Ohlone-Costanoan Esselen Nation

The Aboriginal People of

The Greater Monterey Bay Area Region

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part I: WHO IS ESSELEN NATION?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By

 

Lorraine Escobar, Esselen Nation Tribal Genealogist, CLS/NAL

 

Les Field, Ph.D., Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico

 

Alan Leventhal, MA, College of Social Sciences, San Jose State University

 

With contributions from Ohlone/Costanoan Esselen Nation tribal members and relatives

 

 

September, 1999


“The Indians clans were known as Ensenes, Excelenes, Achistas, Runsenes, Sakhones, etc. and were considered as belonging to one nation.” Salvador Mucjai (Taylor 1856:5, emphasis is author’s)

 

 

WHAT’S IN A NAME?

 

Today, any time a term or a name is applied towards a group of people, it is scrutinized under the careful eyes, and ears, of political correctness. Not only is it scrutinized to prevent offense but also the verbiage is also carefully chosen to reflect the identity of those being described. For example, the formerly accepted terms to identify African Americans were Black and Negro. Those terms are no longer considered acceptable nor do they sufficiently identify a specific population of people. However, the term African American very clearly identifies the particular group of persons whose ancestors hailed from the African continent but who, themselves, were born in the United States of America.

 

Despite the best of intentions, sometimes the chosen words still come up short. For example, who is a Native American? Literally, that is a person who is native to one of the American continents. Some may say, “Well, I know what you mean.” However, that is not enough. Why should there be any doubt? The terminology needs to respectfully and to specifically identify a particular group of indigenous people who are aboriginal to the Americas. Does the term American Indian clarify matters? In of itself, it could legitimately represent a person who was born in the East Indies but has now become an American citizen. If the term Native American Indian as an identifier is employed, the intent is clearer. However, it could yet identify the U.S. born child of an Eastern Indian person who just obtained their citizenship. As a result, there is still a need for greater clarification and understanding.

 

Presently, there are terms that do successfully bring to mind the appropriate identity for some indigenous groups. For example, the term Azteca aptly brings to mind indigenous people from central highlands of Mexico. The term Inca identifies one of the great empires and indigenous people from Peru. On the other hand tribal names such as Sioux, Apache or Navaho aptly brings to mind indigenous people from within the continental United States. However, what tribal name exists that can adequately identify the indigenous people of Monterey Bay Area Region in California? And, how does that name clearly identify this group of indigenous people from pre-contact times to the present?

 

Depending on the point of view or agenda of the author or scholar and the historical time reference, the indigenous people of the Greater Monterey Bay Area Region have been identified by many different names such as: Ohlones, Costanoans, Carmeleños and Mission Indians. Historically, they have also been called Sureños, Achistas, Esselens,[1] Ensenes, Ecclemachs, Eslanajans, Egeac, Rumsens,[2] Guacharonnes,[3] and Sakhones by their own people and by various academicians and scholars. (Taylor 1856:5, Kroeber 1908 & 1925, Henshaw 1926, Harrington 1932, Heizer 1974, Milliken 1988 quoting C. Hart Merriam 1967 & Milliken 1990) Do any of these tribal terms, in and of themselves, adequately identify the indigenous people of the Greater Monterey Bay Area Region? Do any of these names clearly identify the tribal ancestry and descendency of their present day tribal group?

 

Perhaps a viewpoint from a few different historical and indigenous perspectives may shed some light and understanding on the subject of the aboriginal people of the Greater Monterey Bay Area region. This process should begin by first understanding the first Hispanic encounters with the aboriginal people of the Monterey-San Francisco Bay regions, the post-contact composition of Costanoan, or Ohlone people, and some of the history behind those Native American identifiers.

 

 


UNDERSTANDING THE COMPOSITION OF COSTANOAN/OHLONE PEOPLE

 

When Christopher Columbus landed on the Caribbean Islands off the eastern shores of North America, he thought that he had reached the western shores of India. Operating under a misunderstanding of his true location, he assumed that the people he saw were citizens of India; hence, the name Indios or Indians. The label stuck and that mistake was never corrected, only later amended and embraced. The ensuing confusion caused by that original mistake still lingers in our vocabulary despite the best of intentions to address this issue. Furthermore, adding to the confusion, during the late 18th century, the Spanish explorers dubbed the native peoples residing on the central coast of California, as Costeños, later anglicized as Costanoan meaning coastal people. (Heizer 1974) Yet, contributing to this historical complexity, which still exists today for the indigenous people the Greater Monterey Bay Area Region, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA Department of the Interior) has also lent a hand to the legal confusion as well.

 

 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Response to the Congressional Act of

May 18, 1928

 

From 1928 to 1933, over 17,000 California Indians registered with the BIA and identified themselves as benefactors of the land settlement claim against the Government of the United States for the State of California. They did so to establish their claim for the 8.5 million acres of proposed reservation lands promised but never delivered to the California Indians as agreed upon in the 18 non-ratified treaties of 1851-1852. (Leventhal, Cambra, Escobar-Wyer, Zwierlein 1993) Recently, the BIA claimed that this registration was not an enrollment of tribes but rather that it was simply a census of individuals and families who qualified to participate in this settlement. Yet, the BIA’s tracking methodology mandated the use of tribal terms such as “band,” “roll number,” and “tribe.”[4] Hence, each applicant was considered an “enrollee” with the BIA.

 

Years later, there was a legal determination as to what tribe an individual belonged. During a snag in the claims hearings, from 1954 to 1955, the BIA and the Justice Department relied on the input of certain anthropologists (e.g. Alfred L. Kroeber and others from U. C. Berkeley) who argued and demonstrated that California Indians were “identifiable land-holding groups.” (Kroeber & Heizer 1970) It is important to note here, that, earlier, in 1925, Kroeber contended that “the Esselen, a little tribe of the coast south of Monterey became totally extinct forty or fifty years ago.” He added, "Still farther north, from Monterey to San Francisco, and inland to Mount Diablo, were numerous squalid and interrelated bands, many of whose local village names have been preserved, but for whom there is no generic name beyond the Spanish ‘coast-men,’ Costaños, corrupted into Costanoan in technical book English. A century and a third of contact with the superior race has proved fatal to this group also, and it is as good as gone.” (Kroeber 1925)

 

As a result of the 1928 California Indian Jurisdictional Act enrollment, the BIA categorized almost every “enrollee” of Esselen Nation[a] descent as Costanoan. This same classification was applied to other Indian descendants who are now presently enrolled in the Amah-Mutsun Tribal Band and Muwekma Ohlone tribes.[5] During the course of their studies, many of these anthropologists determined that the geographical area of the Costanoan speaking people stretched all the way from north of San Francisco, down through and including Santa Clara, Alameda, San Benito, and Monterey counties, to the southern reaches of the Salinas Valley, including Soledad, Arroyo Seco, the Santa Lucia Mountain Range, and the Big Sur Region including the Monterey coastline. (Kroeber 1925, Heizer 1974, Levy 1978)

 

Since the Special Indian Census conducted by Indian Agent C. E. Kelsey in 1905-1906, the BIA has possessed a tremendous amount of available genealogical and historical information that would have facilitated the understanding of the aboriginal areas from which each of these groups or tribes descended. This Special Indian Census of 1905-1906 and the ensuing congressional appropriation acts of 1906 and 1908 to purchase land for homeless Northern California Indians led to many tribes to become federally recognized under the jurisdiction of the Reno and Sacramento Agencies. For the aboriginal people of the Greater Monterey Bay Area Region, they were federally recognized as the Monterey Band from 1906 to 1923 and never administratively dropped by any BIA or other legal action. Nonetheless, this genealogical information and legal status was ignored by the BIA especially after an unauthorized and unilateral administrative “termination”[6] of 135 tribal communities by Sacramento BIA Superintendent, Lafayette A. Dorrington.[7]

 

Dorrington was charged by Assistant Commissioner E. B. Merritt, in Washington D.C., to list by county all of those tribes and bands who had yet to have home sites purchased for them so that congress could plan for the 1929 fiscal budget. Yet, Dorrington independently decided to administratively drop the over 135 tribal communities from their federally recognized status. Interestingly, he overlooked the Monterey Band of Monterey County. Nevertheless, the BIA’s position was that the motivation under the 1928 Act was merely to list the identifiable potential benefactors for claims settlement, and not to create any additional tribal enrollments or to recognize any additional tribes. In 1950, those eligible enrolled elders and their children born before 1928 received a settlement check of $150.00 for the 8.5 million acres of land that was to be set aside for reservations in the 18 treaties. In 1972, those children and relations obtained a settlement of $668.61 for the value of the rest of California with interest.

 

 

Mission/Tribal Self-Identification

 

On the 1928 BIA enrollment applications, the California Indians were asked to supply the name of their “Tribe or Band.” The majority of these applicants, later classified as Costanoan, supplied the name of the mission that they knew their ancestors were associated with. Although it was rare, some applicants wrote in the name of an ancestral village.[8] Further, the Indians were asked to supply their grandparents’ names and identify their “Tribe or Band.”[9] Again, most often, this question was answered with the name of a specific mission. These missions had a definite geographical location associated with distinct historical Costanoan tribal groups, as shown in the following list:

 

Mission Dolores - San Francisco (Muwekma Ohlone Tribe)

Mission San Jose - Fremont (Muwekma Ohlone Tribe)

Mission Santa Clara – Santa Clara/San Jose (Muwekma Ohlone Tribe)

Mission Santa Cruz - Santa Cruz (Amah-Mutsun Band of Costanoan Ohlone Indians)

Mission San Juan Bautista - San Juan Bautista (Amah-Mutsun Band of Costanoan Ohlone Indians)

Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo - Carmel/Monterey (Esselen Nation)

Mission Nuestra Señora de Soledad - Soledad (Esselen Nation)

Mission San Antonio - (Esselen Nation & Salinan Nation)

 

In most of the early mission baptism registers, the friars recorded the aboriginal village names of their new Indian converts.[10] Further, they often recorded the geographical location of these villages in relation to the mission itself. All of these villages were located in the immediate vicinity of influence to the geographical location of each mission. Those 1928 BIA applicants understood, and embraced, their own respective geographical areas.

 

Although the BIA applicants at that point in time knew the geographical location of their own ancestors’ homelands, many did not supply the actual names of their contact-period tribes, with the exception of a few of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribal ancestors (which is addressed later in this section). Rather, they associated themselves as Indians being attached to a given mission. “Carmeleño” was derived from the name of Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo, “Clareño” from Mission Santa Clara. One example, of many, is the application of Isabel Meadows, a Carmeleño Indian linguistic and cultural consultant to John Peabody Harrington in the 1930’s. On July 21, 1930, she answered the question, “...what Tribe or Band of Indians of the State of California do you belong?” with the following: “Mission Indian, Carmel Mission, Monterey County, California.”[11] Additionally, the same information was entered for the tribal association of her mother, Loreta Onesimo. This response was typical of many, many 1928 applicants.[12]

 

However with respect to the Muwekma Ohlone tribal ancestors, there were some important exceptions. Three separate, non-related, Muwekma Ohlone family heads answered this same question with the term Ohlone. Lucas Marine answered, “Ohlones,”[13] Joseph Francis Aleas answered, “Olanian,”[14] and Bell Olivares-Nichols answered, “Olanian.”[15] On other applications, that question was answered with “Mission San Jose,” and/or “Alameda County.” It is critical to note that this self-identification took place long before the term Ohlone became a popular catch all phrase for all Costanoans.

 

Regardless of the tribal affiliation each applicant may have known to be his or her own, their claim was regionally specific. Based upon the results of careful mission record research, the grandparents of the descendants of the Muwekma Tribe all claimed that their Indian ancestors were aboriginal to the missions Dolores, San Jose or Santa Clara. [16] The grandparents of the descendants of the Amah-Mutsun Tribe all claimed that their Indian ancestors were aboriginal to the missions Santa Cruz or San Juan Bautista.[17] The grandparents of the descendants of the Esselen Nation claimed that their Indian ancestors were aboriginal to Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo or La Nuestra Señora de Soledad. However, the BIA chose to ignore this fact and, instead, chose to relegate and classify all of these applicants as Costanoan. Furthermore, some academic institutions, today, still teach the Kroeberian theory of extinction despite his reversal statement issued in 1955 (Kroeber & Heizer 1970; Leventhal, Field, Alvarez & Cambra 1994), and also still teach that Costanoans are a single people, a single tribe, and are a single language group.

 

 

Native American Identification Labels

 

To further confuse the Native American identification issue, more recently, the term Ohlone was eventually applied to the entire body of Costanoan people. (See Margolin 1978) Ohlone was decided upon as the “politically correct” terminology and means of identification. Indians indigenous to the Costanoan area were virtually re-labeled Ohlone as an entire group, again sloughing over the fact that the Costanoan Indians were not and are not a single tribe or people.

 

Robert F. Heizer explained this phenomenon:

 

“In recent years the term ‘Ohlone’ has gained some currency as an alternative name for Costanoan. The label Ohlone does not seem preferable to the long-established one of Costanoan. A small tribelet whose designation was variously spelled Alchone, Olchone, Oljon, Ol-hon, and which was located along the ocean coast about half way between San Francisco and Santa Cruz provided 18 converts to the Mission Dolores between 1786 and 1790 (C.H. Merriam, Village Names in Twelve California Mission Records, University of California Archaeological Survey, Report #74, 1968, p. 19). This tribelet, apparently a small and unimportant one, has been thus selected arbitrarily to designate a much larger series of ethnic groups, each of which was also named. Even the term Ohlone is a misspelling, perhaps copied from A.S. Taylor’s mistaken rendering in the California Farmer of May 31, 1861.” (Heizer 1974) [Emphasis is author’s]

 

Careful objective research demonstrates how easily labels can be applied without a complete understanding of all the facts. For example, Isabel Meadows is known, in the academic world, as a “Rumsen” informant. In the book, The Papers of John Peabody Harrington in the Smithsonian Institution 1907-1957, Vol. 2, Isabel is shown in a photograph with Harrington. (Mills)[18] The caption reads, “Harrington and his long-time Rumsen informant, Isabelle Meadows...” Yet, when she was asked where the Rumsen lived, her answers revealed a long ignored fact – Isabel never claimed to be Rumsen. Following are two of Isabel’s quotes regarding the Rumsen people:

 

“Isabelle, April 1935: Another kind of Indians here was rum.cen. These and the guatcarones and eslenes were the Indians here. The white (gente de razon) [people of reason] were called monc. Has no idea where the rum.cen lived. Very important and carefully heard. No Rumsien at all. Isabelle, March 23, 1932 has no idea where the rumcenakay lived. (John Peabody Harrington Notes, Reel 72, page 20B) [Emphasis is author’s]

 

“Iz. k[no]ws rumcen, rumcenta, loc[ated] onde seria ese rumcenta?

Iz. Sep 35 k[no[ws and instantly rumcenakay. Omesia said that ollá en esa loma que está en el rancho de Sinvely, en el Peñon ande decion, was the land of ellos (i.e. of Omesia’s family). Omesia lived below this hill en la laguna de Agricio in Mission times. How that I am asking about the rumcenakay, she says the watcronakay and the rumcenakay lived at El Peñon – por ay vivian todos juntos filados (=one beyond another) asi (gest[ure] holding up horizontal outstretched hand palm down to show fingers one after another.” (John Peabody Harrington Notes, Reel 68, page 255A)

 

While there is understandable confusion in reconciling these opposing viewpoints, yet from the same person, neither quote betrays any Rumsen affiliation. Isabel Meadows was born in 1846, long after the assimilation of nearby villages, long after the mission had absorbed the population of the surrounding villages, long after historical events had taken a toll on our identity. If anything, Isabel hinted at a very different type of tribal affiliation.

 

Further examination of Isabel's words offers additional clarity:

 

“Lupecina was Is's mother's mother. She was from Buena Vista (over towards the Sugar Factory [Spreckels]) Tomas Cornelio was her husband. They brought from Buena Vista at the same time, estaban. Buena Vista, via Buena Esperansa & Guadalupe are places near together, beyond the sugar factory. It was rancho of Juan Malarin muy antes. Juan Malarin's brother was Moriano Malarin. David Espens (un carm.) later had that ranch. The people from Buena Vista were of an indiada that were called eselenes. But in idioma eslen. 13 Mar 1932 (John Peabody Harrington Notes, Reel 72, page 83B. [Lupecina was actually Isabel's mother's grandmother.[19] Emphasis is author’s.])

 

Again, according to Isabel herself, she was very clear about how the name Esselen was applied:

 

The Buena Vista Indians, these Esselenes, would go to the mouth of the Salinas River to get clams and would camp there a week, having Indian dances. The name is eslen, the plural is es lenakay, and is a tribe name not a place name.” (JPH Reel 37, page 667) [Emphasis is author’s.]

 

Isabel Meadows left no doubt. Here are further notes from Harrington:

 

“Isabelle Meadows Oct. 1934: Jacinta Gonzales... would say `I am eslén, and a southerner (sureno) (because her father was from the South, he was called Sebastian, and her mother was eslén, from here, from Buena Vista...)” (JPH Reel 37, page 667) [Emphasis is author’s]

 

The association between Buena Vista and Esselen Indians is very clear. Yet, there is in all of this dialogue ample information that substantiates how distinctly different identity terminologies could and did emerge out of the cultural milieu of Isabel’s time into the present. It is therefore no contradiction that the descendants of Thomas Meadows, the full brother of Isabel Meadows, all have continued to embrace the Rumsen identity while other related lineages embrace the Esselen identity. Three different factors must be taken into account – 1) common regional origins, 2) to some degree, the homogenization effect of the missions, and 3) the particularly unique experiential histories of each family. Together, these factors contributed to an outcome in which each family inherited their own distinct concepts of identity. (For further discussion on the subject of self-identity, see "Examples of Identity Given by Descendants of Esselen Nation Ancestors.")

 

The people indigenous to the Greater Monterey Bay Area Region were known as Rumsen, Esselen, Guacharonnes, Ecclemachs, Sakhones, Sureños, and Carmeleños. Other indigenous groups had specific labels as well, labels associated with their geographical origins — people indigenous to San Benito County were called Mutsun, Amah, and Pacines among others; people indigenous to Santa Clara and Alameda Counties were called Jalquins, Chochenyos, and Clareños among many others as well. All of these indigenous people were erroneously lumped together in one category, as Costanoans and Ohlones.

 

In addressing the process of federal recognition, the Costanoan tribes have been faced with clearing up the confusion by demonstrating that they were and are distinct groups of Indian people. Therefore, as one means of clearly identifying themselves as three separate tribes, with three separate histories and languages (still spoken during the early middle part of the 20th century), each has chosen their own politically correct and identifying names for themselves. Additionally, these names incorporate other government terminology applied to them as well — Muwekma Costanoan/Ohlone Tribe, Amah-Mutsun Costanoan/Ohlone Tribe, and Ohlone/Costanoan Esselen Nation. Furthermore, it is important to note that these three modern-day tribes were all previously Federally Recognized in 1906. Muwekma was identified, by the BIA, as the Verona Band of Alameda County. Amah Mutsun was identified as the San Juan Bautista Band. And, Ohlone/Costanoan Esselen Nation, as mentioned above, was identified as Monterey Band.

 

At this point, it is important to take a closer look at the geographical origins, and distribution, from where Esselen Nation’s ancestors directly descend.

 

 


THE VILLAGE ORIGINS OF ESSELEN NATION ANCESTRY

 

Esselen Nation is composed of Indians descended from the ancestral community who lived in villages historically located within the present-day Greater Monterey Bay Regional boundaries. Together, with the assistance of information contained in the records derived from the Missions San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo, Nuestra Señora de la Soledad, and historical and anthropological reports, it is possible to provide the names and geographical locations of these villages. The names of these villages and their general locations are as follows:

 

1.      Ensen – Interior side of Fort Ord, Salinas, Upper Salinas Valley (Buena Vista)

2.      Achasta – Monterey

3.      Tucutnut – middle and lower reaches of Carmel River drainage

4.      Socorronda, Jummis, Sepponet – upper Carmel River drainage, Laureles, Corral de Tierra

5.      Echilat, Ixchenta – upper San Jose and Las Garzas Creek drainages

6.      Sargenta Ruc, Jojopan, Pixchi, Elchocs – Carmel River south to Sur

7.      Excelen, Excelemach – Santa Lucia Mountains/Ventana Wilderness,/Jashawa

8.      Egeac, Yppimegesan – Soledad/Arroyo Seco/lower Salinas Valley

 

Esselen Nation ancestors, who were born in these villages, intermarried before and after mission contact; and the mission registers bear evidence to this pattern. Although the degree of intermarriage was more frequent after mission contact, it is possible to discern pre-contact intermarriage patterns. This is done through family reconstitution.[20]

 

 

The Mission Record and Family Reconstitution

 

While the data source is the mission marriage registers, it might be misconstrued that intermarriage did not begin until the mission period. Before making this assumption, one must keep in mind the logic and agenda of the priests who kept those records. For example, when a family was inducted into the mission system, the man and woman had already experienced a tribal marriage. The fact that they arrived together precluded the entry of any other village other than the one they just left. A woman could have been born and raised in one village, married a man from another village and his village would have been cited as being her home village. The information of her village origin usually would have been ignored. No matter how these baptismal records are compared with the death and marriage records, these records are not as complete as they could have been. Yet, despite this imperfection, a thorough investigation of all relative records reveals much more than the individual records do themselves.

 

Rather than relying on a single record (e.g. baptismal), the "rest of the story" readily surfaces when one compares other records relative to the individual's entire life history and family reconstitution. Upon baptism, marriage, or death of any individual, the mission priests faithfully recorded vital statistics in their books. In the mission’s earlier years, these various entries generally included an aboriginal Indian name, the village of origin, the names of children or parents, and any associated baptismal numbers - thus offering a comprehensive cross-indexing system that aids in the reconstitution methodology. While most of the information seems accurate, there are subtleties that cannot be ignored. For example, by examining the records pertinent to Esselen Indian relations - Salomea Maria Chucquis, and her half-brother, Agricio Tiquez - we broaden our understanding of their origins and of the post-contact intermarriage pattern:

 

In 1773, there was a union of a woman from Sargenta Ruc and a man from the village of Tucutnut. Although there is no recorded information pertinent to her name, his Indian name was Polvora and his Christian name was Ildephonso Jose. A daughter was born of that union, 1773, later to be named as Blandina Maria. She was baptized when she was nine years old. However, two years later, Polvora and this Sargenta Ruc woman evidently parted ways by the time Polvora was baptized in 1775. He was recorded as being single when he was baptized, and his entry was annotated that his home village was Tucutnut.

 

Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo, baptism entry #303, “Ildefonso Jose, On February 24, 1775, in the church of this mission of San Carlos of Monterey, I solemnly baptized an adult of more than 30 years of age, son of deceased Indian parents of the Rancheria of Tucutnut alias Santa Teresa, brother to Teresa Maria, #76, Humilia Maria #151, and of Petronila Maria #156, who was called Polovora by the Indian people and I gave him the name Ildefonso Jose....” [21]

 

One year later, in 1776, this same Sargenta Ruc woman gave birth to another daughter, by another man, later named Salomea Maria. It was not until 1782, six years later, that the daughters of this same woman, were brought to the mission to be baptized – Salomea and Blandina:

 

Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo, baptism entry #714-717, “714...Maria de la Nieves, On August 3, 1782, in the church of the San Carlos of Monterey Mission, I solemnly baptized a girl about 10 years old, daughter of a deceased father from Elchocs, and his woman of the Sargenta Ruc Rancheria... 715 Blandina Maria, I solemnly baptized another girl of about nine years of age, daughter of Idelfonso Jose also known as Polvora, an Indian, and a mother of the same status... 716 Salomea Maria, I solemnly baptized another girl of about seven years of age, daughter of Indian parents of the same Chucquis Rancheria and of the same mother of the girl before... 717 Crotilde Maria, I solemnly baptized another girl about ten years old, daughter of Echerr and a deceased mother, who were both from the same Sargenta Ruc Rancheria.[22]

 

The mother of Blandina and Salomea is evidently the same person. As of the writing of this report, there is no further information readily available as to the identification of the mother other than she was clearly from Sargenta Ruc. This woman had at least two husbands before arriving at the mission, one from Tucutnut, and one from Egeac. The significance of this fact will become clearer as more mission records are cited.

 

While Blandina’s father was indicated by name, Salomea’s father was not. Instead, it was recorded that she was from “Indian parents of the ...Rancheria de Chukis.” At age 15, five years after her own baptism, Salomea was married. In the margin of the marriage record, it states that this couple is from Sargenta Ruc. The body of the text, of this same marriage record, offers a further clue as to the identity of her father:

 

Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo, marriage entry 371#, “March 20, 1789... on the same day, month, and year, and in the same church... I married the following... Odilon Jose Chajulist, son of … Uhiexu, and Mother deceased Indians of the Sargentaruc Rancheria, with Salomea Maria Chukis, daughter of the Indians of the same rancheria...”[23]

 

Further background research clearly demonstrates that the husband, Odilon Jose, was clearly from Sargenta Ruc. He was baptized at ten years of age. Obviously, Salomea and Odilon grew up together at the mission. Although the information provided thus far can provide a clue as to how they met and grew up, it does not clearly address Salomea’s lineal origin or, more explicitly, that of her father’s. This is the type of subtle information that was lost during the recording process. Considering the vague references to her mother and associated siblings, and the circumstances under which Odilon and Salomea met, it is reasonable that this information could be lost. However, other information surfaces which does offer more clarity:

 

Five years after Salomea’s marriage to Odilon, her father became very ill. An Esselen interpreter, Jose Maria, baptized Salomea’s father. This baptism record clinches the relationship and adds revealing information about Salomea’s origins:

 

Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo, baptism entry #1940, “April 25, 1794, an interpreter, of the Escelen idiom, Jose Maria, privately baptized, in danger of dying, in the Rancheria of Uphahuan, an adult of 38 years of age, originally from the Rancheria of Ecgea, called Chuquis, who is the father of the Christian Salomea Maria of the entry #715. I named him Antonio Maria.”[24]

 

The margin notes also indicate that Antonio Maria Chuquis was from Ecgeajan. Less than one year later, in January 1795, Antonio Maria Chucquis married his tribal wife of at least eight years – Matrona Maria Pocquesht, the mother of his two youngest sons:

 

Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo, baptism entry 2003 & 2004#, “January 10, 1795,...I solemnly baptized a boy about 8 years old, son of Antonio Maria Chuquis, neophyte of this mission, native of the Rancheria of Escelen, and of a catechism student whose name is already entered... Pocquesht, native of Ensen.. I named him Leucio Maria. Item, and another boy, brother of the preceding, of the age of 5 or 6 years, I named him Agricio Joseph...”[25]

 

In the children’s baptism records, the margin notes indicate that they were from Ensen. In the marriage record of the parents, it was stated that the father, or husband, was from the “Escelen” Rancheria and the mother, or wife, was from the Ensen Rancheria. The important thing to note here is that an Ensen woman was already in a union with an Excelen man outside of mission life, previous to contact with the mission:

 

Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo, marriage entry #514, “January 24, 1795,... I married Matrona Antonia Pocquesht, native of the Ensen rancheria, with Antonio Maria Chuquis, neophyte from here and native to the Escelen [rancheria]...”[26]

 

Therefore, the conclusion drawn from the preceding documentation is that, in recording the information, the priest had to chose one village of origin over the other in recording the names of these individuals’ villages. A complex computerized database of records cannot pick up this subtlety. Therefore, each family needs to be reconstructed in order to determine the various lineage’s that are available for each individual which, in turn, presents a picture of pre-contact intermarriage.

 

After mission life had been well established, intermarriages did occur with more frequency. The priests recorded the names of the villages of each marriage party in the margin and entries of their mission registers. These entries are much more obvious in demonstrating the intermarriage pattern during the post-contact period. Take the case of Neomisia Teyoc and Agricio Tiquez:

 

Neomisia was born, and baptized at the mission, in 1791, of a couple both from Calenda Ruc, Teodoro Teyoc and Feliciana Maria Urschu. The margin indicates that Neomisia was from the “San Carlos Rancheria”:

 

Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo, baptism entry #1551:

“Neomisia, young child of San Carlos [Rancheria]

January 3, 1791... I solemnly baptized ...a young girl, born the day before, legitimate daughter of Theodoro Teyoc and Feliciana Maria Urschump, and named her Neomesia...”[27]

 

There is evidence that both of her parents came into the mission together and were married in the eyes of the church. The margin notes of both entries indicate that “Kalenda Ruc” was the village origin for both individuals:

 

Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo, baptism entry #904,

“Feliciana Maria, adult, of Kalendaruc

December 11, 1783... Felicia Maria... I baptized another young woman, having an Indian marriage, with the Indian Teyoque, a catechism student, she was called the Indian name Ursump...”[28]

 

Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo, baptism entry 922#, “December 16, 1783.... Teodoro... I solemnly baptized another adult male of about 40 years of age, of the Kalenda Ruc rancheria, who was called the Indian name Teyoc, and was married to Feliciana of the entry #904...”[29]

 

Although the priests recognized that Teodoro and Feliciana were already tribally married, a church re-marriage was deemed necessary in the eyes of the church; that type of marriage was called a renovaron [renewal]. As per the structure of the religious order, it took place after both parties were baptized. In fact, the marriage took place the day after Teodoro was baptized.

 

Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo, marriage entry #234, “December 17, 1783,...I married...Teodoro and Feliciana Maria of about 25 years, parents of Antonio de Padua...”[30]

 

Although Neomisia was baptized the day after being born, it is clear that she was not born there. If she had been, the record margin would have been annotated as “de la Mision” as opposed to what was actually written – “San Carlos.” According to Neomisia’s own words, she was born near Castroville and not at the mission, as recorded by linguist Alfonse Pinart:

 

Idioma Exxeien, dialecto del idioma Esselene, Monterey, 27 July 1878, Alphonse Pinart, “I obtained these words from an old Indian woman, Omesia, who was married, long ago, to a man from the rancheria of the Esselen or of the Rock, [she] was born of an Indian woman in the pueblo of Guaccoron near the actual site of Castroville.”[31]

 

The interviews conducted by John Peabody Harrington, with Isabel Meadows, confirm that the woman known as Omesia is the same as the one baptized as Neomesia:

 

The Notes of John Peabody Harrington, Isabelle Meadows, March 25, 1932, “Is[abel]: Agricio Tiquez, husband of la Omecia...”[32]

 

The marriage record of Neomisia and Agricio confirm this fact:

 

Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo, marriage entry #722A, “February 13, 1807,... I married .... Agricio Tiquez, son of Antonio Chuqis and Matrona Potquesh, with Neomesia Teyoc, single woman and daughter of Feliciana Urchum widower, they are all Indians of the mission...”[33]

 

Thus, through family reconstruction in the mission records, we have two examples of pre-contact intermarriage of Indians between the village areas of Excelen and Sargentaruc, Ensen and Excelen, and another example of a post-contact intermarriage between Excelen and Calenda Ruc.

 

Of course, during the mission period, the population of the general vicinity had become immersed in Spanish and Mexican citizens. The Indian’s homeland had been portioned out among them. So when the missions were secularized, the Indian population was no longer afforded the protection of the mission walls. Survival was problematic if an Indian could not survive by obtaining employment in a Mexican rancho, selling wares, food or providing services for these non-Indian citizens. One means of a survival strategy, for Indian women, was marriage to non-Indian men.

 

Hence, from the secularization or end of the mission period to the present, and with the introduction of many more marriage partners from which to choose, the frequency of Indian intermarriage lessened, but, nonetheless, was still present. The descendants of the surviving major Indian families continued to intermarry after the influence of the mission was gone. Therefore, this is why so many of the Esselen Nation members can claim up to as many as dozen or more different villages as their ancestral homeland within Esselen territory.

 

At this point it is necessary to take a close examination of the composition of Esselen Nation from a genealogical point of view.

 

 


CORE INDIAN FAMILIES OF ESSELEN NATION

 

Legally (via the Federal Recognition regulations 25CFR83) and genealogically speaking, there is a significant difference between a group of people, who share a single common ancestor, and a tribe. A group of people who descend from a single common ancestor can be considered a family clan. Such an ancestry can be simply illustrated through single linear charts. However, a tribe is a group of non-related people, or a cluster of family clans, or bands, that descend from more than one common ancestor. If none of these ancestors had intermarriage relationships with the other, the illustration could also be linear and simple. However, when these tribal common ancestors have interrelationships between them, these lineages take on a complexity that simple linear charts can not easily convey.

 

In the case of Esselen Nation, the genealogical structure is extremely complex. Although that structure has been demonstrated in a report under a different cover, to produce a simple illustration of all the lineages and the relationships between them is nothing less than mind boggling. However, this section intends to address only one facet of that genealogy – identification of the core families and finding the common ancestral denominator among them.

 

A core family is defined here as a single, simple, nuclear family made up of a man and his wife. Since no individual comes from him/herself, each marriage partner brings their own set of lineages to the respective family and future children; each partner has their own set of ancestors. Respectively, each set of ancestors has their own set of ancestors and so forth. Also, as in most families, the marriage produces children, and those children find their own partners and have more children, etc.

 

Therefore, there is an explosion of the numbers of ancestors and descendants from any given individual. The number of possible ancestors of a given couple is multiplied by two for every generation going back in time and the number of possible descendants grows according the number of children each generation produced. (See following illustration; F = father, M = mother, and C = child)


The core or nucleus of this family is the father and mother as illustrated above. Whether or not this couple had children, they would still be considered a family in their own right. However, when this couple does have children AND their children have families of their own, all of the blood-related family members become a clan. Therefore a clan will be composed of related parents, siblings, cousins, 2nd cousins, and so forth that all descend from the same ancestors. Further, a family clan is defined as that single family, together with its descendants and ancestors, who share a common family lineage and ancestry.

 

In a tribal situation, there exists a number (more than one) of core family clans. These core families exist in a relationship with other single, simple, nuclear families due to social tribal behavior and not simply because there is a blood relationship between these families, although some blood ties may exist. The understanding, under which this analysis is being provided, is that a tribe is made up of, at least, two or more distinct, aboriginal and historic core families that are not blood related.

 

Lastly, tribal social networking promotes the selection of suitable marriage partners who are not related to each other (or who are, at least, distantly related). When this type of intermarriage occurs, this produces family lineage crossovers. It is this intermarriage, crossing over non-related core family lineages, which illustrates one component of tribal behavior and interaction. While some of analyzed ancestral lineages pass through only one core family within Esselen Nation’s many Indian lineages, many are more complex due to those intermarriage patterns. However, as complex as these lineages are, each can be reduced to at least one most common denominator – a non-related, simple, nuclear core family. For Esselen Nation, there exist thirteen distinct core families in their Indian ancestry.

 

The following table lists the names of these thirteen core families along with their village origins as listed within the baptism registers of Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo.


Village Associated

Core Family Names Origins Mission

1

Pedro Bautista Guajox & Tucutnut San Carlos/Carmel

Simona Maria Congeshom (1st wife) Ensen San Carlos/Carmel

2

Juan Dios Ymcush & Socorronda San Carlos/Carmel

Micaela Rosa Monyurschi Sepponet San Carlos/Carmel

3

Moyses Jose Yunisyunis & Ensen San Carlos/Carmel

Procula Maria Sommeres Ensen San Carlos/Carmel

4

Emerano Antonio Quittit (aka Cantua) Echilat, Achasta, Tucutnut San Carlos/Carmel

Ixchenta, Socorronda,

Dorotea Maria Hijaxon Sepponet, Jummis, Pixchi San Carlos/Carmel

Sargenta Ruc, Jojopan

5

Patricio Solol Cholon & Echilat San Carlos/Carmel

Felipa Maria Chunniiron Echilat San Carlos/Carmel

6

Codrato Patcalaux & Ensen, Sargenta Ruc, Big Sur San Carlos/Carmel

Lupicina Francisca Unegte Ensen, Socorronda San Carlos/Carmel

7

Amadeo Yeucharon & Echilat San Carlos/Carmel

Maria Nieves Lecus Elchocs, Sargenta Ruc San Carlos/Carmel

8

Estanislao Jose Tuppaj & Ensen San Carlos/Carmel

Leo Maria Guimesh Ensen San Carlos/Carmel

9

Salvador Mucjai & Sargenta-Ruc San Carlos/Carmel

Inez Lopopoche Echilat, Tucutnut, Socorronda, Egeac San Carlos/Carmel

10

Margarita Maria Dominguez & Tucutnut San Carlos/Carmel

Manuel Butron (non-Indian)

11

Faustino Garcia Tucutnut, Ixchenta San Carlos/Carmel

Guadalupe Quevas Excelemach, Excelen San Carlos/Carmel

Yppimegesan

12

Sebastian Alvarez & Sargenta Ruc, Jojopan, Elchocs San Carlos/Carmel

Maria Manuela Chis Ensen, Achasta, Tucutnut San Carlos/Carmel

13

Soledad Undetermined Soledad

Miguel Contreras (non-California Indian)


 

 

Aside from the genealogical records, there is another resource from which a sense of identity can be construed for Esselen Indians. This resource is their own words from long ago and today. Let’s take a look at what our ancestors and tribal members had to say about their own identity.

 


IDENTITY STATEMENTS

 

Yo soy Esselen.” What does that mean? In plain English, it means, “I am Esselen.” However, more than the obvious translation, what does a statement like that mean in the given Native cultural context? Does its meaning depend on the individual saying it? Does it have anything to do with a place? Does it have anything to do with having ancestors from the actual village of Excelen? Does it have anything to do with a tribe? Does it have anything to do with a language? Lastly, what does it mean for the present day people?

 

 

Jacinta Alvarez-Gonzales

 

Jacinta Alvarez-Gonzales would say, “Yo soy Esselén.” She would also say she was “Sureno.” For an understanding of what this means the notes of John Peabody Harrington need to be reviewed:

 

“Isabelle Meadows Oct. 1934: Jacinta Gonzales... would say `I am eslén, and a southerner (sureno) (because her father was from the South, he was called Sebastian, and her mother was eslén, from here, from Buena Vista,...)” (JPH Reel 37, page 667) [Emphasis is author’s]

 

How was it that Jacinta identified herself as Esselen? Could she have identified with the Esselen language? Isabel Meadows was very clear about Jacinta’s lineage when Harrington wrote the following notes:

 

“The informant understands that the grandparents of Jacinta...were Eselenes but they no longer spoke it, just Carmeleño and Spanish.” (JPH Reel 72:466A) [Emphasis is author’s]

 

In fact, when Kroeber had asked Bibiana Mucjai, another Esselen ancestor, about the difference between Esselen and Rumsen, he noted the following:

 

“Carmeleño & Sureño (south on the coast), they all talked the same.” (Kroeber, 1902, 26:13) [Emphasis is author's’]

 

Further, Kroeber was so insistent about this subject that he caused Bibiana to tell him that she would have a dream about him because she had talked to him “in the old language.”(Kroeber 1902:26:41) Thirty years later, the significance of that remark is clarified by Isabel's account of what the “old language” was:

 

“Isabelle: When I asked what language they talked at the Big Sur rancheria, she says they already stopped speaking the Eselen language and they used the pure idiom of the mission here, such as Isabelle’s immediate ancestors talked. (So don’t be too sure that the coast south of Carmelo was not Eselen in language.) Isabelle March 24, 1932 (JPH R72:48B) [Emphasis is author’s]

 

In Jacinta’s day, Carmeleño was clearly the language of the indigenous people of the Monterey Region. Did she identify with the Esselen because of that language? If she did not speak Esselen, more than likely she did not. Identifying herself as an Esselen must have had a larger meaning.

 

Considering the geographic areas identified by all of these Carmeleño informants (discussed in greater detail later in this section), Jacinta’s statement “Yo soy Esselén” could have simply meant that she identified with the area of her ancestral homeland. If we look at the village origins of the lineages of the individuals who made these statements, it may demonstrate the basis of such an identity statement.

 

Looking at the ancestral village origins of Jacinta herself presents a useful beginning. For argument’s sake, we eliminate her father’s ancestry simply because he is identified as a Southerner or Sureño. Since Jacinta does differentiate between the two, we turn our attention to her mother’s ancestry. On her mother’s side, her lineage can be traced to the villages of Ensen, Echilat and Tucutnut. As a result, we then need to raise some of the following questions: Are any of these villages the same as the village of Excelen? Is Salinas the same town as Monterey? Is Big Sur the same town as Carmel Village? Logic dictates not. Does the combination of Ensen, Echilat and Tucutnut substantiate a connection to the Excelen village or the people of that village? Answering these questions requires mapping the areas that were specifically identified as being inhabited or utilized by Esselen people.

 

Starting with the northern section of the Salinas Valley, the area known as Ensen, consider what Alfred Kroeber wrote, in a footnote, about Mission San Carlos:

 

Excelen is evidently the same name as Esselen, which appears also in the forms of Eslen, Ecclemach, Escelen, and Ensen.” (Kroeber 1908) [Emphasis is author’s]

 

Isabel Meadows located Ensen in the northwesterly region of the Salinas Valley. Let’s revisit what John Peabody Harrington noted:

 

“The Buena Vista Indians, these Esselenes, would go to the mouth of the Salinas River to get clams and would camp there a week, having Indian dances. The name is eslen, the plural is es lenakay, and is a tribe name not a place name.” (JPH Reel 37, page 667) [Emphasis is author’s]

 

The mouth of the Salinas River is near the towns of Marina and Moss Landing, and the Fort Ord Military Reservation. Additionally, the area known as Buena Vista has been identified by the Spanish and Esselen Nation elders as the area of the Salinas Valley known as the Spreckels District and stretching all the way to Soledad on both sides of the Salinas River. First, let’s be reminded of what Isabel Meadows said about Buena Vista:

 

“Lupecina was Is's mother's mother. She was from Buena Vista (over towards the Sugar Factory) Tomas Cornelio was her husband. They brought from Buena Vista at the same time, estaban. Buena Vista, via Buena Esperansa & Guadalupe are places near together, beyond the sugar factory. It was rancho of Juan Malarin muy antes. Juan Malarin's brother was Moriano Malarin. David Espens (un carm.) later had that ranch. The people from Buena Vista were of an indiada that were called eselenes. But in idioma eslen. 13 Mar 1932 (John Peabody Harrington Notes, Reel 72, page 83B) [Emphasis is author’s]

 

This association is supported by two Spanish land grants — Rancho Llano de Buena Vista and the Rancho Buena Vista. The map of the Rancho Llano de Buena Vista very clearly incorporated what is known today as Spreckels. Spreckels is nestled on the northeastern shore of the Salinas River just west of the Fort Ord area. (Howard 1978) The other map, of Rancho Buena Vista, reaches further south towards Soledad and encompasses the other side of the Salinas River.

 

Confirming the southeastern boundaries of Esselen people:

 

“The Salinas River Valley around Soledad was the territory of Eslenahan district, the people of which definitely spoke the Esselen language. Missionaries at San Carlos Borromeo consistently interchanged the terms Excelen and Eslenajan for people from any of the districts of the upper Carmel and Arroyo Seco watersheds. The missionaries were clearly generalizing from a specific district name to mark all speakers have the language spoken by both the Excelen and Eslenajan people, the Esselen language.” (Milliken 1990)

 

Further, as cited in the other section of this publication, “The Esselen People of Monterey: Foundations for Reinterpretations,” a much larger territory has been identified with Esselen people than ever before accredited. (Field, Leventhal, Escobar 1996) All of the following phrases and/or place names originated from the mouths of our Indian ancestors and were provided in response to a specific inquiry about Esselen people

 

Ø      “the mouth of the Salinas River” (Fort Ord);

Ø      “the whole coast” (relative to Carmel and Monterey);

Ø      Monterey Town;”

Ø      “down the coast” (Big Sur, Sur);

Ø      “Buena Vista” (Salinas Valley);

Ø      “Jashawa” (“Tassajarra Hot Springs” or southern end of Carmel Valley);

Ø      “Tularcitos” (Northern section of Carmel Valley);

Ø      “Guadalupe” (Corral de Tierra); and “all the way to Soledad.”

 

 

What about the Rumsen?

 

Asking about "the Rumsen" would be a natural question for anyone who has read previous anthropological, historical and linguistic reports about this geographical area of indigenous people. Were they a people? Was it a language? Was it a place name? Are they part of Esselen Nation’s ancestry? The answer, to all of these questions, will be discussed individually.

Much of what has been written about the Rumsen was based on assumptions made by a professional who thought he knew better than the Indians themselves. (Kroeber 1902) Alfred Kroeber admitted he was wrong but not until after his notes were reviewed and employed extensively by John Peabody Harrington and other linguistics of record. Hence, the original error grew and fed the confusion. (Kroeber & Heizer 1970) Having said that, let’s review the facts.

 

 

Is Rumsen a Place?

The Mission Records - The Baptism Register

 

Although the mission record is not a direct Indian testimony of how they viewed themselves, it is still one of the earliest written records of the indigenous people. As such, they contain specific information that can provide some basic understanding about the indigenous population. As it is possible to know the questions by the answers that are given, to the same extent it is possible to know what type of communication existed between the indigenous people and the mission friars.

 

For example, using the baptism registers of Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo, we learn that Fr. Junipero Serra baptized the first “neophyte” in December 1770. At that point in time, the personal details were limited to the individual's age and their new Christian name. There was much more written about the godparents:

 

Margin notes: “1, Bernardino”

Text: “… En 26 Diciembre de 1770 en la Iglesia de esta Mision de San Carlos de Monterey bauticé solemnemente un niño de edad de como cinco años hijo de padres gentiles que lo ofrecieron gustoso a la Iglesia Católica y le puse por nombre Bernardino de Jesus, Fue su padrino D. Pedro Fages Oficial Teniente de la Compañia de voluntarios de Cataluña, Comandante del Real presidio de este puerto a quien acordé el parentesco espiritual y obligaciones que contrajo y para conste lo firmé, Fr. Junípero Serra.”[34]

 

Translation:

“… On December 16, 1770, in the church of Mission San Carlos of Monterey, I solemnly baptized a boy, of five years of age, son of gentiles who were pleased to offer their son to the Catholic church and I gave him the name Bernardino of Jesus. His godfather was Sir Pedro Fages, Official Lieutenant of the Company of Cataluna Volunteers, Commander of the Royal Presidio of this port, to whom I accorded the spiritual relationship and obligations, to be of signature, Fr. Junípero Serra.”

 

This type of scant record keeping, for Native individuals, continued for two years. By 1772, the friars had begun to visit nearby villages and performing baptisms on individuals who appeared to be dying. In the latter part of December 1772, the written records begin to include information about aboriginal villages and begin to refer to the renaming of these same villages. The next two entries demonstrate this point:

 

Margin notes: "31, Maria Francisca"

Text: "En 31 dias del mes de Diciembre de 1772 bauticé privadamente a una adulta gentil moridunda mujer de un gentil llamado el Ranchero de la Rancheria de Tucutnut alias la Rancheria de Santa Teresa en las orillas del Rio Carmelo a la que bauticé en el parage de la Playa para la sierra de Santa Lucia llamado "Ialtusutta" y le puse por nombre Maria Francisca…Fr. Juan Crespi"[35] [emphasis is author's]

 

Translation:

"On the 31st of the month of December, 1772, I privately baptized a young adult, a dying gentile woman, of the Rancher [village] of Tucutnut alias Santa Teresa Ranch, on the shores of Carmel River, I baptized her at the beach near the Santa Lucia Mountains, [she] was called Ialtusutta and I gave her the name Maria Francisca… Fr. Juan Crespi" [emphasis is author's]

 

Margin notes: "32, Margarita Maria, adulta"

Text: "En 7 dia del mes de Enero de 1773, bauticé privadamente a una muchacha adulta moribunda de como unos 14 a 15 años de edad hija de padre difunto y de madre gentiles, naturales de la Rancheria de tucutnut alias la Rancheria de Santa Teresa en las orillas del rio Carmelo como a una legua de esta Mision rio arriba, la que bauticé en la misma rancheria y le puse por nombre Margarita Maria, hija de madre gentil y de padre difunto. Dia 22 de Febrero de 1773 en la Iglesia de esta Mision de San Carlos exorcicé puse los santos oleos y cumpli con las demas ceremonias de este bautismo que manda la santa madre Iglesia, le asistió de padrino el soldado Juan Joseph Dominguez de la Compañia de la California y para que …..Fr. Juan Crespi."[36] [Emphasis is author's]

 

Translation:

"On the 7th day of the month of January, 1773, I privately baptized a young dying girl of about 14 or 15 years of age, daughter of a deceased gentile father and a gentile mother, natives of the Rancher [village] of Tucutnut alias the Santa Teresa Ranch, on the shores of the Carmel river, about one league from this mission, the river above, I baptized her in the same village and gave her the name Margarita Maria, daughter of a gentile mother and a deceased father. [On] February 22, 1773, in the church of this Mission San Carlos, I exorcized the sacred oils and carried out the ceremonies in this baptism as ordered by the Saint Mother Church, the godfather attended, the soldier Juan Joseph Dominguez, of the California Company and to be of signature….Fr Juan Crespi." [Emphasis is author's]

 

In 1774, another year later, village names began to appear as a regular part of the margin notes of the church registers. Additionally, the amount of personal information, contained in the text of the entries, also began to expand as we can read in the next three examples:

 

Margin notes: "217, Hipolito, parvulo de San Miguel"

Text: "En 5 de Agosto de 1774….bautize solemn.te otro niño de como quatro años de edad hijo de Chovochou y su muger Gentiles de la Ranch[eri]a del Socorronda alias S[a]n Miguel….Fr. Junípero Serra"[37] [Emphasis is author's]

 

Translation:

"217, Hipolito, child of St. Miguel's [Ranch/village]

On August 5, 1774, I solemnly baptized another boy of about four years of age, son of Chovochou and his woman, gentiles from the Rancher [village] of Socorronda alias San Miguel…" [Emphasis is author's]

Margin notes: "374, Raymunda J[ose]pha, adulta de San Joseph"

Text: "En 25 de Enero de 1776 … Bautize solem[e]n[men]te otra adulta de como 20 años soltera hija de P[adres] gentiles de la Ranch[eri]a de Ichxenta alias San Joseph, hermana mayor de Estevan Piloto Rudensino e Ignacia de los num[er]o 316 … le puse por nombre Raymunda Josepha….Fr. Junípero Serra"[38] [Emphasis is author's]

 

Translation:

"374, Raymonda Josefa, adult, from St. Joseph's [Ranch/village]

On January 25, 1776, … I solemnly baptized another adult of about 20 years old, single, daughter of gentile parents from the Ichxenta Ranch [village] alias St. Joseph, older sister to Estevan, Piloto, Rudensino, and Ignacia at number 316…I gave her the name Raymonda Josefa… Fr. Junípero Serra" [Emphasis is author's]

 

Margin notes: "341, Henrique J[ose]ph, adulto de San Francisco"

Text: "En 19 de Abril de 1775….Bautíze solemn.te un adulto de como 50 años de edad…hijo de padres gentiles difuntos de la rancheria de Echilat alias San Francisco, padre de cinco cristianos que son Ramon del numero 119 de este libro, Escolastica Maria del numero 143……Fr. Junípero Serra"[39] [Emphasis is author's]

 

Translation:

"341, Henry Joseph, adult, from St. Francis' [Ranch/village]

On April 19, 1775, … I solemnly baptized an adult of 50 years of age…son of deceased, gentile parents from the ranch [village] of Echilat alias St. Francis, father of five christians who are Ramon, #119 of this book, Escolastica Maria, #143…Fr. Junípero Serra" [Emphasis is author's]

 

From these entries, researchers can determine one question that was answered at one time or another – "Where were the Indians from?" It would be reasonable to suggest that, when the friars visited an actual village, they inquired as to the name of the village they were in so they could make an accurate entry in their registers. It is clear by the use of the aliases, for these villages, that these friars were not recording tribal names but a geographical location, the names of the villages.[40]

 

For the record, the villages that were renamed are as follows:


Village Spanish

Name Name

Tucutnut Santa Teresa[41]

Ixchenta San Joseph[42]

Socorronda San Miguel[43]

Echilat San Francisco (or San Francisquito)[44]

Excelen Santa Clara[45]

Achasta Monterrey, San Carlos[46]

Ensen Sanjones[47]

 

It was not until 1790, twenty years after the baptism process first began in the Monterey Bay Region, that the word Rumsen appeared for the first and last time in the baptism registers. It appears in the baptism records of the children of three women. In the interest of obtaining a larger picture and understanding, it is important to review both the children's baptisms and those of their mothers:

 

Margin notes: "1465, Liberata Maria, parv[ul] de S[an] Carlos"

Text: "Dia 22 de Enero de 1790…bautizé privada[men]te en periculo mortis a una niña q[u]e acababa de nacer, hija legitima de Jose Maria Taclulis, and Zeferina Maria Chuccun naturales de Escelen, y ella de Rumsen….Fr. Jose Señan"[48] [Emphasis is author's]

 

Translation:

"1465, Liberata Maria, child of St. Carlos,

On January 22, 1790…I privately baptized, in danger of dying, a girl, just born, legitimate daughter of Jose Maria Taclulis and Zeferina Maria Chuccun natives of Escelen and she [native] of Rumsen…" [Emphasis is author's]

 

Margin notes: "347, Zeferina Maria, parv[ul]a"

Text: "En 21 de April de 1775….Bautize solemn[ement]e… una parvula de como seis años hija de P[adres] gentiles de la Rancheria de Echilat nombrada S[a]n Francisco, hermana de Guido J[ose]ph del num[er]o 342…Fr. Junípero Serra"[49] [Emphasis is author's]

 

Translation:

"347, Zeferina Maria, child,

On April 21, 1775… I solemnly baptized… a young girl of about six years old, daughter of gentile parents from the Echilat Ranch [village] named San Francisco, sister to Guido Joseph of entry #342…” [Emphasis is author's]

 

Margin notes: "1532, Lucas Alcantara, parvulo, S[an] Carlos"

Text: "Dia 18 de Octubre de 1790… bautize solemnem[ent]e a un niño recien nacido, hijo legitimo de Valenians Jose Callan, y de Martha Maria Toniens, neofito de esta, y naturales; él de Sargentaruc, y ella de Rumsen…Fr. Estevan Tapis"[50] [Emphasis is author's]

 

Translation:

"1532, Lucas Alcantara, child, St. Carlos

October 18, 1790,… I solemnly baptized a boy, recently born, legitimate son of Valenians Jose Callan and of Martha Maria Toniens, neophyte of this [mission] and natives; he is from Sargentaruc and she is from Rumsen…" [Emphasis is author's]

 

Margin notes: "207, Martha Maria, Parv[ul]a"

Text: "En 31 de Julio de 1774,… Bautize Solemne[ment]e a Parvula de como un mes de nacida, hija de Dimas Maria Christíano nuevo, y de madre Gentil…Fr. J[ose]ph Ant[oni]o Murguia"[51]

 

Translation:

"207, Martha Maria, child

On July 31, 1774,…I solemnly baptized a young girl, one month old, daughter of Dimas Maria, a new Christian, and of a gentile mother…."

In this last reference, nothing is said of Dimas Maria's origin. However, in his own baptism record, he is referenced as having been from the village of "Achasta" or the "Rancheria de Monterey."

 

Margin notes: "89, Dimas Maria, adulto"

Text: "Dia 10 de Abril de 1773, … en la iglecia de la Mission de S[a]n Carlos de Monterey cerca del Rio Carmelo a un gentil llamado por antonomacla… Berrabes de la Rancheria de Monterey como de 40 años de edad aquien puse por nombre Dimas Maria…"[52]

 

Translation:

"89, Dimas Maria, Adult,

April 10, 1773,… in the church of Mission San Carlos near the Carmel River, [I baptized] a gentile called… [ ] Berrabus of the Monterey Rancher [village] of about 40 years of age whom I named Dimas Maria…"

 

The baptism record of the mother of Martha Maria is found at entry #273:

 

Margin notes: "273, M[ari]a Josepha, adulta de San Miguel"

Text: "It[em] d[ich]o dia Bautize solemn[en]te una adulta de mas de 40 años, de edad hija de P[adres] gentiles difuntos, y madre de tres hijas las dos adultas gentiles, y la otra de pecho christiana llamada Martha Maria de num[er]o 207 y le puse por nombre Maria Josepha, de la Ranch[eri]a de Socorronda….Fr. Junípero Serra"[53]

 

Translation:

"Item, the same day, I solemnly baptized an adult of more than 40 years of age, daughter of deceased gentile parents, and mother of three daughters, two adult gentiles and one nursing child, a Christian called Martha Maria of entry #207 and I gave her the name Maria Josefa, from the Socorronda Rancher [village]…Fr. Junipero Serra"

 

Based upon the above documentation, one can logically assume that "de Rumsen" was referring to a specific geographical area, that of Socorronda and/or Achasta/Monterey.

 

Margin notes: "1528, Maria de Buena Gracia, parvula de S[an] Carlos"

Text: "Dia 7 de Octubre de 1790… bautize solemnem.e a una niña nacida el miasma dia, hija legitima de Marcela Jose Manes, y de Juana de Vales [Valois] Tensions, Neof[ito]s de esta, y naturales, él de Sargentaruc, y ella de Rumsen….Fr. Estevan Tapis"[54]

 

Translation:

"1528, Maria de Buena Garcia, child of St. Carlos

October 7, 1790,… I solemnly baptized a girl, born on this same day, legitimate daughter of Marcela Jose Manes and of Juana Vales Tensions, neophytes of this [mission], and natives, he from Sargentaruc and she from Rumsen…" [Emphasis is author's]

 

Margin notes: "969, Juana de Valois, adulta de Ensen"

Text: "En dia 13 de Julio de 1778… Bautize solemnem[ent]e… a una muger de algo mas de 30 años, hija de gentiles de la Ranch[eri]a de Ensen, y Viuda de que se mention en el num[er]o 942 que la partida de Tatiana Maria niña hija de esta mug[er] y del tal difunto…Fr. Junípero Serra"[55] [Emphasis is author's]

 

Translation:

"969, Juana de Valois, adult of Ensen

On July 13, 1778,… I solemnly baptized a woman of some 30 years, daughter of gentiles from the Ensen Ranch [village] and widow of the person mentioned in entry #942, the entry of Tatiana Maria, girl, daughter of this woman and who [the father] is now deceased…" [Emphasis is author's]

 

Again, these records are referencing a specific place to which either these woman were native or their parents were native. If the friars wanted to indicate tribe, or nationality, they would have used the word "tribu", "nación" or "nacionalidad." The use of the word "natural" here, and throughout the mission records, means native, not tribe, not nation nor nationality, but native. Further, the use of the word "de" signifies where a person is from and is never used to state a nationality. For example, a person can say where he/she is from by saying, "Soy de Norteamerica" or "Soy de Méjico." But when his/her nationality is the subject of the question, he/she would answer, "Soy Norteamericano" or "Soy Mejicano" as whatever the answer may be. In those types of responses, the Spanish speaker would not use the word "de." Therefore, the only distinction made, in regards to nationality, was "Indio," "Neofita," "de la mision" and "Gentiles" as opposed to "Razon," "del Presidio," or "Americano," etc.

 

Nonetheless, there are still three interesting and pertinent points that can be gleaned from the aforementioned records:

 

ü      All the referenced mothers were introduced to the mission early in life and spent their lives there at the mission;

ü      The association with the word Rumsen did not occur during their mothers' baptisms but at the childrens' baptisms, and

ü      There are specific associations between the use of the word Rumsen and specific villages/rancherias.

 

 

The Mission Records - The Marriage Register

 

Before any conclusions can be attempted, it is important to consider other references to the word Rumsen, in another mission register, that of the Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo Marriage Register. The word Rumsen appears once in 1790 and then it re-appears in 1803 for the second and last time.

 

In marriage #399, of Zenon Jose Ririvischom and Maria Josefa Cal=lu (the mother of the aforementioned Martha Maria), Fr. Jose Señan wrote "De Rumsén" in the margin:

 

Margin notes: "399, Casa[mien]to de Zenon Jose Ririvischom con Maria Josfa Cal=Lú, De Rumsén"

Text: "Dia 19, de Julio de 1790……Case a Zenon Jose Ririvischom viudo de Anatolia Maria con Maria Josefa Calilú viuda de Dimas Maria naturales de la Ranch[eri]a de S[a]n Jose, y ella de la S[a]n Miguel…Fr. Jose Señan"[56]

 

Translation:

"399, Marriage of Zenon Jose Ririvischom and Maria Josefa Cal=Lu, from Rumsen,

July 19, 1790, ... I married Zenon Jose Ririvischom, widower of Anatolia Maria, to Maria Josefa Calilu, widow of Dimas Maria, natives of the San Jose Ranch [village] and she of the San Miguel [Ranch/village]…Fr. Jose Señan"

 

The baptism records of these same individuals reveal that their villages of origin were, respectively, Ixchenta and Socorronda.

 

Margin notes: "544, Zenon Jose, Adulto de San Joseph"

Text: "En 9 de Julio de 1778, … Bautize solemn[emen]te un adulto de mas de quarenta años hijo de gentiles de la Ranch[eri]a de Ihxenta ali[as] San J[ose]ph, Padre de los christianos Pasqual y Matrona Rosa, y casado en segundas nupcias con la muger del num.o siguente, …"[57]

 

Translation:

"On July 9, 1778, … I solemnly baptized an adult of more than 40 years old, son of gentiles from the Ichxenta Ranch(village) alias St. Joseph, father of the Christians Pasqual and Matrona Rosa, and married in a second wedding [renewal marriage] to the woman of the following number…."

 

In marriage #639, of Juan Antonio Churres and Apolonia Yupischis, Fr. Baltasar did not enter the term Rumsen in the margin but in the text of the entry.

 

Margin notes: "639, Juan Ant[oni]o con Apolonia, de la Mission"

Text: "Dia 20 de Junio del año 1803… Yte[m]: a Juan Ant[oni]o [ ]xes [ ]edo y natural de Calendaruc, con Apolonia Yupischis vidua de Juan Capistrano y natural de Rumxen…Fr. Baltasar Carnicer"[58]

 

 

Translation:

"639, Juan Antonio to Apolonia, from the Mission.

June 20, 1803…Item: Juan Antonio, native of Calendaruc, to Apolonia Yupischis, widow of Juan Capistrano, and native of Rumsen…Fr. Baltasar Carnicer"

 

He referred to the bride, Apolonia, as "natural de Rumxen" [native of Rumsen]. Apolonia's baptism record does not specifically indicate her village of origin.

 

Margin notes: "138, Apolonia Parvula"

Text: "Ytem a otra muchacha como de 6 años de edad hija a de padre gentil…"[59]

 

Translation:

"137, Apolonia, child

Item. Another child of about 6 years of age, daughter of a gentile father..."

 

However, cross-referencing her siblings' baptism records does produce the specific name of her village of origin:

 

Margin notes: "234, Susana Maria, adulta de Santa Teresa "

Text: "En 13 de Agosto de 1774 en la Rancheria de San Miguel bauticé en caso de necesidad a una muchacha como de 15 años de edad que la habia picado una vívora hija de madre gentil y padre ya difunto y hermana de la muchacha Apolonia y de Juan Nepomuceno…. "[60]

 

Translation:

"234, Susana Maria, Adult from St. Teresa

On August 13, 1774, in the Ranch (village) of St. Michael, I baptized, in case of necessity, a girl of about 15 years of age, that had been stabbed, daughter of a gentile mother and a father, already deceased, and sister to the girl Apolonia and to Juan Nepomuceno…."

 

Margin notes: "135, Juan Nepomuceno, parvulo "

Text: "…a otro muchacho como de 5 años de edad huerfano de padre y madre gentil de la rancheria de Santa Teresa alias Tucutnut…"[61]

 

Translation:

"135, Juan Nepomuceno, child

"… another boy about 5 years of age, orphaned of his father and [son of a] gentile mother from the St. Teresa Ranch[village] alias Tucutnut…."

 

Again, these references do not refer to anything else but a specific geographic area. However, we do learn that five villages were associated, at least once, with the term Rumsen - Achasta, Socorronda, Ensen, Echilat and Tucutnut.

 

This raises additional questions: What does this mean? How is it that all these villages are associated with one term? One possible explanation is that it was a district rather than a specific village. This is similar to the type of geographical references to the villages located in the Sureño area also known as Sargenta-Ruc district associated with multi villages, i.e. Pixchi, Elchocs, and Jojopan. (Milliken 1990) Likewise, the villages of Jummis and Sepponet were associated with the area known as Socorronda. (Milliken 1981) Further, Guatcharrone and Calenda-Ruc are also associated. (Milliken 1988) As stated in an earlier discussion, Neomesia Teyoc's parents were recorded as having been from the "Calenda-Ruc Rancheria".[62] Yet, when she was asked where her birthplace was, she said, "Guatcharrone" known now as Castroville. (Pinart 1878)

 

Did the friars not fully realize where they were in relation to all the surrounding and local native peoples? If so, could that explain why their record keeping did not consistently reflect an accurate geopolitical understanding? While that could be feasible, is it probable? Now that we have already reviewed the instances of the specific mission references of Rumsen, it is pertinent to put it in context with the rest of the records.

It would be reasonable to assume that these five village or rancheria areas, at the very least, made up part of the area known as Rumsen. If that were the case, it would also be reasonable that the record of any other individual, whose villages were the same as those villages, would have also been recorded as Rumsen. However, that was not the case.

 

In the marriage records, both Fr. Señan and Fr. Canicer had many more opportunities, than only two, to record this assumed revelation, if that is what it was. The statistics reveal that, out of twenty-one different opportunities to make a Rumsen associated identification, twenty-one marriages with individuals from matching villages that occurred in marriages recorded from 1790 to 1803, only those two entries used the actual term Rumsen. Fr. Señan began his work at that mission in 1787, culminating in 1795. Fr. Baltasar began his assignment in 1802 and remained until 1805. They had time to get to know the people and the area. Did they not understand where they were? Did they not finally recognize a Rumsen Indian when they became acquainted with one? If this were the case, why were they not consistent in their record keeping? They were not consistent because their intent was not to make a tribal distinction. However, it is clear that their intent was to simply record the name of the geographical place name from whence the Indians came.

 

The friars, of record, for all of these Rumsen references were Jose Señan, Estevan Tapis and Baltasar Carnicer. However, it was Junípero Serra who had spent most of the time at the San Carlos Mission. Even though he founded other missions as well, he was buried there in 1784. That's a period of 24 years. It is prudent to note that, in over 500 baptism entries, and hundreds of marriage entries that he personally entered, he did not pen the word Rumsen in those mission registry books even once. Fr. Juan Crespi had been recording marriages at Mission San Carlos along with Fr. Serra beginning in 1773. Yet, neither did he pen the word Rumsen in those books. But, then again, it is important to remember that all such entries referred to a geographical place, not a tribe. So, therefore it appears that Rumsen was a place name.

 

Kroeber contended that this term Rumsen was a substitution for the term Costanoan. His opinion cancelled out Rumsen as a people or a language. Note his comments to the Interrogatorios: (These were questionnaires that were submitted to the missions by the Spanish government, Kroeber 1908.):

 

“Rumsen or Rumsien is the name which has come to be used for the Costanoan Indians of the vicinity of Monterey. The few survivors state that it was applicable to the people, or a district, along Carmel River in the mountains south of Monterey. Rumsen and Esselen are the most commonly mentioned “tribes”[63] in Monterey, which have by some, writing at a distance, been extended so as to divide a large part of California between them. In this more general sense they are about equivalent to ‘Costanoan and Esselen Indians at the San Carlos mission’….” (Kroeber 1908) (Emphasis is authors’)

 

Further, Kroeber recognized the use of the name to indicate a place when he wrote:

 

“As is usual in California, none of the dialects seem to have had native name. Mutsun is properly only the name of the principal village near mission San Juan Bautista. Rumsen or Rumsien, used for the Costanoan Indians of Monterey, is probably also only a specific place name misused by the whites.” (Kroeber 1910) (Emphasis is author’s)

 

It is also interesting to note that while J. P. Harrington was interviewing Tomas Torres (Salvador Mucjai’s grandson from the Sur Rancheria) for linguistic information for the “Montereyano Vocabulary” sometime around 1922, he used the term Rumsenta which means “in the north” (Merriam 1967:394). Rumsenta is presumably a directional a directional term used in the same sense as what Ascencion Solorsano de Cervantes had given to Harrington. Ascencion used the term Hoomontwash as an identifier of the San Juan Tribe. On November 5,1929, Harrington wrote to Merriam “I have just today learned the meaning of your tribe name Hoomontwash. It means westerners, in Spanish ‘los ponientenos’” (Ibid:386). We also learn from Merriam’s interview with Barbara Solorsano, in 1902, that Cho-chan-ya (Chochenyo) was the term for the people beyond Santa Cruz. Therefore, in this case Rumsen may indeed be a directional name for the people living north of Sargenta-Ruc or Sur.

 

These statements seem to negate the existence of the Rumsen as a people. Defining Rumsen perhaps needs to be explored and understood with additional historical viewpoints in mind.

 

 

Were the Rumsen a People?

 

In 1856, when asked about the different groups of Indians who inhabited the greater Monterey Bay Area Region, Salvador Mucjai, one of Esselen Nation's ancestors, told the journalist, Alexander Smith-Taylor, that the Indians clans were known as "Ensenes, Excelenes, Achistas, Runsenes[64], Sakhones,…" etc. (Taylor 1856:5) Salvador was born in the area known as Sargenta-Ruc.[65] He himself was known as a Sureño. Yet, he recognized that there were several groups of Indians.

 

Perhaps, another visit to the aforementioned Interrogatorios of 1814 may add to our understanding of the subject. The Spanish friar, who answered this questionnaire for Mission San Carlos, wrote:

 

“At this mission there are seven nations of Indians. They are called Excelen and Egeac, Rumsen, Sargenta Ruc, Sanconeños, Guachirron and Calendo Ruc. The first two are from inland. They have one and the same language or speech, but this is totally distinct from that of the other five, who speak a common tongue.” (Kroeber 1908) [Emphasis is author's]

 

Here the priest made two separate distinctions. First, he noted that there were seven nations, seven distinct groups of Indians based upon a geographical location. This time, the reference was not to a specific geographical location but as to a nationality or group identification. This point is very important to remember as we continue to address these questions - instead of only two distinct entities, the number of distinct groups totaled to seven (7).

 

To answer the question, "Were the Rumsen a people?" By putting full faith in the Indian viewpoint, and a little faith in the friar’s, the answer is obviously "Yes."

 

 

Was Rumsen a Language?

 

As cited in the aforementioned Interrogatorios, only two languages were recognized as being existent among the nations of Indians at that mission. If we validate the Indian viewpoint, this was an assumption and not a fact.

 

The first recorded vocabulary from that region was obtained by LaPerouse in 1786. Taylor hand copied Perouse's 1786 vocabulary. His list had two headings - "…Achastliens and Ecclemachs (Achastas or Runsiens and Escelenes are from LaPerouse's account of his visit to Monterey)." (Taylor 1856) While it is also true that the Voyage of the Sutil and Mejicana procured a list of “Runsienes” and “Eslenes” words from the coast of Monterey, in 1792, is that proof that only two languages existed or that only two groups of indigenous people existed? In 1792, there were still some non-missionized villages remaining within the region. Indians were still coming in from farther and farther away from the mission. Long after the mission secularization in 1834, long after the initial absorption of the local indigenous people, Isabel Meadows’ memory clearly indicated that there were at least three different Native languages she knew existed during her lifetime (1846-1939).

 

“Isabelle when I tell her that Sureños are supposed to have talked Carmeleño, says she doesn’t know if they may have talked Eslen earlier and learned Carmeleño here on the coast. All she knows is that the Watcarrones [Guaccarones] talked different, the Carmeleños talked different, the Eselenes talked different. March 23, 1932” (JPH Notes, Reel 72, page 10B) (Emphasis is author’s)

 

Linguist C. Merriam Hart noted yet another language. He wrote:

 

“Yak’-shoon… Village on Salt Lagoon (apparently between Monterey and Salinas Rivers.) Language said to differ entirely from all others.” (Merriam, "list of villages of Monterey Bay Region", n.d.) (Emphasis is author’s)

 

This was very different than the mission priest’s point of view that only two languages existed in 1811. In a missionized setting such as this one, the number of Native languages would be expected to decrease, not increase. The fact that only two distinct were recognized by the Spainish friars, for Mision San Carlos, does not negate the existence of other languages. Instead, this pattern is found within other areas of the Spanish Empire.

 

So, was Rumsen a language? Based upon ethnohistoric and ethnographic evidence, the answer is Yes. However, the larger question is this: Are Rumsen and Esselen the only names (and languages) associated with the indigenous people of the Greater Monterey Bay Area Region? Clearly, the answer is no.

 

 

Many Villages - One Nation

 

Just as Esselen is a language, a village (a place), and a people, so, too, Rumsen is a language, a place, and a people. This is also true of the Guatcharrones of Castroville and Moss Landing area. They, too, had their villages, territory, their own language, and were an autonomous group of people. Such is also true of the Sureños and Sakhones. The point here is that the issue should not be the "Rumsen question" or even "Rumsen vs. Esselen" in the Monterey Bay Area Region. This artificial linguistic and cultural dichotomy created by scholars assumes that there were only two tribal, and linguistic, groups aboriginal to this area. Based upon the historic and linguistic evidence, there were many more than what has simply been proposed by some authors. There were tribal groups of Indians who had their own territory, their own chiefs, their own language, and their own culture, and in many cases were linked through intermarriage.

 

No matter what language the people spoke, or the name of each village, the location of the villages were within the vicinity and sphere of influence of the Carmel and Soledad missions. Excelen was still Excelen. Achasta was still Achasta. Echilat was still Echilat. This was true no matter what labels were later bestowed on the identities of the people who lived there. The village locations, of Esselen Nation's direct tribal ancestry, are distributed all over a wide, but contiguous geographic area within the Greater Monterey Bay Area Region. Hence, genealogically speaking, the enrolled lineages comprising Esselen Nation’s ancestry is the combination of all of these identities from the aboriginal tribes and villages within the Greater Monterey Bay Area Region.

 

The surviving lineages are all related to other family clans due to the earlier intermarriage patterns that ensured the survival of the families. Yet, this tribe is not simply a large family clan. Based upon the genealogical evidence, Esselen Nation’s ancestral village connections and blood ties do not point to any kind of separation except for the obvious separation from the non-Indian community and from other clearly defined neighboring tribes, i.e. the Mutsuns to the north, the Salinans to the south, and the Yokuts to the east.

 

It is logical, given this historical and genealogical complexity, that even though Esselen Nation tribal members share common ancestral villages and ancestors, the sense of identity can vary from family to family due to a multitude of factors.

 

Examples of Identity Given by Descendants of Esselen Nation Ancestors

 

Matilda Torres-Rosales

 

“A year before she died, she told us that we were Esselen” Rudy Rosales said of his mother.[66] At this point we need to consider if her ancestral lineages shed any light on why she would specifically tell her children that they were Esselen Indians? Her ancestral villages have been traced to Achasta, Echilat, Ensen, Ixchenta, Jojopan, Jummis, Pixchi, Sargenta Ruc, Socorronda and Tucutnut. Again, are any of these villages the same as the Excelen village? The answer is no. However, the research does teach us something about her self-identification statement. She identified herself as Esselen. It was her identity, her heritage as handed down by her ancestors.

 

Maria Matilde Torres-Rosales thought her children should to know what kind of Indian they were, which was another important aspect of her identity. Although she did her best to protect her children from the pitfalls of being Indian, she made sure they knew who they were, but in subtle ways. It is clear that she wanted this sense of aboriginal identity to survive and to be embraced by her children.

 

 

Cheryl (Meadows) Urquidez

 

During the review process, for this booklet, Cheryl Urquidez, Esselen Nation Tribal Member and grandniece to Isabel Meadows, said, "My entire family thinks of themselves as Rumsen." That is her family's oral history tradition. In harmony with the validation of Native American identity, the Meadow’s family's oral tradition is a respected, important and integral part of Esselen Nation’s tribal history as is all the other enrolled tribal families’ oral history.[67]

 

The village origins of Thomas Meadows (brother to Isabel Meadows) can be traced to Socorronda, Echilat, Elchocs and Ensen - the same geographical area as those village origins of Maria Matilde Torres-Rosales. Does this difference, in self-identity, create a conflict or confusion? These identity differences illustrate how time, history, and colonialism have impacted each of the respective family’s concept of tribal identity.

 

What had happened, over a period of time, to tribal identity, can be further illustrated by the descendant of Jacinta Alvarez-Gonzales:

 

 

Lydia Bojorquez

 

According to Jacinta Alvarez-Gonzales' daughter, Merciana Gonzalez, Jacinta died in 1906.[68] Although Jacinta stressed a dual lineage, nearly a century ago, the knowledge of only one lineage survived in one of her descendants, Lydia Bojorquez - that of the Sureño lineage. According to Jacinta's great-great-grand daughter, Lydia Bojorquez, "We are from the village of Karkenta-Ruc,[69] the village of the red hawk." "Karkenta-Ruc was where the river runs into the ocean (Andrew Molera State Park)"[70] Lydia's grandmother, Marcelina (Gonzalez) Sandoval, told her children, "Pico Blanco can be seen from our village site."[71]

 

Jacinta's village origins are traced to the villages of Elchocs, Jojopan and Achasta on her father's side. On her mother's side, it can be traced to the villages of Ensen, Echilat and Tucutnut. Again, these villages are the same geographical areas as the first two aforementioned families. As a result of the above research, the ancestral village areas are the same no matter what the people today choose to identify themselves as.

 


CONCLUSION

 

Has Esselen Nation’s identity been changing through time? Can any one tribal identifier ever accurately represent this aboriginal community of people of the Greater Monterey Bay Region? The best answers are manifested when Esselen Nation’s own ancestors are placed in a position of “knowing,” when their words and meanings are forwarded without interference from non-Indian “experts”.

 

When the question of “Esselen” origin, location and language were put to these knowledgeable elders, each had their own understanding and points of view. When all these points of view are all assembled, they nonetheless point back to a specific geographic area, within their ancestral homeland. Not only do these collective points of view draw territorial boundaries for Esselen Nation people but they also give them an understanding and validation of their own lineal composition, their own heritage, their own names, and their own identity.

 

According to Kroeber, there were only two “tribes” - the Costanoan and the Esselen - of the Mission San Carlos area. (Kroeber 1908) However, according to the Indians of the Monterey Bay Region, the linguistic landscape was much more complex than that and, yet in a way, simpler. This becomes clearer when reviewing what Salvador Mucjai had to say through the field notes of Alexander Smith Taylor in 1856:

 

“The Indians clans were known as Ensenes, Excelenes, Achistas, Runsenes, Sakhones, etc. and were considered as belonging to one nation.” (Taylor 1856:5) (Emphasis is author’s)

 

Was there ever a singular tribal name for this one nation? If there was, then Salvador Mucjai did not say it if he knew it. He also must not have spoken of it either to his children. His eldest daughter, Bibiana Mucjai (Torres, Soto, Espinosa), told Kroeber that there was “no tribal name in Indian.” (Kroeber 1902:26:13) Thirty years after that interview with Bibiana, the Native embrasure of the missionized name Carmeleño had taken a firm hold on the people, however, other older names were retained as well, so much so that Isabel Meadows made it a point to say, “eslen…is a tribe name not a place name.” (Harrington Notes)

 

Returning to Jacinta's statement, "Yo soy Esselen." When Jacinta said that, we know, for a certainty, what it did not mean. It did not mean an affiliation with a language. And, it did not mean a genealogical connection to the specific village of Excelen. Therefore, what could it have meant to her? Most likely it served as an identification or an association. If the entire context of that statement is carefully considered, we might learn a little more about her sense of identity:

 

“Isabelle Meadows Oct. 1934: Jacinta Gonzales when drunk would say `I am eslén, and a southerner (sureno) (because her father was from the South, he was called Sebastian, and her mother was eslén, from here, from Buena Vista, I don't know where). She would add: "Because of this, I am wicked.” (JPH Reel 37, page 667)

 

This raises additional questions: Was she explaining her temperament? Was she stressing the duality in her identity?" Because of the complexities inherent in Native American world view, we can only guess and try to make analytical assumptions, but the truth is that we will never really know exactly what she meant by ”Yo soy Esselen. However, today, the descendants of, the indigenous people of the Greater Monterey Bay Area Region, are making a similar statement. Furthermore, in this case they are very clear about what it means for them.

 

 

Ohlone/CostanoanEsselen Nation, the Name

 

Any reference to the term, Mission or Mission Indian, in association with Indians, is not particularly specific. The term Carmeleños describes only the Indians who entered the Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo. The term Soledadeños specifically describes the Indians who entered the Mission Nuestra Señora de la Soledad. Esselen Indians were absorbed by both missions. And, it was the Esselens who first suffered the declaration of extinction by Alfred Kroeber. (Kroeber 1925) Additionally, the term Band seems to signify a portion of a tribal group (as in the case of the seven bands of the Teton Sioux) rather than the entirety of a people. Whereas the term Nation refers to a people united under its leadership. Although the terms Ohlone and Costanoan are not quite geographically specific to the Greater Monterey Bay Area Region, those terms are the historic terms by which the government and scholars have classified us. Therefore, for purposes of contemporary revitalization, formation of a tribal government, and successors of the previous Federally Recognized Monterey Band, the aboriginal people of the Greater Monterey Bay Area Region deliberately chose a specific name to represent their history and diverse heritage: Ohlone/Costanoan-Esslen Nation.

 

This emergent tribal identification was established in order to differentiate them from their surrounding aboriginal and historic tribal neighbors. To identify themselves as a distinct and historic group of Indian people, to respect the traditional oral history handed down to the enrolled tribal members, and to acknowledge the US government's historical recognition of the people of the Greater Monterey Bay Area Region, Ohlone/Costanoan Esselen Nation was adopted as a formal name. And, if that name, that associative identity, can be reduced to a simpler term that manifests the image of our people, the indigenous, aboriginal people of the Greater Monterey Bay Area Region, it is simply — Esselen Nation.


End Notes



[a] The use of the term, Esselen Nation, applies to the entire tribal group currently enrolled in Ohlone/Costanoan Esselen Nation.



1 The spelling variants for Esselen are numerous, e.g., Eslen, Esselenes, Excelen and Eslenakay. The accepted modern version is spelled as Esselen when it pertains to the tribe, nation or people themselves. Further, when the village is the specific object being named, Excelen is the chosen terminology. (Note: the village of Excelen is different than the village of Eslenajan.)

2 The term Rumsen is also represented by another spelling, i.e. Runsien.

3 The term Guacharonnes is also represented by other spellings, e.g. Watcaronnes, Guatcarone.

4 “California Indian Judgment Roll” under Section 1 of the Congressional Act of May 18, 1928, cited from LDS film #908992, held in the Genealogical Society of Utah, Church of Latter Day Saints, 30 E. North Temple St., Salt Lake City, Utah 84150.

5 Distribution Map found in The California Indians, A Source Book, compiled and edited by R. F. Heizer and M. A. Whipple, second edition, revised and enlarged. This map demonstrates the loose categorization of Muwekma, Amah-Mutsun as Costanoan. Esselen, in this book, however, is erroneously designated as Pomo. A more accurate conclusion can be drawn from the thousands of 1928 Bureau of Indian Affairs applications submitted, by all three tribal ancestors, in response to the May 18, 1928 Congressional Act.

[6] “Drop” is the official term for the action, which resulted in the present status of unacknowledged tribes; Holly Reckord, Bureau of Acknowledgment and Research, Department of the Interior.

[7] Correspondence from the US Dept. of the Interior, Indian Field Service, written by L. A. Dorrington, to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, dated June 23, 1927, available at the Pacific Region (San Francisco) National Archives (hereinafter referred to as PR(SF)NA), R.G. 75, 1000 Commodore, San Bruno, CA 94066.

[8] Question #10, on the 1928 BIA applications for enrollment, asked, “What is your degree of Indian blood and to what Tribe or Band of Indians of the State of California do you belong?” This question was often answered with the name of a particular mission, e.g. #8100, Dave Machado; #10890, Ella Aquilar; and #8095, Gerbacio Lopez. (This point of information resulted from a thorough review of hundreds of such applications which are currently on film, in a special collection,) PR(SF)NA Microfilm Series I-32, boxes #24, 32 and 24 respectively, PR(SF)NA.

[9] Question #12, on the 1928 BIA applications for enrollment, asked “Give the names of your California Indian ancestors living on June 1, 1852, through whom you claim, who were parties to any Treaty or Treaties with the United States...” One column, provided for these answers, was entitled “Tribe or Band.” This question was also often answered with the name of a particular mission, e.g. #8108, Isabel Meadows, PR(SF)NA Microfilm Series I-31, box #24, PR(SF)NA.

[10] Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo, Baptism Register, LDS film #913159, GSU.

[11] 1928 BIA application #8108, Isabel Meadows, pg. 2, questions #10 and #12, PR(SF)NA Microfilm Series I-32, box #24, PR(SF)NA.

[12] For further information on this topic, refer to the independent paper entitled, “The Composition of Costanoan People,” by Escobar, Leventhal and Field, dated May 11, 1998.

 

 

[13] 1928 BIA application #10298, for Lucas Marine, Pg. 2, Pacific Sierra Region National Archive (hereinafter referred to as PR(SF)NA) Microfilm Series I-32, box 31, PR(SF)NA. Photocopy in possession of Muwekma Tribal Office, 503-A Vandell Way, Campbell, CA 95008.

[14] 1928 BIA application #10299, for Joseph Francis Aleas, Pg. 2, PR(SF)NA Microfilm Series I-32, box 31. Photocopy in possession of Muwekma Ohlone Tribe.

[15] 1928 BIA application #10300, for Bell Nichols, Pg. 2, PR(SF)NA Microfilm Series I-32, box 31. Photocopy in possession of Muwekma Ohlone Tribe.

[16] Having been the tribal genealogist for Esselen Nation and Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, I have seen proof of the lineages that demonstrate this fact although I am not a liberty to thoroughly discuss these lineages due to privacy issues. However, as a tribal genealogist, it has been my responsibility to provide this proof to the federal government as required by the genealogical criteria of the Federal Recognition Process for unacknowledged tribes.

[17] Many Indians have more than one Indian village group from which they descend. Hence, there are several tribal members of the Amah-Mutsun Tribe who are descended from Esselen ancestors as well as there are tribal members of the Esselen Nation who are descended from Salinan ancestors. Some tribal constitution and enrollment policies disallow a dual tribal membership; therefore, each individual, who has more than one tribal connection must choose one over the other to qualify for tribal membership with a particular tribe. Therefore, the associated mission, of the chosen affiliation, demonstrates the geographical origin of that ancestry and tribe.

[18] This book, The Papers of John Peabody Harrington in the Smithsonian Institution 1907-1957, Vol. 2, is the companion to the hundred reels of microfilms that were taken of J.P. Harrington’s field notes during his crusade to salvage the remnant of California Indian languages. These films are currently on file at the Clark Library, San Jose State University, One Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192.

[19] Genealogy for Isabel’s lineages is as follows: Isabel’s mother was Loreta Onesimo. Loreta’s mother was Maria Ignacia Patcalaux Cornelio. Maria Ignacia’s mother was Lupecina Francisca Unegte.

[20] Simply, family reconstitution is the rebuilding of the elements of a given family, identifying all members of a family and comparing data.

[21] Baptism record for Ildefonso Jose, #303, entered 24 Feb 1775, Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo, Baptism Register (hereinafter referred to as CA-B); Genealogical Society of Utah, Latter Day Saints (hereinafter referred to as GSU/LDS) Microfilm #913159, 30 E. North Temple St., Salt Lake City, Utah 84150; photocopy in repository of Esselen Nation Private Genealogical Library, (hereinafter referred to as ENPGL) 34 E. 5th Street, Morgan Hill, CA 95037.

[22] Baptism record for Maria de las Nieves, CA-B #714, Blandina Maria, CA-B #715, Salomea Maria, CA-B #716, and Crotilde Maria, CA-B #717, entered 3 Aug 1782, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[23] Marriage record for Odilon Jose Chajulist and Salomea Maria Chukis, #371, entered 20 Mar 1789, Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo, Marriage Register (hereinafter referred to as CA-M), GSU/LDS Microfilm #913161; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[24] Baptism record for Antonio Maria Chuquis, CA-B #1940, entered 25 Apr 1794, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[25] Baptism record for Leucio Maria, CA-B #2003, and Agricio Joseph, CA-B #2004, entered 10 Jan 1795, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[26] Marriage record for Matrona Antonia Pocquesht and Antonio Maria Chuquis, CA-M #514, entered 24 Jan 1795, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913161; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[27] Baptism record for Neomisia Teyoc, CA-B #1551, entered 3 Jan 1791, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[28] Baptism record for Feliciana Maria, CA-B #904, entered 11 Dec 1783, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[29] Baptism record for Teodoro Teyoc, CA-B #922, entered 16 Dec 1783, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[30] Marriage record for Teodoro and Feliciana Maria, CA-M #234, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913161; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[31] Idioma Exxeien, dialecto del idioma Esselene, Monterey, 27 July 1878, Alphonse Pinart, page 1, Bancroft Library, UC Berkeley, CA; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[32] The Notes of John Peabody Harrington, Isabel Meadows, March 25, 1932, Reel 72, page 53 (hereinafter referred to as JPH R72:53), Clark Library, San Jose State University, One Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192-0107; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[33] Marriage record for Agricio Tiquez and Neomesia Teyoc, CA-M #722A, entered 13 Feb 1807, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913161; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[34] Baptism record for Bernardino, CA-B #1, entered 26 Dec 1770, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL. .

[35] Baptism record for Maria Francisca, CA-B #31, entered 21 Dec 1772, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[36] Baptism record for Margarita Maria, CA-B #32, entered 7 Jan 1773, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[37] Baptism record for Hipolito, CA-B #217, entered 5 Aug 1774, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[38] Baptism record for Raymunda Josepha, CA-B #374, entered 25 Jan 1776, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[39] Baptism record for Henrique Joseph, CA-B #341, entered 29 Apr 1775, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[40] After 1808, not quite 40 years after the mission doors opened, these margin entries reflected a change in the indigenous society. The villages were empty and the dominant society had taken the land for their own use. Therefore, in the margins, instead of a name of a village (with the exception of Indians from Tulare), the friars would write "indio de la mision" [Indian of the mission], "razon" as part of the designation of "gente de razon" [people of reason, non-Indians], or "del presidio" [military] to indicate where these individuals were from. This type of distinction, in the record keeping, continued until 1853.

[41] Baptism record for Margarita Maria, CA-B #32, entered 7 Jan 1773, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[42] Baptism record for Raymunda Josepha, CA-B #374, entered 25 Jan 1776, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[43] Baptism record for Hipolito, CA-B #217, entered 5 Aug 1774, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[44] Baptism record for Henrique Joseph, CA-B #341, entered 29 Apr 1775, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[45] Baptism record for Juan la Ducla, CA-B #460, entered 1 Jul 1777, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[46] Baptism record for Jose Clemente Rachiscacim, CA-B #38, entered 21 Jan 1773, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[47] Baptism record for Estanislao Jose Tuppaj, CA-B #459, entered 28 Jun 1777, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[48] Baptism record for Liberata Maria, CA-B #1465, entered 22 Jan 1790, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[49] Baptism record for Zeferina Maria, CA-B #347, entered 21 Apr 1775, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[50] Baptism record for Lucas Alcantara, CA-B #1532, entered 28 Oct 1790, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[51] Baptism record for Martha Maria, CA-B #207, entered 31 Jul 1774, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[52] Baptism record for Martha Maria, CA-B #207, entered 31 Jul 1774, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[53] Baptism record for Maria Josepha, CA-B #273, entered 4 Jan 1775, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[54] Baptism record for Maria de Buena Gracia, CA-B #1528, entered 7 Oct 1790, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[55] Baptism record for Juana de Valois, CA-B #969, entered 13 Jul 1778, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[56] Marriage record for Zenon Jose and Maria Josefa, CA-M #399, entered 19 Jul 1790, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913161; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[57] Baptism record for Zenon Jose, CA-B #544, entered 9 Jul 1778, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[58] Marriage record for Juan Antonio and Apolonia, CA-M #639, entered 20 Jun 1803, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913161; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[59] Baptism record for Apolonia Maria, CA-B #138, entered 22 Jul 1773, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[60] Baptism record for Susana Maria, CA-B#234, entered 13 Aug 1774, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[61] Baptism record for Juan Nepomuceno, CA-B #135, entered 22 Jul 1773, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[62] Baptism records for Teodoro Teyoc, CA-B #922, entered 16 Dec 1783, and for Feliciana Maria Urchu, CA-B #904, entered 11 Dec 1783, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913315; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[63] Obviously, a conclusion not based on the mission registers. The term Mutsun was mentioned at least 20 times, in the baptism records alone, and 8 times in the marriage records while Rumsen was only mentioned twice, and three times in the baptism records. Keep in mind that the Amah-Mutsun tribe is a totally different group of people than is identified with Esselen Nation. It was obvious that some indigenous people were out of their territory. Where an individual was baptized did not change their place of origin or their tribal affiliation.

[64] Another spelling variation of the same term Rumsen.

[65] Baptism records for Salvador Mucjai, CA-B #2361, entered 16 Feb 1807, and for his father, Bernardino Mucjai, CA-B #2643, entered 30 May 1807, GSU/LDS Microfilm #913159; photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[66] Interview with Rudy Rosales by Dr. Les Field and Lorraine Escobar, Esselen Nation Tribal Genealogist, January 4, 1996, ENPGL.

[67] Personal communication from Cheryl (Meadows) Urquidez, to Lorraine Escobar, Esselen Nation Tribal Genealogist, November 13, 1998.

[68] 1928 BIA App. #8082 for Merciana Gonzales, I-32 Microfilm Series, Box 24, PRSNA. Photocopy in repository of ENPGL.

[69] It is interesting to note that Ascenion Solorsano de Cervantes (a Mutsun Indian linguistic consultant for John Peabody Harrington) identified the Kah-koon Indians as "Kah-koon-tak-wsh, Salinas Valley Indians, literally southerners."

[70] Andrew Molera State Park is located 7 miles north of Big Sur, the area that was known as Sargenta-Ruc. Its people were identified as Sureño. Reference for location: Map of California, Rand McNally & Company, copyright 1990.

[71] Personal communication from Lydia Bojorquez, to Lorraine Escobar, Esselen Nation Tribal Genealogist, November 13, 1998.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Harrington, John Peabody

1932        Field notes, John Peabody Harrington Southern and Central California Microfilm Series, Costanoan. Smithsonian Institute, Washington DC.

Reel 37:667, Reel 72:10B, 20B, 48B, 83B, 466A

 

Heizer, Robert F., editor

1970 (See Kroeber & Heizer, 1970)

 

1974 The Costanoan Indians, The Indian Culture from the Mouth of the Sacramento River, South to Monterey and Inland Past the Salinas River. De Anza College, San Jose, CA: California History Center.

 

Henshaw, H.W.

1926 Comparative Vocabulary, Salinan Stock, Eselen (Esselen), Ecclemachs, and Carmel of Mofras Language Manuscript. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institute, Washington DC.

 

Howard, Donald M. Esq

1978 Ranchos of Monterey County. Monterey, California: Angel Press.

 

Kroeber, Alfred L.

1901-2 Notebook 26 (Chumash/Costanoan/Esselen, 1901-02), A.L. Kroeber Papers, BANC FILM 2049, reel 96, frame 670 et seq., The Bancroft Library, University of Berkeley.

 

1908        A Mission Record of the California Indians, American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 1-27. UC Berkeley, CA: The University Press.

 

1910 The Chumash and Costanoan Languages, American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 237-271. UC Berkeley, CA: The University Press.

 

1925        The Indians of California, page 8. Bancroft Library, UC Berkeley, California

 

Kroeber, Alfred L. & Robert F. Heizer

1970 Continuity of Indian Population in California from 1770/1848 to 1955, University of California Archaeology Research Faculty Contribution 9:1-22, Berkeley, California.

 

Leventhal, Alan; Rosemary Cambra, Loretta Escobar-Wyer, Irene Zwierlein

1993        A Brief Historic Overview Pertaining to the Federal Status of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, Amah-Mutsun Tribe and Esselen Nation - Costanoan Tribal Groups from the San Francisco and Monterey Bay Regions; Tribes that were Administratively Terminated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1927 by Superintendent L. A. Dorrington, Sacramento Agency [A Request for Your Support). San Jose State University, San Jose, California.

 

Leventhal, Alan; Les Field, Hank Alvarez, and Rosemary Cambra, edited by Lowell John Bean

1994        "The Ohlone: Back from Extinction" in The Ohlone Past and Present, Ballena Press, Anthropological Papers #42, Menlo Park, California.

 

Margolin, Malcolm

1978 The Ohlone Way: Indian Life in the San Francisco-Monterey Bay Area, Berkeley: Heyday Books.

 

Milliken, Randall, Ph.D.

1981        "Ethnohistory of the Rumsen: the Mission Period" in the Report of Archaeological Excavation at 19 Archaeological Sites for the Stage 1 Pacific Grove - Monterey Consolidation Project of the Regional Sewerage System, S. A. Dietz & T. L. Jackson, eds., 4 volumes, submitted to State Water Resources Board, Sacramento.

 

1988 "Ethnographic Context," Archaeological Investigations at Elkhorn Slough: CA-MNT-229, A Middle Period Site on the Central California Coast, by S.A. Dietz, W. Hildebrant, & Terry Jones, Papers in Northern California Anthropology, Northern California Anthropological Group, Berkeley, California.

 

1990        Ethnography and Ethnohistory of the Big Sur District, California State park System, During the 1770-1810 Time Period, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

 

Mills, Elaine, ed.

1982 The Papers of John Peabody Harrington in the Smithsonian Institution 1907-1957, Vol. 2, A Guide to the Field Notes, Native American History, Language and Culture of Northern and Central California. New York: Kraus International Publications

 

Merriam, C. Hart

n.d. Esselen Stock, Research notes, Folder Q/16a/E27. Bancroft Library, UC Berkeley, California

 

1967 Ethnographic notes on California Indian Tribes, III: Central California Indian Tribes, Robert F. Heizer, ed., University of California Archaeological Survey Reports, 68 (3), pg. 392, Berkeley, California.

 

Pacific Region (San Francisco) National Archives

1928 Microfilm Publication I-32, 1928 Bureau of Indian Affairs applications in conjunction with the May 18, 1928 Congressional Indian Jurisdictional Act, 1000 Commodore Way, San Bruno, Ca.

 

Pinart, Alfonse

1878 Idioma Exxeien, dialecto del Idioma Esselene , #35053. Bancroft Library, UC Berkeley, California.

 

San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo, Mission Registers

Microfilms #913315, 913159, 913160, 913161, 913162, and 913315, held at the Salt Lake City Genealogical Society, Utah.

 

Taylor, Alexander Smith

1856 Field Notes for Indianology Series, Section 5, Mission San Carlos. JLL Warren Papers, Bancroft Library, UC Berkeley, California.