection. This Luiseño evidence parallels Earle and O’Neil’s observations on lack of moieties among the Protohistoric Juaneño based on an analysis of San Juan Capistrano mission register data (Earle and O’Neil 1994:173). It also supports Gifford’s interpretation based on ethnographic research that the Luiseño apparently lacked the moiety groupings found among interior Takic groups (Gifford 1918). Quigaia (Kiháa’ay) The village of Quigaia consisted of about sixty people when it was observed during the Portolá expedition in 1769, however only thirteen people were later baptized from there, all at Mission San Juan Capistrano prior to 1798. Various versions of this name found in that mission’s baptismal register include “Quijaie,” “Cquijaie,” and “Quigaye.” This ranchería name does not appear a single time in the San Luis Rey padrones, so Quigaia was either abandoned prior to the founding of Mission San Luis Rey or was considered to be a subsidiary settlement to a larger political grouping. Given the conclusive evidence for Quigaia’s location on the lower Santa Margarita River (presented below), one would expect it to have been most closely affiliated with Topome, its nearest neighbor upstream, however those individuals from Quigaia who transferred from San Juan Capistrano to San Luis Rey were listed either under Quechinga or Las Flores in the padrones (see Table 3 for three examples). Information provided to John Harrington by Juaneño and Luiseño consultants establish the location of Quigaia within the area of the Ysidora Basin on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton: 26


[After leaving Las Flores] next canyon we passed is called Cañada de Isidoro [sic]. Isidoro was formerly called El Pueblito. There was no pueblo there – only an adobe house. … It was rancho there. Now change name to Isidoro. It is 4 m[iles] up canyon and is a station on the branch railroad that runs up this canyon to Fallbrook. qiháinga = Isidoro [José de la Gracia Cruz (“Acú”) in Harrington n.d., 1986: Rl. 127, Fr. 127]. Crossed S. Margarita Ck. = . . . kiháa’ay [José Olivas Albañas in Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 192]. kiháa’ay = Isidora. Anastacio Romero was a [Luiseño] Indian, looked like Spanish, when the San Luis Rey mission broke up he was living at kiháa’ay. He was kiháyngaxwish, plural kihayyam. No etymology [María Jesús Omish and José Olivas Albañas in Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 340, edited slightly]. Although Quigaia may not have been inhabited during much of the Mission Period, there exists good evidence to suggest that several Luiseño families lived in its vicinity after the secularization of Mission San Luis Rey and apparently had received title to a small tract of land called “Rehi” from Governor Manuel Micheltorena. This information comes from testimony by the Luiseño leader Manuelito Cota in court records pertaining to confirmation of the Santa Margarita y Las Flores grant (McCawley 1996). The Indian settlement at Quigaia was called Pueblito during the nineteenth century but was eventually taken over by Pío and Andrés Pico, owners of the Rancho Santa Margarita. El Pueblito continued to be occupied until past the midcentury mark. The location was later named Ysidora in honor of Doña Ysidora Pico de Forster, sister of Pío and Andrés Pico. Jololla Eight individuals were baptized at Mission San Juan Capistrano in 1805-6 from a ranchería named Jololla (or Jolona). These individuals belonged to a maximum of three family groups, and most later transferred to Mission San Luis Rey. In the padrones, these individuals were listed from Temecula in two cases, “Pomame” in one instance, and Las Pulgas once. One woman from Jololla (who was later listed from Temecula) had a child by a man from Pomameye, who was later listed from Topome padrón. A second woman from Jololla (also later listed from Temecula) was married to a man from Toulepa. All of these relationships suggest that Jololla may have been a small village located inland from Las Pulgas between Pomameye and Temecula. One locality that meets these geographic criteria is inland from Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton along the upper stretch of De Luz Creek, a principal fork of the Santa Margarita River, however such a possibility must be regarded as speculative without further evidence.

LOWER SAN LUIS REY RIVER AND VICINITY Quechinga (Qé’echnga) Quechinga was the closest ranchería to Mission San Luis Rey, indeed a version of this village name is the one most often used for the site of the mission itself, even though the Luiseño actually had another placename for the mission locality. For example, in 1827 Fr. Antonio Peyrí observed “this Mission is situated in a cañada which runs from east to west, named Quechinga Camp Pendleton Ethnohistoric Study

27

by the natives, at a distance of two leagues from the seashore” (Engelhardt 1921:50). Oxendine has presented all the ethnographic and ethnohistoric information that correlates Quechinga with the vicinity of Mission San Luis Rey (Oxendine 1983:113-115). She argues that either CASDI-6014 and/or CA-SDI-5130 represent the location of the village near where the Portolá expedition camped in 1769. After the ranchería’s population became affiliated with the mission, the name Quechinga shifted to become associated with the ranchería immediately adjacent to the mission. Quechinga appears to be a regional designation for a political territory, just like we have proposed for Topome. Trinidad Soto told John Harrington in 1932 that: SLR Mission = takáymay. Volunteered. Clearly heard. But when I ask [whether it was not called] qéchŋa, says that is location of qé’ech, all of the region around San Luis Rey Mission is called qé’ech [Trinidad Soto in Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 144, lightly edited]. Excepting Topome and Cuqui, Quechinga contributed more baptisms (191) to the missions than did any other Luiseño ranchería. A number of people from this ranchería were initially baptized from “San Juan Capistrano Viejo,” taken from the Spanish name applied at the time of the Portolá expedition. Despite the large number of baptisms from Quechinga, the list of known clan names is not as lengthy as for other rancherías. At Mission San Juan Capistrano and in the early years of Mission San Luis Rey’s existence, the missionaries seemed to have recorded personal names more often than lineage or clan names. Later, Fr. Antonio Peyrí seems to have discovered that the patrilineal clan names used by the Luiseño were equivalent to the way Europeans inherited surnames and governed marriage choices. Acting on this observation, Peyrí changed the way Luiseño names were represented in later years and so the second padrón lists many Luiseño people in with their clan names listed immediately following their Spanish given. Because of its situation adjacent to Mission San Luis Rey, the people from Quechinga were incorporated into the mission earlier and therefore most were listed using their unique personal names, rather than their clan names. Of those true clan names most closely associated with Quechinga in the padrones, these five appear to be the most common: Attulo, Coroborix, Laix, Pascal, and Thobotubix. Only two of these were recalled as being associated with the San Luis Rey mission community by Gifford’s Luiseño consultants. Of the twenty clan names remembered for San Luis Rey, only Tuvutwic (Thobotubix), Atuulu (Attulo), and Ketekt (Quetec) match those listed for Quechinga in the padrones. These were said to mean “something which has been ground to dust or flour,” “a plant growing abundantly,” and “short” respectively (Gifford 1918:204-205). As might be expected, many of the other clan names Gifford recorded for the San Luis Rey community were originally affiliated with other rancherías and were brought together as a result of the historic process of aggregation of people from different villages. Ojauminga (Waxáumay16) Ojauminga is the name recorded at Mission San Luis Rey for Guajome. This equivalence has been established by identifying an individual originally baptized from the ranchería of “Guajaimie” at San Juan Capistrano who was later listed in the San Luis Rey padrón from Ojauminga. The conversion of Ojauminga’s population was relatively complete within five 16

28

The linguistic form Waxáumay is derived from the pronunciation of José María Zalvidea, Harrington’s consultant at San Manuel Reservation, who spoke Luiseño, as well as Gabrielino (Harrington n.d.:147).


years of the founding of Mission San Luis Rey, however a few elderly individuals from that ranchería were not baptized until 1812 and 1815. Principal clan names affiliated with Ojauminga were Amomix, Apix, Chamquinich, Chapuix, and Lallela. In post-secularization times, a number of ex-neophytes settled in the region known as Buenavista, which then included Guajome. According to the expediente for the Guajome land grant, two of these Luiseño Indians, Andrés and José Manuel appealed to Governor Manuel Micheltorena on June 22, 1843 for legal title to their land. Their action was precipitated by a counter claim by members of the family of Pablo Apis, who had been born at Ojauminga and was one of the principal leaders of the San Luis Rey Indians: . . . being desirous to cultivate separately a piece of land for the support of our families, we asked the mayordomo, who was Tomas Gutierrez, to designate a place where we might carry out our intentions, and our petition having been granted by the mayordomo, he passed to the place known by the name of Buenavista, in which place he assigned us a piece of land . . . We immediately commenced to cultivate said piece of land as far as our circumstances would permit and to [make] such improvements as we could considering that the place belonged to us. From that time [1839] to the present, four years have passed during which time we have lived peaceably, without any difficulty with the administrators of the mission, . . . but now we are [sought?] to be disturbed by a son of the mission called José Apis, who seeks to appropriate the same place, which as he alleges legally conceded to him by Father Antonio Peyrí but he has not shown anything proving the same nor has he ever made the slightest opposition to the improvements we were making on said place, which he should have done, if he had any claim, but he has absolutely made no representation until the present time [Andrés and José Manuel in Expediente 459, California State Archives n.d.: Bk. 5, 315-318]. The missionary and mayordomo assigned to San Luis Rey, Fr. José María Zalvidea and José Joaquín Ortega, both supported the petition of Andrés and José Manuel for Guajome, which was eventually granted to them by Governor Pío Pico two years later. A number of possibilities exist for the identification of José Manuel and Andrés in the San Luis Rey padrones, so it is not known whether their families originally were connected with Ojauminga or not. The grant was later purchased by Abel Stearns and given by him to his brother-in-law, Cave J. Couts, as a wedding present in 1851. A number of Luiseño Indians worked for Couts as ranch hands, domestic help, and builders of his large adobe ranch house (Brennan n.d; Carrico 1987:29). Couts had a mixed reputation for his dealings with Indians. During his tenure as Indian subagent for San Diego County (begun in 1853), at times he appeared to serve the Luiseño communities well, but he was also known for his harsh treatment of certain Indians who worked for him, including alleged instances of manslaughter (Carrico 1987:51; Copley et al. 1969:70-71). Pumusi (Pumuushi) Pumusi is a ranchería known to have been relatively close to Mission San Luis Rey, although its location has not been previously identified (cf., White 1963:178). Based on the years in which Camp Pendleton Ethnohistoric Study

29

people were baptized from Pumusi and from Puyalamo, one of its probable neighbors, we proposed that these rancherías were located either in the middle portion of the San Luis Rey River between Ojauminga and Pala or in a similar position on the Santa Margarita River between Topome and Temecula (Johnson et al. 1998:30). Following up on our own suggestion, we examined maps of the region along these two rivers to identify locations where villages might have been located. In doing so, the tributary called Moosa Creek, which joins the San Luis Rey River near Bonsall suggested itself as possibly being derived from the ranchería name Pumusi. When we examined Harrington’s placename notes for this area, we were initially discouraged from equating “Moosa” with Pumusi. Harrington made the following notes during his visit to the canyon with Francisco Gonzales, one of his early Luiseño consultants: Looking up Moosa Canyon photoed tókya, mt. [mountain] with 2 ears, on the coastal side of Moosa Canyon. He [Francisco Gonzales] says the real Moosa is way up this canyon – we will go to it. Moosa is an American name. He equates [it] with the Indian name kayí’ [Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 105]. Several years later, Harrington returned to the Luiseño region and worked with Eustaquio Lugo who accompanied him on a placename trip from Pala to Nahachish Rock near Vallecitos on July 3, 1933. Lugo told Harrington: Moosa is for pamuusa and this is a corruption of pumuushi, his beard, for there was an Ind[ian] there who had a beard.17 All vd. [volunteered] [Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 174]. Lugo’s information confirms our initial suspicion that Pumusi was probably located in Moosa Canyon, as did information later recorded from by Harrington from María de Jesús Omish (Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 305). We tentatively place the village several miles up the canyon where Gonzales said the “real Moosa” was located. Clan names recorded from Pumusi in the San Luis Rey padrones include Aqui, Gopola, Guepix, Marequix, Momolix, Mopix, Nahuix, and Puclau. The capitán of the post-mission Luiseño settlement at Buena Vista was a native of Pumusi named Vicente Puclau, who had been baptized as an infant at San Luis Rey in 1810. He was one of the signers of the 1852 Temecula Treaty, where his name was listed as “Bicente Poo-clow” (Heizer 1972:60; Parker 1967:15). Puyalamo (Puya’law) Puyalamo is very likely the ranchería down stream from Pala called “Pullali” where Fr. Lasuén and Corporal Lisalde camped in 1797. We have placed it between Fallbrook and Bonsall, based on testimony from one of Harrington’s consultants who provided puya’law as the name of a locality where acorns were gathered along the trail that lay between the Monserrate Ranch and Pala (Oxendine 1983:119). Prominent clan names found at Puyalamo were Asnila, Hehuix, Holix (Olix, Jolis), Mutuo, Quellunuc, Tacpsi, and Tahua. Other clan names born by people at Puyalamo indicate family

17

30

Two elders interviewed for this study that were native Luiseño speakers stated that Pumusi meant ‘bearded’.


relationships with other rancherías, e.g., one child named “Chahualis” and another with a mother named “Medacat” suggests links to Topome, where these two clan names are common.

VILLAGES TO THE SOUTH OF MISSION SAN LUIS REY Most of the rancherías located down coast from the mouth of the San Luis Rey River are listed under their Spanish names in the San Luis Rey padrones, e.g., Bataquitos, San Alexo, and San Dieguito. Only one village appears under its native name, Jalpay. Apparently most of the inhabitants of these rancherías were speakers of the Ipai language (Northern Diegueño), although some bilingualism is indicated because there existed some intermarriage with Luiseño rancherías to the north. The use of Spanish names for some of these rancherías may result from the missionaries’ effort to keep the names straight in a situation where two different placenames (Ipai and Luiseño) might refer to the same place. None of the people from the three rancherías considered in this section (Bataquitos, Jalpay, and San Alexo) appear to have been listed under their clan names in the padrones, an obvious difference from the pattern observed for people recorded from Luiseño rancherías. Bataquitos The word batequitos means “little water holes” in Mexican Spanish and is originally derived from the Yaqui word bate’ekim for a hole dug in a dry streambed to obtain water (Bright 1998).18 Nowhere in the San Luis Rey padrones is there an obvious association of Bataquitos with its original native name. Two instances were recorded, however, where neophytes were initially recorded with native names for their villages at missions to the north and then listed from Bataquitos after they had transferred to San Luis Rey. One of these individuals was baptized in 1801 at Mission San Fernando from “Suelpay.” The other was baptized in 1797 at Mission San Juan Capistrano from “Palaua.” Because these two names are different, it is not obvious whether either might be the original name for Bataquitos in either Luiseño or Ipai. Ethnographic records are not consistent either with regard to the native name applied to Bataquitos. Kroeber (1907:148-149) recorded the name “Kulaumai” as being on the coast south of Agua Hedionda, and “Piiv” as being the Luiseño name for Bataquitos. Harrington’s notes appear to correlate Kroeber’s “Kulaumai” with Bataquitos, and don’t mention “Piiv”: When I ask what [the Luiseño] called Batiquito, [María de Jesús Omish] says Batiquito is kulaa’aw. But S. Dieguito = pu’laava. Encinitas = panaa’aw [Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 217]. Other information from Harrington’s Luiseño consultants María de Jesús Omish and José Olivas Albañas reiterate that pu’laava was the name for San Dieguito, but revises the name of Encinitas to panau’ (Harrington 1986:Rl. 119, Fr. 188, 190). The ranchería name “Palaua” recorded in 1797 for the Bataquitos individual baptized at San Juan Capistrano resembles both the names of Encinitas and San Dieguito, which were each to the south of Batiquitos Lagoon. Clearly further ethnohistoric research and consultation with linguists will be necessary to straighten out the correlation of native names with Spanish placenames in Diegueño (Ipai or Kumeyaay) territory. Since a fair number of the Bataquitos, San Alexo, and San Dieguito

18

Although today the accepted spelling is Batiquitos, the name is consistently written “Bataquitos” in the mission records. In this study, the spelling Batiquitos will be used for the modern placename, and Bataquitos will be used for the ranchería.


31

individuals listed in the San Luis Rey padrones had been baptized originally at Mission San Diego, it may prove fruitful to search the records of that mission for further clues regarding ranchería locations and nomenclature. Traditional marriage patterns involving people from Bataquitos include three links to Luiseño rancherías (one to Quechinga and two to Pumusi), eight to Jalpay, four to San Alexo, two to San Dieguito, two to Hiba, one to Tejeyu, and one to Marjaner (?). The last three rancherías appear to be Ipai names, but have not been located and only appear in the context of being the villages of origin for spouses of people from Bataquitos. Jalpay According to linguists Margaret Langdon and Amy Miller, the name Jalpay (or “Gelpay” as it is sometimes spelled) is likely to be Ipai (Northern Diegueño) in origin (Langdon and Miller, personal communications, 2000). According to Langdon: Jalpay . . . seems to be a word I have recorded as helyepay at Mesa Grande and halypay at Barona, both meaning “near.” I don't know of its use as a place name [Langdon, personal communication, 2000]. Initially the possibility was considered that Jalpay might be the native name for Bataquitos, however this idea has been rejected because of the way the two names are treated in the padrón entries. Eight instances of traditional marriages were tabulated where one spouse was listed from Jalpay and the other from Bataquitos. In a number of these cases, the husband and wife were baptized on the same day; therefore it seems unlikely that the missionary would use the native name for the home ranchería of one spouse while using the Spanish name for the other’s birthplace. In one instance the missionary initially listed both spouses from “Jalpai,” but then crossed out the wife’s origin and changed it to Bataquitos – an unlikely correction were Jalpay and Bataquitos two different names for the same place. It is conceivable that Jalpay is the native name for the ranchería seen on Buena Vista Creek by the Portolá expedition, however the Luiseño name for Vista itself was tee’evi according to information collected by Harrington (1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 189). The marriage patterns involving people from Jalpay strongly suggest that it was situated in the Vista, San Marcos, or Escondido vicinity. Traditional marriages involving people from Jalpay included the eight marriages to people from Bataquitos already mentioned, one to Pumusi, one to Puyalamo, one to San Alexo, one to San Dieguito, one to Gegepa, and one to Meljo. One couple from Capcusau and Marcouèué had several children born at Jalpay. Gegepa, Capcusau, and Marcouèué were apparently all Ipai village names and only appear in the San Luis Rey padrones as rancherías of origin for people with family connections to Jalpay. San Alexo “Kulau” was at San Elijo (San Alexo), according to Kroeber, but this appears to be a variant for “Kulaumai,” a placename he had previously listed as on the coast between Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos. The placename San Alexo originated during the Portolá expedition of 1769 but was later not consistently applied to the same locality (Bright 1998:131). According to Carrico, who has studied the San Diego mission records:

32


Over the years various Spanish officials confused native villages at Batiquitos Lagoon, San Dieguito Valley, and San Elijo Lagoon. The problem is that Batiquitos, San Elijo, and San Dieguito all contained rancherías and all were visited by Spaniards in the early colonial period. To further compound the confusion, Crespí called what later became Batiquitos, San Alejo, a name which is now applied to San Elijo Lagoon near Solana Beach. The name San Dieguito, unfortunately, occurs in mission records as an alias for San Elijo, Batequitos, and San Benito Palermo, another unspecified village. Between 1774 and 1808, these villages logged a total of 211 baptisms, including 41 in 1777. Whether these figures represent one major village, a series of villages, or dispersed camps, which became confused in mission documents, is unclear, although it seems probable that settlements at theses locations were grouped together by the Spaniards [Carrico 1977:35]. Twenty-one people were baptized at San Luis Rey from San Alexo between 1805 and 1819. Traditional marriages in the San Luis Rey padrones involving people from this ranchería included four spouses from Bataquitos, one from Jalpay, two from San Dieguito, and one from Pamú, a ranchería located to the east in the Santa Maria Valley.

MIDDLE SAN LUIS REY RIVER Pala (Pála) The vicinity of Pala was first proposed as the future site for Mission San Luis Rey at the time of the Grijalva/Mariner expedition in 1795, but this idea was later abandoned after further reconnaissance by Fr. Lasuén two years later. The incorporation of people from Pala into the San Luis Rey neophyte population didn’t begin in earnest until several years following the mission’s establishment, and only about 20 percent of those eventually baptized appear in the padrones before 1810. The conversion of the population along the Middle San Luis Rey River was greatly facilitated by the establishment of the San Antonio de Pala asistencia beginning in 1810. A granary was built first, followed by a chapel (Carillo 1959). The second padrón of Mission San Luis Rey indicates that after baptism, many of the Indians from the inland rancherías were permitted to continue living in their traditional homes under the jurisdiction of the Pala asistencia. This situation seems to be parallel in some respects to the Las Flores estancia on the coast, although in the case of the Pala asistencia, a wider geographic territory was involved and unlike Las Flores, many of the people appear to have spent little or no time at the Mission San Luis Rey establishment. In Post-Mission times, the connection of the interior rancherías with San Antonio de Pala continued and indeed has persisted down to the present day for Catholic residents of Luiseño reservations in the vicinity. The site of the original Luiseño ranchería of Pala was apparently on the south side of the San Luis Rey River, according to ethnographic data. According to Marcelino Quasish: pala is at pt. of hill. Spring in creek. te’nali = Pala Mission [Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 10]. Clan names principally affiliated with Pala in the padrones were Agolba, Amomix, Cohacaix, Colacuix, Guale, Pahuix, Queyac, Sanix, Tacamix, and Tuctuc. None of these appear to match Camp Pendleton Ethnohistoric Study

33

the clan names documented ethnographically for the Pala community by Strong (1972:277), which may be the result of intermarriage and the gathering of people from different villages at the Pala asistencia. The capitán (chief) of the Pala Indians at the time of the signing of the treaty of Temecula in 1852 was “Pablino Coo-hacish” (Heizer 1972:60; Parker 1967:15). This individual can be identified as Paulino Cohacaix, who was baptized newly born at Mission San Luis Rey in 1806. Paulino’s parents (named Paulino and Paulina) were both from Pala, and the family was said to “live in Pala” according to a marginal notation in the first padrón. The second padrón also listed the Paulino Cohacaix family in the Pala section, so this family was undoubtedly one of those who assisted in building and overseeing the mission asistancia as it developed. The 1852 census lists Paulino’s son Sebastian immediately beneath his father’s name. For reasons that are unclear, the Cohacaix clan name was later converted to “Chorre”. Sebastian Chorre inherited the chieftainship of his clan from his father, which tradition held to be the earliest clan established at Pala (Strong 1972:284).19 Paumega (Páwmanga) Paumega, like Pala, appears to have been continuously occupied as a residential community from pre-Mission times to the present day Pauma Reservation. As a result, its location is well known and recorded as archaeological site CA-SDI-616 (True et al. 1974:83). “Paume” was first mentioned during the Mariner-Grijalva reconnaissance of 1795. The first baptism of an individual from this native town took place at Mission San Juan Capistrano in 1786. Only a handful of people from Paumega took place for a few years after Mission San Luis Rey was established in 1798, but in 1806 many children from the ranchería were baptized, signaling the beginning of more active proselytizing of the population. People from Paumega continued to be baptized by the missionaries at San Luis Rey nearly until the time of mission secularization in the 1830s. In 1843, the missionary in charge of San Luis Rey petitioned Governor Micheltorena on behalf of the Indians of Pauma and Cuqui requesting that they be given legal title to the lands where they were living (Unclassified Expediente 206 in California State Archives n.d.). A list of heads of households at “Paoma” and “Cucam,” which reports the extent of their agricultural property has been preserved in a contemporary document from 1843. (Shipek 1977:180-182). All of seven the neophyte men mentioned at “Paoma” are identifiable in mission records, and all but one of these individuals had been born there; the single exception being a man from Cuqui who had married a woman from Paumega. The clans listed for these men mostly represent those that were commonly encountered in mission records from Paumega. A list of the prominent clans at Paumega include: Caca, Coix, Coyobis, Gallis, Hachava, Hehuix, Hepluhut, Maglena, Mulix, Paubal, Poclau (also common at Pumusi), Poix, Quamix, Salal, Sarahut, and Soquix. Three of these (Maglena, Soquix, and Paubel) were documented in the list of Pauma clan and family names published by the ethnographer Strong in 1929: Maxlaña “fan palm,” Cokīcla”‘beetle”?, and Pauval (Strong 1972:277).

19

34

Sebastian Chorre can be identified in the 1894 Pala Reservation census, where his name was incorrectly listed as Sebastian “Clario.” His daughter Theresa was the first person listed in a group of 149 individuals confirmed Bishop Francisco Mora at the Pala chapel in 1876 (Temple 1961a). Theresa was apparently named for Sebastián Chorre’s mother, Teresa Muhichac of Changa.


The chief of Pauma who signed the 1852 treaty at Temecula was “Francisco Pah-hoo-vole,” identifiable in the mission records as Juan Francisco Paubel, the son of Benito Paubel who was listed as the most prosperous of men farming at Pauma in 1843 (Shipek 1977:181). Following the family of Capitán (Juan) Francisco Paubel, the 1852 California State Census lists Francisco “Maclanar” (Maglena) as “Alcalde [of] Pauma.” By the time of the 1860 Federal Census, Juan Francisco Paubel either had moved away or was no longer living, and Francisco Maglena was listed as Capitán General of the Tribe (San Diego Genealogical Society 1995c:26). Francisco Maglena’s wife was Felipa Subix, whose father (Saturnino Subix) was from Topome. The descendants of Francisco Maglena and Felipa Subix began using Majel as their surname and have remained one of the leading families at Pauma for many generations.20 The Soquis clan, also an important clan at Pala, later used the surname Pachito. One of the Soquis descendants, Reginaldo (“Ray”) Pachito contributed greatly to our understanding of Luiseño traditional history and ethnography through his work with anthropologist Raymond White (White 1963). Muta (Muutamay) Only seven baptisms were recorded for people from Muta, so this ranchería does not appear in Table 1. Muta may be correlated here with the Luiseño placename muutamay on the Tecolote Ranch near Pauma (Beemer 1980:3-4, 25; Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 15, 371; Oxendine 1983:122; Sparkman 1908:192). The old California Spanish name for this ranch (Tecolote) is a loan translation from múta, which means “great-horned owl” in Luiseño (Bright 1968:25; Merriam 1979:192). It is likely that those people who lived at Muta regarded themselves as members of the Paumega political group. Cuqui (Kúki) After Topome, Cuqui appears to have been the next largest native town located in any part of Luiseño territory. The home territory of Cuqui was at El Potrero on the south side of Palomar Mountain. Several separate residential communities were apparently encompassed under the name Cuqui, including the site known as Molpa (Oxendine 1983: 128-133; Sparkman 1908:191192; True et al. 1974; True and Waugh 1982:48-52). The large size of the Cuqui political group is reflected in the many clans listed in the San Luis Rey padrones that were associated with this ranchería. Among these are family surnames that survived into the twentieth century: Ayot, Calac, Chahue, Hommohix (Omish), Moquaquix, Nesacat, Noycix, Pantobac, Papuca (Pupuca), Guasac, Quenguis (Caengish), Sabal, Sihuac, and Sobanix (Sobenish). Following their baptisms, many of the people from Cuqui continued to reside at their home ranchería and were listed in the Pala section of the second padrón of San Luis Rey. As was the case with Pala and Pauma, Cuqui continued to survive as a native settlement well past the midnineteenth century. The 1843 list of men farming at “Cucam” includes a number of Cuqui families, but also appears to include the settlements at Yapicha and La Jolla where Luiseños from other rancherías had settled (Shipek 1977:180-181). The capitán of Cuqui in 1852 was José Calac, who signed the Temecula Treaty (Heizer 1972; Parker 1967:15). The 1860 census tabulated 119 Indians at “Potrero Village,” under the authority of a capitán named José Antonio (San Diego Genealogical Society 1995c:73-76). The location of the Potrero Ranchería is shown on the township map surveyed in 1853-57 (Harvey 1974: 140-142, 147; Sutton 1965:93) and its

20

See “Descendants of Saturnino Subish of Topome” in Chapter 5 for further details regarding this family lineage.


35

central locus has been identified as archaeological site CA-SDI-242 (Oxendine 1983:188; True et al. 1974:86). The Rancho Cuca or El Potrero was granted to María Juana de los Angeles, an Indian woman of Mission San Luis Rey in 1845 by the last Mexican Governor of California, Pío Pico (Copley et al. 1969:64; Cowan 1977:31). The padrones allow us to identify María Juana de los Angeles as a woman from Bataquitos, who had been baptized at Mission San Diego. At Mission San Luis Rey, she married Casiano Sobanix, who had been born in Cuqui and was also one of the residents (grantees?) of the Pueblito community on what is now Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton (McCawley 1996). The Cuca grant was eventually patented in 1877 by the United States government and title given to Margarita Sobenes (Sobanix) de Trujillo, daughter of Casiano Sobanix and María Juana de los Angeles (California Land Cases n.d.). The Indian families still living at the Potrero village, under their chief Olegario, protested the patent but to no avail. These families appear to have relocated to Rincon and La Jolla following their eviction from Rancho Cuca between 1879-1889 (Carrico 1987:69, 78, 84-86; Shipek 1987:43; Sutton 1965:93-94; True and Waugh 1982:50-51). Corenga and Cohanga (Kwanga?) Corenga and its probable neighbor Cohanga are the least certainly identified of any of the Luiseño villages along the upper San Luis Rey River. Although both are suspected to be settlements within the confines of the modern La Jolla Reservation, neither name appears to be attested in the rich linguistic record of placenames located in that vicinity (Oxendine 1983). Alternatively, either Cohanga or Corenga could conceivably be names for Puerta Noria located further up-river, however the settlement known by that name appears to have been included under the Caguenga ranchería designation (see below). In Spanish words, “h” is silent and our past experience has found that “Coa-” is used for kwa- when Indian names were recorded by the missionaries, so “Cohanga” could conceivably represent an original Luiseño placename something like Kwanga (if “Coha-” is meant to represent kwa-, as we suspect). Corenga and Cohanga are clearly associated with the La Jolla Reservation vicinity on the basis of clan names recorded for each. Common clan names at Corenga include Coix, Hochacat, Papuca, Quenguix, and Yuhuloc. Clans at Cohanga include Aguayo, Ascat, Guasac, Hochacat (Ochecat), Pannacamal, and Yatis. The 1852 California State census includes the clan names (as surnames) for everyone counted at “La Joya,” and many of the adults are identifiable in the San Luis Rey padrones. The clan names and identified individuals listed are virtually identical with those that were affiliated with Corenga and Cohanga in the padrones, securely placing those two rancherías in the vicinity of La Jolla. On the basis of shared clan names, it cannot be determined decisively whether Corenga or Cohanga was closer to Cuqui and which was closest to Caguenga, up canyon or down canyon respectively from La Jolla. The Papuca and Quenguix clans were present at both Corenga and Cuqui, while the Guasac clan was present at both Cohanga and Cuqui. Cohanga was also the home ranchería for a few members of the Nesacat clan, which was also at both Cuqui and Caguenga. A few members of the Aqui and Palajuix clans were listed from Cohanga, but were more numerous at Caguenga. The Coix clan was present at both Corenga and Paumega. Since Corenga shared slightly more clan names with Cuqui (and Paumega) and Cohanga shared clan names with Caguenga upriver, we have placed Corenga down river and Cohanga up river on our map, but admit that this conclusion is tentative. 36


Based on interviews with Luiseño elders at La Jolla, Strong reported: At īañahō near the Nelson place, three-quarters of a mile east of the La Jolla schoolhouse, lived the amagō, akī [Aqui], wassuk [Guasac], and acketum [Ascat] clans, each clan being an independent ceremonial unit. Formerly the extinct puhpuka [Papuca] clan lived here. At hōlyulkum, the Nelson place, lived the awaīu [Aguayo] clan, as well as several families from other clans. The panukemal [Pannacamal], luhkutcic, and ūlukuh [Yuhuloc?]clans formerly lived here but became extinct . . . At señmī, a flat one-half mile southwest of the Nelson place, lived part of the kēeñic and pakut clans. There were several other village sites in the vicinity but the clans that once occupied them had disappeared [Strong 1972:279-281, italics added for clans and placenames]. Nearly all of these La Jolla clan names match those associated with Corenga and Cohanga in mission records (see above). One of the remaining clans, amagō, appears to another name for the Coix clan (prominently associated with Corenga), based on identifications of people who later used the surname Amago in historic records.

SAN JOSÉ VALLEY AND BEYOND The broad confines of the Valle de San José (Warner Valley) appear to have been a favorable location for California Indian settlement. Several Ipai (Northern Diegueño) villages were located on creeks entering the southern and eastern parts of the valley and Cupeño rancherías were located along the northeastern margin. On the west and northwest there appears to have been four or five Luiseño rancherías. Most, if not all of these appear to have been occupied throughout the Mission Period and continued into the latter part of the nineteenth century (Harvey 1974; Phillips 1975:60, 123; Shipek 1987:41; Sutton 1965:91). We have determined the names and locations of three of these villages (Caguenga, Guariba, and Potumeba) by comparing placenames recorded by Harrington with ranchería names in the San Luis Rey padrones. In addition to either Cohanga or Corenga, which might have been equivalent with or near the place later called Puerta Noria, another ranchería name (Changa) that appears in the padrones is apparently in the vicinity of the San José Valley based its clan names shared with two of the three Luiseño villages already documented for the San José valley. Despite our success in identifying the Luiseño names for certain villages that existed in the valley, there remains some uncertainty regarding where these were located and which might correlate with known settlements of the latter part of the nineteenth century. Unfortunately, authorities disagree to a certain extent on which names applied to which post-Mission settlement. Shipek’s list appears to be most complete. She names four settlements in the valley with Spanish names: Puerta Noria, La Puerta de San José, Puerta La Cruz, and San José. At least three of these were Luiseño. Shipek additionally provides native (presumably Ipai) names for two of these: Janut for Puerta Noria and Kwawheer for San José. Our village-by-village description appears below, first considering four Luiseño rancherías, followed by four villages belonging to other speech communities. Caguenga (Qewee’ew) The Caguenga documented in the San Luis Rey padrones is not to be confused with the Fernandeño village with a similar spelling. It is correlated here with the settlement later known Camp Pendleton Ethnohistoric Study

37

as La Puerta de San José in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Harrington’s Luiseño consultants, José Olivas Albañas and María de Jesús Omish, told him that the name for La Puerta was qewee’ew21 and was located on the north side of Lake Henshaw (Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 203, 296). This description is ambiguous because two “Puertas” could conceivably be thus described: Puerta Noria and La Puerta de San José (Shipek 1987:41).22 Indeed, Kroeber reported that Puerta Noria was called “Kheweyu,”23 close enough to Harrington’s qewee’ew to represent the same placename (Kroeber 1907:106). It is possible that both Puertas were separate residential communities within the same political group (Harvey 1974:21-22; Oxendine 1983:135). Harrington’s Luiseño consultants explicitly stated, however, that Puerta Noria was called páalutpa “wet ground,” a name that does not correlate with any ranchería name in mission records (Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 203; Elliott 1999:1642). Marcelino Quasish said that Puerta Noria was called kwímova in the Cupeño language (Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 8). An indication that La Puerta de San José is actually Caguenga instead of (or in addition to) Puerta Noria comes from the identification of its capitán. Pedro “Palasas” is listed as “Capton José La Purta [sic]” with his wife Gertrudis in the 1852 California State Census (p. 40, lines 2930). Pedro’s clan name was spelled “Pal-e-gish” when he signed the Treaty of Temecula in the same year on behalf of the Indians of La Puerta (Heizer 1972:60; Parker 1967:15). This information is sufficient to identify him as Pedro Palajuix, who was baptized with his wife, Gertrudis Cuasicac, at Mission San Luis Rey in 1823. Pedro was explicitly noted as the Capitán of Caguenga in the padrón, which supports the equivalence of Caguenga with La Puerta de San José, where he was serving in the same capacity in 1852. Pedro Palajuix and his wife were listed in the “Pala” section of the padrón, where they were among those couples still living in their native rancherías. In the B. D. Wilson report on the Indians of Southern California in 1852, La Puerta was called “Pedro’s village” (Wilson 1995:17). Varient spellings of Caguenga in the San Luis Rey padrones include “Cahuenga,” “Caueuma,” and “Cauena.” Two people were listed from “Cuimeba” or “Quimebe,” Spanish spellings of kwímova, the Cupeño name of Puerta Noria (Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 8). Both individuals were subsequently associated with Caguenga in other sections of the padrones, supporting the notion that the Caguenga political group encompassed both Puerta Noria and La Puerta de San José. Common clan names at Caguenga listed in mission records were Chiquis, Aqui, Nesacat, and Palajuix. The last three names also occur at Cohanga. Guariba (Nguríiva) Although the Luiseño name for Puerta La Cruz has long been known to be “Ngorivo” or nguriiva (Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 280; Harvey 1974:140; Kroeber 1907:146, 1925; Oxendine 1983:135), its correlation with the spelling “Guariba” found in mission records has not been recognized until now. Puerta la Cruz continued to be occupied beyond the Mission Period until

21 22

23

38

qewee’ew appears to be derived from qeweewiš ‘fox’ (cf. Hyde 1971:228). In contrast to Shipek, Harvey stated that Puerta Noria and Puerta de San José were two names for the same ranchería (Harvey 1974:21). Other records refer to a settlement called Puerta Chiquita (or “Puertita”). This might be an alternate name for Puerta Noria or La Puerta de San José (Brigandi pers. com. 1998; Carrico 1987:35), however Merriam (1929) regarded Puerta Chiquita as possibly a name for a Diegueño ranchería in the Warner Valley area. Reheard once as kéwewyo by Harrington (1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 137). Harrington’s Gabrielino consultant José María Zalvidea provided kawéwyam as a variant form of the name. Zalvidea, who appears to have been partially of Luiseño ancestry, placed kawéwyam somewhere near ngoriivo, i.e., Puerta La Cruz (Harrington n.d.:147).


its remaining residents were forced to move from their homes in the early twentieth century, because their ranchería existed within the boundaries of the Rancho San José del Valle grant (Shipek 1987:41-43). In 1852 the capitán of Puerta La Cruz was Bruno Cuasicac (“Cwah-si-cat”), who signed the Treaty of Temecula on behalf of his ranchería (Heizer 1972:60; Parker 1967:15). He can be identified in the San Luis Rey registers as Bruno Qusagat, who was baptized in 1820 when he was six years old (SLR Bap. 3660).24 Puerta La Cruz was called “Bruno’s Village” in at least one document during the period that he was chief in the mid-nineteenth century (Wilson 1995:17). Prominent clan names associated with Guariba in the San Luis Rey padrones were Cuasicac, Hisuhut, Michac, Palobix, and Quasis. Another member of Bruno’s clan, Cecilia Cuasicac, was married to the alcalde of Puerta La Cruz, Valentín Atache (Mitcax clan) of Changa, according to the 1852 census, mission records, and data collected by William Duncan Strong. Bruno Cuasicac had been succeed by Valentín Atache as capitán of Puerta La Cruz by the time of the 1860 federal census (San Diego Genealogical Society 1995c:65). Strong presents genealogies of Michac (Mitcax) and Cuasicac or Gugepanapix (Waxipañawic) clan members at Puerta La Cruz in his Aboriginal Society in Southern California (Strong 1972:282-284). Potumeba (Putúumaw) Marcelino Quasish, a consultant for J. P. Harrington, told him that pitúmovi, known as “El Rincon,” was a subsidiary ranchería of Puerta La Cruz (Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 98).25 From María de Jesús Omish and José Olivas Albañas, Harrington recorded that putúumaw was a “flat or level ground three miles west of P[uerta] C[ruz], where they used to shear sheep” (Elliott 1999:1642; Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 220). Such a location places Potumeba in the vicinity of La Puerta de San José, according to Shipek’s map (1987:41). The problem with this identification is that we already have presented evidence that the chief of Caguenga was considered to be capitán of La Puerta de San José (see above). Two possible explanations for this situation suggest themselves: (1) there were two historic settlements in the vicinity of the northwestern part of Lake Henshaw (i.e., La Puerta de San José and Potumeba) or (2) Potumeba may be the specific Luiseño name for La Puerta de San José and was subsidiary politically to the capitán of Caguenga (instead of Guariba) at the time of the 1852 census. Potumeba, which lay between Caguenga and Guariba, may have shifted its political affinities through time because of decline in population and intermarriage between leading clans.26 Only ten baptisms were recorded from Potumeba, which was also recorded as “Potuma” and “Potummaga” in the San Luis Rey padrones. Possibly most people who lived at this community were recorded under Guariba, because clan names documented among people from Potumeba were shared between the two communities, e.g., Atache, Hisuhut, and Quasis.

24

25 26

Bruno Cuasicac is shown as a member of the Waxipañawic Clan at Puerta La Cruz in Strong’s Genealogy 26, however his mother’s name is incorrectly given as Guillerma mitcax (Strong 1972:283). The second padrón of San Luis Rey records that Bruno’s parents were Diego Quisacac and Diega Musicat of Changa (SLR Bap. Nos. 3691 and 3709). Indian census records show that Marcelino Quasish had among the last people to live at Puerta La Cruz before its residents were forced to move from the Warner Ranch to Pala in 1903. Pedro Palajuix, capitán of Caguenga (La Puerta de San José), was married to Gertrudis Cuasicac, a member of the same clan as Bruno Cuasicac, capitán at Guariba.


39

Changa (Chánga) Changa is not to be confused with Pechanga, the Luiseño reservation east of Temecula. Ethnographic testimony pertaining to the location of Changa has not been located to date, but it contains virtually the same list of clan names found at Guariba so the two villages were closely related. The word chángax means “on this side of something” in Luiseño (H. Rodriguez, personal communication, January 2000).27 Common clan names at Changa were Atache, Quasicac, Michac, and Quasis. Both the capitán and alcalde at Puerta La Cruz in 1852 had genealogical connections to Changa (see discussion of Guariba above). We have placed this ranchería northwest of Guariba along Aguanga Creek on our map, between Guariba and Oak Grove, but this location should be considered conjectural until additional information is found. Tahui (Tawí) “Tagui” was mentioned as the last ranchería where the Diegueño language was spoken during the expedition of Fr. Juan Mariner and Pablo Grijalva in 1795. It was situated at the southern edge of the San José valley according to Mariner’s diary. The journal of Fr. José Bernardo Sánchez, who accompanied Fr. Mariano Payeras, the missionary president, provides some additional details: As we entered the [San José] valley we headed north, crossing the best land. It took us two and a half hours before we arrived at the knoll where the village of Tagui is located. Without delay the site was surveyed. There were springs to the north and west. Because it seemed appropriate for the establishment [of a future mission] to the Reverend Father, he ordered that a holy cross be placed on the east side of the knoll, with my assistance and that of the people that accompanied us.28 All of the knolls to the south and southeast had springs that together could make a good canal to irrigate the beautiful plain of soil that they surrounded. The Indians here had an abundance of crops. The valley could have been more than three leagues in length, and in some parts two leagues in width. From Santa Ysabel to this site, or Guadalupe as named by the Reverend Father, there must have been about two and a half leagues [Sánchez 1821]. Fr. Sánchez’s description is consistent with a location for Tahui at Monkey Hill where Lake Henshaw now sits, but one map of late nineteenth century villages shows a settlement called San José situated at Monkey Hill with “Tawhee” located to the south (Shipek 1987:41). According to B. D. Wilson’s report of 1852, the ranchería of San José had a population of 100 people in the mid-nineteenth century (Wilson 1995:17). Marcelino Quasish, a former Cupeño resident of Puerta La Cruz, told Harrington that the Monkey Hill ranchería was called páshkwa, and Sparkman obtained the same information from Luiseño sources, recording the name as “Pashkwo” ((Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 98; Sparkman 1908:191). Kroeber stated that “Paskwa” was the Luiseño name for San José and was equivalent to the Diegueño ranchería of Tawi (Kroeber 1907:148). Marcelino Quasish concurred that “tawí is [the] D[iegueño] name of José Valle … = Cup[eño] pashkwa” (Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 8).

27 28

40

According to Bright (1968:11), cháŋax meant ‘this side’. Some writers believe that the erection of the cross in the San José valley by Fr. Mariano Payeras was in the vicinity of Puerta La Cruz and explains the origin of that placename (e.g., Quinn 1964:11).


“Pascua” occurs only once in the San Luis Rey padrón, as the village of origin for a sixty-year-old woman baptized in 1823. In addition to eleven people listed from Tahui (in several variant spellings) in the San Luis Rey padrones, many more people from this ranchería were baptized at San Gabriel and are included in that mission’s padrón (Mission San Gabriel 1824). Probably more baptisms from this ranchería occurred at Mission San Diego, as well. Cupa (Kupa) The village of Cupa at Warner’s Hot Springs is well documented ethnohistorically and ethnographically (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1925; Phillips 1975; Strong 1972:183-273). It was called xakupin in the Ipai (Northern Diegueño) language and is sometimes recorded under this name as “Jacopin” or “Jacupin” in mission records. Also, people from Cupa were not infrequently recorded from “Agua Caliente,” a name also applied to a Cahuilla ranchería and reservation near Palm Springs. In addition to the 133 baptisms recorded for Cupa at Missions San Juan Capistrano and San Luis Rey, other Cupeños were baptized at Missions San Gabriel and San Diego. The San Gabriel padrón (1824) lists a number of people from Cupa or Jacupin, and some people from Cupa, including their famous leader Antonio Garra, were listed as transfers from Mission San Diego in the San Luis Rey padrones. The clan names associated with Cupa match those later documented by Gifford (1917) and Strong (1972:186), and many of the people listed in the padrones can be identified in the 1852 California State Census and Strong’s “House Census of Kūpa, ‘1865’ to ‘1902’” (Strong 1972:192-214). The forced eviction of the Cupeño people from their home ranchería to Pala in 1903 remains one of the best known examples, unfortunately not atypical, of the flaws in U.S. property laws that resulted in the taking of traditional Indian lands that had been continuously occupied for centuries (Bahr 1997; Brigandi n.d.; Castillo 1978; Shipek 1987:42-45). Yugicna At first glance, this ranchería name might seem to be a version of Yuima, located between Pauma and Cuca (Potrero), however based on certain clan names shared with people from Tocanonga and Cupa, Yugicna appears to have been a small Mountain Cahuilla or Cupeño ranchería. Its location has not yet been determined, nor its name correlated with ethnographically recorded placenames in the sources examined for this report. It is interesting to note that a woman from Yugicna, Juana Antonia Calulli, was married to Juan Antonio Cusuhatná, the famous Mountain Cahuilla chief. Both were baptized in 1828 at Mission San Luis Rey and are listed in the second padrón. Juan Antonio’s village affiliation was given as Cusuatná, a name that appears only once in the mission records and is apparently identical to his personal or clan name. When Juan Antonio signed the 1852 treaty at Temecula, his personal or clan name was recorded as “Cooswoot-na” (Heizer 1972:60; Strong 1972:150). In the same treaty, “Sak-too …Ylario of “Wah-kigh-na” (Yugicna?) was listed among other Cahuilla leaders who were signatories (Parker 1967:15; Sutton 1985:392). Tocanonga (Tók ’anó’) More than half of the 45 baptisms from Tocanonga occurred at Mission San Luis Rey in the years 1823-1824. The clan names recurring most often for people from this Mountain Cahuilla ranchería were Cabanajuix, Tamanacuix, and Sahuebal. Tocanonga is securely placed at Los Coyotes, according to information collected by Harrington. The second element in the name, Camp Pendleton Ethnohistoric Study

41

“anó” means “coyote” in Luiseño (Eric Elliott, personal communication). Because of the association of the name Tocanonga with Los Coyotes, it might further be suggested that this was the Luiseño name for a Cahuilla ranchería that once existed in Coyote Canyon. After a smallpox epidemic decimated the community, a number of families relocated to San Ignacio and San Ysidro, the upper and lower villages respectively in what later became Los Coyotes Reservation (Strong 1972:146). The upper village was called Páchawal, and the lower village was called Hulaqal in Cahuilla (Katherine Saubel, personal communication, April 2000). Other Cahuilla and Cupeño Villages Several other Cahuilla villages are represented in the padrones of Mission San Luis Rey, especially in 1823 when there appears to have been a push by the missionaries to baptize native peoples of interior region. The villages of Thobacamay (also recorded as Tobaca, Thobacat, and Taubaja with a total of 9 baptisms), Jolagona (4 baptisms), and Jaycoba (5 baptisms) all possess clan names found at Cupa and Tocanonga. Julagona may be a variant of the Cahuilla name Hulaqal29 (called Wilákalpa in Cupeño), which in the late nineteenth century was a linguistically mixed community composed of Cupeño, Mountain Cahuilla, and Ipai families (Bean and Smith 1978:588; Bean et al. 1991:52; Strong 1972:146). It is possible that Jaycoba is a version of Jacupin, the Ipai name recorded for Cupa in some mission records, but further research will be necessary before this equivalence is accepted. Other Mountain Cahuilla baptized at San Luis Rey include the famous chief Juan Antonio from Cusuatná in the San Jacinto Mountains, a person from Pagui (Pauī) in the Cahuilla Valley, and two from Palpisa (Palpīsa) located to the north of Pagui (Bean et al. 1991:70, 74; James 1969:125; Strong 1972:146-148). The Desert Cahuilla were represented at San Luis Rey by at least one individual, a woman who came from Panacse (Panūksī) on the north side of Toro Peak (Bean et al. 1991:71; Strong 1972:52).

AGUANGA AND TEMECULA VICINITIES Aguanga (’Awaanga) and Tobane (Tóvanga) Perhaps partly because Aguanga was located in the northern frontier of territory inhabited by the Luiseño, its population appears to have shifted from location to location throughout its known history. During late prehistoric or protohistoric times, the people of Aguanga may have resided to the north of the territory they inhabited during the Mission Period. John Harrington recorded the following tradition from his Diegueño consultant Angel Kwilp: An. tells me the very important tradition he has heard that the San Luiseños were originally in the Cahuilla Valley and that they were originally driven out of there by a war with the Cahuillas. The San Luiseños then came down by Aguanga. … [Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 83]. One of the locations inhabited by the people of Aguanga is well known because a town by that name grew up in the vicinity. Harrington recorded the meaning of the name: When I ask where the old place called “awá” is located, [José Olivas Albañas and María de Jesús Omish] say … location is ’awaanga. The name means “dog” [Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 264].

29

42

Hulaqal means ‘wild buckwheat’ in Cahuilla (Bean and Saubel 1972:72).


During the Mission Period and afterwards, the political territory of Aguanga encompassed more than a single community, as is indicated by both ethnohistoric and ethnographic and evidence. In 1852 B. D. Wilson, the sub-agent for Indian affairs in southern California, noted that “Alhuanga” consisted of two villages (Wilson 1995:17). Another mid-nineteenth century account by a Spanish Californian provides locational information: From the Coyotes [Cahuilla ranchería], I struck the road from Warner’s Ranch to Temecula, about four miles northwest from an Indian Village, Ahuanga. After going to Temecula, I returned. I was then aware that there were two Ahuangas, I passed through two places called Ahuanga, and I believe that the one further up has been called Canoleto, and has been called Ahuanga as well. This is the place lying four miles to the South East of the point above referred to where I struck the road. The place where I struck the road is also called Ahuanga [Santiago Arguello, cited in Harvey 1974:139]. The Aguanga village called “Canoleto” was known to the Luiseño as tóvanga (or toovon) and was located near Oak Grove: tóvanga = Aguanguita, a settlement just this side of Aguanga and included by most people under the name of Aguanga [Marcelino Quasish, in Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 74]. The place toovon is this side of Oak Grove. Mortar-holes there [Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 278]. Only a few baptisms were recorded from a village called “Tobane” (also Toban, or Thobana) in the San Luis Rey padrón, and these individuals possessed clan names prevalent among people affiliated with Aguanga. In 1852, headmen of both Aguanga and “Tovin” (Tobane) signed the 1852 Temecula treaty (Heizer 1972:60; Parker 1967:15). Each of these capitanes can be identified in mission records, and were both stated to be from Aguanga when they were baptized as children at San Luis Rey: “Cervantes Ca-hal” (also called “Servanto” in the 1852 California State Census) can be matched with an individual baptized as Silvano Caxal, who was seven years old in 1817; Ysidro “To-sho-vwul” of “Tovin” (Tobane) can be identified as Ysidro Thosobal, who was one year-old in 1819. Based on the large number of baptisms (159) recorded at San Luis Rey, the Aguanga political group was fairly sizable during the Mission Period. Common clan names associated with Aguanga included Tosobal, Hoscapix, Atoula, Cosac, Pocalac, Pausis, Caxal, Pasibehacat, Sobaguix, Ayal, and Najat. By the time of the 1852 California State Census, only 16 people were tabulated living at Aguanga itself with another 57 apparently living at Tobane (which seems to have been called “La Punta” [or La Puerta?] in the census). Other people who were baptized originally from Aguanga were found to be living at Temecula and Pala in 1852. The population of Aguanga may have been greatly impacted by loss of Luiseño lives during a devastating battle that took place near their village in January 1847 with the Cahuilla forces of Chief Juan Antonio Cusuhatná (Brigandi 1998:34-35; James 1969:114-115; Parker 1971; Phillips 1975:50). By the time of the 1860 census, only 34 people were tabulated at the “Awangua Village” (Carrico 1987:35; San Diego Genealogical Society 1995c:43-44).


43

Although some authorities appear to exclude Aguanga from Luiseño territory and assign the village to the Cahuilla (e.g., Bean 1978; White 1963), the ethnographic data collected by Kroeber, Harrington, and Strong coincides with evidence from mission records that shows that Luiseño clans were present there. Despite the evidence for Cahuilla-Luiseño enmity cited above, some intermarriage between the two groups probably occurred at Aguanga, as has been documented among the Luiseño, Cupeño, and Ipai (Northern Diegueño) neighboring villages in the San José Valley. Pimixga (Píimichnga?) As with several other villages known to have existed in the Aguanga and Temecula vicinities, the location of Pimixga (or Pimix) is not well documented. While most people from this ranchería were recorded at San Luis Rey, a fair number of baptisms also occurred at San Juan Capistrano and a few were recorded at San Gabriel. At San Juan Capistrano, the name of this ranchería was also recorded as “Pimecha,” “Pimeyche,” “Pimich,” “Pimichi,” “Pimache,” and “Pamechic.” Although three baptisms from this ranchería took place at San Juan Capistrano prior to 1810, virtually all other people came to the missions from 1810 onward. All of these patterns are consistent with a interior location. Although Harrington’s interviews pertaining to Luiseño placenames did not shed light on the location of Pimixga, his Gabrielino notes did. José María Zalvidea, who lived at the San Manuel Reservation and provided Gabrielino ethnographic and linguistic data, had been raised by his maternal grandparents at Soboba and could also speak Luiseño. Among Harrington’s papers from Zalvidea was the following note: pī́micham = gente de Cahuilla Valley – San Luiseños are also pī́micham. It is a place this side of Cahuilla Valley a distance – that is the place called pī́micham [Harrington n.d.]. Such a location would place Pimixga roughly northwest of Aguanga and northeast of Toulepa (see below). Some additional indirect information can be obtained based on shared clan and intermarriage relationships that Pimixga shared with its neighbors, as documented in mission records. Some commonly occurring clan names at Pimixga include Chibut, Caparrapix, Muhix, Pagenim (Pajanim), and Sibat. Since Caparrapix is also the most common clan name at Toulepa, an adjacent territory is suggested. The San Luis Rey padrones show instances of intermarriage each with spouses from Toulepa and Aguanga, suggesting interaction among these interior rancherías. The San Gabriel padrón records a few marriages between people from Pimixga and people from Serrano rancherías in the territory northwest of Temecula in the San Jacinto Valley, e.g., Goromuya, Cuquina, and Gonopeapa (Mission San Gabriel 1824). Toulepa (Tówlepa?) No other native town as populous as Toulepa (187 baptisms) is as much as a mystery today with regard to its location. Thirteen individuals from Toulepa were baptized at Mission San Juan Capistrano between 1803-1816, where the ranchería name was variously spelled as “Toulecpe,” “Touletpa,” “Touleppa,” “Toutleupa,” “Tuluucpa,” “Tolappe,” and “Touletme.” Most of these individuals subsequently transferred to San Luis Rey, where the first baptism did 44


not occur until 1808. Thereafter many people from Toulepa were baptized, especially between 1810-1819 and continuing as late as 1828. The late baptismal pattern for this ranchería demonstrate that this native town was situated somewhere in interior Luiseño territory. The distribution of clan names also gives some hint of social interaction with neighboring rancherías and therefore is indicative of relative location. For example, Paugebam occurs several times at Temecula and also is found in isolated instances among individuals affiliated with Toulepa, Topome, and Pala; thereby indicating past intermarriage between people at Temecula with these rancherías and furthermore suggesting perhaps that Temecula lay between Toulepa and the two other towns. The three most common clan names affiliated with Toulepa were Caparrapix (Aparrapix), Nacla (Nagla), and Yujac (Yojac). Other clan names that were prevalent at this ranchería were Chorquit, Guabix (Huhabix), Meixbal (Mehaix), Muhix, and Yuscat. Common clan names at Toulepa that were recorded in the padrones among people from other interior rancherías include Yuscat at Aguanga and Caparrapix at Pimixga. Palobix occurs several times among people from Toulepa, but is most common at Guariba (Puerta la Cruz). One individual from Toulepa is surnamed Caxal, which is a very common clan name at Aguanga. The distribution of clan names thus points to a location for Toulepa in the region north of Palomar Mountain. In Harrington’s Luiseño placename notes, the name that comes closest to the Toulepa recorded in mission records was a place called táw’ila, near what is now called Bell Mountain located in the Paloma Valley about half-way between Temecula and Perris: [José Olivas Albañas] knows Santa Gertrudis. But an old Pichanga man told [him] that táw’ila is the Indian name of the place called in Sp[anish] La Campana, a place toward Perris from Santa Gertrudis. There is a bell rock there [Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 228]. Toulepa and táw’ila are different enough phonemically, however, to question whether Toulepa really was in the vicinity of Bell Mountain. Another etymology will be suggested below. One of the clues pertaining to the location of Toulepa is that it appears to have been one of the rancherías that was continuously occupied throughout the Mission Period. The listing of many couples from Toulepa in the Pala section of the second padrón of San Luis Rey indicates this to be the case. Indeed many people named in mission records from this ranchería may be identified in the 1852 California State Census, and what is interesting about this fact is that most of these families appear to have been living at what has been called the “Old Temecula” village (Drover et al. 1990). The location is apparently that shown on early maps of the Temecula vicinity (Bibb 1972; Harvey 1974:137; Shipek 1969). Indeed the chief of Temecula in 1852, “Lauriano Cah-par-ah-pish” is almost certainly from Toulepa, because the Caparrapix clan is the dominant clan associated with that village.30 Our conclusion is that either “Old Temecula” was originally the ranchería called Toulepa by the Luiseño or that most of the population from

30

The chief of Temecula in 1852, “Lauriano” is most likely to be the individual originally christened as Valeriano Caparrapix (SLR Bap. 1422). Valeriano was three years old when he was baptized from Toulepa in 1810. His parents, Proculo Caparrapix and Procula Hehillim, were also from Toulepa, and their family is listed in the padrones among those living away from the mission in their native rancherías.


45

the original Toulepa ranchería had resettled at “Old Temecula” by the end of the Mission Period.31 According to the linguist Eric Elliott, Toulepa might be related to the Luiseño word –tówla: –tówla is Luiseño for “(its) base,” “root,” “origin” with obligatory possession. – pa certainly is a locative suffix, but is no longer productive in Luiseño, and only shows up in a few place names, as I recall. It’s rampant in Cahuilla where it’s still very active [but] since –tówla is obligatorily possessed, one would also expect the possessive prefix po- in the place name [Elliott, personal communication, 2000]. After being informed that Toulepa might have been located between the modern town of Temecula and the Pechanga Reservation, Elliott offered a suggestion that the village may have been named because it was situated at the base of Palomar Mountain: The Luiseño word for Palomar is Pa’áa’aw or Pa’á’aw … and this form is itself analyzable as “up there,” or “that place on top,” so that tówlapa “toulepa” “at its base” would stand in opposition to Pa’áa’aw “that place on top” [Elliott, personal communication, 2000]. Elliott noted that the word –tówla can mean “origin,” as well as base, which suggests another possible etymology for the name. According to Luiseño tradition, Nahachish, one of the “first people,” came from a place near Temecula and started out from there to found and name all of the Luiseño villages around Palomar Mountain and down the San Luis Rey River (Parker 1965; True and Meighan 1987). One must be cautious in interpreting placenames in the absence of native authority, but the coincidence of a Luiseño town meaning “origin place” located apparently in the vicinity of where Nahachish began his journey is noteworthy. Temecula (Teméku) Fr. Fermín Francisco de Lasuén first mentions “Temeco” as a ranchería of about 50 inhabitants during his reconnaissance in 1797 to select a site to establish Mission San Luis Rey (Brigandi 1998:16-17; Lasuén 1965:52). Unfortunately he did not record the presence of other rancherías in the vicinity, so it is unknown whether Toulepa was then in existence or not. Five individuals from “Temeco” or “Temecumme” were baptized at Mission San Juan Capistrano between 1803 and 1811. The spelling “Temecula” first appeared in the San Juan Capistrano records for eight baptisms in 1815. At San Luis Rey, the first baptisms from Temecula (the only spelling used in the padrones) occurred in 1802 and continued consistently through 1823. The three last baptisms documented for Temecula occurred in 1826 and 1833 at San Juan Capistrano and in 1833 at San Luis Rey. Some clan names and family surnames associated with Temecula include Ayujanit, Guappix, Nuquebanim, Paugebam, Paunet, Quenix (Quenguix), Sagebix, and Sicac (Sitat). The Quenguix clan also was present at Cuqui and Corenga. The Guappix and Paugebam clan names were shared with Toulepa.

31

46

A sketch map derived from Harrington’s visit to the Temecula area with María de Jesús Omish does not include a place called Toulepa, and unfortunately no such placename has been found elsewhere in his notes (Elliott 1999; Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 266; Love 1994).


In the discussion pertaining to the location of Toulepa (see above), reference was made to the original village site of Temecula. An archaeological site CA-RIV-50 has been identified as Timéku based on evidence of protohistoric occupation (Drover et al. 1990; McCown 1955; Oxendine 1983:162-163, 185). This identification has been disputed by Bibb (1972), who noted that the place called “Temecula” in post-secularization times was two miles east of CA-RIV-50 overlooking Temecula Creek. Early maps show two concentrations of Indian houses, some north of Temecula Creek and others south of the creek (Bibb 1972). We have suggested that one or both of these two residential communities east of CA-RIV-50 might have been the native town known as Toulepa in mission records (see preceding section). Part of the problem lies with the fact that the name Temecula, as used during Mission times and afterward, came to encompass a larger geographical area (Drover et al. 1990). The original site of Teméku (CA-RIV50) appears to have been abandoned sometime after Mission San Luis Rey constructed a warehouse and chapel to the east, and the name Temecula was shifted to this new location. Eventually, either of the two ranchos named after Temecula could have absorbed the village site of Toulepa, and so its name was replaced and seemingly forgotten, especially after the forced eviction of its Luiseño residents in the fall of 1875. Paixba (or Pasebi) Paixba is a ranchería undocumented in the ethnographic literature. Only one placename was found that resembled this spelling: Paisvi, described as “Iron spring on Palomar” (Sparkman 1908:192), but this appears unlikely to be the correct identification for a ranchería location. At San Luis Rey three individuals were baptized from Paixba between 1811-1817, and another transferred from San Juan Capistrano where the village name had been spelled “Pacheme.” At San Juan Capistrano there is a bewildering number of variant spellings that look somewhat like this name, but might also refer to a completely different village or villages: “Pasabe,” “Patseve,” “Pazva,” “Pacsebe,” and “Pacse.” Two of the three individuals from Paixba baptized at San Luis Rey came from the Guappix clan, also found at Temecula. At San Luis Rey and San Juan Capistrano, traditional marriages were recorded between people from Paixba and the villages of Quechinga and Temecula, perhaps suggesting a location between these two rancherías.32 On August 8, 1845, a Luiseño Indian named Andrés petitioned in Los Angeles for a small land grant called “Pasebi,” located “in the direction of Temecula” that was never confirmed. The text of his application follows: To his Excellency the Governor, Andres, a native of the Mission of San Luis Rey before your Excellency with due respect and under the proper term, appear and say, that it is more than two years since the Reverend Father Minister of said Mission conceded to me a place in the direction of Temecula named Pasebi to put thereon and raise some stock., which I own and have acquired with my personal labor. Last year I made a trip to Monterey to ask the title in fee of that land, for which purpose I presented the corresponding map to the Superior Government of that Department then under the charge of General Don Manuel Micheltorena, who thought proper to consider my claim and issued the said title in my favor under the date of July 13th

32

A third traditional marriage was recorded between Paixba and Alupe, an unidentified ranchería.


47

of said year last past, to the extent of half of one league in each of the cardinal points, but as on my return I was obliged to show to the Administrator of that establishment, Don Joaquin Ortega, the foresaid title. This gentleman seized it and held in his possession, saying that he was going to keep it because he was going to petition for Temecula. I made a demand for it on several occasions but could not obtain it. At last he told me he had returned it to the Government and as it is only a short time that the revolution of California against Mr. Micheltorena has taken place, everything remained paralyzed, I was deprived of a very necessary document without being able to make my reclamation until the respective authorities were established, which obliged me to keep silence until now when the administration continues its legal course, applying to Your Excellency to be pleased to order that a new title be issued in my favor and that the corresponding judicial possession be given me to secure my right of ownership in the land aforesaid. Wherefore I reiterate my petition to Your Excellency for a decree in conformity herewith, whereby I shall receive a favor and justice. I swear it is not done in malice &c. Be please to admit the present on common paper, there being none of the corresponding stamp at this place [Unclass. Expediente No. 243, California State Archives n.d.: Bk. 8, 76]. One possible location for Paixba might be the Fallbrook area. No other village name is known for the vicinity of Fallbrook, and a Pasebi/Paixba location there would fit with the clan and marriage relationships documented with Temecula and Quechinga. Harrington’s notes contain a reference to a placename sheveshvi for the old ranch house site one mile south of Fallbrook town (Oxendine 1983:137). It was said to refer to the Luiseño word for “sycamore.” Linguistic expertise will be necessary to render an informed opinion as to whether the placename sheveshvi might somehow be related etymologically to the ranchería name Pasebi/Paixba.

SUMMARY This chapter has included all of the villages named in the vicinity of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton and represents the first attempt to locate all of the principal rancherías listed in the San Luis Rey padrones. This detailed investigation was necessary in order to be confident that all Mission Period villages that once existed in the vicinity of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton had been identified and to gain an understanding of the social network in which their inhabitants participated. The value of the use of mission register data to determine the clan compositions of villages, to reconstruct marriage patterns, and to identify individuals in census records and correlate these with settlement locations has been demonstrated by our study. In the course of presenting the information we collected, we have noted that there are a number of complexities in reconstructing settlement patterns based on mission register data. As is clear in our discussion of village names in the southern portion of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, we suspect that there is inconsistency in the level of specificity recorded by the missionaries. Sometimes political group names appear to be provided, while in other instances subsidiary settlement names were recorded. For example, Pomameye and Quigaia might have been names for clan settlements within the Topome or Uchme (Las Flores) political territories. To a certain extent, this may explain why ranchería affiliations seem to have changed in many cases when people transferred from San Juan Capistrano to San Luis Rey. The low numbers of 48


people baptized from some rancherías might not be a true reflection of how many people actually were living there, because some residents might have been recorded under the name of the central settlement in their political district. The problem of political district names versus names of subsidiary settlements might be related to some of the complexities we experienced in locating poorly attested rancherías surrounding Palomar Mountain that seem to have been situated very near to one another. Rancherías such as Corenga and Cohanga might have comprised a La Jolla political sphere. Similarly Guariba, Potumeba, and Changa all appear to be part of a Puerta La Cruz political territory. Toulepa, Temecula, and possibly Paixba together might have composed a Temecula group. The Aguanga political district had two settlements (Aguanga and Tobin), as did Caguenga (which apparently included both La Puerta de San José and Puerta Noria). Further complicating the picture is that rancherías near linguistic boundaries were represented by very different-looking names in mission records, depending on whether the village names were recorded in Luiseño, Ipai (Northern Diegueño), Cupeño, or Cahuilla languages. Further research will be necessary to confirm some of the specific locations proposed in this chapter, but we are confident that we have placed all of the villages at least in the general areas where they existed and in their approximate relative positions to one another. As work proceeds with the San Juan Capistrano records and analysis of the San Diego records is conducted in a comparable way, further discoveries will undoubtedly be made that will resolve some of the specific geographic questions raised by our study. More research using land grant records and other archival sources will likely yield additional information regarding village locations. Linguistic expertise will be helpful to analyze village names, clan names, and personal names that appear in ethnohistoric records.


49

CHAPTER 4 SOURCES FOR THE STUDY OF LUISEÑO AND JUANEÑO LINEAL DESCENT AND CULTURAL AFFILIATION INTRODUCTION Previous chapters have demonstrated that genealogical information derived from mission records may supplement other ethnohistorical data in identifying settlement locations and tracing the links between earlier sociopolitical groups to later communities. Thus we have already found occasion to cite many of the archival sources used for genealogical research of lineal descendants from Luiseño and Juaneño towns and villages in the vicinity of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. Those sources consulted in this study are each described below before we proceed to our findings pertaining to specific descendant lineages.

SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO MISSION REGISTERS, 1776-1847 In our previous study for Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, a mission register database for San Juan Capistrano was begun by Stephen O’Neil and completed through June 1801 (Johnson et al. 1998: 15-16, Appendix II). For the current effort, O’Neil planned to continue building this database through 1835, so that it would cover a period comparable to the San Luis Rey database. In actuality, he was able to extend it even further to January 1847. The database (Appendix III) contained information regarding 4584 baptismal entries and an effort was made to cross-reference these to marriage and burial entries for this entire period. The following data were systematically transcribed to the database when they were found in the original records: personal name (Spanish and Indian), village of origin, date of baptism, age at time of baptism, parents’ names, marriage entry numbers, burial entry number, and year of death. Furthermore, the baptismal numbers of the parents of each individual were added when they could be determined. Additional information and comments were added to a “Notes” field in the database. As a result of this project, the San Juan Capistrano database has become a valuable tool for ethnohistoric research. For example, we were able to use it profitably to identify people from San Juan Capistrano whose names were later listed in the San Luis Rey mission padrones (see Table 3). Although creation of the San Juan Capistrano database improves our ability to undertake computer-assisted searches of the mission records for genealogical purposes, some complexities of the data require continued reference back to the primary documents. Because handwriting is difficult in the original records, reasonable differences in interpretation often occur regarding the spelling of village names and personal names. Also, the linguistic difficulty of Indians in reciting Spanish names and of missionaries in hearing and accurately writing Indian personal and village names resulted in name alterations and introduced confusion in identifying particular individuals named in subsequent records. Fortunately for the purposes of our research, some considerable work to reconstitute Indian families at Mission San Juan Capistrano has been undertaken independently by Robert Schaefer, professor emeritus of history from the University of Michigan. Dr. Schaefer provided an alphabetically indexed list of the names of Indians recorded in the baptismal register during the first fifty years of Mission San Juan Capistrano’s existence, including their villages of origin (Schaefer 2000). This work may be

50


used to check transcriptions recorded in our database, although we have not yet attempted to resolve all differences between our separate efforts.33 San Luis Rey Padrones, 1811-1844 The two surviving padrones (census books) of Mission San Luis Rey make it possible to identify people whose names appear in later nineteenth century documents and to identify ancestors of today’s Luiseño people. The padrones were organized in separate sections according to marital status. Families were listed first in alphabetical sections, according to the husband’s Spanish name. Sections followed the family section for widowed individuals and children or others who were not yet married. Each individual’s entry typically provided his or her Spanish name, native name, ranchería affiliation, date of baptism, age, and baptismal number. We placed this data into a computer database in order to reconstruct the baptismal register insofar as possible and to use the information pertaining to family relationships for genealogical research (Johnson 1999; Johnson et al. 1998; Johnson and Crawford 1999).34 One loose, introductory page to one of the padrones has survived and reads, “Padrón formado en Abril de 1811.” We initially believed along with Engelhardt that that the loose page belonged to the second padrón of San Luis Rey and that the first padrón covered the years 1798 to 1810 (Engelhardt 1921:231; Johnson et al. 1998:6). We later discovered, however, that this supposition was incorrect, i.e., that it was the first padrón that was begun in 1811 (Johnson and Crawford 1999). Because the first padrón was not begun until nearly twelve years after Mission San Luis Rey was founded, the names of about 500 individuals entered in the baptismal register during those years are unaccounted for, most of whom probably had died. Similarly, the names of people who had transferred from other missions and had died prior to April 1811 are missing. By checking dates of birth of children born at the mission and the dates for newly converted individuals, we found that the second padrón of Mission San Luis Rey was begun about 1819 and then continued in consistent use until 1835, with three entries for 1843-1844. Although this second padrón was not consistently kept after 1835, some changes in family structure were apparently made to the records over the next decade. For example, marginal notations regarding deaths and marriages of particular family members were denoted by adding “c” for casamiento (marriage) and “+” for death. Los Angeles Plaza Church Baptismal Records, 1840-1856 (Part) Following mission secularization, a number of Luiseño and Juaneño people migrated to work as laborers and domestic help in the households of the citizens of the Pueblo of Los Angeles. The census of Los Angeles and its surrounding area prepared in 1844 lists the names of 220 Luiseños and 140 Juaneños who had moved northward to seek employment in the growing pueblo and on the various ranchos. As a result, the Plaza Church of Los Angeles records the names of many of these people in its registers. Also, certain capitanes and alcaldes of Luiseño settlements would have occasion to visit the pueblo regarding economic activities or official business and appear to have had their children baptized during these visits.

33 34

Chapter 6 contains specific suggestions for continued work with the San Juan Capistrano database to make it comparable to databases created for other southern California missions. The Mission Register program developed by Scott Edmondson in Microsoft Access was used to create the Mission San Luis Rey database.


51

Some work has been done previously to document the names of Luiseño and Juaneño Indians included in the Plaza Church baptismal records. The Santa Barbara Mission Archive-Library contains two notebooks compiled by Br. Veronius Henry in 1964, containing transcripts and photocopies for an incomplete selection of baptismal entries between 1840 and 1856. Although he was particularly interested in Luiseño people in these records, Br. Henry also included the names of other Indians who were baptized, their parents’ names, and the names of their godparents. While it was beyond the scope of the current study to collect the names of all Luiseño and Juaneño Indians listed in the Plaza Church records, the extracts made by Br. Henry were entered into an Excel database and provided information pertinent to several of the genealogies presented below.35 Land Grant Records Land grant records often contain valuable ethnohistoric information pertaining to California Indians. In discussing village locations in Chapter 3, we showed in several instances that land grant records have preserved records of native placenames; either in the titles of the grants themselves, in the expedientes (descriptions) of the grant boundaries, or in the diseños (maps) that accompanied the grants. In addition, biographical and genealogical data pertaining to Indian grantees and their families are often included, as are descriptions of Luiseño communities that existed in post-secularization times. For this study, we examined land grant records on microfilm pertaining to Buena Vista, Cuca, Guajome, Las Flores, Pasebi, Santa Margarita, and Temecula. These have been cited in the course of our discussions of village locations in Chapter 3 and in the histories of particular family lineages in Chapter 5. Most publications pertaining to Mexican Period land grants list only those grants approved during the long confirmation process instituted after California became part of the United States (Copley et al. 1969; Cowan 1977). Often overlooked are the many unsuccessful grant applications and unpatented grants that are documented in various court proceedings or other historical documents. Many of these are preserved as transcripts in the California State Archives (n.d.) or in the records of the land grant cases argued before the Southern District Court (California Private Land Claims n.d.). In a number of cases, particularly those involving grants to Mission Indians, paperwork did not survive to validate what had been legitimate titles given by Mexican governors to various individuals or communities in the post-secularization period. Our knowledge of such grants that were never patented remains incomplete and only has survived from secondary accounts, e.g., through court testimony given in the cases pertaining to other grants that were validated or through oral history information. One example of a poorly documented grant comes from the Southern District Court files pertaining to the proceedings to confirm the title for Rancho Santa Margarita y Las Flores. Testimony taken from the Luiseño leader Manuelito Cota indicates that Governor Manuel Micheltorena had given a small grant called “Requi” in 1843 to Luiseño Indians who inhabited El Pueblito on the lower Santa Margarita River. The papers to this grant were “lost” when one of the Luiseño grantees entrusted them to Pío Pico, one of the owners of Rancho Santa Margarita (McCawley 1996).

35

52

This Plaza Church database currently contains information from 88 baptismal records extracted by Br. Henry. Of the children baptized, 60 had at least one parent who was identified as a neophyte from Mission San Luis Rey, while 5 had at least one parent from San Juan Capistrano.


A second example of a poorly documented grant claimed by individual Luiseño Indians pertains to the area now covered by La Jolla Reservation. Mention of this grant comes from the report on the condition of the Indians of Southern California prepared by Helen Hunt Jackson and Albert Kinney in 1883: La Jolla was granted November 7th, 1845, by the Mexican Government to José and Pablo Apis Indians, Expediente No. 242, and is recorded in the surveyor general’s office, in book No. 4, p. 17. It was not presented to the land commissioner in 1858, and remained without any action being taken. Col. Cave J. Couts, now deceased, bought the interest of the grantees, and a contract was afterwards made between Judge E. D. Sawyer, of San Francisco, and himself to secure its approval by a special act of Congress. About three years ago an act was passed approving the grant for about 8,848 acres, reserving there from all lands then occupied. If this included Indians, there would not be much of La Jolla left [Jackson and Kinney 1994:503]. Further research using land grant records will undoubtedly uncover additional information about Luiseño and Juaneño family and community histories and will perhaps shed further light on Mexican Period grants to former Mission Indians that have not been well documented. Treaty of Temecula, 1852 Soon after California became part of the United States, gold was discovered in 1848 in the Sierra Nevada foothills. This triggered a massive immigration of people to California seeking their fortune in the gold fields. The resulting friction between California Indian groups and the immigrant miners and settlers led to Congress to enact legislation to resolve the situation. Three Indian commissioners were appointed to negotiate treaties that would provide reservations where California Indians would be able to live without harassment from whites. Eighteen such treaties were negotiated in 1851-52 between the federal government and California Indians (Anderson et al. 1982; Heizer 1972, 1978; Phillips 1997). The next to last of these was signed by the headmen of Luiseño, Cupeño, Cahuilla, and Serrano bands in the Pablo Apis adobe at Temecula on January 5, 1852 (Parker 1967; Phillips 1975:120-124). Congress later reneged on its treaty because of protests from white settlers in California that too much land had been reserved for the Indians. The failure to ratify the treaties led to continued loss of California Indian land rights until formal adoption of a reservation system in 1875 began to slow the trend (Carrico 1987). The 1852 Treaty of Temecula has been published a number of times, including twice in facsimile (Heizer 1972:56-62; McCown 1955; Parker 1967:12-15; Sutton 1978:390-392; Watson 1994). It has proven to be a useful tool in ethnohistorical research because it identifies the leaders of the principal Indian communities that continued to be occupied following the Mission Period. The leaders of fifteen Luiseño and Cupeño settlements signed the Treaty of Temecula “for and on behalf of the San Luis Rey Indians.” A separate column was headed the name of Juan Antonio, who had been baptized at San Luis Rey, but who was listed separately in his capacity as Chief of the “Kah-wé-ah nation of Indians” along with other Cahuilla representatives. Nearly all of the San Luis Rey Indian leaders who signed the 1852 treaty can be identified in the padrones (Table 4). Most of these individuals have been noted during the discussions of the individual rancherías in Chapter 3.


53

California State Census, 1852 The California State Census of 1852 is the most important document for documenting the native population of the San Diego County area in the mid-nineteenth century. Because the 1850 federal census was so inaccurate and seriously undercounted the population of California, the state legislature allocated funds for its own census (Harris 1984). Very few Indians had been included in the 1850 federal census (e.g., San Diego Genealogical Society 1995a), and the recount conducted for the state census for many counties compensated for this omission and resulted in a careful tabulation of Indian communities, especially former Mission Indians. For our study, a carefully constructed database prepared by genealogist Lorraine Escobar was used (Calif. State Census 1852), rather than a version published by the San Diego Genealogical Society (1995b) that unfortunately mistranscribed many Spanish and Indian names. A concerted attempt was made to identify as many people as possible whose names appear in the 1852 census by using the San Luis Rey database. Many individuals who had been born by 1835 could be thus identified, and we have been able to use these data to supplement other information on village locations and community histories presented in previous chapters. Table 4. Identifications of San Luis Rey Indian Leaders Listed in the 1852 Treaty Community

S. Luis Rey Bapt. No.

Mission

---

Cisto “Go-no-nish”

Las Flores

1310

Sixto Guanonix

Chacape

Bicente “Poo-clow”

Buena Vista

1761

Vicente Puclau

Pumusi

Pala

1019

Paulino Cohaquix

Father was from Pala

Pauma

3278

Juan Francisco Paubel

Father was from Paumega

El Potrero

3737?

José Calac

Cuqui

Yah-peet-cha

3859?

Calisto Chaqualis

Father was from Topome

Santiago “Yú-loke”

La Jolla

1075

Santiago Yuluc

Cuqui

Pedro “Pal-e-gish”

La Puerta

4228

Pedro Palaguix

Caguenga

Bruno “Cwah-si-cat”

Puerta Cruz

3660

Bruno Qusagat

Guariba

Ysidro “To-sho-vwul”

Tovin

3301

Ysidro Thosobel

Aguanga

Cervantes “Ca-hál”

Ahuanga

2902

Silvano Caxal

Aguanga

Lauriano“Cah-par-ah-pish”

Temecula

1422

Valeriano Caparrapix

Toulepa

Agua Caliente

bapt. at S. Diego

José Chagalgues

Cupa

José Ygnacio “Tosh-mah-kén-ma-wish”

San Ysidro

---

unidentified

Juan Antonio “Coos-woot-na”

Kah-wé-a Nation

4843

Juan Antonio Cusuhatná

Name In Treaty Pedro “Ka-wa-wish”

Pablino “Coo-hác-ish” Francisco “Pal-hóo-vole” José “Cah-lác” Calistro “Chah-cwál-ish”

José Noca “Chan-gah-láng-ish”

54

Name In Padrón

Origin In Padrón

unidentified

Cusuatná


Several characteristics of the 1852 census make it a valuable tool for ethnohistorical research. First, the census is organized geographically, and each Indian community may be identified because their capitanes and alcaldes were explicitly noted. In order of their appearance, Luiseño communities include San Luis Rey (pp. 12-13), Buena Vista (pp. 13-14), Pueblito (or Santa Margarita?) (p. 15), Las Flores (pp. 16-17), Temecula (pp. 18-24), Pala (pp. 24-27), Pauma (pp. 2728), “Mountains” (most families listed were affiliated with Pauma) (pp. 28-30), Potrero (pp. 3132), Yapicha (pp. 33-34), La Jolla (pp. 35-38), San José de la Puerta (pp. 41), Puerta La Cruz (pp. 42-43), La Punta [or “Puerta”?] (pp. 43-44), and Aguanga (p. 44).36 The second characteristic of the census that makes it invaluable for genealogical study is that surnames (i.e., clan names in most instances) were provided for nearly all of the residents of Temecula, Pala, Pauma, Potrero, Yapicha, and La Jolla. These provide the key to identify people who were listed with their clan names in the San Luis Rey padrones. A number of married couples and family groups listed in the second padrón were still listed together in 1852. Useful as it is, information contained in the California State Census must be approached cautiously. Many Indian names were inaccurately written down. Some of these errors are the result of understandable mistranscriptions from difficult-to-read handwriting in poor microfilm copies, but it is obvious that in many cases the original census-taker made mistakes. Spanish names spoken with a Luiseño pronunciation were often misheard and unfamiliar clan names were imperfectly recorded, resulting in frequent name transformations. Citing just one example mentioned in Chapter 3, the name of the chief of Temecula was given as “Lauriano Coras,” although he is most likely the individual listed in the San Luis Rey padrones as Valeriano Caparrapix from Toulepa (SLR Bap. 1422). Numerous other instances of name alterations were discovered during attempts to identify people listed in the 1852 census. Another cause of confusion is that ages given in the census are often mere estimates and are unreliable, especially for the oldest people, who sometimes had twenty or more years added over their true age as calculated from mission records. United States Census Records, 1860-1880 Much less useful than the California State Census of 1852 are the various federal census records conducted during the nineteenth century. Unlike the 1852 census, the 1860 census failed to provide surnames (clan names) for the Indians who were enumerated, and it appears that not all families in each community were included. Although some families were readily identifiable (despite having their surnames omitted), most were not. Enough changes apparently occurred in family composition and distribution between the various Luiseño communities that the lack of surnames renders the 1860 census less useful than it might have been for tracing the history of particular family lineages. The 1870 census for San Diego County is even less useful than the 1860 census because tabulation of families in Indian communities was not undertaken. Only those Indians were included who were owners of real estate, spouses of non-Indians, or who worked as servants and vaqueros on various ranchos. The published version of the 1870 census for San Diego

36

Several of the communities were unnamed or possessed variant spellings from those reported here. For example, the names Buena Vista and Pueblito actually do not appear in the census. These names have been inferred—in the first instance because the name of the capitán is provided and may be matched with the chief of Buena Vista who signed the 1852 treaty at Temecula (Vicente [Puclau]), and in the second because the geographic position of the unnamed community within the census matches the location of Pueblito between San Luis Rey and Las Flores.


55

County is an exceptionally poor transcription, especially in regard to Spanish names.37 It was checked against the original schedules on microfilm at the Family History Center, Los Angeles, and the 1880 census was consulted as well at the same location. The lack of enumeration of San Diego County Indians in 1870 probably is the direct result of uncertainty and turmoil in Luiseño communities brought about by the threat of eviction of people from their homes and removal to the two reservations established earlier in the year by executive order of President Ulysses S. Grant (Carrico 1987; Shipek 1987). It may well be that no census-taker was willing to risk his life to visit Luiseño communities because of their understandable animosity towards a government intent on removing them from their traditional homes. Several reservations had been established for Luiseño Indians by 1880, and families living on the Temecula and Cuca ranchos had been forced from their homes only a few years earlier (Brigandi 1998:51-57; Carrico 1987:84-88; Jackson and Kinney 1994; Shipek 1987:43). Presumably these families are listed in a special Indian schedule appended to the 1880 census; however, this document came to our attention too late to be consulted for this report. San Luis Rey and San Antonio de Pala Confirmation Records, 1876 In October 1876, Bishop Francisco Mora confirmed two groups of people, mostly children, on separate days at Mission San Luis Rey and at the chapel of San Antonio de Pala (Temple 1961a, 1961b). Sixty-four names were listed for San Luis Rey and 149 for Pala, recorded in the confirmation register of Mission San Diego. Quite a few of the individuals listed at San Luis Rey and most at Pala were Luiseño Indians. A few of the adults were elderly and had been baptized originally at Mission San Luis Rey, permitting their identification in the padrones. Besides each person’s first and last name (oftentimes their clan name), most confirmation entries included age, names of parents, and their godparent (padrino or madrina). Although the available transcripts of these confirmation records contain quite a few misspelled surnames (Temple 1961a, 1961b), these are nearly all reconstructable, given a familiarity with Luiseño patronyms. In the absence of reliable census records for the period between 1860 and the mid-1880s (or later), the confirmation records contain invaluable data on those Luiseño married couples and their children who continued their affiliation with the churches at Pala and San Luis Rey. San Luis Rey Parish Records, 1869-1919 One source of information that has only been partially consulted for this study are the registers of baptisms and marriages of the San Luis Rey parish that began to be kept in August and September, 1869. Microfilm copies of these registers exist at the Santa Barbara Mission ArchiveLibrary and were examined for this study. A typewritten index is accessible, listing names of people included in these books (and succeeding volumes), organized in alphabetical order by page number; however the names of parents, dates of baptism and other information were not included (San Diego Historical Society n.d.). The parish of San Luis Rey included chapels at Pala and Pauma during the years these registers were kept, and the names of many people from Luiseño Indian families at Pala, Pauma, Pechanga, Potrero, La Jolla, and Rincon are included. Recently the San Diego Diocese has allowed microfilm copies of the original registers to be

37

56

Even English names were garbled, e.g., Warner’s Rancho was transcribed incorrectly as “Wanius.” The San Diego Genealogical Society publication also inexplicably omits several townships present in the original census, e.g., Temecula and Pala Reservation, but a scan of those schedules on the microfilm of the original indicates that most Indian families were omitted altogether or categorized as “white.”


made available for use by people undertaking genealogical research, which will prove to be a boon for continued study of Luiseño history (Escobar 1998). The first book of baptisms for the San Luis Rey parish included entries from September 19, 1869 until May 2, 1886. A total of 845 baptisms are documented during this period, the majority of which were of Luiseño Indian children. A significant number of these baptisms took place during periodic visits by the parish priests to the Mission of San Antonio de Padua in Pala and the Chapel of Santiago in Pauma, which was established in July 1876. Totals were 405 baptisms at Pala and 100 at Pauma, including some non-Indians. Indian baptisms also occurred at Mission San Luis Rey, San Pascual, Santa Ysabel, Mesa Grande, Agua Caliente (Warner Springs), Temecula, Pechanga, and the Cahuilla Valley. Unlike the earlier mission registers, baptismal entries were not numbered sequentially. Also surnames were not recorded for many Indian children, especially in the early years, however their parents’ first names would almost always be provided. Indian Census Records, 1894-1930 In 1884 congress enacted a law requiring that agents or superintendents in charge of Indian reservations compile an annual census. These Indian census records are accessible on microfilm for central and southern California, beginning in 1886 and continuing to 1940 (U.S. National Archives 1973). Our research using these microfilm records was mostly conducted at the Pacific regional branch of the National Archives in Laguna Niguel, however only those reels from 1894 onward were available. Several microfilm reels of Indian census rolls, pertaining to the years 1907-1915, were accessible through the Family History Library catalog and were borrowed for use at the Santa Barbara Family History Center. Rather than examine each reservation’s census for every year, we began with a sampling strategy to look at the census rolls every four years. This was nearly achieved. With the exception of 1906 and 1918, reservation rolls were examined in four-year intervals between 1894 and 1930 with a few additions. Printouts were made from microfilm of the census records for 1894, 1898, 1902, 1903, 1908, 1914, 1926, and 1930.38 These records were supplemented by a published transcript of the 1910 Indian census (Watson 1993), a published census of Pala Reservation in 1919 compiled by E. W. Gifford (Strong 1972:215-219), and a copy of the 1922 Mission Indians census contained in J. P. Harrington’s papers (Harrington 1986: Rl. 114, Fr. 232-304). Indian census records need to be used with caution in genealogical research. A number of typographical errors appear, so it is necessary to compare names and family relationships from census to census to sort out mistakes and gain confidence in the information that was recorded. Ages were often estimated, so that dates of birth frequently varied between rolls taken in different years. For this reason, some of the dates shown on the genealogical charts included in Chapter 5 must be considered to be approximate, until confirmed by other sources of evidence, e.g., baptismal records. Another problem with the Indian census records is that people would inexplicably be missing in particular years only to be added later. Similarly, individuals or entire families would be dropped from the rolls without explanation. We may presume that deaths account for some of these changes, but movement on and off the reservations led to

38

The 1903 census was added because the removal of people from Cupa, Puerta La Cruz, Puerta de San José and other villages on the Warner’s Ranch resulted in significant changes to reservation rolls in that year. The 1908 Indian census was substituted for the 1906 census to save research time, because this microfilm reel was more readily accessible for Johnson’s use through interlibrary loan at the Family History Center in Santa Barbara.


57

some of the disappearances and reappearances that have been noted. Employment opportunities and marriage into non-reservation families caused some reservation residents to move away and often would result in their removal from the rolls. J. P. Harrington’s Ethnographic Fieldnotes, 1917-1934 Our research with J. P. Harrington’s ethnographic papers pertaining to the Luiseño and Juaneño was conducted mostly to gather data on village names and locations (see Chapters 2 and 3). Imbedded in Harrington’s fieldnotes, however, are various comments about the genealogical background of people with whom he worked, as well as other individuals. We transcribed genealogical information, when we encountered it in the course of scrolling through Harrington’s placename notes on microfilm. In several instances these data have proved useful to verify and supplement information from other sources. A copy of a 1922 Mission Indian Agency census of people living on Southern California reservations was also found among Harrington’s papers and was used at times as a questionnaire during oral history interviews (Harrington 1986: Rl. 114, Fr. 232-304). California Indian Roll, 1933 In 1928 Congress enacted the California Indians’ Jurisdictional Act, which was intended to settle Indian lands claims in California because of the failure of the United States Senate to ratify thirteen treaties negotiated with California Indians between 1851-52, including the Treaty of Temecula which had been signed by Luiseño, Cupeño, Cahuilla, and Serrano leaders (Anderson et al. 1982; Garner 1982:151-169; Heizer 1972; Stewart 1978; Sutton 1985). As a result of the 1928 act, the Bureau of Indian Affairs began a roll of all those individuals descended from Indians living in California in 1852 in order to reimburse them for dispossession of their lands. The final roll was approved in 1933. Application forms submitted by California Indians for inclusion on the 1933 Roll contain useful genealogical information that assists in tracing lineages from 1852 into the twentieth century, however many people who were settled on reservations did not need to submit applications because enrollment on a reservation was deemed sufficient evidence of California Indian ancestry. Although these application forms are accessible on microfilm at the National Archives branch in Laguna Niguel, it was beyond the scope of the current study to look up enrollment applications for all Luiseño and Juaneño descendants, although some of these were examined. The 1933 Roll itself is organized alphabetically by the family surnames (except for minor children) and includes information on place of residence and date of birth for everyone who had been born prior to 1928. We used the 1933 Roll as a means to check dates of birth for individuals who had been identified through other records as descendants of lineages traced from villages in the Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton area. Oral History Interviews, 1999-2000 In Chapter 1, we described how we contacted fifteen individuals for oral history interviews and noted which reservations and bands were represented (see also Appendix II). In two-thirds of these sessions, Johnson conducted the interview by himself (with a close family member sometimes present), but in five instances other individuals participated who had helped

58


facilitate the meeting.39 In each interview, the elder provided genealogical data regarding his or her family. Often this information was given from memory, but in a number of instances interviewees provided copies of genealogies and other information from their own files. Autobiographical information was usually supplied, as were ethnographic and linguistic data.40 In two instances, photographs taken by J. P. Harrington in the early 1930s were shown to the interviewees who provided identifications and comments on the people or scenes contained in the images. The 1922 census from Harrington’s notes was used as a questionnaire in several other interviews to determine whether particular family lineages were still represented on reservation rolls. Two individuals who were native Luiseño speakers were asked about a selection of village and clan names from mission records in order to gather information pertinent to these topics. The fifteen meetings with elders resulted in twenty-five genealogies, which included genealogies of spouses or other participants in the interview sessions. In addition to these, Johnson and O’Neil’s prior and continued research conducted for other Juaneño and Luiseño descendants provided another eight genealogies (four Juaneño and four Luiseño), for a total of thirty-three genealogies based on personal contacts. Nearly all of these genealogies provided names back at least through the individuals’ grandparents’ generation. Unless the person interviewed had records of their own accessible, dates of birth or death were sometimes not remembered or unknown, especially for a person’s grandparents. Following the interviews, an effort was made to correlate the ancestors recorded in each genealogy with names in nineteenth century records and where possible, to link these to earlier generations documented in the database compiled from the San Juan Capistrano and San Luis Rey mission registers. In most cases, we were able to extend the genealogies back another one or two generations using census and mission records. The 13 genealogies presented in Chapter 5 comprise a subset of 33 gathered during our interviews, because we included only those in which lineal descent could be firmly established from villages that once existed on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton.

DISCUSSION The sources described here for the study of Luiseño and Juaneño lineal descent are not the only ways in which families may be traced from their earliest forebears mentioned in mission records. These are, however, the principal sources that we have found most useful in our current effort. Future research pertaining to the histories of individual Luiseño and Juaneño family lineages will benefit from the descriptions of primary sources provided here and continued research using these sources and others. In particular, we found the oral history interviews to be an essential part of this process. It would have been impossible to make many of the connections between past and present families without the cooperation of the people interviewed for this study and the information they provided that was undocumented in other sources. As will be apparent in Chapter 6, the use of all pertinent sources (mission, census, church, ethnographic, and oral history information) in combination is necessary to establish genealogical connections between contemporary peoples and their ancestors who lived in native towns and villages in tribal territories now encompassed by Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton.

39 40

The meeting with an elder of the San Luis Rey Band, was conducted in the context of a group interview with seven other band members, who each provided their own genealogy. In addition to a person’s own ancestry, genealogical or biographical data were sometimes supplied about other relatives or individuals remembered from the elder’s youth, e.g., people interviewed by Harrington, Kroeber, or Raymond White.


59

CHAPTER 5 LINEAL DESCENDANTS FROM THE MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP PENDLETON AREA INTRODUCTION There are two ways in which we have attempted to reconstruct what became of the descendants of people who once lived in villages that existed in the area within the boundaries of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. The first of these approaches is to examine the population as a whole to determine the number of such descendants who survived the Mission Period and where they appear to have settled after mission secularization. The second method is to examine particular family lineages with ancestry from the villages that once existed on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. The first approach provides an overall view of community histories and cultural affiliation, while the second provides a detailed view of particular families that composed each descendant community. Our study of the population history of descendants of people who descended from villages that once existed on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton is based entirely on the San Luis Rey records. Further work will be necessary to identify parents of baptized children at San Juan Capistrano in order to gain an accurate accounting of the number of individuals descended from Camp Pendleton area villages who survived at that mission at the time of secularization. With regard to particular family lineages, a total of thirteen lineages of Luiseño and Juaneño descendants have been identified who had ancestors from Camp Pendleton area villages. These include six lineages with ancestry from Topome, one lineage from Pomameye, one lineage from Chacape, three lineages from Pange, one from Zouche, and one from Tobe. Those families identified here are certainly not the only such descendants that exist. For example, descendants of the Subish clan of Topome were present at virtually every reservation and native community in northern San Diego County at the turn of the century, yet we have detailed only three specific lineages of Subish descendants that led to individuals interviewed for this project. Although more research will undoubtedly add to the number of lineages identified to date, the genealogies documented in this chapter provide conclusive evidence to link Camp Pendleton’s past to present-day reservations and bands.

DESCENDANTS OF CAMP PENDLETON VILLAGES AT SAN LUIS REY In order to determine the number of people who descended from villages that once existed on Camp Pendleton, a computer program was written to identify all such descendants that existed in our ACCESS database derived from the San Luis Rey padrones. Table 5 categorizes the results. In Column 1 in Table 5, all persons who had been born in the four Camp Pendleton villages in the San Luis Rey padrones were tabulated. Those who had at least one parent from one of the Camp Pendleton villages were the “first generation” removed from these ancestral villages (some among the first generation descendants had been born in other villages and some were born at the mission). As Table 5 indicates, the first generation totaled slightly more than their parents’ generation who had been born in the four villages, although it must be remembered that these sums underrepresent the actual numbers at San Luis Rey because of deaths that occurred prior to 1811 when the first padrón was begun. The second generation is quite small, 60


compared to earlier generations, but this is only partly the result of a high death rate during mission times that prevented many in the first generation from reaching adulthood. The second padrón ceased to be kept sometime after 1835, so children who continued to be born after that year do not appear in our database (most of whom would have been in the second generation). Table 5. Descendants from Camp Pendleton Villages Baptized at San Luis Rey

Pomameye Chacape Uchme Topome Four Villages Combined41

Converts 2 16 15 347 380

1ST GENERATION DESCENDANTS From Other Born at Villages Mission 0 4 0 13 2 19 11 362 13 390

2ND GENERATION Born at Mission 0 2 3 46 51

Total 6 31 39 766 834

The list of names derived from the computer database who had a parent or grandparent from Camp Pendleton was carefully checked against their listings in the original San Luis Rey padrones to determine which individuals were marked as deceased by the end of the Mission Period. This effort made it possible to determine the number of descendants from Camp Pendleton villages baptized at San Luis Rey who survived to the time of mission secularization. The demographic profile of this surviving group of 402 descendants is presented in Table 6. By comparing the numbers in Tables 5 and 6, it is apparent that slightly less than half of the descendants of Camp Pendleton villages who had affiliated with San Luis Rey were still living by 1835. Table 6. Age and Sex Distribution of Surviving Descendants of Camp Pendleton Villages at Mission San Luis Rey in 1835 Age Group 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85 + TOTAL 0-19 20 +

41

Males 24 26 21 23 20 14 15 17 5 6 7 7 6 3 6 1 2 0 203 94 109

Females 26 46 26 22 10 12 11 10 5 8 2 7 2 3 4 4 0 1 199 120 79

Total 50 72 47 45 30 26 26 27 10 14 9 14 8 6 10 5 2 1 402 214 188

Percent of Total Baptisms in Age Group 12.4 17.9 11.7 11.2 7.5 6.5 6.5 6.7 2.5 3.5 2.2 3.5 2.0 1.5 2.5 1.2 0.5 0.2 100.0 53.2 46.8

Combined totals for mission-born children from Camp Pendleton area villages are not column totals, because in eight cases children had a father from Uchme and a mother from Topome; i.e., they would be counted twice if columns were totaled.


61

Post-Secularization Population Shifts In the years following the secularization of the missions, an exodus of many former Indian neophytes took place at San Luis Rey and San Juan Capistrano. In 1839 the Mexican governor of California appointed William E. P. Hartnell Inspector General of the California missions. In this capacity, he visited San Luis Rey, the pueblo of Las Flores, and San Juan Capistrano to meet with the remaining Indians and assess their situation (Hartnell 1839-1840; Engelhardt 1921:105107, 1922:122-123). Hartnell reported that the Indians at both missions were dissatisfied with the administrators appointed to oversee operations after secularization and many had fled northward to Los Angeles and Santa Barbara. Indeed the 1844 census of the pueblo of Los Angeles and the surrounding area contains the names of 220 Luiseños and 140 Juaneños who had immigrated to find work to support themselves. In the vicinity of the former missions, land was distributed to a number of Indians who remained in the vicinity. San Juan Capistrano was converted into a pueblo in June 1841, and each Indian family (estimated to be about 100 persons in all) received land allotments of 50 to 200 varas to support themselves (Engelhardt 1922:140-141). At San Luis Rey a number of Indians applied for and received land grants. Among these were Buena Vista, Guajome, Cuca, and Temecula.42 After a number of years of quarreling with the Indians over boundaries between his grant of Rancho Santa Margarita and the Indian lands at Las Flores, Pío Pico eventually acquired Las Flores from its citizens and also those of Pueblito, which was located at the mouth of the Santa Margarita River (McCawley 1996; Shipek 1977:178; Stephenson 1936). Eventually most of the remaining Indians living at both locations were forced to move, although some families continued to live in and work on Rancho Santa Margarita y Las Flores for the Picos and their successors, the Forsters.43 Although all of the Indian community lands and grants near the coast were taken or purchased by non-Indians, those native settlements located up the San Luis River and near Temecula continued to thrive. Some of these communities later became the Luiseño reservations established in the late nineteenth century and have been continuously occupied to the present day (see Map 4). Apparently Pala was granted by Governor Pío Pico in 1845 to Fortunato (Phillips 1975:49), similar in the way he had granted Temecula to Pablo Apis and Cuca to María Juana de los Santos (see Chapter 3). Under the conditions of the original grants, the titles held by these individual Indians were not meant to harm the rights of the communities already existing there, however under United States law, community land rights were not deemed valid. Court actions in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century led to the expulsion of Indian families from their homes at Temecula, Cuca, and other Indian communities (Brigandi 1998:51-57, n.d.; Carrico 1987; Jackson and Kinney 1994; Shipek 1987). In 1843 Fr. José María Zalvidea, who was then stationed at Mission San Luis Rey, submitted a petition on behalf of the Indians living at Pauma and “Cucam” to gain title to lands that they cultivated (Shipek 1977:179-182). Most of the names of the men who were listed can be identified in the mission padrones. As might be expected, many of these individuals were

42 43

62

These grants have been discussed in Chapter 3, because they were established in the locations of former Luiseño rancherías. A census report for the Santa Margarita Indian village lists ten individuals living on the ranch in 1866 (copy provided by D. Caudell, pers. comm.). Many of these are recognizable as people whose names appear in San Luis Rey parish records. Efforts to identify these individuals have thus far not met with success, so it has not be determined whether they were descendants of people from Topome or other villages on the rancho or whether they have living descendants.


originally from the rancherías of Paumega, Cuqui and Cohanga. They either had continued to reside at their villages or had returned there after the mission was secularized. One unexpected discovery, however, has been that nine of the names listed at “the Potrero of Cucam,” including both alcaldes, were originally from Topome. Most of these men from Topome appear to have been living at a community called Yapicha, because they were listed from that ranchería in the 1852 State census (Table 7). Table 7. Identifications of Men from Topome Who were Listed at “Cucam” in 1843 Name Sebastián Ponábix Silverio Subix Alejo Subix Pedro Subix Cayetano Chacol Bonito Chevis Felipe Alacuis Blas Thosobel José Antonio Tobac

Bapt. No. SLR 3403 SLR 2933 SLR 2905 SLR 4612[?] SLR 2793 SLR 1664 SLR 4872 SLR 523 SLR 4617

Est. Age at Time of Baptism 40 (1819) 15 (1817) 17 (1817) 50[?] (1826) 5 (1817) 25 (1810) 37 (1828) 3 (1802) 35 (1826)

Page and Line No., 1852 Census at Yapicha 34:44 33:13 33:35 33:24 33:33 33:16 ----33:5

Indeed, analysis of all the names listed in 1852 reveals that Yapicha appears to have been entirely composed of patrilocal families who originally came from Topome. In our discussion of Topome in Chapter 3, we noted that a number of men from Topome baptized in 1826 at Mission San Luis Rey were married to wives from Cuqui. These marriage connections may have facilitated the resettlement of many Topome clans to Yapicha sometime before 1843. Our conclusion is that the ranchería of Yapicha represents a colony of people from Topome who relocated inland to the Potrero area. These families and clans may have emigrated from their homeland at Topome in order to maintain their independence from the operation of the Santa Margarita Rancho, which had been granted to the Picos. The strong association between many individuals from Topome and their later residence at Yapicha will be noted in many of the family genealogies presented below.

LUISEÑO DESCENDANTS FROM THE CAMP PENDLETON AREA Descendants of Leocadio Chevis of Topome Leocadio Chevis (Chevish) was baptized with a number of other married couples from Topome on July 26, 1826 (SLR Bap. 4615). Three of these men had married women from Cuqui. Leocadio’s wife was Leocadia Quenguix; at 22 years old, she was less than half his estimated age of 55. The second padrón of San Luis Rey lists four children of Leocadio Chevis and Leocadio Quenguix, born between 1824 and 1831 (Figure 1). The next record for this couple was found in the 1852 California State Census where they were listed among families living at Yapicha (p. 34, lines 22-15). By this date Leocadio’s and Leocadia’s names had been converted to “Lucario Liebre” and “Lucaria Ardilla.” Two children were listed with them, Vicenta Liebre, age 12, and Lucario Liebre, age 22. The Spanish surname Ardilla is an obvious loan translation of the Luiseño clan name Quenguix (qeengish "ground squirrel’) and has continued to the present day as a patronym among Luiseño families (Beemer 1980; Gifford 1919:203; Hyde 1971: 228). The conversion of Chevis to the Spanish name Liebre “jackrabbit” in this census is 64


Leocadio ("Lucario") Chevis (Topome) 1761 - ?

Leocadia ("Lucaria") Quenguix (Cuqui) 1804 - ?

1st

María Visitación Chevis (Topome) 1824 - ?

Laureana Chevis (Topome) 1826 - ?

Zeferina Chevis 1829 - ?

Juana Chevis 1831 - ?

Lucario Chevis 1835? - 1933?

Susana Chevis 1838 - ?

Clemente María Castro Calac 1858 - ? 1863 - 1896?

Juan Ricardo Calac 1889 - ?

Xaviel ("Gabriel") Calac 1892 - ?

David Calac 1896 - ?

Carmelita Calac 1898 - ?

María Calac 1900 - ?

Romualdo Calac 1902 - ?

Juan Benito Calac

Francisco Calac 1868 - ?

Villiana Calac Hyde 1903 - 1994

Dolores Quasacac

Juaquina Despierto 1871 - ?

Raymundo Calac 1906 - ?

2nd

Macedonio ("Celedonio") Calac

Vicenta Chevis 1840 - ?

Juan Encarnación Sotelo Chorre Calac 1866 - ? 1862 - 1937

Alejandro Calac 1907 - 1981

Note: Some records indicate that Francisco Calac and Juan Sotelo Calac were "brothers." Further information will be necessary to verify the reconstructed relationships presented here.

Figure 1. Descendants of Leocadio Chevis of Topome

unexpected, however. The Luiseño word for “jackrabbit” was su’ísh, while chévish as a clan name was said to mean “breaking it” (Bright 1968:60, 70; Gifford 1919:203; Merriam 1979:192).44 María de Jesús Omish told John Harrington the following story about Leocadio (“Lucario”) Chevis: A man and wife lived back of San Onofre and had a baby and went to [Mission] San Luis Rey to attend a fiesta, and the Diegueño overtook them on the way home and four or five Diegueño men clubbed the man … and took the woman. The man came to later, was only stunned, he was Lucario Chevish, [Juan] Sotelo [Calac]’s maternal grandfather, 45… [The Diegueño] took the woman and were cooking beef, and [the] older Diegueño man told her to tarry longer when [she] went to get water in a dead cow’s horn for them to drink. The woman was ’apéakwiya and was from sengyam who lived in the hills back of Carlsbad. The old [Diegueño] man told [her] to stay longer each time and at last run away. The Diegueños were eating. At last she ran and got way down towards San Onofre. They overtook her, and she found a hole, and got in it and pulled a bush down over her, the Diegueños passed close by looking for her. Next day she went on, she was a strong woman, and got to Las Flores, where there were some people living [Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 216, edited slightly]. Harrington did not make clear whether this incident, described by María de Jesús Omish, dated before or after mission secularization. We suggest that this story comes from a period before Leocadio was baptized (i.e., before 1826) because it refers apparently to an Ipai (Northern Diegueño) wife to whom he was married prior to his marriage to Leocadia Quenguix. “Lucario” Chevis, the son of Leocadio Chevis and Leocadia Quenguix, served as an ethnographic and linguistic consultant to both Cora DuBois and C. Hart Merriam early in the twentieth century (DuBois 1908; Heizer and Nissen 1973). Lucario was remembered by several people interviewed for our study as an elderly, blind man who lived on the Rincon Reservation near his sister’s son’s family, until his death in the early 1930s (cf., Hyde and Elliott 1994:15-19, 93-94).46 Lucario “Chavez,” as his name eventually became known, was not included in the 1894 nor the 1898 Indian census at either the Rincon Reservation or the villages that were part of Potrero Reservation. By 1902, however, “Ligardio Chevez [sic],” single, 42 years old, appears among the names listed at Rincon. Eight years later, however, the age provided for “Lucardio Chavez” (blind) had jumped to 65, which would place his date of birth in 1840 (Watson 1993:126). By 1922, his reputed age again had increased more rapidly than the passing years, and he was said to have been born in 1831 (Harrington 1986: Rl. 114, Fr. 286). Indian census records for 1926 and 1930 repeated the 1831 birth date.

44

45 46

66

An 1877 court document includes the name “Jocario Luis [sic]” among a list of Indian men living at the Potrero ranchería (California Land Cases n.d.). Locario Suis is apparently the name meant, taking typographic errors into account. The use of “Suis” in this instance is independent confirmation that others sometimes referred to the family by the su’ísh ‘jackrabbit’ surname. Our genealogical research did not confirm this relationship; rather it appears that Juan Sotelo Calac’s stepmother was the daughter of Leocadio Chevis. Lucario Chevish was mentioned as “the wonderful blind man” in Harrington’s Luiseño papers (Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 210).


Lucario Chevis’s true age may never be known accurately. His age of 42 in the 1902 Rincon census seems to be an obvious error, because that would place his date of birth ten years after he was enumerated in the 1852 census. Lucario’s age given in the 1852 census would appear to confirm a date of birth in the vicinity of 1830, however the San Luis Rey padrón does not list him and shows that he had sisters born in 1829 and 1831. Thus Lucario Chevis was probably born after 1831, but before 1840, when his youngest sister Vicenta was born. In Figure 1, we have estimated his birth date to be around 1835. No further record of Lucario’s older sisters has been found, but two younger sisters can be traced. His youngest sister Vicenta Chevis was listed as a 63 year-old widow in the 1903 Indian census of Rincon Reservation. A year earlier, as Vicenta “Calac,” she had been listed immediately following the children of Juan Sotelo Calac, who became the leader of his clan at Rincon. Having determined that Vicenta was recorded with the surname Calac in 1902 makes it possible to identify her in the 1894 census as the wife of “Macedonio” Calac (although her age was incorrectly estimated as “60” in 1894).47 Another sister of Lucario Chevis was Susana (Chevis) Calac, age 65 in the 1902 census, who was married to Juan Benito Calac. If we have reconstructed the family relationships correctly, two brothers (Juan Benito Calac and Macedonio Calac) eventually became married to two sisters (Susana Chevis and Vicenta Chevis respectively).48 Juan Benito Calac and Susana Chevis had at least one son, Francisco Calac, according to confirmation records at the Pala chapel. Elders interviewed at the Rincon Reservation mentioned that there were at least three individuals named Francisco Calac, which has led to some understandable confusion (e.g., Calac 1995). One man named Francisco Calac was married to Micaela Palaguish (see “Descendants of Casilda Anó of Topome” later in this chapter). Another Francisco Calac was said to be a “brother” of Juan Sotelo Calac, son of Macedonio Calac and Dolores Quasacac.49 In Luiseño kinship terminology, a person’s parallel cousins were called by the same terms as one’s biological brothers (White 1963: Fig. 2). Because Macedonio Calac and Juan Benito Calac were brothers from the same father and mother, then Macedonio’s son Juan Sotelo Calac would be a classificatory “brother” of Juan Benito’s son Francisco Calac. To date, we have been unable to determine whether or not Juan Sotelo Calac had a biological brother named Francisco Calac, as well as a first cousin by that name.50 The Francisco Calac who was identified by in several of our interviews as “brother” of Juan Sotelo Calac has many descendants on Rincon Reservation. He married Joaquina Despierto, and this couple had nine children born between 1889 and 1907.51 One of their daughters described Lucario Chevis as her paternal great-uncle, which would imply that her father’s

47 48

49 50

51

Macedonio Calac apparently married Vicenta Chevis after the death of his first wife Dolores Quasacac. Juan Benito Calac and “Macedonio” Calac were sons of Maximiano (“Maximo”) Calac and Maximiana (“Maxima”) Hommohix (Omish) of Cuqui (SLR Bap. Nos. 4625, 4646). Their families appear in the 1852 census living at Potrero (p. 31, lines 29-36). Macedonio was sometimes listed under the name “Celedonio.” Juan (Sotelo) Calac’s marriage record in 1884 provides the names of his parents (SLR Mar1: p. 25). Questions regarding these genealogies arose after completion of our interviews. It is likely that elders on Rincon Reservation will be able to shed additional light on these family relationships, therefore our reconstruction presented here must be considered tentative and subject to further revision. Unfortunately, the San Luis Rey parish registers do not contain a record of a marriage for this couple during the years that the first two books of marriages were kept (1869-1886 and 1892-1919). This is unfortunate, because the marriage records usually contain the names of the parents of the bride and groom, which would clarify the parentage of this Francisco Calac. Probably Francisco Calac and Joaquina Despierto were married between 1886-1892, a period not covered by the San Luis Rey parish marriage registers.


67

mother was either Susana Chevis or Vicenta Chevis (Hyde and Elliott 1994:15-19, 93-94). With their cousin William Calac, the sons of Francisco Calac and Joaquina Despierto often served as singers and dancers in Luiseño ceremonies (Beemer 1980). María Calac de Castro, a “sister” of Juan Sotelo and Francisco Calac, had four sons and one daughter listed in the Indian census records at Rincon Reservation. She died around the turn of the century, and her children were listed as orphans in the 1902 Indian census. Even setting aside our confusion regarding which Francisco Calac was the son of Juan Benito Calac and Susana Chevis, it is probable that in other respects our understanding of the descendants of Leocadio Chevis is incomplete. The records examined during the course of our research did not allow us to determine if he had other descendants among the people living at Rincon and neighboring reservations. Certain clues lead us to believe that this may well be the case. For example, “Lucario” Chevis was said to have relatives living at La Jolla and Pechanga Reservations (Hyde and Elliott 1994:19), so perhaps one of his older sisters left descendants among people living there. It is also possible that Vicenta Chevis had children that have yet to be identified. Victor Meza, one of the individuals interviewed at Rincon Reservation by J. P. Harrington, was said to be a “nephew” of Juan Sotelo Calac (Mills and Brickfield 1986:87-88), but the exact nature of their relationship has not been determined. In summary, it appears likely that Leocadio Chevis of Topome has descendants today who are members of Rincon Reservation and quite possibly others listed on other reservation roles.52 Further research will be necessary to reconcile apparent conflicts in the records and to complete our understanding of this historically significant family. Descendants of José Antonio Tobac of Topome Like Leocadio Chevis, José Antonio Tobac was one of the men from Topome with a wife from Cuqui who was baptized on July 26, 1826 at Mission San Luis Rey (SLR Bap. 4617). His wife was Josefa Antonia Ommoix (SLR Bap. 4636) (Figure 2). Two young daughters of José Antonio Tobac and Josefa Antonia (María Antonia and Isabel) had been baptized earlier in the month, both having been born at Topome. The second padrón shows that two more children were added to the family, a daughter (María de Belen) born in 1829 and a son (Báltazar) born after 1835. José Antonio appears among the names of men who were farming at “the Potrero of Cucam,” according to an 1844 petition for land submitted on their behalf by Fr. José María Zalvidea of Mission San Luis Rey (Table 7). His agricultural property and stock included 150 vines, 13 pear trees, and 4 horses (Shipek 1977:181). His right to farm in the territory of Cuqui ranchería may have resulted from his marriage to a Josefa Antonia Ommoix. The location where José Antonio Tobac settled was apparently Yapicha, where he and his family were tabulated in the 1852 California State Census (p. 33, lines 5-12). He was the first individual listed after the capitán and alcalde. Immediately following his family was Conrado Tobac and his wife Conrada “Subis,” who each may be identified in the San Luis Rey padrones as having been baptized from Topome in 1810.53 Conrado Tobac, who was about seven years older than José Antonio, may have been his older brother. José Antonio’s and Conrado’s families were the only people surnamed Tobac that were listed anywhere in the 1852 census.

52 53

68

Indeed, a subsequent visit to the Rincon Reservation on June 25, 2001, has resulted in new information regarding modern descendants of Maria Calac, a daughter of Juan Benito Calac and Susane Chevis. Conrada was actually listed with the surname Soccola in the padrones, another common Topome clan.


All three of José Antonio Tobac and Josefa Antonia’s daughters who were listed in the second padrón of San Luis Rey may be identified in the 1852 census. Their eldest daughter, María Antonia Tobac, had married Pedro Maclanar (Maglena), and was listed with him at Pauma. Isabel Tobac and Maria [de Belen] Tobac were still living with their father and mother, as were three other girls who were likely their sisters: Ambrosia, María J[esús], and Silvestra. The only boy listed with the family in 1852 was “Belchor,” undoubtedly the son named Báltazar listed in the second padrón. Isabel Tobac later wed Guillermo Apish.54 Their daughter María Apish was born in 1858. When she grew up, María Apish married José María Trujillo, the eldest son of Margarita Sobenes, owner of the Potrero land grant (SLR Mar1: p. 9). Isabel Tobac also had a son, Silvestre Gamez, born about 1860. Gamez married Anita Pachita at Pauma in 1898 and was listed as the Captain of Pauma in that same year in the reservation census.55 The 1894 Indian census tabulated Josefa [Antonia] Tobac at 100 years of age (actually 90 years old) living with her son Báltazar Tobac at the Rincon village of the Potrero Reservation.56 She was tabulated again in the 1898 census but died before the 1902 census. The name of María Apish Trujillo, the daughter of Isabel Tobac, did not appear in the Indian census records we examined until 1808. She was listed immediately after her uncle Báltazar Tobac, a widower, followed by the names of nine of her children. By this date, her eldest daughter María Juana Trujillo had already established a family with Julio Rodríguez, who was half-Luiseño by descent. Many of María Juana Trujillo de Rodriguez’s descendants are members of La Jolla Reservation today, including a son who was present during the recent dedication of Topomai Bridge on Camp Pendleton (Jonason 2000). Several other people who bear the Tobac surname are listed in Potrero and La Jolla census records; however further research will be necessary to establish their genealogical links to José Antonio Tobac. Three siblings born between 1869-1877 (Patrea, Eustaquio, and José Antonio Tobac) were listed in La Jolla Reservation census records as the stepchildren of Luis Ochoa, the husband of María Antonia Subish. According to Eustaquio Tobac’s marriage record, his parents were Silvestre Tobac and María Antonia Soberano.57 Silvestre Tobac has not been identified further, but he apparently was the first husband of María Antonia Subish/Soberano before her marriage to Luis Ochoa. Patrea Tobac had a number of children who were listed in census records using the Tobac surname. Subish Families of Yapicha Of all the Topome families who had settled at Yapicha by the mid-nineteenth centuries, the Subish clan was the most numerous. The 1852 California State Census lists 32 individuals surnamed Subish out of a total of 90 people tabulated at the Yapicha ranchería. Nine of the people named Subish could be identified in the Mission San Luis Rey padrones as having come

54

55 56 57

70

This Guillermo Apish has not been identified with certainty. Family records provided during oral history interviews state that Isabel Tobac married “José Apish.” We initially believed this might be José Apis, son of Pablo Apis and Casilda Anó (see “Descendants of Casilda Anó of Topome” below), but the marriage record explicitly lists María Apish’s father as Guillermo. The third son of Pablo Apis and Casilda Anó was also named Guillermo, but the second padrón of San Luis Rey shows that he had died by 1844. Either the padrón was in error or a different Guillermo Apish married Isabel Tobac. Anita Pachita was daughter of Celso Pachito and Concepción Navarro. She was the elder sister of Reginaldo (“Ray”) Pachito, who served as a principal Luiseño consultant for Raymond White (White 1963). The Rincon village at Potrero is not to be confused with the Rincon Reservation, for which there was a separate census in 1894. SLR Mar. 2, p. 13, 25 July, 1898.


originally from Topome, and the others were their children or immediate relatives. The Subish clan continued to be the dominant group at Yapicha over succeeding decades. When the 1894 Indian census of the Yapicha village of the Potrero Reservation was tabulated, 23 out of 32 names listed were surnamed Subish (mistakenly transcribed as “Lubish”).58 The head of the clan, José Manuel Subish, was the first Subish listed, and subsequent individuals in the census had their relationship to him explicitly noted. José Manuel Subish’s entry was followed by that of his wife, Jacinta (Despierto) Subish, 51; and five children, ages 9 to 27. Next were listed a nephew, Daniel Subish, and two nieces; and then came the families of Manuel’s two “sisters” and a “brother.” The San Luis Rey parish baptismal records shed some additional light on the relationships between José Manuel Subish and his relatives (Figure 3), however it was not until recently that we were able to obtain evidence that identified conclusively who his parents were. Unlike most other genealogies presented in this chapter, we were unable at first to link José Manuel Subish with certainty to his ancestors from Topome in the San Luis Rey padrones. Initially we narrowed the choices down to two Subish couples who could have been his parents in the 1852 census: (1) “Alaso” [Alejo] Subis and Josefa Apis, and (2) “Alefonso” [Ildefonso] Subis and Pascuala “Guatro” [sic]. The first of these couples was listed with an 8-year old son named Manuel, however the names of their other children did not match those documented in late nineteenth century records as José Manuel Subish’s siblings. The second couple had four sons: Dionisio (16), Francisco (9), Mateo (7), and Miguel (4). Three of these names (Francisco, Mateo, and Miguel) matched the names of José Manuel’s siblings known from later records, so it appeared probable that the family of Ildefonso Subish and Pascuala was his and José Manuel’s name was simply omitted. Not listed in the 1852 census is Ildefonso and Pascuala’s daughter Margarita (listed as “sister” of José Manuel Subish at Yapicha in 1894), whose marriage was recorded in the San Juan Capistrano Libro de Matrimonios.59 Compounding the identificationproblem of José Manuel and his relatives is the fact that Luiseño kinship terminology classified one’s parallel cousins the same as one’s siblings. For instance, if Alejo and Ildefonso were themselves siblings,60 then José Manuel Subish may have been both the son of Alejo and the classificatory “brother” to his parallel cousins Margarita, Francisco, and Mateo. The issue finally has been resolved as the result of a recent interview with the granddaughter of José Manuel Subish in March 2001. She clarified further the relationships among Subish family members and informed us that Ildefonso Subish was José Manuel’s father. A number of different people named Subish are named in the parish records of San Luis Rey that began to be kept in 1869. The parish records of baptisms and marriages, Pala confirmation records, and the Indian census records indicate that Subish clan members sometimes Hispanicized their surname to Soberano. Indeed, José Manuel Subish was one of those sometimes listed as Soberano in the baptismal records of his children. Some of the Subish families moved elsewhere in Luiseño territory. For example, José Antonio Subish, a son of Alejo Subish and Josefa Apis, married a woman named María Bárbara at Mission San Luis Rey

58

59 60

The first family listed at Yapicha in 1894 was Matilde Chocul Aguayo, her children, and her grandchildren. Chacól was another common clan name at Topome and was represented by many families at Yapicha in the 1852 census, so Matilde Chacól (“Chocul”) Aguayo was probably also of Topome descent. MSJC Mar. 1729, May 25, 1868. San Luis Rey records do not enlighten us on this point. Neither Alejo nor Ildefonso had their parents’ names recorded in the padrones, however their families were listed in close proximity to one another in the 1852 census at Yapicha (separated only by another Subish family) so it is indeed possible that they may have been brothers.


71

Ildefonso Subish (Topome) 1818 - ?

José Manuel Subish 1833[sic] - ?

Jacinta Despierto 1851 - ?

Francisco Gamez

Margarita Subish 1839 - ?

José Calac

Pascuala "Guatro" [sic] 1822 - ?

Mateo María Francisco María Miguel Subish Eularia Subish Concepción Subish Calac 1841 - ? Ardilla 1843 - ? 1848 - ? 1853 - ?

Elena 1848 - ?

? Luis Florencio Andosia (Ildefonso?) Subish ("Rosa") Subish 1867 - 1942 Guassac 1871 -? 1880 - ?

María Filomena María Sandalia José Escolastica Jacoba Subish Subish Subish Gamez Subish Subish 1879 - ? 1881 - ? 1882 - ? 1869 - ? 1874 - ? 1871 - ?

Florida Luisa Raymond Calac- ("Lulu") Subish Subish Calac- 1874 - 1931 1876 - ? Subish 1883 - ?

Daniel Luisa Bernardina Xavier María Subish Subish Subish Subish Subish 1879 - ? 1880 - ? 1884 - ? 1879 - ? 1884 - ?

Loreta 1890 - ?

Note: The 1894 census of Yapicha Village, Potrero Reservation is the principal source for the information contained in this figure, supplemented by baptismal and census records.

Figure 3. Relationships Documented between José Manuel Subish and his Siblings, Nieces and Nephews at Yapicha

in 1869. He was listed in 1894 as living at the San Luis Rey ranchería. Florencio Subish, married Ambrosia (“Rosa”) Guassac and raised a large family at Yapicha. He inherited the mantle of leadership of the Yapicha village from his father José Manuel Subish and was listed as the traditional capitán of Yapicha in a list of Mission Indian Federation representatives in the early 1920s. Many Subish descendants of Yapicha are members of La Jolla Reservation today, and one of these was interviewed for this study. Descendants of Saturnino Subish of Topome Saturnino Subix (Subish) was baptized at Mission San Luis Rey in 1813 when he was 22 years old (SLR Bap. 1570). The names of his parents were not given in the padrón, so his relationship to other Subix clan members listed in the padrones is unknown. At the mission, Saturnino married Anna Nesequé of Caguenga, and together they were the parents of five children listed in the mission records (Figure 4). None of these children were shown as deceased by the end of Mission Period, and two daughters, Urbana and Felipa, were marked as having been married. Most of Saturnino Subish’s children can be identified in the 1852 California State Census. The name “Saturnino Subis” appears on page 32 among the many families from Topome who had settled at Yapicha. His name is immediately followed by the names of three of his children: Urbana, Marcelina, and Patricio. The age given for Saturnino was incorrectly shown as 25, when his true age would have been 69. One must suspect an error by the census-taker in this instance. Immediately preceding Saturnino’s name is that of Juan Angel Subis, 28 years old. This individual has not been identified in our database derived from the padrones but is likely to be a close relative of Saturnino Subish, given the close proximity of their two names in the census. The name of Juan Angel Subish reappears in the 1894 Indian census of the Rincon Reservation, where his age (probably exaggerated) was given as 89. Other Subish families are listed at Rincon from 1894 onward and some might well be descended from Juan Angel. Further genealogical information will be required, however, to substantiate this possibility. The 1852 census shows that Felipa “Subis,” the second daughter of Saturnino Subish, had married to Francisco “Maclanar,” the alcalde of the Pauma Indian community, with whom she was listed along with four children (Calif. St. Census 1852:26). Her age was given as 24, although she was actually 28 years old. The Plaza Church baptismal register documents that at least two of their children were baptized at Los Angeles: Ysidro in 1854 and Juan in 1856 (LA Bk. 2:969, 1383). All of these records show Francisco’s family surname was undergoing a gradual metamorphosis from Maglena61 (SLR padrón) to Maclanar (1852 census) to Majle (son Ysidro’s baptismal entry), to Magel (son Juan’s baptismal entry). No surname was recorded in the 1860 census records, but Francisco had by that time risen to the position of the “Captain General” of the Pauma tribe (San Diego Genealogical Society 1995c:26). Listed with Francisco and Felipa were the names of five of their children and a man who appears to be a son-in-law, Pedro Pablo, 21 years old.62

61 62

The original clan name Maglena comes from maxwal ‘fan palm’, according to Gifford (1919:208). Elsewhere the name Majel has been interpreted as being derived from mixél ‘dove’ (Beemer 1980; cf. Bright 1968:64). This individual may have been Pedro Pablo Paubal, a leader at Pauma in the late nineteenth century (Carrico 1987:73; Bean and Shipek 1978:Fig. 9). Pedro Pablo Paubal was listed in the 1894 Indian census at Pauma Reservation.


73

The Pala confirmation records indicate that Patricio Subish (Soberano), son of Saturnino Subish, was married to Matilde Caenish (Ardilla).63 Baptisms and confirmations for five of their children were performed at the chapel at San Antonio de Pala. No further records of Patricio Subish’s family has been found, so whether he may have been closely related to Subish families recorded in later Indian census records at La Jolla and Rincon Reservations is unknown. At least four of the children of Francisco Majel and Felipa Subish had families of their own (Figure 4). Francisca, the eldest daughter, married Ysidoro (Quenguix?) in 1861 (SJC Mar. 1569) and had at least one son, Fernando “Majel.”64 Luis Majel married Serafina Evarre in the Pala chapel in 1883 (SLR Mar1: p. 24), and this couple had five children by 1895. Luis Majel’s name was listed in the 1898 census of “Pauma Village” as a widower with his five children, a nephew Cristóbal Forbes, and a niece Margarita Poclau. According to information provided by relatives, Cristóbal and Margarita were apparently half-siblings. Further research will be necessary to determine which of Luis Majel’s sisters was the mother of Cristóbal and Margarita. Alexandro Majel, apparently the youngest son of Francisco Majel and Felipa Subish, was the father of three children listed in the Pauma Reservation rolls in the early twentieth century (Juan, Barbara, and Valeria). Felipa Subish Majel was listed when the 1894 Pauma Reservation census was compiled, but by 1898 she was apparently deceased. Her son Luis Majel (Maxlaña or Maglena) inherited the ceremonial leadership of the Maxlañum clan according to Gifford (1919:208). Felipa Subish’s grandchildren, Andrew Majel, Juan Majel, and Chris Forbes were memorialized in Eleanor Beemer’s book, My Luiseño Neighbors (1980). Through Felipa Subish, many contemporary members of the Pauma Reservation can trace their ancestry to Topome on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. Descendants of Tomasa Subish Tomasa Subish (Thomasa Subix) was baptized at Mission San Luis Rey in 1820 when she was a four month-old infant from the village of Cuqui (SLR Bap. 3676). She was first listed among the “Viudas, Solteras, y Muchachas Huerfanas… que viven fuera de la Mision en sus proprias Rancherias” in the first padrón of the mission.65 In the second padrón Tomasa was listed in the “Pala” section among the “Solteras y Muchachas Huerfanas,” but a mark “C” (for casada) next to her name indicated that she married sometime before 1843, when the padrón ceased to be kept. The names of her unconverted parents at the time of her baptism were said to be Subix and Quenguix. Three other infant girls who had a Subix father and a Quenguix mother were baptized between July 1821 and October 1822, two from Topome and one from Cuqui. It is likely that at least one of these, María del Pilar Subix from Cuqui, was a sister of Tomasa Subish, however María del Pilar did not survive childhood.

63 64

65

As we were completing this study, a marriage record for this couple was identified in the Libro de Matrimonios for San Juan Capistrano, Aug. 11, 1861. The marriage record for Francisca Majel and Ysidoro was discovered just as we were putting the finishing touches on this study. The identification of this couple provides the evidence necessary to determine that they were the parents of Fernando “Majil [sic] (1865-1910),” who married Anastacia Davis in 1888 at Mission San Juan Capistrano (SJC Mar. 1849). Anastacia Davis de Majel (1864-1937) later served as a Juaneño and Luiseño linguistic consultant to John P. Harrington, and many descendants of her marriage to Fernando Majel live in southern California today. Translation: “Widows, single women, and orphaned girls … that live away from the mission in their own villages.”


75

Two married couples, all baptized in 1826, are potential candidates to be the parents of Tomasa Subish. In each case, the husband was a Subix from Topome and the wife was a Quenguix from Cuqui.66 Tomasa Subish, however, was not listed among the children of either couple when their families were added to the padrón. Either the missionary neglected to add her name through simple oversight (a likely possibility), or Tomasa Subish was the daughter of a third, unbaptized Subix father and Quenguix mother who were undocumented in mission records. Although information is inadequate to be sure about the correct identification of Tomasa Subish’s parents, we infer on the basis of her clan affiliation that her father was originally from Topome and was one of many from his village who had married women from Cuqui prior to being baptized at San Luis Rey. One of the two men who well might have been the father of Tomasa Subish was Bonito [Subix], who was listed among the individuals who were farming at “the Potrero of Cucam” in 1843 (Shipek 1977:180). Through clerical error, Bonito Subix and his wife, Bonita Quenguix, were mistakenly listed twice in the second padrón: once among families living at the mission and once in the Pala section. Their two-year-old daughter Secundina, born at Topome and baptized in the summer of 1826 (only a short time before her parents’ baptisms), was listed with them in the “Mission” section, along with their son Laureano born in 1829. Another daughter born in 1827, however, was listed with Bonito and Bonita in the “Pala” section, and their other two children were not. Clearly the missionary was having some bookkeeping problems with regard to this family, making it all the more plausible that he forgot to add one more child to the family who had been baptized some years earlier, i.e., Tomasa. We have charted this possible connection between Bonito Subix and Tomasa Subish in Figure 5, with the caveat that this reconstruction is conjectural without further information. No certain record of Tomasa Subish has been located in census records until the 1894 Indian census of San Luis Rey Mission. A search of the 1852 census, however, located two possible candidates in the vicinity of San Luis Rey. Both were married Luiseño women named Tomasa – one living among a group of families in the vicinity of Buena Vista and the other in an unnamed community, possibly Pueblito at the mouth of the Santa Margarita River. If one of these was Tomasa Subish, the younger of the two, estimated to be 25, was closest to her age and therefore the best candidate. The husband of this Tomasa was named Pedro and they headed a household of four children of ages 4-12 (Calif. State Census 1852:15, Lines 20-25). Unfortunately surnames were not listed for residents of the Luiseño settlements closest to Mission San Luis Rey, so without independent verification about who Tomasa Subish may have married or who her children were, there is no way of knowing for sure whether she was indeed enumerated in 1852. From 1894-1902, a census of people living at San Luis Rey Mission was included along with Indian census records for Luiseño reservations and communities at Pala, Pauma, Rincon, La Jolla, and Pechanga. The 1894 census includes the names of three individuals surnamed Subish: José Antonio Subish, 49; Tomassa [sic] Subish, 100; and Vasilia Subish, 98. Tomasa’s age, at least, was greatly exaggerated, which suggests that Vasilia’s was as well. To what these individuals might have been related was unspecified, and their names were not listed adjacent to one another.

66

76

These were Bonito Subix and Bonita Quenquix (SLR Bap. Nos. 4683 and 4639 respectively) and Domingo Subix and Dominga Quenguix (SLR Bap. Nos. 4653 and 4632 respectively).


Bonito Subix (Topome) 1806 - ?

? Gonzales

José Silvas

Tomasa Subish (Cuqui) 1820 - 1899

Bonita Quenguix (Cuqui) 1800 - ?

? Maria Pilar Subix (Cuqui) 1821 - ?

Secundina Subix (Topome) 1824 - ?

Laureano Subix 1827 - ?

Apolonia Subix 1829 - ?

Josefa Gonzales

Miguel María de Jesús Salgado Silvas 1875 - ?

Figure 5. Descendants of Tomasa Subish and the Individuals Tentatively Identified as her Parents and Siblings

Family history information provided by one of Tomasa Subish’s descendants indicates that Tomasa had a daughter named Josefa (Josephine) Gonzales. Josefa Gonzales married a man named José Silvas. According to family oral history, this couple and their thirteen children died after contracting smallpox. Their only surviving child, María de Jesús Silvas, was raised on the Rancho Guajome by her grandparents who worked as servants for the Couts family.67 María de Jesús Silvas was tabulated in all of the Indian census records for the San Luis Rey Mission band Her name was listed just three lines beneath that of her grandmother Tomasa Subish in the 1894 (and 1898) census. Between their names are those of Vaselia Albanis, 95, and Julia Tule, 75. These two elderly women may have been relatives of Tomasa Subish and María de Jesús Silvas and/or were living in the same household with them. According to Mission San Luis Rey cemetery records, Tomasa Subish died on June 10, 1899. María de Jesús Silvas had eight children from two marriages. The father of five of these children was Miguel Salgado, who was also listed in the 1894-1902 Indian census records at San Luis Rey Mission. Through María de Jesús Silvas, descendants of Tomasa Subish continue as members of the San Luis Ray Band of Mission Indians today. Descendants of Casilda Anó of Topome Casilda Anó (’Anó’) of Topome was baptized at Mission San Luis Rey when she was 12 years old in 1805 (SLR Bap. 925). Her surname “anó” “coyote” might likely signify that she belonged to the Coyote Clan, however the mission registers indicate that the Anó surname was occasionally derived from its use as a moiety designation for certain Mountain Cahuilla and Cupeño individuals (cf. Strong 1972).68 In Harrington’s Luiseño notes, it is unclear whether ’anooyam “coyote people” originally designated a clan, moiety, or some other social group (Harrington 1986: Rl. 119, Fr. 203). In the San Luis Rey padrones, four instances were recorded for the use of Anó as a Luiseño surname at Topome; it was used once at Pomameye, twice at Quechinga, five times at Pala, once at Cuqui, and once at Pimxga. Our investigation of intermarriage between clans at Topome provided negative evidence for moiety regulation of marriage (see Chapter 3), so we are inclined to regard Casilda Anó’s surname as derived from her affiliation with a Luiseño Coyote clan. At Mission San Luis Rey, Casilda Anó married Pablo Apis (Hapish) of Ojauminga (Guajome), who became one of the noted Luiseño leaders during post-secularization times (Bibb 1991; Brigandi 1998:21; Johnson and Crawford 1999). According to the padrones, Pablo Apis and Casilda Anó were parents of seven children born between 1809 and 1831 (Figure 6). Their eldest child was named Pablo Apis after his father, and because both played prominent roles in Luiseño affairs in post-secularization times, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between them in historical documents. The other children of Pablo Apis and Casilda Anó in order of birth were José, Guillermo, Gabriela, Antonio, Facunda, and Juan Bautista. Pablo the younger, José, and Gabriela all married and had families of their own. Guillermo Apis joined other Indians who were living at the mission in signing a letter to the governor in 1838 (Brigandi

67 68

78

María de Jesús Silvas was born on 18 April, 1875 (SLR Parish Bk. 1, p. 31). One of these was Clemente Anó of Tocanonga (SLR Bap. 4221). Another was Pantaleona Anó of Cupa (SLR Bap. 3328).


Pablo Apis (Ojauminga) 1792 - 1851

Pablo Apis 1809 - 1853

Casilda Anó (Topome) 1795 - 1879

María Matilde Vehuason 1808 - ?

José Geronima Guillermo Marcial Gabriela Antonio Facunda Francisco Yldefonsa Anselmo Juana Apis Hoctiis Apis Palaguix Apis Apis Apis Apis Borrego Apis Olloe 1812 - ? 1813 - ? 1814 - ? (Caguenga) 1818 - ? 1822 - ? 1824 - ? 1811 - ? 1824 - ? Nesicat 1835 - 1890 1817 - 1884 1815 - ?

María María Isaac María Luisa Micaela Juan José María José Concepción Antonía Williams del Apis Apis Nepomuceno Jesús de de los Refugio 1842 - ? 1843 - ? 1850 - ? Apis Jesús Reyes 1827 - ? 1830 - ? 1832 - ? 1851 - ? 1832 - ? 1834 - ?

Victoria Concepción Williams Williams 1846 - 1921 1848 - ?

Feliciano Refugio Williams Williams 1850 - ? 1852 - 1945

Figure 6. Descendants of Casilda Anó of Topome

Francisca Williams

Francisco Micaela Calac Palaguish 1829 - ? 1839 - ?

María Jesús José Candelaria Custoria Apolonio Olloe Olloe María Nesicat Nesicat Nesicat 1848 - ? 1849 - ? Borrego 1850? - 1911 1854 - 1913 1859 - 1901 1849 - ?

Elvira Feliz Elena Ramón Teresa José Felicidad José José Claudina Virginia Calac Calac Calac Calac Calac Dolores Calac María Calac Calac Calac 1851 - ? 1852 - ? 1854 - ? 1862 - ? 1864 - ? Calac 1869 - ? Calac 1876 - ? 1877 - ? 1882 - ? 1865 - ? 1870 - ?

1998:21; Engelhardt 1921:105), but the padrón shows that he had died by 1843.69 Antonio Apisand Juan Bautista Apis both appear to have died young, and no further record was discovered to determine what became of Facunda Apis. Two other daughters of Pablo Anis and Casilda Anó, Yldefonsa Apis and Juana Apis, are documented in other records and will be discussed later in this section. Pablo Apis (junior) married María Matilde Vehuason, whose father was the mission sacristan and was listed in the first padrón from Santa Margarita (Topome).70 The padrón documents three children for Pablo Apis and María Matilde born between 1827 and 1832, but only one of these (María Antonia Apis) survived the Mission Period. José Apis, the second son of Pablo Apis and Casilda Anó, married Geronima Hoatiis, whose parents were from Quechinga. They had two children by 1834, but only their eldest daughter (María de Jesús) survived childhood. The padrón indicates that Geronima was deceased by the close of the Mission Period, and José Apis’s name has not been identified in later census records. Gabriela Apis, the eldest daughter of Pablo Apis and Casilda Anó, married Marcial Palaguix, the son of Pedro Palaguix, the capitán of Caguenga. As mentioned in Chapter 3, Pablo Apis (senior) attempted to apply for a grant at his native village of Ojauminga (Guajome) in 1843, but two other Indians had already settled there and had also petitioned for Rancho Guajome. Apis agreed to put aside his own claim for Guajome in return for a small rancho at Temecula, which he received from Governor Pío Pico in 1845 (Brigandi 1998:31). José and Pablo Apis (junior?) were said to have received a substantial rancho surrounding the Indian community of La Jolla in 1845, according to information collected in 1883 as part of a special report prepared for the Commissioner of Indian Affairs about the needs and conditions of Southern California Indians (Jackson and Kinney 1994:503). The Apis family appears to have been unusually astute and aggressive in obtaining property rights, but it is conceivable that their actions were taken not for themselves alone, but as representatives of the Luiseño people as a means to preserve community lands at Temecula and La Jolla. The elder Pablo Apis apparently died about 1851 (Brigandi, personal communication, 1998). The younger “Pablico” [sic] Apis was tabulated in both the 1850 Federal Census (which was actually prepared in 1851) and in the 1852 California State Census living with his family at Temecula (San Diego Genealogical Society 1995a, 1995b). In the 1852 census, he was stated to be “chief over all San Luis Mision [sic] Indians.”71 Pablito’s wife’s name was recorded as “Matilda Yubaquis,” and his daughter María Antonia Apis was listed next. After these names are those of four other children: José Jesús Apis, 2; Luisa Apis, 10; Micaela Apis, 9; and Toribio Apis, 18. The first three are presumed to be children of Pablito Apis and María Matilde born after the mission padrón ceased to be kept. Toribio Apis appears to have been the son of Pablito

69

70

71

80

It is possible that the cross next to Guillermo’s name in the padrón indicating his death was an error. A man named Guillermo Apish was married to Isabel Tobac by the 1850s, however the parentage of the latter Guillermo Apish has not been determined (see “Descendants of José Antonio Tobac” above). María Matilde was born in 1808 (SLR Bap.1352). Her parents were Benito María Vehuohuaso of Santa Margarita and Benita María Pascal of Quechinga (SLR Bap. Nos. 149 and 191) respectively. Although listed initially from Santa Margarita, Benito Maria was listed from Quechinga in subsequent padrón entries. The younger Pablo Apis was characterized as chief of all the Luiseño Indians in a number of contemporary documents. The basis for his authority remains somewhat unclear, because his name does not appear among the various Luiseño chiefs who signed the 1852 treaty at Temecula. He is mentioned, however, as a being one of the leaders of a band of militant Luiseños during the Mexican War of 1846 (Brigandi 1998:34; Phillips 1976:62, 164).


Apis’s cousin, Fruto Apis72 (California State Census 1852:18, lines 5-11). The 1852 census inexplicably omits the name of Nepomuceno Apis, who had been recorded in the household of Pablo Apis (junior) in the 1850 census and who was listed as a brother of María Antonia Apis in an 1856 will (Black 1975:249).73 After the names of Pablito Apis’s children and his cousin’s child Toribio, the next person listed in the 1852 census was his mother Casilda (Anó) “Olloe” [sic], 65 (actually 57 years old). After her were listed Francisco Olloe, 41; Yldefonsa Apis, 20; María Olloe, 5; and Jesús Olloe, 4 (California State Census 1852:18, lines 12-16). These names were probably those of another daughter of Casilda Anó, that daughter’s husband, and their children. The name of Yldefonsa Apis did not appear in the San Luis Rey database as a daughter of the elder Pablo Apis and Casilda Anó, probably because she had been born after the padrón ceased to be kept. Immediately following the Olloe family was the family of Anselmo Borrego [Nesicat], 35; his wife Juana Apis, 17; and a son José María Borrego (California State Census 1852:18, lines 17-19). Juana Apis was the youngest daughter of Pablo Apis and Casilda Anó and later bore several other children. If our reconstruction is correct, then no less than five children of the elder Pablo Apis and Casilda Anó grew up to be married (Pablito, José, Gabriela, Yldefonsa, and Juana), however this study has traced only a few of their descendants into the twentieth century. María Antonia Apis (daughter of the Pablito Apis) and her cousin María de Jesús Apis (daughter of José Apis) both were employed in the household of Isaac Williams, grantee of Rancho Chino. After the death of his wife in 1842, Williams became the natural father of a daughter born to María de Jesús Apis in 1846 and of four children born to María Antonia Apis between 1846-1850 (Black 1975:145). In the 1850 U.S. Census, María Antonia and her children were enumerated with her parents Pablo (junior) and Matilde Apis, while the daughter of María de Jesús Apis was listed in the household of Isaac Williams (Black 1975:237; San Diego Genealogical Society 1995a:1). In his will, Williams provided for his half-Indian children along with his other heirs. All of these children were removed from the custody of their Indian mothers during the settlement of the will in 1858 and were subsequently raised under the guardianship of Williams’s legitimate daughters, who were both married (Black 1975:26-27, 249-250). The younger Pablo Apis died about the time his claim for the Little Temecula Rancho was rejected by the Board of Land Commissioners in 1853 (Bibb 1991).74 A few years later, the Apis heirs were successful in having their title restored after an appeal of the case. Apparently by this time, Isaac Williams had acquired some interest in this property, if not outright ownership, which he conveyed back to María Antonia Apis and her brother Nepomuceno in his will (Black 1975:249; Brigandi 1998:33). By 1857 María Antonia Apis had married a non-Indian named Holman, who soon became involved in a land dispute with the Temecula Indians over a boundary survey of the Little Temecula Rancho (Shipek 1969). Holman died in 1859, and María Antonia Apis then married John Place, a stagecoach driver from Ohio (Leland Bibb, personal communication; Brigandi 1998:33). Earlier, María de Jesús Apis and Juana Apis sold their portion of the Little Temecula Rancho to John Rains, son-in-law of Isaac Williams who had once

72

73 74

Toribio Apis was born in 1828, so he actually would have been six years older than the age reported in the California State Census (SLR Bap. 4889B). He was the son of Fruto Apis and Monica Pangebam of Temecula (SLR Bap. Nos. 700 and 2375 respectively). Nepomuceno Apis may have been the child listed (incorrectly?) as José Jesús Apis in 1852. Carrico (1987:53) states that “Chief Pablo Apis” died in 1855.


81

been the foreman of Williams’s Temecula holdings. Between 1868 and 1876, other Apis heirs gradually sold their shares of the rancho to Louis Wolf. By the time the rancho was patented to María Antonia Apis and other family members in 1873, Louis Wolf had acquired everything but three acres still retained by Casilda Anó (Brigandi 1998:33). Because most descendants of the Apis clan had sold their land and presumably moved elsewhere, only a few appear to have been among the Luiseño families who were forced from their homes during the Temecula eviction in 1878. After attending the Sisters of Charity School in Los Angeles, the three daughters of Isaac Williams and María Antonia Apis who were raised by their half-sisters all married prominent citizens of southern California between 1865-1881 and began families of their own (Black 1975:145-159). One group of descendants of Pablo Apis (senior) and Casilda Anó who have been traced to the twentieth (and twenty-first) centuries descend from their daughter Gabriela’s marriage to Marcial Palaguix, son of the chief Pedro Palaguix of Caguenga. Marcial and Gabriela’s daughter, Michaela Palaguish (also known as Michaela Ríos), married Francisco Calac (Calac 1995:9).75 Francisco Calac and Michaela Palaguish and their children were listed in the San Luis Rey parish registers, the Pala confirmation records, and census records of the Rincon Reservation. One of their sons, Felix Calac, served as a linguistic consultant to Alfred Kroeber (Kroeber and Grace 1960). Several descendants of Francisco Calac and Michaela Palaguish who are members of the Rincon Reservation were among the elders interviewed for this study. A second lineage of descendants of Pablo Anis (senior) and Casilda Anó of Topome come from their youngest daughter Juana Apis, who married Anselmo Borrego Nesicat. Further research needs to be conducted to determine the number of children born to Juana Apis and Anselmo Nesicat; however it is known that many of their descendants are members of the Pechanga Reservation today, especially those who trace ancestry to Custoria Nesicat Magee. Descendants of Saturnina Anó of Pomameye Like Casilda Anó, Saturnina Anó (also written as “Henó”) apparently belonged to a Luiseño Coyote Clan; indeed the two women may have been related. Saturnina was said to be from “Pomame” (i.e., Pomameye) when she was listed among the orphaned and single girls in the first and second padrones of San Luis Rey. After her marriage to Estevan Juscapix (or “Huscapix”) of Guariba (Puerta La Cruz),76 Saturnina was listed from Topome (Johnson et al. 1998: Fig. 11). Her uncle was Dionisio Caharax, who likewise was first listed from “Pomame” but later the missionary overwrote the name of the village, changing it to “Topome.” As suggested in Chapter 3, Pomameye might have been a subsidiary settlement of the Topome political group, which may explain why the affiliations of Saturnino Anó and her uncle Dionisio Caharax were changed to Topome sometime after their initial listings in the padrones. Saturnina Anó and Estevan Juscapix had four children listed in the second padrón of Mission San Luis Rey (Figure 7). Their eldest son, Leocadio, was deceased by the end of the Mission Period. Most of the family then disappeared from the records following mission secularization.

75 76

82

Not to be confused with the Francisco Calac who was the brother (or first cousin) to Juan Sotelo Calac (see “Descendants of Leocadio Chevis” above). Estevan Juscapix’s affiliation was changed after his marriage to Saturnina Anó. He is listed from Aguanga in their entry among the married couples. Estevan’s brother, Policarpo Hoscapix, married to women from Topome successively but had no children born from either marriage (see Figure 7).


No further records of Estevan, Saturnina, or of two of their surviving children were located in the 1844 census of Los Angeles or the 1852 state census for San Diego County. Only the eldest daughter María Guadalupe has been traced beyond the Mission Period. By 1855 she had emigrated northward to the vicinity of Santa Bárbara with Juan José Piña, an Opata Indian by descent.77 The couple had a church marriage at Mission Santa Inés in 1864, where María Guadalupe’s Indian name was recorded as Uashana. Juan José Piña and María Guadalupe had seven children born between 1855 and 1871, mostly recorded in the baptismal register of Mission Santa Inés. The records of baptisms show that the family was living at various ranches in the vicinity of the former mission of La Purísima Concepción near Lompoc where Juan José Piña was employed. By 1894 the first census of the Santa Ynez or “Sanja Cota” Mission Indians listed Guadalupe Piña as a widow with two sons. Her son Desiderio Piña had married María Antonia, who lived at the Zanja de Cota Indian community, and perhaps this is the reason María Guadalupe settled there as well. Another of her sons, José Adolfo Piña, also married a girl from the Santa Ynez Reservation, María Marfesa Aguirre.78 María Guadalupe and her second husband, Salomón Cota, continued to be listed on reservation rolls until their deaths. A majority of members of the Santa Ynez Reservation today are descended from the children of Desiderio Piña and José Adolfo Piña through their marriages to women of Ineseño Chumash ancestry. It is by this means that a major portion of the only federally recognized Chumash tribe can trace lineal descent to the Luiseño rancherías of Pomameye and Topome on Camp Pendleton. Descendants of Sotero Thaminara Ganonis of Chacape Sotero Thaminara was baptized at Mission San Luis Rey when he was six years old in 1801. The names of his parents were not provided in the padrón, however the clan name Ganonis later associated with his family suggests that he was a relative of Sixto Ganonis (or “Guanonis”), also from Chacape, who was capitán of Las Flores in 1852. When he grew up, Sotero Thaminara married Manuela María Quimanim of Quechinga. Three children were born to this couple between 1812 and 1819 (Figure 8). The second padrón of San Luis Rey shows that Manuela María Quimanim died sometime after the birth of her last child and before 1835. The eldest daughter of Sotero Thaminara Ganonis and Manuela María Quimanim was Manuela Ganonis, who married Gerónimo Ochecat of Corenga. The San Luis Rey padrón shows that Gerónimo “Hochacat” and Manuela Ganonis had two daughters born in 1830 and 1832. The 1852 California State Census lists their family at Pala where Gerónimo “Ochegat” was serving as one of the two alcaldes. In addition to their second daughter, María Isidora, three additional daughters are shown living with Gerónimo and Manuela in 1852. Besides the five known daughters born from his marriage with Manuela Ganonis, Gerónimo Ochecat appears to have been the biological father of a daughter born to his wife’s sister, Calixta. This daughter, María del Refugio, was baptized when she was nine months old in July 1848 at Mission San Juan Capistrano. She and her mother may have remained in the vicinity of San Juan Capistrano, because María del Refugio was married there in 1861. María del Refugio

77 78

84

Desiderio Piña, the son of Juan José Piña and María Guadalupe Uashana, was listed as an Opata Indian in the 1919 parish census of Mission Santa Inés. María Marfesa Aguirre was the daughter of María Antonia, wife of Desiderio Piña, by her first husband.


wed José Manuel Polonio Ríos, whose mother was a Juaneño Indian and a descendant from another village within the present boundaries of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton (see “Descendants of Tecla María Heunauhuegen of Zoucche” below.) The descendants of José Manuel Ríos and María del Refugio are affiliated with two of the Juaneño bands in existence today.

JUANEÑO DESCENDANTS FROM THE CAMP PENDLETON AREA Descendants of Eulalia Coronni of Pange Eulalia Coronni was baptized when she was six years old at Mission San Juan Capistrano in 1779 from the village of Pange at the mouth of San Mateo Creek (SJC Bap. 192). No record exists to indicate whether her parents might have been later baptized at the mission – only her father’s Indian name, Paupe, was given at the time of her baptism and it does not appear in later records. Coronni (or Coronne) was a common name found among women at Mission San Juan Capistrano and is mentioned by Fr. Gerónimo Boscana as having been the name of the daughter of Chief Oyáison who founded the town of Pituidem, the original home village of the tribe according to Juaneño traditional history. According to Boscana, the wives of Juaneño chiefs were called Coronne “in memory of Pituidem” (Harrington 1934:37-38). Since Eulalia was a girl when she was baptized with the name “Coronni,” she was obviously not the wife of a chief, so the significance of this name as it was applied among the Juaneño remains unclear. Eulalia Coronni was married in 1790 to Felipe José Junjunuvit, who had been baptized when he was seven years old in 1783 at Mission San Juan Capistrano (SJC Bap. 440; SJC Mar. 272). Felipe José probably came from Pituidem, his father’s village (Figure 9). Two children, María del Carmen and Diego Yujunivit, were born to this couple prior to Eulalia’s death in 1805. Although both children grew up to be married, only Diego’s marriage produced descendants. He married Clara Tocbocbam from Pimixga in 1819 (SJC Mar. 977), and this couple had nine children born between 1820 and 1835. Although the history of the family of Diego Yujunivit and Clara Tocbocbam has yet to be traced fully, they appear to have been one of the leading families in the San Juan Capistrano Indian community following the secularization of the mission. A brief typewritten list of names found among Harrington’s notes indicates that the family retained traditional and ceremonial titles, reflecting their status in the Juaneño community. Clara was stated to be the “Capitana” (chieftainess) and was associated with manet ‘toloache’. Diego was called “Tocupet,” meaning “bird yellow” (Harrington 1986: Rl. 122, Fr. 359). Descendants of Diego Yujunivit and Clara Tobocbam have only been traced through one of their daughters, María Clara who wed José María Uribes in 1851 (SJC Mar. 1475). José María Uribes very likely was also a descendant of one of the original inhabitants of Pange (see “Descendants of María Fulgencia Zodut” below). Descendants of José María Uribes and Clara Tobocbam are affiliated with one of the contemporary Juaneño bands today. Descendants of Albaro Panaula of Pange Albaro Panaula, wife Facunda Pabujaquim, and daughter Nemesia Puibedam were among a group of 32 people from Pange baptized at Mission San Juan Capistrano on March 15, 1793 86


? Odórico José Tungo (Pituidem) 1747 - 1801

? Paupe

Felipe José Junjunuvit 1776 - 1829

1st

Santiago Miguel Liche (Sagivit) 1778 - 1815

Victor 1820 - ?

Eulalia Coroni (Pange) 1773 - 1805

2nd

María del Carmen 1795 - 1820

Valentín 1823 - ?

Evaristo Semoquila 1791 - ?

Clara 1826 - ?

José María Uribes 1804 - ? [see Figure 11]

José Cresencio Uribes 1852 - ?

Figure 9. Descendants of Eulalia Coroni of Pange

Diego Yujunivit 1797 - ?

María Clara 1829 - ?

Clara Tobocbam (Pimix) 1801 - ?

Carlos 1831 - ?

José María García

Juan (Diego) 1832 - 1840

Joaquina Uribes

Simón 1833 - 1834

Raimunda 1835 - ?

(Figure 10). This mass baptismal event was part of a larger conversion effort by the missionaries in 1793 that effectively completed the reducción (resettlement) of the population of several nearby rancherías, including Pange. Nemesia Puibedam’s baptismal record and her marriage record three years later state only that she was Albaro’s daughter, not mentioning his wife Facunda, so she apparently had been born from a previous marriage at Pange (SJC Bap. 1302). Nemesia’s first husband was Ponciano Ono, who at the time of their marriage was stated to be from Toyegojuiche, a ranchería that is otherwise undocumented in the San Juan Capistrano records (SJC Mar. 414). Ponciano has been tentatively identified as Ponciano Juchnuz from Puvuvit (Puvunga), who had been baptized at the age of fourteen in 1789 (SJC Bap. 968). His identity remains somewhat uncertain, however, because the missionaries sometimes wrote his name as “Luciano” and gave him no less that three different Indian names in various records.79 Only Florencia (SJC Bap. 2124), one of three offspring from Nemesia’s marriage to Ponciano, survived childhood. She grew up to marry Delfín Esnión of Gueve, who was baptized at the mission when he was five years old in 1805.80 Nemesia and Delfín had seven children born at Mission San Juan Capistrano between 1821 and 1837. Further work will be necessary to determine the subsequent history of this family. Delfín apparently served for a time as the principal spokesman for the Juaneño neophyte population following the secularization of Mission San Juan Capistrano (Engelhardt 1922:121-122; Hartnell 1839-1840). After Ponciano died in 1805, Nemesia married Joaquin Yaquile of Zagibit (SJC Mar. 701). She had one daughter from this marriage named Macaria, who grew up to marry Benvenuto Sual in 1826 (SJC Mar. 1082). To date, we have identified four children from this marriage born at Mission San Juan Capistrano (Figure 10). The eldest daughter, María Ana de Jesús later married Epifanio Vialogo of Nayarit, Mexico, a shoemaker at San Gabriel. A daughter of María Ana de Jesús and Epifanio Vialogo, María Vialogo, was baptized at the Plaza Church of Los Angeles in 1858. Descendants of María Vialogo are members of one of the Juaneño bands which is currently active in Native American affairs in Orange County. Descendants of María Fulgencia Zodut No village of origin was recorded for María Fulgencia Zodut in the mission books of Mission San Juan Capistrano (SJC Bap. 293; SJC Bur. 662), but she may well have been from the village of Pange . Her eldest daughter, Prisca María Tachquel, was from Pange, which indicates that María Fulgencia had at least been living at that village at one point in her life (SJC Bap. 242). The father of Prisca María Tachquel was a man of Pange known to us only by his Indian name, Uqueech (Figure 11). By the time that María Fulgencia’s second daughter was born about 1762, she was living at Pituidem, a village located near the second site of Mission San Juan Capistrano.. María Bernarda Chigila was the name of that second daughter, who was said to be from “Pituide ó Acaptivit” when she was married two weeks after her baptism at the mission (SJC Bap. 104; SJC Mar. 26). María Bernarda wed Antonio de Cota, a native of Villa del Fuerte,

79 80

88

For example, SJC Baptism 2124 for Florencia gives her parents’ names as “Luciano Guenaguenaca” and Nemesia, and SJC Marriage 701 states that Nemesia was widow of “Luciano.” The marriage record for this couple (SJC Mar. 957) erred in recording Delfín’s name as “Felipe Esnion,” however the baptismal records of all of their children provide his correct name. Delfín’s Indian name given at the time he was baptized was Tecteque, but Esnión was consistently used in later records as his surname.


Uqueech (Pange)

1st

Anselmo María Juiuvit (Guajavipet) 1875 - 1800

María Fulgencia Zodut (n.g.) 1735 - 1798

Zogeit (Pituide)

2nd

Prisca Ysidoro Antonio María José de Cota Tachquel Semomich (El Fuerte, (Pange) (Pange) Sinaloa) 1760 - 1809 1754 - 1808 1732 - 1815

María María Prudencio Tomás 1790 - 1811 Casimiro Nicolasa Inés 1781 - ? 1787 - 1787 Uribes (Tepic, Guadalajara) 1763- 1824

María Antonia Marcela Cota 1780 - 1848

María Bernarda Chigile (Pituide or Acaptivit) 1762 - ?

Antonio Ygnacio Avila

María Gregoria Matilde Cota 1785 - 1863

José Ygnacio Rendon (Nayarit, Mexico)

Nabor Antonio Cota 1787 - 1788

María Juana José María Ricardo María Francisca María María Juana María María José José Julian Calixta Gabriela Guadalupe María María Clara Uribes Ysabel Petra Francisca Antonia de Díos Vicenta Avelina Esteban Guadalupe Rendon Rendon Rendon Uribes Antonia Uribes 1807 - ? Uribes Uribes Uribes Avila Rendon Rendon Rendon Rendon Rendon 1816 - 1821 1795 Uribes 1804 - ? 1810 1813 1815 1802 - 1807 - 1809 1811 - 1812 1814 1851 ? 1858 1799 - ? 1859 1816 1884 1877 1895 1850 1850 1816 1856 See Figure 9

Figure 11. Descendants of María Fulgencia Zodut

Sinaloa, Mexico, who served as a soldier of the guard at the mission (Mason 1998: 28, 78; Northrop 1984:59). Quite a bit is known about the families of María Bernarda Chigila’s two daughters. María Gregoria Matilde Cota wed José Ygnacio Rendon, a native of Nayarit, at Mission San Fernando in 1805. Rendon and his wife then settled at the Pueblo de Los Angeles. Four of their eight children are known to have married (Northrop 1984:221-222). Prior to her marriage to José Ygnacio Rendon, María Gregoria Matilde Cota had a natural daughter by Antonio Ygnacio Avila born in 1802. This daughter, María Antonia Avila, grew up to marry José María Lugo in 1820 at Mission San Gabriel, who was a son of the wealthiest man in southern California, Antonio María Lugo (Newmark 1984:174; Northrop 1984:221, 1986:207-208). José María Lugo was co-grantee with his brothers and cousin to the Rancho San Bernardino. (Hayes 1929: 279; Robinson 1993:375). The 1850 United States Census shows that José María Lugo and María Antonia Avila had ten children in their family (Newmark and Newmark 1929:101). This family of partial Juaneño ancestry had become fully integrated into the Spanish-Mexican society of early California. The eldest daughter of María Bernarda Chigila was María Antonia Marcela Cota, who wed Tomás Casimiro Uribes of Tepic, Guadalajara in 1794 at Mission San Gabriel. This couple had seven children baptized between 1795 and 1815 at Missions Santa Bárbara and San Gabriel. Five of these children grew up to be married (Northrop 1984:289-290), and at least three of these were to maintain an affiliation with the San Juan Capistrano community in one way or another. José María Uribes wed María Clara, a Juaneño neophyte, in 1851 (see “Descendants of Eulalia Coronni” above). María Ysabel Uribes wed Santiago Ríos, who later served as Juez de Paz (Justice of the Peace) at San Juan Capistrano in 1842-43. This couple had six children born between 1823-1846. One of these, Venancio Rios married María Presentación Yorba at San Juan Capistrano in 1853 (Northrop 1984:228-229). The third child of Tomás Casimiro Uribes and María Antonia Marcela Cota who maintained a connection to San Juan Capistrano was their youngest daughter María Francisca Uribes. María Francisca married Francisco Ocampo in 1846, who had settled at San Juan Capistrano a few years earlier after the creation of a pueblo there (Bancroft 1886:626; Engelhardt 1922:140). Although not all of the lineages of descendants of María Fulgencia Zudot have been traced, this study has identified some families that descend from her great-grandson José María Uribes’s marriage to María Clara who continue to identify themselves as Juaneño Indians and maintain active roles in contemporary Juaneño organizations. Descendants of Tecla María Huinauhuegen of Zoucche Tecla María Huinauhuegen was baptized when she was fourteen years old from “Zeuchinga” (Zoucche) in April 1779 (SJC Bap. 179). She was the daughter of a man named Chaquel (Figure 12). She was married the following August to José Ygnacio Paichi of Tobani (Doheny Beach), who was the seventh person baptized at San Juan Capistrano (SJC Mar. 47). Of this couple’s three children, only one reached adulthood. This child, Manuel Romano, married Antonina Ayanequit of Alauna (Trabuco) in 1801 (SJC Mar. 523). Eight children were recorded in the baptismal register of Mission San Juan Capistrano born to Manuel Romano and Antonina. Two daughters grew up to be married: María de Jesús wed José de la Cruz Guauniet in 1821 (SJC Mar. 1001) and Elzearia married José Antonio in 1822 (SJC Mar. 1024). Only the children of José de la Cruz and María de Jesús have been traced further (Figure 12). Camp Pendleton Ethnohistoric Study

91

The eldest daughter of José de la Cruz and María de Jesús was Primitiva, born in 1821 (SJC Bap. 3825). Primitiva married Severiano Ríos of San Diego in 1834 (SJC Mar. 1165). Severiano Ríos was one of the recipients of 200 varas of land at San Juan Capistrano when lands were assigned in the pueblo on July 12, 1841 (Engelhardt 1922:141). The son of Severiano Ríos and Primitiva, José Polonio Manuel Ríos, married María del Refugio, a Luiseño descendant of the village of Chacape, at San Juan Capistrano in 1861 (SJC Mar. 1571). Descendants of this family are members of contemporary Juaneño groups (see also “Descendants of Sotero Thaminara Ganonis” and Figure 8 above). Descendants of Sergia Xiguiguividam of Tobe In the winter and spring of 1805, most of the remaining population of Tobe was baptized at Mission San Juan Capistrano. Along with these were two 58-year-old women from a ranchería written as “Toque” (SJC Bap. 2585, 2586). One of these women, Sergia Xiguiguividam, was the mother of three previously baptized adults from Tobe (or “Tove”), so our conclusion is that “Toque,” which appears nowhere else in the San Juan Capistrano register, was probably the missionary’s mistaken spelling for Tobe. The first of Sergia Xiguiguidam’s children to have arrived at the mission was Otón Pedro Yamavar, who was baptized in 1785 as an adult (SJC Bap. 563).81 Otón Pedro’s pre-existing marriage to Eulogia Tucuvidquem of Patzeve was recognized by the church in a Catholic ceremony at the mission (SJC Mar. 143). Three children were born to this couple (Figure 13). One son, Abdón Ayamar, grew up to have a sizable family of his own, which was among those living at the mission when it was secularized. Further research will be necessary to trace the subsequent history of these descendants. Sergia Xiguguividam’s other son listed in the San Juan Capistrano records was Sulpicio Tucupmiyaunibit, who was baptized on April 3, 1805 (SJC Bap. 2492). Sulpicio was the father of six sons, all born at Tobe to two different mothers (Figure 13). The alternating dates of birth of the sons born to the two women indicate that Sulpicio Tucupmiyaunibit was married to both of them at the same time. One of these women, Ricarda Sujairiguibm, was baptized in danger of death at Tobe (SJC Bap.2361), but was not subsequently married to Sulpicio by the church because he allowed only one wife once he entered the mission community. The San Juan Capistrano marriage register only recorded his marriage to Sulpicia Yaguam or Nieyvam, whom he wed at the time of his baptism (SJC Mar. 656). The evidence of Sulpicio Tucupmiyaunibit’s polygamy suggests that he may have been the chief of Tobe, although no such rank was mentioned explicitly in the San Juan records. All of Sulpicio’s six sons married and had children born at the mission (Figure 13). The San Juan Capistrano marriage register shows that three of these sons had been married prior to coming to the mission: Pío María Ziruinit to Pía María Danayum of “Paseve” (Paixba/Pasebi), Peregrino Giaubenet to Materna Teniavam of Naccomeye, and Agripino Culpe to Agripina Guaquipam (SJC Mar. 585, 596, 636). Several of Sulpicio’s sons had sizable families at the mission, and a number of his grandchildren had married and begun families of their own by the

81

The copy of the San Juan Capistrano register consulted for this study was missing the page on which this baptism appears. The information regarding Otón Pedro included in Figure 13 come from other records in which his name appears.


93

end of the Mission Period. It seems apparent by a quick glance at Figure 13 that the various San Juan Capistrano around the time of secularization. Further research will be necessary to shed light on the subsequent history of these related lineages, however one of these is known with certainty to have resided continuously in the vicinity of the mission to the present day, as discussed below. That lineage which has been documented to the present day descends from Pío María Ziruinit’s third marriage to Dominga Pangojobam (SJC Mar. 699). This couple had a daughter Leona who wed José Joaquín Yayourem of “Pimix” (Pimixga) in 1831 (SJC Mar. 1142). José Joaquín and Leona had a daughter, María de los Angeles, who grew up to marry an Indian named Andrés Avelino of Mission San Diego (SJC Mar. 1464). This family later was known by the surname Robles. Juan de Jesús Robles, a son of Andrés Avelino and María de los Angeles, married María de la Luz, a Luiseño girl from Pala in 1873 at Mission San Juan Capistrano (SJC Mar. 1775). Esperanza Robles, the daughter of Juan José and María de la Luz, married Juan E. Lobo at San Juan Capistrano in 1900. Their son, Clarence Lobo, was chief of the Juaneño band and was active in the Mission Indian Federation until his death in 1985. Their daughter, Evelyn María Lobo Villegas, lived near the old mission and continued to be active in Juaneño affairs until her death in 1994. Both authors of this study interviewed Mrs. Villegas in 1992. She devoted much of her life to the field of childhood education and helped to initiate the Title 4 program in the Capistrano Unified School district that provided federal funds to assist in the education of Indian children. She also was the director of San Juan Capistrano’s Head Start program (Reyes 1994; Sweeney 1994). A large number of Lobo descendants are an integral part of today’s Juaneño community.

DISCUSSION Our work on tracing lineal descendants from Luiseño and Juaneño towns and villages that once existed within Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton continues to be a work in progress. It was not possible for us to make use of all potential sources of information, yet we have made considerable progress nonetheless in identifying the most important archival documents needed for genealogical study and making use of the data in these. The reasons for uncertainty in our reconstructed genealogies derive from several causes, especially missing records and the need to work systematically with sources that have not yet been studied. The missing baptismal, marriage, and death records for Mission San Luis Rey to a certain extent is offset because of the survival of the two padrones that record the names and family relationships of most people affiliated with the mission until nearly the time of secularization (Johnson et al. 1998). After 1835, however, increased out-migration of the Luiseño population and the missing San Luis Rey sacramental registers create a sizable records hiatus until the 1852 California State Census. Other census records are less useful and reliable, until the beginning of reservation census records compiled by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Following 1894, the regular census lists compiled by the Bureau of Indian Affairs are most helpful in tracking descendants affiliated with the Luiseño reservations and link as well with information provided in ethnographic records and oral history interviews. The Juaneño population can be traced into later periods using church records, because so many families remained around the San Juan Capistrano town. The genealogical examples provided in this chapter demonstrate how the mission registers and 1852 census data can be used to identify ancestors of people who continue to be members of 94


? Sergia Xiguiguividam (Toque) 1747 - 1810

2nd

1st

Eulogia Tucuvidquem (Patzeye) 1875 - 1805

Otón Pedro Yamavar (Tobe?) ? - 1824

(see next page)

3rd

Genara Pujuaquin (n.g.) 1761 - 1813

María Egidia Egneivam (Hueve) 1777 - 1822

2nd

Vicente Ygnacio Generosa 1791 - 1816 Ayamar Querivedam 1795 - ? 1799 - ?

Abdon Ayamar 1799 - ?

Rufina Segogniam (Pazva) 1805 - ?

Clemencia Chipopich (Pavese) 1771 - 1835

(see next page)

1st

Ricardo Yacu (Tobe) 1781 - 1821

Vicenta Coroni (Zajibit) 1782 - 1815

Peregrino Giaubenet (Tobe) 1786 - ?

Materna Teniavam (Naccomeye) 1785 - ?

Narcisa 1814 - 1815 Aquilino Rufino Odon María Juan Luis 1824 - ? 1828 - 1829 de Jesús 1835 - ? 1838 - ? 1832 - ?

Benita Casilda Ricardo de los Santos 1803 - 1804 1805 - 1808 1799 - 1800

Pascual Viridana Vitala Damiana Ygnacio 1808 - 1808 1810 - 1813 1814 - 1814 1815 - 1817 Martir 1814 - ?

Ygnacio 1832 - ?

Leona Pancracia Andrea Materna 1818 - ? 1821 - ? 1823 - 1827 1828 - ?

María Antonia 1835 - ?

Ygnacio 1837 - ?

José Josefa Feliz 1832 - ? 1838 - ?

Luis María 1839 - ? Concepción 1841 - ?

Figure 13. (part 1) Descendants of Sergia Xiquiguividam of Tobe 133

(see previous page)

1st

Ricarda Sujairiguibam (Tove) ? - 1805

Sulpicio Tucupmiyunibit (Yugamait, Pensum) (Tove) 1760 - 1811

Sulpicia Yaguam (Nieyvam) (n.g.) 1768 - 1832

(see previous page)

1st

Valente Soberal (Tobe) 1793 - 1841

Egidia Ochome

María de la Presentación 1842 - ?

1st

3rd

Dominga Pía María Pío María Dorotea Danayu Ziruinit Sajadcum Pangojobam (Tobe) (n.g.) (Chuitque?) (Paseve) 1792 - ? 1884 - ? 1783 - 1815 1788 - 1808

Rafael Conrada Fernando Carlota Felicitas Cleto Celestina Yndalecio Mariano Manuel José Tiburcio 1817 - ? 1818- ? 1819 - ? 1823?- ? 1821- 1822 1823 - 1823 1824- 1826 1826 - 1828 1828 - 1830 Antonio Ramón 1837 - 1837 1831 - ? 1834 - ?

María Antonia 1840 - ?

2nd

Higino Quaal (Pange) 1773 - 1811

José Joaquin Leona Yayuorem 1813 - ? (Averezon) (Pimix) 1809 - 1836?

2nd

Nila Constancio Parqueel Yuguamquimar (Guevi) (Tove) 1772 - 1839

2nd

Agripina Agripino Balvina Guaquipam Culpe 1796 - ? (Touve) (n.g.) ? - 1821

Sotero Roque María 1815 - 1816 1813 - 1814

María Andres María José de los Angeles Avelino de los Angeles Joaquín 1832 - 1833 (San Diego) 1834 - ? 1837 - ?

Herculano Honesta Segiol Mediquix (Touve) (Gueve) 1792 - ? 1799 - ?

Juan Luisa Atanasio Daniel Pascual Bonifacia Agustina Juaquín Cancio 1826- ? 1820 - ? 1823 - 1830 1811 - ? 1826 - ? 1829 - 1831 1831 - ? 1817 - ?

Emigdia 1844 - ?

Figure 13. (part 2) Descendants of Sergia Xiquiguividam of Tobe 135

Luiseño and Juaneño tribes and bands today. Because of the fragmentary nature of the records available to us, some of the links to earlier generations in these genealogies are tentative and will need further research to substantiate. Our study of the San Juan Capistrano records has only been conducted through 1848 and has yet to make use of the important historical information following that date, which includes data pertinent to the Luiseño as well as the Juaneño. Only towards the end of our study, were we able to gain access to the sacramental records that began to be kept for the parish of San Luis Rey in 1869. These include names of people who used the chapels at Pala and Pauma, and even the limited use that we were able to make of them proved to be important in some cases for linking people alive today to their ancestors listed in mission records. A more systematic effort along these lines should provide additional information regarding lineal descendants from the Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton vicinity.


99

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RESEARCH SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION The study of lineal descent through genealogical methods provides a powerful means that may be used to reconstruct a detailed history of particular communities through time. By identifying the origins of component families, it may be determined which contemporary communities represent direct continuations of identifiable earlier groups that once lived in Luiseño and Juaneño villages in territory now under the stewardship of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. This information is necessary for the implementation of federally mandated consultations with contemporary American Indian groups affiliated with the Camp Pendleton area with regard to activities on the base that may affect Native American cultural resources. It was necessary to work out the locations of villages affiliated with Mission San Luis Rey, not only to be confident of that we had determined the names of all settlements that once existed on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton but also to understand the geographical, historical, and social organizational context of much of the ethnographic and genealogical data that we examined. The explication of associations between rancherías and their component clans was especially needed in order to identify individuals and communities in the 1852 California State Census, Indian census records, and ethnographic records. Our study has demonstrated that the determination of original clan affiliations with particular Luiseño settlements is a powerful tool for tracing what became of such groups following mission secularization. Perhaps the most outstanding discovery of this project has derived from identifications of individuals and clan names listed in the 1852 census at the ranchería of Yapicha, located between Potrero and La Jolla. Yapicha was composed nearly entirely of patrilocal families whose adult men had been born at Topome. In a number of instances, there was evidence that these families had been living at Topome prior to their members being baptized at San Luis Rey. The village of Yapicha seems to have been essentially a relocation of the native community that once existed at Topome and therefore was a direct continuation of that sociopolitical group. The tracing of Luiseño and Juaneño descendants following the secularization of the missions in the 1830s has proven to be a daunting undertaking. At least triple the amount of time originally allocated to undertake this task was expended in the effort to document the connections between past groups that existed in the area of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton and their descendants who are members of contemporary Luiseño and Juaneño reservations and communities. Our findings to date, reported in Chapter 5, indicate that all contemporary Luiseño and Juaneño groups have members who can trace ancestry to Topome and other villages that once existed on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. In the course of tracing descendants forward in time from the generation born in the original native villages that once existed on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, considerable time was devoted to the identification of individuals who had been listed in the San Luis Rey padrones who were later tabulated in the 1852 census. Thus far, 285 (31 percent) of 919 adults living in

100


Luiseño communities have been matched successfully with their padrón entries.82 A continuing problem has been to find information adequate to the task of linking people listed in the 1852 census with their descendants listed in subsequent generations. For reasons described in Chapter 4, the 1860 and 1870 U.S. census records have not proven very useful in this regard. Bridging the gap between the 1852 census and the late nineteenth century records was also a major difficulty encountered when we attempted the approach of working backward in time from genealogical information supplied during the course of our interviews and consultations. Names of parents and grandparents provided in the interviews could be readily correlated with their families listed in the BIA Indian census records and in the San Luis Rey parish records. Such identifications permitted the extension of Luiseño genealogies back another generation or two to ancestors who had been born in the middle to late nineteenth century. Unfortunately, many of the people in these earlier generations had been married after the 1852 census was created and before marriages began to be recorded in San Luis Rey parish records in 1869. Because marriage records frequently provide key genealogical information pertaining to the parents of each spouse, the lack of such information seriously hampered identifications of people in the 1852 census whose names later appeared in parish and Indian census records. Because of limitations encountered in the types of archival documents available for the current study, the thirteen genealogies described in Chapter 5 undoubtedly represent only a fraction of those families who have ancestry from the original native groups who occupied the area encompassed by Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. The two principal obstacles to be overcome in the ethnohistoric record are: (1) the gap between 1835 and 1852, and (2) the gap between 1852 and 1869. To a certain extent, other ethnohistoric sources might compensate for the lack of San Luis Rey mission registers that would have covered this period. Specific recommendations for extending and augmenting the findings reported here are contained in the concluding section to this chapter below.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSULTATION Two categories of recommendations derive from the current study: (1) consultation with contemporary tribes and (2) future ethnohistoric research needs. With regard to the implications of our findings for consultation pertaining to cultural resources encountered during the course of project undertakings on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton; implementation regulations for NAGPRA specifically require consultation with culturally affiliated, federally recognized tribes when human remains are inadvertently discovered on federal lands (U.S. Dept. of Interior 1995). Our findings demonstrate conclusively that at least four federally recognized Luiseño tribes (La Jolla, Pauma, Pechanga, and Rincon) possess families who are descendants of people who lived at Topome. Based on this information, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton has justification to sign a memorandum of agreement with the governing bodies of these four reservations to arrange for consultation mandated by NAGPRA and other federal laws. Assistance in drafting the memoranda of agreements should be sought from the Cultural Committees of the different reservations, designated NAGPRA representatives, or other entities (e.g., a consortium of several tribes) to whom consultation authority has been invested by the tribal councils.

82

The numbers reported here constitute all adult Indians listed on pages 12-44 of the 1852 census. “Adult,” as defined here, consists of anyone reported to be fifteen years or older. A much higher percentage of adults were identifiable at those communities where clan names were provided (37.1 percent) than at those where clan names were lacking (17.6 percent).


101

In addition, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton agreements should not overlook the strong likelihood that Pala and Soboba also have members who descend from Topome ancestors, because of at least 150 years of continuous intermarriage among the Luiseño communities that became reservations. Further information will be required to demonstrate such genealogical connections and clarify the late nineteenth century histories of the different reservations. Once Pala and/or Soboba can be demonstrated to possess direct continuity with earlier Luiseño groups that once existed on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, then memoranda of agreements pertaining to NAGPRA-mandated consultation should be drafted between Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton and the governing bodies of these tribes. In addition to the federally recognized Luiseño tribes, several groups exist that have applications for federal recognition pending. The San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians had a number of members who were descended from Topome lineages listed in BIA Indian census records between 1894 and 1902, and some of these individuals are direct ancestors of tribal members today. All three Juaneño groups include members who have ancestry from the northern part of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, and one family also has genealogical descent from Chacape (Las Pulgas). These findings support the policy of the Cultural Resources staff at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton to include these groups in consultations pertaining to sites of importance to Native Americans on the base. If the San Luis Rey Band is successful in its attempt to recover its status as a federally recognized tribe and one or more of the Juaneño bands becomes federally recognized, then memoranda of agreements pertaining to NAGPRA-mandated consultations should be established between the governing councils of these tribes and Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton.

ETHNOHISTORIC RESEARCH NEEDS To date, the current study is the most extensive use of ethnohistoric documents to shed light on the history of Luiseño communities. This accomplishment has been made possible because of the systematic use of mission and census records combined with information derived from ethnographic records and oral history interviews. In the course of pursuing this project, further knowledge was obtained regarding likely documentary resources that could augment and expand the information contained in this study. Clearly further work is warranted to reconstruct Juaneño history in a manner similar to that accomplished for the Luiseño, to shed additional light on the histories of Luiseño families and communities following secularization, to make an effort to bridge the gaps in records that have prevented the establishment of genealogical connections between modern descendants and their ancestors listed in mission records, to determine more precisely how the current reservations and communities were constituted, and apply ethnohistoric techniques to gain greater understanding of settlement systems that once existed on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. The following specific tasks will build upon the work accomplished in this study: 1. Continue to consult ethnographic records to obtain information on Luiseño and Juaneño placenames, community histories, and biographies. For example, J. P. Harrington’s notes provide genealogical and oral historical information that were only partially tapped for this study. The microfilm publications of Harrington’s papers contain a number of frames that are unreadable because of the poor quality of the film, so that it will be necessary to work with his original manuscripts at the National Anthropological 102


Archives to be sure that all pertinent information is obtained. The unpublished papers of E. W. Gifford, W. D. Strong, and Raymond White should be located and reviewed for relevant data. 2. Match village names from mission registers and placenames documented in ethnographic records with site locations determined from archaeological surveys on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. 3. Using mission register data, reconstruct the social networks among villages that once existed on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton during the protohistoric period to compare with archaeologically derived data pertaining to economic interaction. 4. Conduct systematic research into land grant records and diseños to derive additional information regarding Luiseño and Juaneño community histories. 5. Determine percentage of people from Topome, Las Flores, and other villages that once existed on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton who became part of historic reservation communities. 6. Continue to improve the San Juan Capistrano database to make it comparable to mission register databases that have been created for other southern California missions (e.g., McLendon and Johnson 1999). Future tasks will (a) determine the baptismal numbers of parents whose names are given but who have not yet been identified, (b) refine our understanding of variant names for Juaneño villages and ascertain the probable affiliation of people for whom no village names were recorded so that the number of settlements represented and their relative sizes can be compared, (c) systematically audit the transcriptions of village names and personal names by comparing the information in our database to data systematically collected by David Earle (used in Earle and O’Neil 1994) and Robert Schaefer (2000), and (d) continue to build the San Juan Capistrano database past the mid-nineteenth century to enhance the ability to trace descendant lineages. 7. Examine a copy of the original 1852 California State Census to audit the available transcript by checking the spellings of Indian and Spanish names, ages, and sex. Based on increased accuracy of information, continue identifications of people who had been listed in the mission records. 8. Undertake a systematic search for Luiseño and Juaneño baptism, confirmation, marriage, and burial records in the period not covered by San Luis Rey registers (18351869) at other southern California missions and churches, particularly Mission San Diego, Mission San Juan Capistrano, and Los Angeles Plaza Church. After a missionary ceased to be stationed on a regular basis at Mission San Luis Rey in the 1840s, it is likely that records for many Luiseño families were made at neighboring churches, either during the families’ visits to those churches or during services by Catholic priests held at Indian settlements. 9. Compile and cross-reference information systematically from late nineteenth century parish records to aid in reconstructing family genealogies and establishing connections to ancestors who may have lived in native towns that previously existed on Marine Camp Pendleton Ethnohistoric Study

103

Corps Base Camp Pendleton. The parish records are very inconsistent in the kinds of information recorded for Indian families, rendering them difficult to use for genealogical research. The same individual might be listed under one surname in the baptism of his child, another surname in when he serves as a godparent of another child, and no surname at all when he is married. Marriage records often list the names of the parents of each spouse providing a bridge back to 1852 census. A few baptismal records from the 1880s provide the names of a child’s paternal and maternal grandparents, which likewise provide clues to their identities in the 1852 census. 10. Conduct additional interviews with elders and other knowledgeable individuals affiliated with the different reservations and San Juan Capistrano community. Most of the work with census and parish records had not been accomplished when the interviews for the current study were undertaken, so that new questions that have arisen from archival work can only be answered if follow-up interviews are obtained. Provide copies of the reports derived from the oral history interviews and ethnohistoric studies to those who participated and to the tribal governments and/or culture preservation committees for their archives.

104


REFERENCES CITED Anderson, G. E., W. H. Ellison and R. F. Heizer. 1978. Treaty Making and Treaty Rejection by the Federal Government in California, 1850-1852. Ballena Press, Socorro, New Mexico. Bahr, Diana. 1997. Cupeño Trail of Tears: Relocation and Urbanization. American Indian Culture and Research Journal 21(3):75-82. Bancroft, Hubert H. 1886. History of California, vol. 4. The History Company, San Francisco. _____ . 1884. History of California, vol. 1. The History Company, San Francisco. Bean, Lowell J. 1978. Cahuilla. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 575-587. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bean, Lowell J., and Charles R. Smith. 1978. Cupeño. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 588-591. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bean, Lowell J., and Florence Shipek. 1978. Luiseño. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 550-563. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bean, Lowell J., and Katherine Siva Saubel. 1972. Temalpakh (From the Earth): Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Uses of Plants. Malki Museum Press, Morongo Indian Reservation. Bean, Lowell J., Sylvia Brakke Vane, and Jackson Young. 1991. The Cahuilla Landscape: The Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. Ballena Press, Menlo Park. Beemer, Eleanor. 1980. My Luiseño Neighbors: Excerpts of a Journal Kept in Pauma Valley, Northern San Diego County, 1934 to 1974. Acoma Books, Ramona. Bibb, Leland E. 1991. Pablo Apis and Temecula. The Journal of San Diego History 37:256-271. _____ . 1972. The Location of the Indian Village of Temecula. The Journal of San Diego History 18(3):6-11. Black, Esther Boulton. 1975. Rancho Cucamonga and Doña Merced. San Bernardino County Museum Association, Redlands. Brennan, Arcadia Bandini (Scott). n.d. Arcadian Memories of California. Unpublished MS (CD 5206), Bancroft Library, Berkeley. Brigandi, Phil. 1998. Encinitas.

Temecula at the Crossroads of History.

Heritage Media Corporation,

_____ . n.d. In The Name of the Law: The Cupeño Removal of 1903. Unpublished manuscript in author’s possession. Camp Pendleton Ethnohistoric Study

105

Bright, William. 1998. 1500 California Place Names: Their Origin and Meaning. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. _____ . 1968. A Luiseño Dictionary. University of California Publications in Linguistics 51. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Bright, William, and Jane Hill. 1967. The Linguistic History of the Cupeño. In Studies of Southwestern Linguistics, edited by Dell Hymes and William E. Bittle, pp. 351-371. Mouton, The Hague and Paris. Brown, Alan K. 1967. The Aboriginal Population of the Santa Barbara Channel. Reports of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 69. University of California, Berkeley. Calac, Leo. 1995. Calac Family. Hidden Valley Journal 19 (Annual Edition):1-9. Escondido Genealogy Society, Escondido. California Land Cases. n.d. Southern District Court No. 251, Cuca or Potrero, Maria Juana de los Angeles, claimant. Microfilim on file, Bancroft Library. California Private Land Claims. n.d. Microfilm Publication T-910. National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, D.C. California State Archives. n.d. Spanish Land Grand Documents. Spanish Archives, Vols. 1-8, and diseños, 2 vols. [5 microfilm reels of Spanish transcripts and English translations]. California State Archives, Sacramento. California State Census. 1852. California State Census, Schedule I, San Diego County. Transcript prepared by Lorraine Escobar and used with her permission (in press, Willow Bend Books, Westminister, MD). Carillo, J. M. 1959. The Story of Mission San Antonio de Pala. North County Printers, Oceanside. Carrico, Richard L. 1987. Strangers in a Stolen Land: American Indians in San Diego 1850-1880. Sierra Oaks Publishing Co., Newcastle, CA. _____ . 1977. Portolá’s 1769 Expedition and Coastal Native Villages of San Diego County. The Journal of California Anthropology 4(1):30-41. Castillo, Edward D. 1978. Twentieth Century Secular Movements. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 713-717. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Copley, James S., Cecil C. Moyer, and Richard F. Pourade. 1969. Historic Ranchos of San Diego. Union-Tribune Publishing Co., San Diego. Cowan, Robert G. 1977. Ranchos of California. Historical Society of Southern California, Los Angeles.

106


Crespí, Juan. 1927. Fray Juan Crespí: Missionary Explorer on the Pacific Coast 1769-1774, translated and edited by Herbert E. Bolton. University of California Press, Berkeley. Drover, Christopher E., Richard Cerreto, and Stephen O’Neil. 1990. Archaeological Excavations of Old Temecula Village RIV-364: A Post-Contact Luiseño Village. Report prepared for Ivan Tenant, Deputy Road Director, Riverside County. DuBois, Constance Goddard. 1908. The Religion of the Luiseño Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(3):69-186. Earle, David D., and Stephen O’Neil. 1994. Newport Coast Archaeological Project: An Ethnohistoric Analysis of Population, Settlement, and Social Organization in Coastal Orange County at the End of the Late Prehistoric Period. Report prepared for Coastal Community Builders, Newport Beach. The Keith Companies, Archaeological Division, Costa Mesa. Elliott, Eric. 1999. Dictionary of Rincón Luiseño. California, San Diego.

Ph.D. dissertation, 4 vols., University of

Engelhardt, Zephyrin. 1922. San Juan Capistrano Mission. Standard Printing Company, Los Angeles. _____ . 1921. San Luis Rey Mission. James H. Barry Company, San Francisco. Escobar, Lorraine. 1998. Mission and Church Records on Microfilm at San Diego Archdiocesan Archives. Unpublished MS [Church/Mission catalogs of microfilm reels of sacramental registers available through the Genealogical Society of Utah, Salt Lake City]. Font, Pedro. 1931. Font’s Complete Diary, translated and edited by Herbert Eugene Bolton. University of California Press, Berkeley. Garner, Vance H. 1982. The Broken Ring. Westernlore Press, Tucson. Gifford, Edward W. 1918. Clans and Moieties in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 14(2):155-219. Goddard, Ives. 1996. The Classification of the Native Languages of North America. In Languages, edited by Ives Goddard, pp. 290-323. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 17, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Grijalva, Juan Pablo. 1795. Informe sobre las Rancherias que se hallaron en las tierras exploradas por el Padre Mariner y Grijalba [summary of original]. State Paper-Missions 2: 54-55. Archives of California (C-A 50), Bancroft Library, Berkeley. Harrington, John P. 1986. Southern California/Basin. Ethnographic Field Notes, Pt. 3. National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (Microfilm edition, Kraus International Publications, Millwood, N.Y.)


107

_____ . 1934. A New Original Version of Boscana’s Historical Account of the San Juan Capistrano Indians of Southern California. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 92(4):162. Washington, D.C. _____ . 1917. [Notes from placename trip with José de la Gracia Cruz (Acú)]. Contained in small field notebook, MS on file, Harrington Collection, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. _____ . n.d. [Gabrielino and Luiseño linguistic notes from José María Zalvidea.] Harrington Papers, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Harris, Dennis E. 1984. The California Census of 1852: A Note of Caution and Encouragement. Pacific Historian 28:59-64. Hartnell, William E. P. 1839-1840. Diary and Blotter of the Inspection of the California Missions made by William E. P. Hartnell, General Inspector of the California Missions in Alta California in 1839-1840, translated by Starr Gurcke. California Mission Studies Association (in preparation). Harvey, Herbert R. 1974. The Luiseño: An Analysis of Change in Patterns of Land Tenure and Social Structure. In California Indians II, pp. 97-206. American Indian Ethnohistory: California and Basin-Plateau Indians, David Agee Horr, editor. Garland Publishing Inc., New York and London. Hayes, Benjamin. 1929. Pioneer Notes from the Diaries of Judge Benjamin Hayes 1849-1875, Marjorie Tisdale Wolcott, editor. McBride Printing Co., Los Angeles. Heizer, Robert F. 1978. Treaties. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 701-704. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. _____ . 1972. The Eighteen Unratified Treaties of 1851-1852 between the California Indians and the United States Government. Archaeological Research Facility, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley. Heizer, Robert F., and Karen Nissen. 1973. The Human Sources of California Ethnography. Archaeological Research Facility, Berkeley. Heizer, Robert F., D. Bailey, Marke Estis, and Karen Nissen. 1969. Catalogue of the C. Hart Merriam Collection of Data Concerning California Indian Tribes and Other American Indian Tribes. Archaeological Research Facility, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley. Hyde, Villiana. 1971. An Introduction to the Luiseño Language, edited by Ronald W. Langacker. Malki Museum Press, Banning. Hyde, Villiana Calac, and Eric Elliott. 1994. Yumáyk Yumáyk Long Ago. University of California Publications in Linguistics 25. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

108


Jackson, Helen Hunt, and Abbot Kinney. 1994. On the Condition and Needs of the Mission Indians of California. Appendix XV [1883 report] in A Century of Dishonor: A Sketch of the United States Government’s Dealings with Some of the Indian Tribes, by Helen Jackson, pp. 458-514. Indian Head Books, New York. James, Harry C. 1969. The Cahuilla Indians. Malki Museum Press, Morongo Indian Reservation [reprint of 1960 ed., Westernlore Press]. Johnson, John R. 1999. Reconstructing the Lost Mission Registers of San Luis Rey. La Gazeta del Archivo, Winter 1998-99:13-16. _____ . 1988. Chumash Social Organization: An Ethnohistoric Perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara. Johnson, John R., Amy Miller, and Linda Agren. 1991. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. Anthropological Linguistics 33(4): 367378. Johnson, John R., and Dinah Crawford. 1999. Contributions to Luiseño Ethnohistory Based on Mission Register Research. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 35(4):79-102. Johnson, John R., Dinah J. Crawford, and Stephen O’Neil. 1998. The Ethnohistoric Basis for Cultural Affiliation in the Camp Pendleton Marine Base Area: Contributions to Luiseño and Juaneño Ethnohistory Based on Mission Register Research. Report prepared for Los Angeles District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Science Applications International Corporation, Santa Barbara. Jonason, Ron. 2000. Marines honor Luiseño Indians at Bridge Dedication. Fallbrook/Bonsall Village News, March 2, 2000, B-1. Kroeber, Alfred L. 1959. Problems on Boscana. In Ethnographic Interpretations 7-11, pp. 282293. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 47(3):235-310. _____ . 1953. Handbook of the Indians of California. California Book Company, Ltd., Berkeley [reprint of 1925 edition]. _____ . 1907. Shoshonean Dialects in California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 4(3):65-165. Kroeber, A. L., and George William Grace. 1960. The Sparkman Grammar of Luiseño. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Langdon, Margaret. 1975. Kamia and Kumeyaay: A Linguistic Perspective. The Journal of California Anthropology 2(1):64-70. Lasuén, Fermín Francisco. 1965. Writings of Fermín Francisco de Lasuén, translated and edited by Finbar Kenneally, vol. 2. Academy of American Franciscan History, Washington, D.C.


109

Lisalde, Pedro. 1797. Reconocimiento de las tierras para situar la Misión de San Luis [summary of original]. Provincial State Papers 15:182-183. Archives of California (C-A 8), Bancroft Library, Berkeley. Love, Bruce. 1994. Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties: The Kelsey Tract, Pechanga Indian Reservation, Riverside County. Report submitted to Brian F. Mooney and Associates, San Diego. CRM Tech, Riverside. Mariner, Juan. 1795. Diary of Juan Mariner, O.F.M., August 26, 1795. MS on file, Santa Barbara Mission Archive-Library, Santa Barbara. Mason, William Marvin. 1998. The Census of 1790: A Demographic History of Colonial California. Ballena Press, Menlo Park. McCawley, William. 1996. From Ranchería to Rancho: The Ethnohistory of Topamai – Rancho Santa Margarita CA-SDI-10156/12599/H. Paper presented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Bakersfield, April 1996. McCown, B. E. 1955. Temeku: A Page from the History of the Luiseño Indians. Archaeological Survey Association of Southern California Occasional Paper 3. McLendon, Sally, and John R. Johnson, eds. 1999. Cultural Affiliation and Lineal Descent of Chumash Peoples in the Channel Islands and Santa Monica Mountains, 2 vols. Report prepared for the Archeology and Ethnography Program, National Park Service. Hunter College, City University of New York, and Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. Merriam, C. Hart. 1979. Indian Names for Plants and Animals among California and Other Western North American Tribes, assembled and annotated by Robert F. Heizer. Ballena Press Publications in Archaeology, Ethnology and History 14. Ballena Press, Socorro, N.M. _____ . 1929. Akatchman (Piyumkos or Luiseño including Sovova & Kupa). C. H. Merriam Papers: Papers Relating to Work with California Indians, 1850-1974 (bulk 1898-1938), Vol. 1, Microfilm 1022: Rl. 7, Fr. 388-399. Bancroft Library, Berkeley. Miller, Wick. 1983. Uto-Aztecan Languages. In Southwest, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 113-124. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 10, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Mills, Elaine L., and Ann J. Brickfield. 1986. A Guide to the Field Notes: Native American History, Language and Culture of Southern California/Basin. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington in the Smithsonian Institution, 1907-1957, vol. 2. Kraus International Publications, Millwood, N.Y. Mission San Gabriel. 1824. Estado y Condición de las Personas [Padrón]. Copy on file with Santa Barbara Mission Archive-Library. Mission San Juan Capistrano. 1790. Annual Report for 1790. Copy on file with Santa Barbara Mission Archive-Library.

110


_____ . 1776-1915. Books of Baptisms, Marriages, and Deaths. Copies on file at the Santa Barbara Mission Archive-Library. Mission San Luis Rey. 1892-1919. Libro 2˚ de Matrimonios. Microfilm on file, Santa Barbara Mission Archive-Library [cited as SLR Mar2]. _____ . 1869-1886. Libro de Matrimonios de la parroquia de San Luis Rey embezado en el dia 19 de Setimebre del año 1869. Microfilm on file, Santa Barbara Mission Archive-Library [cited as SLR Mar1]. _____ . 1869-1886. Libro primero de Bautismos de las parroquia de San Luis Rey, empezado el dia 29 de Agosto de 1869. Microfilm on file, Santa Barbara Mission Archive-Library [cited as SLR Parish Bap1]. _____ . 1811-1844. Padrones, 2 vols. Copies on file with Santa Barbara Mission ArchiveLibrary. Mithun, Marianne. 1999. The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York. Newmark, Harris. 1984. Sixty Years in Southern California: 1853-1913, Maurice H. and Marco R. Newmark, editors, 4th ed., revised and augmented by W. W. Robinson. Dawson’s Book Shop, Los Angeles. Newmark, Maurice H., and Marco R. Newmark. 1929. Census of the City and County of Los Angeles, California for the Year 1850. Times-Mirror Press, Los Angeles. Northrop, Marie E. 1986. Spanish-Mexican Families of Early California: 1769-1850, vol. I (2nd ed.). Southern California Genealogical Society, Burbank. _____ . 1984. Spanish-Mexican Families of Early California: 1769-1850, vol. II. Southern California Genealogical Society, Burbank. O’Neil, Stephen. 1999. What’s in a Tribal Name? Ambivalence for a Mission San Juan Capistrano Legacy. Paper presented at the 14th Annual California Indian Conference, San Luis Obispo, October 15, 1999. _____ . 1998. Mission San Juan Capistrano’s Southern Sphere of Influence. Paper presented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, San Diego, April 10, 1998. _____ . 1988. Their Mark upon the Land: Native American Place Names in Orange County and Adjacent Areas. In The Natural and Social Sciences of Orange County, edited by Henry C. Koerper, pp. 106-122. Memoirs of the Natural History Foundation of Orange County, vol. 2. Newport Beach. Osio, Antonio María. 1996. The History of Alta California: A Memoir of Mexican California, translated by Rose Marie Beebe and Robert M. Senkewicz. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.


111

Oxendine, Joan. 1983. The Luiseño Village during the Late Prehistoric Era. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Riverside. Parker, Horace. 1971. The Temecula Massacre. Paisano Press, Balboa Island. _____ . 1967. The Treaty of Temecula. Paisano Press, Balboa Island. _____ . 1965. The Early Indians of Temecula. Paisano Press, Balboa Island. Phillips, George Harwood. 1997. Indians and Indian Agents: The Origins of the Reservations System in California, 1849-1852. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman and London. _____ . 1975. Chiefs and Challengers: Indian Resistance and Cooperation in Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London. Quinn, Charles Russell. 1964. The Story of Mission Santa Ysabel. Elena Quinn, Downey. Reyes, David. 1994. Poignant Goodby to a ‘Very, Special Lady,’ Los Angeles Times, B-1,7. April 21, 1994. Robinson, W. W. 1993. Southern California Local History: A Gathering of the Writings of W. W. Robinson, Doyce B. Nunis, Jr., editor. Historical Society of Southern California, Los Angeles. San Diego Genealogical Society. 1995a. 1850 Census, San Diego County, California, 2nd Ed. San Diego Genealogical Society, El Cajon. _____ . 1995b. 1852 Census, San Diego County, California, 2nd Ed. San Diego Genealogical Society, El Cajon. _____ . 1995c. 1860 Census, San Diego County, California, 2nd Ed. Society, El Cajon.

San Diego Genealogical

_____ . 1995d. 1870 Census, San Diego County, California, 2nd Ed. San Diego Genealogical Society, El Cajon. Sánchez, José Bernardo. 1822. Diario de la Caminata. MS on file, Santa Barbara Mission ArchiveLibrary, Santa Barbara. [Unpublished translation by José M. Alvarez, n.d., Diary of the Inland Excursion Undertaken by Padre Prefect Payeras in Union with Padre Sánchez, on file, Santa Barbara Mission Archive-Library]. San Diego Historical Society. n.d. Mission San Luis Rey, San Antonia de Pala: Baptisms for Mission and Vicinity, 1869-1970. Typewritten transcript of names appearing in Books I-VI, San Diego Historical Society, San Diego. Saunders, Charles Frances, and Father St. John O’Sullivan. 1930. Capistrano Nights: Tales of a California Mission Town. Robert M. McBride and Company, New York. Schaefer, Robert. 2000. Index of Baptismal Names, Registers [of] Mission San Juan Capistrano. MS in possession of author. 112


Shipek, Florence. 1987. Pushed into the Rocks: Southern California Indian Land Tenure 1769-1986. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln and London. _____ . 1978. History of Southern California Mission Indians. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 610-618. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. _____ . 1977. A Strategy for Change: The Luiseño Indians of Southern California. dissertation, University of Hawaii.

Ph.D.

_____ . 1969. Documents of San Diego History: A Unique Case. Temecula Indians vs. Holman and Seaman. The Journal of San Diego History 15(2):26-32. Sparkman, Philip Stedman. 1908. The Culture of the Luiseño Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(4):187-234. Stephenson, Terry E. 1936. Forster vs. Pico: A Forgotten California Cause Celebre. Southern California Quarterly 18(1):22-30. Stewart, Omer C. 1978. Litigation and Its Affects. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 705712. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Strong, William Duncan. 1972. Aboriginal Society in Southern California. Malki Museum Press, Banning [reprint of 1929 edition]. Strudwick, I. H., W. McCawley, B. L. Sturm, and S. Conkling. 1996. Results of Archaeological Significance Testing at Site CA-SDI-10,156/12,599/H, MCAS Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, California, Vol. 1. Report prepared for the Department of the Navy. LSA Associates, Irvine. Sutton, Imre. 1985. Irredeemable America: The Indians’ Estate and Land Claims. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. _____ . 1965. Land Tenure and Changing Occupance on Indian Reservations in Southern California. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Sweeney, Katie. 1994. Evelyn Lobo Villegas, 69; was Capistrano Matriarch. Orange County Register, April 16, 1994. Temple, Thomas Workman, II. 1961a. Mission San Antonio de Pala Confirmations: Confirmations held at Mission San Antonio de Pala on October 12, 1876 by His Excellency, Francisco Mora, Coadjutor Bishop of Monterey and Los Angeles. Typewritten transcript, copied from the First Book of Confirmations of the Mission San Diego by Thomas Workman Temple II, July 12, 1961, Mission San Diego Archives, Diocese of San Diego. _____ . 1961b. Mission San Luis Rey Confirmations, October 15, 1876 by His Excellency, Francisco Mora, Coadjutor Bishop of Monterey and Los Angeles. Typewritten


113

transcript, copied from the San Diego Book I of Confirmations by Thomas Workman Temple II, July 12, 1961, Mission San Diego Archives, Diocese of San Diego. True, D. L. 1990. Site Locations and Water Supply: A Perspective from Northern San Diego County, California. Journal of New World Archaeology 7(4):37-60. True, D. L., and C. W. Meighan. Anthropology 9(2):188-198.

1987.

Nahachish.

Journal of California and Great Basin

True, D. L., C. W. Meighan, and Harvey Crew. 1974. Archaeological Investigations at Molpa, San Diego County, California. University of California Publications in Anthropology 11. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. True, D. L., and G. Waugh. 1987. Placename Designations in the San Luis Rey Valley: A Cautionary Note. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 9:129-134. _____ . 1982. Proposed Settlement Shifts During San Luis Rey Times: Northern San Diego County, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4:34-54. U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. 1933. Copy of the Roll Approved in 1933 Listing the Indians of California qualified under sec. 1 of the Act of May 18, 1928. Microfilm on file, National Archives, Pacific Southwest Region, Laguna Niguel. U.S. Code. 1990. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Public Law 101-601, 101st Congress. H.R. 5237, approved November 16, 1990. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. [25 U.S.C. ff3001-3013 (West Supp. 1991)] U.S. Department of the Interior. 1995. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Regulations: Final Rule. December 4, 1995. Federal Register 60(232):62133-62169. U.S. National Archives. 1973. Indian Census Rolls 1885-1940. National Archives and Records Service, Washington, D.C. Watson, Larry S., ed. 1994. Indian Treaties 1848-1864. California Indians, Vol. XVIII. Histree, Laguna Hills. _____ . 1993. California Special Indian Census 1910: National Archives Film M595, Roll 12. Histree, Laguna Hills. White, Raymond C. 1963. Luiseño Social Organization. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 48(2):91-194. Wilson, Benjamin Davis. 1995. The Indians of Southern California in 1852: The B. D. Wilson Report and a Selection of Contemporary Comment, edited by John Walton Caughey. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln and London [reprint of 1952 edition]. York, Andrew, and Alex Kirkish. 2000. Data Recovery at CA-SDI-10156/12599/H: Archaeological Investigations in Support of the Bridge/Levee Construction Project, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California. Report on file, U.S. Department of the Navy, Southwest Division, San Diego. KEA Environmental Inc., San Diego. 114


APPENDIX I MANUSCRIPT COLLECTIONS CONSULTED AT ARCHIVES AND LIBRARIES BANCROFT LIBRARY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY California Archives (microfilm) A.L. Kroeber Papers C.H. Merriam Papers Land Grant Case Files Guajome manuscript (“Arcadian Memories of California” by Arcadia B. Brennan) FAMILY HISTORY CENTERS, LOS ANGELES AND SANTA BARBARA Indian Census Records (microfilm) U. S. Census Records (microfilm) NATIONAL ARCHIVES, PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REGION, LAGUNA NIGUEL California Indian Enrollment Records, 1928-1933 (microfilm) Indian Census Records (microfilm) SANTA BARBARA MISSION ARCHIVE-LIBRARY Annual Reports of the Missions California Mission Document Collection Expedition Diaries Mission and Parish Registers of San Juan Capistrano, San Luis Rey, San Gabriel, and Los Angeles Plaza Church SANTA BARBARA MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY John P. Harrington Papers (original manuscripts) The Papers of John P. Harrington (microfilm edition)


I-1

I-2


APPENDIX II LIST OF PEOPLE INTERVIEWED FOR ORAL HISTORIES [Confidential] [On file at the Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff, Environmental Security, Cultural Resources Management Branch, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, United States Marine Corp]


II-1

II-2


APPENDIX III MISSION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO DATABASE [under separate cover]


III-1

III-2


APPENDIX IV ADDRESSES FOR LINEAL DESCENDANTS FROM LUISEÑO AND JUANEÑO TOWNS IN MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP PENDLETON AREA [Confidential] [On file at the Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff, Environmental Security, Cultural Resources Management Branch, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, United States Marine Corp]


IV-1