Ohlone-Costanoan
Esselen Nation
The Aboriginal People of
The Greater
Part I: WHO IS ESSELEN NATION?
By
Les Field, Ph.D.,
Department of Anthropology,
Alan Leventhal, MA,
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
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
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
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
UNDERSTANDING THE COMPOSITION OF COSTANOAN/OHLONE PEOPLE
When Christopher Columbus landed on the
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
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
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. California
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
Mission
Mission
Mission San
Juan Bautista -
Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo - Carmel/Monterey (Esselen Nation)
Mission
Nuestra Señora de Soledad -
Mission
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
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 “
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,
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
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
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
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
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
The association between
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
2. Achasta
–
3. Tucutnut – middle and lower reaches of
4. Socorronda,
Jummis, Sepponet – upper
5. Echilat,
Ixchenta – upper
6. Sargenta
Ruc, Jojopan, Pixchi, Elchocs –
7. Excelen,
Excelemach –
8. Egeac,
Yppimegesan – Soledad/Arroyo Seco/lower
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
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:
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
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]
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 – “
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
1
Pedro Bautista Guajox & Tucutnut San
Carlos/Carmel
Simona Maria Congeshom (1st
wife) Ensen
2
Juan Dios Ymcush & Socorronda San
Carlos/Carmel
Micaela Rosa Monyurschi Sepponet San
Carlos/Carmel
3
Moyses Jose Yunisyunis &