How Spaniards Became Chumash and Other Tales of Ethnogenesis

Author(s): Brian D. Haley and Larry R. Wilcoxon

Source: American Anthropologist, Vol. 107, No. 3 (Sep., 2005), pp. 432-445
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3567028
Accessed: 19-03-2015 16:15 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.144.61.254 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:15:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
U
BRIAN D. HALEY
LARRY R. WILCOXON

How Spaniards Became Chumash and other Tales

of Ethnogenesis

ABSTRACT Inthe 1970s,a network offamiliesfromSantaBarbara, assertedlocalindigenous

California, identities
as "Chumash."
However, we demonstrate thatthesefamilies
havequitedifferent socialhistories
thaneither theyorsupportivescholarsclaim.Rather
thandismissing theseneo-Chumash as anomalous"fakes,"we placetheirclaimsto Chumashidentity withintheirparticular
family
socialhistories.
We showthatcultural inthesefamily
identities lineshavechangeda number oftimesoverthepastfourcenturies.
Thesechangesexhibit a rangethatisoftennotexpectedand render theemergence ofneo-Chumash morecomprehendible. Thesocial
historyas a wholeillustrates
theease andfrequency withwhichcultural identities
changeandthecontexts change.Inlight
thatfoster
ofthesedata,scholars shouldquestiontheirability
to essentialize
identity.
[Keywords:ethnogenesis, of
indigenizationmodernity, social
construction ofidentity,
Southwestborderlands,Mexican Americans]

N THERECENTLY
RECONSTRUCTED
north
wingofthe
RoyalPresidioof Santa Barbara,California,thereis a
smallmuseum.The museumhousesthe following:(1) the
usual displaysofartifacts,
photographs, and gifts;(2) a scale
modelofthe originalpresidioquadrangle,whichwas built
in 1782 by troopsrepresenting the kingofSpain;and (3) a
largefoldingdisplayoffamilygenealogieslinkingthe 18th-
and 19th-century soldadosof the fortto los descendientes-
theirlivinglocal descendants.The supportof los descen-
dientesis importantto the managementof Santa Barbara
PresidioStatePark.Yetnot all descendantsare listedin the
display,and amongthesearesomewho wishtheywerenot
soldado descendants.The lattergrouphas had some suc-
cess achievingan identityas local indigenes-specifically,
as ChumashIndians.Theseneo-Chumashwho emergedin
the 1970s lack Chumash or otherNative Californianan-
cestryand are descendedalmostexclusivelyfromthe peo-
ple who colonizedCaliforniaforSpain from1769 to 1820.
Theirsocialhistoryis distinctfromthatoflocal indigenous
communities.Yetlocal governments repatriateprecolonial
human remainsto themforreburialand scholarsdefend
and promotetheirclaimsof Chumashancestry, tryto "re-
store"Chumashtraditionsto themthroughtheirresearch,
or approachthemforlessonsin traditionalChumashcul-
turetoputintopapersand textbooks.HadJeanBaudrillard's
(1988) travelsthrough"America" not missedthislittlecor-
nerofCalifornia"simulacra,"neo-Chumashculturemight
AMERICAN Vol. 107, Issue3, pp. 432-445, ISSN0002-7294,electronic
ANTHROPOLOGIST,
Association.
Allrights
reserved.
Pleasedirect
allrequests
forpermission
tophotocopy
orreproduce
Press's andPermissions
Rights athttp://www.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm.
website,
have become emblematicof postmodernity. Luckilyfor
neo-Chumash(and the positionwe takehere),Baudrillard
chose Disneylandto symbolizethe pervasivesubstitution
ofsimulationforrealityin theUnitedStates.
It is temptingto suggestthat neo-Chumashare per-
petrating"ethnicfraud"by assertingancestrytheydo not
have (Gonzales 1998). But should social scientistsdismiss
neo-Chumashidentityas some kindof anomaly?Anthro-
pologistshavewrestled withthenatureofculturalidentities
forat leasthalfa century.Initially,
culturalidentitieswere
consideredprimordialand fundamentalto personhood,
only changingthroughthe modernizationof "traditional
cultures"andnationbuilding.Othersarguedthatidentities
wereinstrumental culturaltoolsthatpeople createdand re-
shapedin the politicsofgroupinteraction. Recognitionof
identitychange grewwhen the "ethnicboundaries"con-
ceptwas introducedbyFredrik Barth(1969), and boundary
crossingwasrecognizedas common.Asculturewasbrought
back into the picturein the 1980s,essentialists
continued
a positionsimilarto earlierprimordialists, insistingthat
tradition,language,or ancestrydefinesand dictatesiden-
tity,whereasconstructivistsdemonstrated how suchseem-
ing essenceswereactivelyproduced,and ethnohistorians
honed the conceptof "ethnogenesis"-theemergenceof
new groupsand identities-todescribecommunity fission
and coalescence.Bytheendofthecentury, mostanthropol-
ogistsappearedto acceptthatculturalidentitiesaresocially
ISSN1548-1433.? 2005 bytheAmerican
Anthropological
article
content theUniversity
through ofCalifornia

This content downloaded from 193.144.61.254 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:15:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

contextualized, constructed,manipulated,and both polit-
ically and emotionally motivated. However,culturaliden-
titiesalso maintaintheappearanceof havingessentialand
enduringqualities.We now knowthatthehistoricalmem-
orylong consideredcrucialto culturalidentityis balanced
by a historicalimagination.
Nevertheless, questionsremainoverjusthowmalleable
identitiesareand whatthesenewunderstandings meanfor
policyand practice.Takingup the former, PhilipKohl ar-
gues that "culturaltraditionscannotbe fabricatedout of
whole cloth," as he believes strictconstructivists allege.
He favorscontextualconstructivism, which "acceptsthat
social phenomenaare continuouslyconstructedand ma-
nipulatedforhistorically ascertainablereasons"(1998:233).
The neo-Chumashpose a challenge:Their example ap-
pearsto be a clearcase of whole-clothfabrication, yetthe
reasonsfortheirethnogenesisare readilyascertained.Per-
haps mostintriguing is the factthatthe social historyof
neo-Chumashfamiliescontainsa clearsequence of iden-
titychangeswithascertainablecauses spanningfourcen-
turies.Rarelydo anthropologists confrontsuch unequivo-
cal evidenceof manyidentitychangesand its contextsin
the same familylines oversuch a long time.We feelthat
thishistoryrevealsin starkfashionthe normalcyof iden-
titychangeas politicallymotivated, sociallycontextualized
action.
In a 1997 article,we addressedthe implicationsof
ethnogenesisforpolicyand practiceby describing therole
anthropologists played in constructing and legitimizing
ChumashTraditionalism, the spiritualaffiliation
of many
neo-Chumash.We expressedconcernaboutboth conceal-
mentof thislegitimization and the dismissalof such new
cultureas spuriousor fakeunder federalheritagepolicy
(Haleyand Wilcoxon1997,1999). AmongChumashschol-
ars,criticsdenied the firstargumentand overlookedthe
second. They raised objectionsbased on theirrejection
of evidencethat showed foundingTraditionalists lacked
Chumashancestryor historicalaffiliation (Erlandsonet al.
1998).Initially,we expectedreaderswouldrecognizethein-
herentflawofourcritics'admissionsthattheyhad neverin-
vestigatedthishistoryand theirself-contradictory declara-
tionsregarding it.Becauseourfocusat thetimewas cultural
productionratherthanancestry, we didnotrespondimme-
diatelyto thisargument.However,itbecame clear thatsome
readersacceptedour critics'claimsregarding
ancestryand,
ourarguments
as a result,severelymisinterpreted and their
implications (see, e.g., Boggs 2002; Field 1999:195; King
2003:111-114, 279-280; Nabokov 2002:146-147).1 We re-
sponded brieflyto a few of these (Haley 2003, 2004; Haley
and Wilcoxon 2000) but realized we would have to revisit
the question in detail ifthe practical implications of ethno-
genesis were going to be widely recognized and discussed.
So far,we have described the documentary evidence that
underminesscholars'assertionsof a Chumash originfor
Chumash Traditionalists (Haley 2002) but not the multi-
plicityand range of identitychanges. JohnJohnson (2003)
corroboratesour statementsabout ancestry.Here we present
This content downloaded from 193.144.61.254 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:15:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Haleyand Wilcoxon * Talesof Ethnogenesis 433
and contextualizethe identitychangeswe did not present
earlier.
To documentneo-Chumashsocial history,we were
drawnbackintoa literature and documentary evidenceon
identity formation in colonialMexicoand amongMexican-
originimmigrants to the UnitedStatesfamiliarto us from
otherresearch(e.g., Haley 1997). We werestruckby how
abundantand well documentedidentitychangesin par-
ticularfamilylineswere.Usingprimarysources,we found
sequentialidentitychangesin particularfamiliesback to
themid-18thcentury; usingsecondarydata,we tracedback
to the mid-16thcentury.2 We knowof no cases in the lit-
eraturewith similarlylong historiesof repeatedidentity
changesin particularfamilylines,but withsimilarmeth-
ods otherssurelycould be added. Also,unlikemostpub-
lished cases, the identitychangesin this historyare not
confinedto macro categories,such as fromone typeof
AmericanIndian to another.They cross supposedlyim-
permeableboundarieswithoutintermarriage or adoption.
These boundarycrossingsare one reasonwhyscholarsof-
tenfailto accuratelydescribeneo-Chumashsocialhistory:
Fewexpectto have to crossbordersofethnicliteratures to
traceparticular families.
As JohnMoore pointsout withrespectto the signif-
icance of ethnicgroupnames and naming,"the mutual
perspectives represented in ethnonymy are a sensitivein-
dicator[sic]of socialand politicalissues,pastand present"
(2001:33). Takingvolatile 16th-century Mexico as an ar-
bitrarystartingpoint, our subjectswere assignedobliga-
tions and privilegesvia Spain's impositionof a caste sys-
temand a gentede raz6n-gente sinraz6ndivisionassociated
withthelegaldistinction betweentherepablica deespaioles
and repablica de indios.3
We can tracemobilitybetweencat-
egories,facilitatedbyfrontier socialconditionsand willing
orunawareauthorities, to theend ofthe18thcentury when
thecastesystemcollapsed.Our subjectswereamongthose
who participated in Californio ethnogenesiswhentheyfelt
estrangedand isolatedfroma distracted postindependence
Mexico. Theykeenlyfeltthe effectsof U.S. conquestand
itsimposedracialideologyafter1848. Retainingwhitesta-
tusbecamea challengebecauseofdecliningclassstanding
and politicalpower.In the late 19th century, theybegan
assertingSpanishidentityto avoid prejudiceagainstrising
numbers of Mexican immigrants.In this regard,they were
assisted by the rise of culturaltourismthat valued Spanish-
ness. A criticalscholarlyassault on Spanishness in the 1960s
and 1970s weakened this strategy.Simultaneously,the fed-
eral government's search for unrecorded indigenes to set-
tle a land dispute, elevation of the stature of indigenous
identity by countercultural and ecopolitical movements,
and local organizing made Chumash identity appeal to
these working-class families. Last, negative public reac-
tion to risingMexican immigrationat the close of the cen-
turyappears to reinforcea willingness to assertindigenous
identity.
Figure 1 summarizes these changes. They follow the
reticularpatternof ethnogenesis describedby Moore (1994)
434 American Anthropologist * Vol. 107, No. 3 * September 2005

Colonization [Europe] [Africa] [Mexico]

ofMexico

Northwest. Gente "

Gentede razdn
Mexican
Frontier1drao castes)
(various

California]1 Californios Mexicans

1820-1848
1820-1848

California White White,

1848-1960 American Spanish

P Spanish, "Chumash" Chicano,

Present Californio, Mexican-
etc. etc.
American,

and otherCalifornio
FIGURE1. The ethnogenesisof neo-Chumash identities fromthe same immigrant
deriving group.

and others(e.g.,Terrell2001). These identitychangescor- upperchart.4Our writingson identitychangeamong de-

respondto theinteractionalist theoriesofBarth(1969) and
the mercantileand capitalistdynamicsdescribedby Eric
Wolf(1982). Theyare developedfurther in applicationto
indigenization, power states,class, and migration
the of
byMichaelKearney(2004) and JonathanFriedman(1999).
Ourhistorical reconstructionresembles twootherworksbut
differsfromboth in importantways.LisbethHaas (1995)
describesmanyof the same historicalidentitychangesin
southernCalifornia, butsheneitherincludestheearlierdata
nor recognizesthe indigenizationof identitywe demon-
stratehere.MarthaMenchaca(2001) coversthe sametime
span,yetshe essentializesidentityin waysthatwe directly
challengeand failsto recognizeher own absorptioninto
the neo-Chumashmovement.We further explorehercase
laterin thisarticle.
Ourfocushereis on thelinealkindepictedin Figure2.
Reflectingthe small size of the partythatfoundedSanta
Barbara, members ofthe twochartsare related:All of gen-
erationC and two in D in the lowerchartare also in the
scendantsofcolonialSantaBarbaraaddressseveralkindreds
(e.g., Haley in press).The presentworkimplicatesmore.
Otherfamilyhistoriesillustrate the sameprocesses,butwe
selectedthese examplesfortheirrichnessand to correct
errorsby otherscholars.To add context,we occasionally
presentinformation on collateralkin and affines-many
prominentin Californiahistory.RichardHandler(1985)
advocatesavoidingethnonymsbecause of theirethically
problematic legitimizing butwe use all oftheknown
effect,
ethnonymsin the group'shistoryto emphasizethe flu-
idityof identity.We also feelwe mustuse the termneo-
Chumashto acknowledgethe sustainedexistenceofa con-
testedsocialboundarybetweentheneo-Chumashand the
Chumashcommunities livingin SantaYnez,SantaBarbara,
and Ventura,who are descendedfromcontact-era villages
and who havemaintaineda continuousidentity as local in-
digenes(Johnson2003; McLendonandJohnson1999).The
legitimacythatneo-Chumashderivefromoutsiderspres-
suresChumashto acceptthemas coethnics,but enduring

This content downloaded from 193.144.61.254 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:15:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Haley and Wilcoxon * Tales of Ethnogenesis 435

A
B A
C
D
E
F

cH 9 I

A
G
B
C
D
E
F

FIGURE2. Kinshipchartsof neo-Chumash(gray)and theircolonialimmigrant ancestorsfromnorthwest

Mexico(black).Dashedlinesinthe
upperchartindicateunmarried(generationsB and E) and adoptive(generationC-D) parents.

This content downloaded from 193.144.61.254 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:15:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
436 AmericanAnthropologist* Vol. 107,No. 3 * September2005
collaborationshave been rare.We knowa fraction
ofthose
ourworkaddresses.Ifanyofthemwereto lose publiclegiti-
macy,itis notclearwho,ifanyone,mightbenefit.However,
therearepotentialconsequences,so we omitnamesand sex
aftera certaindate.
IDENTITIESON NEWSPAIN'S
CULTURAL
NORTHERNFRONTIER
When Spanishcolonizersseizedcontrolof centralMexico
in the16thcentury, theyusedracialcriteria formakingand
preserving majorsocialdistinctions betweenthemselvesas
elites,Africansas slaves,and Indians residingin semiau-
tonomousrepuiblicas de indios as tributepayersand food
producers.This legal systemof identitiesbecame more
complexas intermediate categorieswereadded to address
the rapidlyrisingnumbersof people of multipleances-
tries(Seed1982).A secondclassification distinguished
gente
de raz6n (people of reason) fromgente sin raz6n (peo-
ple withoutreason):This was, essentially, a contrastbe-
tween"civilized"people and the Native"barbarians"who
resistedcolonialcontrol(Nugent1998). It grewout ofthe
1550-51 debatesoverwhetherNew Worldpeoples should
be subduedby force.The distinction gainedsalienceas the
frontier pushed northward from centralMexico into the
desert,wherethe Spanish encounterednomadic and re-
sistantChichimecanswho contrastedwith the sedentary
peoplesof centralMexico,manyofwhomhad alliedwith
the Spanish,acceptedCatholicism,and weresentto settle
and pacifythenorthern desertin thelatterhalfofthe 16th
century(Powell1952:44,108-109,252 n. 12). In 1573,the
Crowngaveprimary responsibilityforexplorationand paci-
ficationto missionaries(Weber1992:78).As mission-based
settlement and pacificationsucceeded,the Holy Officeof
the Inquisitionsoughtto convertand then protectthese
Indian neophytesfromprosecutionforheresies:As gente
sin raz6n,theywere,likechildren,notyetfullyrationalor
responsible(Gutierrez1991:195).
The conflationof legallysanctionedidentitywithan-
cestryproducednotionsof purityand mixturebelied by
historicalevidence.Espafiolesclaimed "purityof blood"
justifiedtheirhigh status;mixed ancestrymestizos,mu-
latos, and otherscarriedthe stigmaof presumedillegit-
imacy; an association with slave status furtherstigma-
tized Africanancestry (negros, mulatos, etc.).5 In fact,the
firstmestizos were absorbed by the espailoles, and later
the child of an espaflol and a castizo (idealized as 3/4
espafiol) was also classifiedas espafiol. Record keeping was
not rigorous. Officialsusually "lightened" caste by "cor-
recting" it to correspond to occupation and to approx-
imate spouse's caste as they felt it should (Seed 1982).
Mobility between castes was constrained by one's social
networks. According to R. Douglas Cope (1994), minor
changes, such as indio to mestizo, might reflect mar-
riage or closer association with Spanish patrons, but ma-
jor shifts,such as negro to mestizo, required new social
networks.
This content downloaded from 193.144.61.254 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:15:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Thenorthern frontierofferedsuchconditions.Catholic
missions,as well as gentede raz6n soldiersand settlersof
manycastes,moved the frontier northwestward. Mission
communitieswerereservedforindio neophytes,whereas
the gentede raz6n settledin presidialcommunities, min-
ing camps, and towns. Social mobility occurred as mis-
sionsecularization turnedprotected neophytes intotribute-
payinggentede raz6n citizens,and migrationfacilitated
hiding one's background.Militaryservice,tenantry, and
miningbroughttogetherindios and lower-classgentede
raz6nin commoncommunities thatfostered intermarriage
and castemobility, mutingcastedistinctions. Officials
who
recordedcaste emphasizeddifferent criteriaamong skin
color,clothing,hairstyles, occupation,behavior,a person's
local standing,and knownancestry. Withskilledindividu-
als oftenin shortsupplyand authority farto thesouth,up-
wardcastemobilitybecamecommonplace(Jackson1997;
Radding1997). The frontier was a zone of opportunity,
whereindiosbecamegentede raz6nand mestizos,negros
became mulatosand moriscos,and mestizosand mulatos
became espafioles.Caste termson the frontier on the eve
of California'scolonizationwere termsof statusand re-
spect,and not simplylabelsof presumedbiologicalances-
try(Gutierrez 1991:196-206;Mason 1998;Weber1992:326-
329).
In 1769,thecolonizationofCalifornia(AltaCalifornia)
began via a seriesof expeditionslaunched fromfrontier
communities in Baja Californiadel Sur,Sonora,and Sinaloa.
The Portoldexpeditionof 1769-70 foundedpresidiosand
missionsat San Diego and Monterey. A fewadditionalsol-
diersfromMexicowerepostedto Californiathrough1775,
includingthe firstfamiliesin 1774. In 1776,the Anza ex-
peditionbroughtnearly200 soldiers,colonists,wives,and
children,doublingSpain'srepresentatives in California.A
trickleof postingsoccurreduntil 1781, when the Rivera
y Moncada expeditionbrought62 soldiers,theirfamilies,
and 12 settlerfamilies,who foundedLos Angelesand the
Santa Barbarapresidio.The expeditionigniteda revoltby
Yumasthatclosedthebestland routeto California, curtail-
ing major colonizing.By 1790, California'scolonial pop-
ulationnumberedabout 1,000personsdistributed among
fourpresidios,two pueblos,and 12 missions;only about
300 morehad arrivedby 1820 (Mason 1998:17-44;Weber
1992:236-265).
CASTE YIELDS TO RAZON
The castes of California's colonists reflectthe diverse and
fluid composition of the colonial military in northwest
Mexico at the time. Table 1 liststhe colonial immigrantan-
cestorsof our neo-Chumash by date ofimmigration.A letter
in the thirdcolumn corresponds to generations marked in
Figure 2 and the text. The immigrantsoriginate primarily
in presidial towns of Sonora, Sinaloa, and Baja California
del Sur. Garrison lists and other sources indicate that at
least 32 of the 34 male immigrantswere soldados at some
point in their lives. Caste can be tallied only fora specific

TABLE1. Ancestorsofneo-Chumash
and
(Gen.),birthplace, occupation.6
Date and Event
Immigration
1769 PortoldExpedition
ByOctober5, 1773
1774 RiveraSinaloaRecruits
By1776
1776 De Anza Expedition
Circa1778
1781 RiveraExpedition
1787
Circa1788-1789
Circa 1804-1810
1819 Mazatlan Squadron
By 1820 (prob. 1817)
This content downloaded from 193.144.61.254 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:15:58 UTC
Haleyand Wilcoxon * Talesof Ethnogenesis 437
fromMexico
whoemigrated to California,
1769-1820; bydateofimmigration,
arranged generation
Individualsand Family
Immigrants:
Groupsby Head Gen. Birthplace Occupation
Dominguez,JuanJos6 B VillaSinaloa,Sinaloa Soldier
Cordero,MarianoAntonio D Loreto,Baja California Soldier
Sinoba,Jos6Francisco C CiudadMexico,M6xico Soldier
Lugo,FranciscoSalvadorde C VillaSinaloa,Sinaloa Soldier
JuanaMariaRita
Martinez, C VillaSinaloa,Sinaloa
Verdugo, JuanDiego B El Fuerte,Sinaloa Soldier
Carrillo,MariaIgnaciade la Concep. B Loreto,Baja California
Arellano,ManuelRamirez B Puebla,Puebla Soldier
L6pezDe Haro,MariaAgueda B Alamos,Sonora
Boj6rquez,JoseRamon B VillaSinaloa,Sinaloa Soldier
Romero,MariaFrancisca B VillaSinaloa,Sinaloa
Boj6rquez,MariaGertrudis C VillaSinaloa,Sinaloa
Lisalde,PedroAntonio C VillaSinaloa,Sinaloa Soldier
Pico,FelipeSantiagode la Cruz C San Xavierde Cabazan,Sinaloa Soldier
Bastida,MariaJacinta C Tepic,Nayarit
Pico,Jos6Miguel D San Xavierde Cabazan,Sinaloa
Pinto,Pablo C VillaSinaloa,Sinaloa Soldier
Ruelas,FranciscaXaviera C VillaSinaloa,Sinaloa
Pinto,JuanaFrancisca D VillaSinaloa,Sinaloa
Cota,RoqueJacintoDe C El Fuerte,Sinaloa Soldier
Verdugo, JuanaMaria C Loreto,Baja California
Cota,MariaLoreta D Loreto,Baja California
Cota,MarianoAntonio D Loreto,Baja California
Dominguez,MariaUrsula C SantaGertrudis, Baja California
Rubio,Mateo C Ypres,Flanders(Belgium) Soldier
Alanis,Maximo C Chametla,Sinaloa Soldier
Miranda,JuanaMaria C Alamos,Sonora
Alipaz-Perez,Ignacio B Mexico Soldier
P&rez,MariaEncarnaci6n C Pueblode Ostimuri, Sonora
Dominguez,Ildefonso C VillaSinaloa,Sinaloa Soldier
German,MariaYgnacia C VillaSinaloa,Sinaloa
Dominguez,JoseMaria D VillaSinaloa,Sinaloa Soldier
Feliz,JuanVictorino C Sinaloa
Cosalhi, Soldier
Landeros,MariaMicaela C Cosala,Sinaloa
Feliz,MariaMarcelina D Cosala,Sinaloa
Fernandez, Jos6Rosalino C El Fuerte,Sonora Soldier
Quintero,MariaJosefa JuanaConcep. C Alamos,Sonora
Lugo,JosefYgnacioManuel C VillaSinaloa,Sinaloa Soldier
Sanchez,MariaGertrudis C VillaSinaloa,Sinaloa
Lugo,Jos6Miguel D VillaSinaloa,Sinaloa
Quijada,Vicente D Alamos,Sonora Soldier
Quintero,LuisManuel B Guadalajara,Jalisco Armytailor
Rubio,MariaPetraTimotea B Alamos,Sonora
Ruiz,Efigenio B El Fuerte,Sinaloa Soldier
L6pez,MariaRosa B El Fuerte,Sinaloa
Ruiz,Jos6Pedro C El Fuerte,Sinaloa
Villavicencio,AntonioClementeFeliz C Chihuahua,Chihuahua Settlerrecruit
Flores,Mariade los Santos C Batopilas,Chihuahua
MariaAntoniaJosefa
Pifluelas, D VillaSinaloa,Sinaloa
Rodriguez, Jos6Ygnacio C Alamos,Sonora Soldier
Parra,JuanaPaula de la Cruz C Alamos,Sonora
Romero, JuanMaria C Loreto,Baja California Soldier
Salgado,MariaLugarda C Loreto,Baja California
Romero,JoseAntonio D Loreto,Baja California
Guevara,JosephIgnacioR. Ladronde D Queretaro, Queretaro Soldier
Rivera,MariaYgnacia D SantaCriz del Mayo,Sonora
Urquides, Jos6 Encarnaci6n D El Fuerte,Sinaloa Poss. Soldier
Espinosa, Jos6Ascencio E Mazatlan, Sinaloa Soldier
Policarpio E San Vicente, Baja California Poss. Servant
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
438 AmericanAnthropologist * Vol. 107, No. 3 * September 2005

TABLE2. Caste changes among the immigrants

and earlyU.S. war of independence,lastedformorethan 40 years,set-
censusraceclassification
ofthosesurviving.
ting the scene for the formationof a regionalidentity
(Mason 1998:36-37). Haas (1995:32-38) locates the ori-
Before 1782- 1850- gins of Californioidentityin policy debates regarding
1780 1780 1785 1790 1852
land, missionsecularization, and neophyteemancipation
MaximoAlanis mulato indio mestizo espaflol white afterMexicanindependencein 1821. Mexico'sneglectof
JoseMa. Dominguez espafiol mestizo California,refusalto appointa Californiangovernor, and
RosalinoFernandez mestizo mulato mulato
JuanaMa. Miranda mestizo periodic talk of making Californiaa penal colony an-
espalol geredCalifornia'sgentede raz6n. As the federalgovern-
JuanaPaula Parra mulato mestizo mestizo
LuisQuintero negro mulato mulato ment secularizedmissions,redistributed theirlands, and
VicenteQuijada indio mestizo transformed
mestizo mestizo espafiol neophytesinto Mexican citizens,prominent
IgnacioRodriguez
GertrudisSAnchez mestizo espafiol Californianshoped to retainIndian labor by givingthe
MateoRubio espafiol europeo emancipatedneophyteslands sufficient only forhouses
TeodoroArrellanes espafiol white and gardens.Theywantedmost missionlands forthem-
MarcelinaFeliz espafiol espafiol white
CasildaSinoba espafiol white selves,but the appointedgovernorsdelayed land redis-
Sources:Forbes1966; Goycoechea1785; Hoar 1852; Mason 1978, tribution.In reaction,a "protonationalism" calling for
1998;U.S.CensusBureau1850. Californiasovereignty emerged in the 1820s and 1830s
(Sainchez1995:228-267). The movement promotedbe-
lief that bonds of territory, language,religion,culture,
countingeventbecause people'scaste changedovertime.
No tallyis completebecauseof differing lifespansand the kinship,and blood distinguishedCaliforniosfrommexi-
virtualdisappearanceof casteuse in Californiaafter1790. canos.Californios claimedto be uniquelyinfluenced bythe
The 1790 censusrecordsthe immigrants in Table 1 as one Franciscanmissionsand to have more "sangreazul [blue
europeo,24 espafioles,ten mestizos,seven mulatos,two blood] of Spain" than the restof Mexico (Haas 1995:37).
This suggeststhat Californiosreinterpreted the espafiol
coyotes,twoindios,and one morisco.7 Typicalofthefron-
caste of theirimmediateancestorsliterally.They began
tier,at leastsix of our 1790 colonistspreviouslyhad been
lower-ranking castes(see Table 2). As the mastertailorfor callingMexicans "extranjeros"(foreigners), a label previ-
Santa Barbara'spresidio,Luis Quintero(B) is listedas a ouslyapplied only to non-Mexicans.Proponentsof inde-
mulato in 1785-90 but as a negroin 1781. Eithercaste pendenceincludedleadingSantaBarbarans who wereclose
could have excludedhim fromthe mastertailorposition. affinal,collateral,and fictivekinsmento individualsrepre-
sentedin Figure2 and firstcousinsofgenerationsD and E
Jos6MariaPico,son of FelipeSantiagode la CruzPico (C), in otherregions(Sanchez1995:228-267).
advancedfrommestizoin 1782 to espafiolin 1790 while
stationedin San Diego,becausehe probablywas considered Their own divisions and the U.S.-Mexican War
forpromotion.Meanwhile,his fullbrother thwarted theCalifornio's visionofindependence,although
Jos6Miguel(D)
in SantaBarbarais listedas mulato(Mason 1998:53,62-63; they did acquire the governorship and most formermis-
sion lands beforewarbrokeout. Largeland grantsformed
Northrop1984:205).
After1790, castelost saliencethroughoutSpain'sU.S. the basis of the livestockeconomyof Californiain the
19thcentury, positionedsomeCalifornios as elites,and but-
colonies,because centuriesof intermarriage and upward
castemobilitymeantmanyrespectablecitizenshad ances- tressedtheirsenseofuniqueness.Ifthisdid not add a class
werewillingto trig- dimensionto Californioidentity, it at least caused schol-
trytheywishedto hide.Fewauthorities
Thiswas quiteevident ars to assumethe granteeswerean aristocratic "Spanish"
gerscandalswithrigorousreporting.
in California.Californiawas also the end of Spain'sfron- elite distinctfromthe "mixedrace" commonersand the
tier,and social mobilityforlocal indios did not existas only colonists to assert Californioidentity(Camarillo
it had in northwestern Mexico. An identityunifyingall 1996:1). Our case supportschallengesto thisview (Haas
colonistsin juxtapositionto local indios servedthe small 1995; Miranda1988). Six men in generations B-D received
Spanish land concessions beforeMexican independence. By
and remotefrontier populationbest.After1790,thismost
salientdivisionwas expressedas twocategoriesonly:gente 1845, Mexico had converted two of these to grants and
de raz6n (whichincludedcolonizersformerly classifiedas given six new grants to men in generations C-E (Allen
1976:19, 26, 30; Bancroft1964:29, 40, 122, 286, 309, 314).
indios)and indio (Mason 1998:45-64;Miranda1988).
The 1790 census lists four of these men as espafloles, one
as mestizo, his wifeand son (also a grantee) as mulatos, the
THE BIRTH OF CALIFORNIO IDENTITY
parents of another as mestizos, and the mother of another
Gentede raz6nsettlement grewslowlyaroundthepresidio as a mulato (Mason 1998). At least threeof these-MAximo
in Santa Barbara,wherethe presidiochapel as a focalin- Alanis (C), Jos& Ygnacio Rodriguez (C), and Jos6 Maria
stitutionreinforced separationfromChumashneophytes Dominguez (D)-experienced caste mobility (see Table 2),
at the mission,two kilometersaway (about 1.24 miles). and it is likely that families embellished their status after
California'sisolation after1781, aggravatedby Mexico's obtaining grants (Miranda 1988). Land grants supported

This content downloaded from 193.144.61.254 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:15:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

extendedsets of kin who suppliedsome of the rancho's
labor.At least fiveadultsin generationsC-E plus an un-
known numberof theirchildrenwere in such positions
(Allen 1976:19-40). Young men in these ranchingfami-
lies werevaqueros(cowboys),rancheros,farmers, laborers,
and shepherds(U.S. CensusBureau1850,1860).We cannot
answerthequestionaboutclassand Californio
definitively
identity, we can unequivocallystatethatsome of our
but
"Spanish"elitesand their"mixedrace"workerssharedthe
same ancestry.
BECOMINGWHITEAND SPANISH
WiththecloseoftheU.S.-MexicanWarin 1848,Californios
themselvesbecame a colonized people. The imposition
by the United States of its policies and culturepro-
foundlyinfluencedidentities.Four processesare crucial
in this period: the marginalizationof Californios,ne-
gotiationof white racial status,anti-Mexicanprejudice
associatedwith postwarMexican immigration, and the
of
emergence Spanish identity. The postwarmarginal-
ization of Californiosis well documented (Pitt 1966).
Anglo-Americans took controlof the state'swealth,ra-
tionalizing theiractions withclaimsof ManifestDestiny,
racialpurity,and superior"civilization."Land and author-
ity were wrestedfromCalifornios,leavingmost in low-
payingmanuallaborjobs.TheUnitedStateserecteda costly
procedureforpatentingMexican land titlesto meet U.S.
standards.Even rancheroswho securedtheirpatentswere
bankruptedor so weakenedfinancially by theprocessthat
subsequentcalamitiesruined them (Camarillo 1996:86;
Conrow1993:113).MostlandgrantspassedfromCalifornio
ownershipby 1875 (Pitt1966:250-251).
In SantaBarbara,theimpactsareapparentin the 1870
U.S. Census. Forexample,land grantheirGeronimoRuiz
(E) is recordedas a farmerin 1852,a stockraiser(a termap-
plied to economic in
elites) 1860,and an electionofficialin
1864 (de la Guerra1864; Hoar 1852:20;U.S. CensusBureau
1860:196).8By 1870,he was a day laborer(U.S. CensusBu-
reau 1870:475).From1860 to 1870,mostofSantaBarbara's
rancherosand farmers becamevaqueros,herders, and team-
sters;fromthelate1870sthroughWorldWarI, theysheared
sheepand foundpart-time urbanwork(Camarillo1996:83-
100).
Intensified poverty in the 1870s and 1880s drove
women and children into farm, domestic, and laundry
work. Some required public assistance (Conrow 1993:115).
The men of generations F-H and nearly all their collateral
kinsmen worked as farmworkers,day laborers,or laborers,
according to censuses through 1930.9 Afterthe city elec-
tion of 1874 left Californios with a single representative,
they were an economically and politically weak minority
enclave in Pueblo Viejo, the neighborhood surroundingthe
remains of the old presidio. Households headed by gen-
erations E-H were part of the close-knit,intricatelyinter-
related, and endogamous community into the early 20th
This content downloaded from 193.144.61.254 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:15:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HaleyandWilcoxon* TalesofEthnogenesis439
century. A fewhouseholdshelpedestablisha Californioen-
clave in the suburbof Montecitobefore1880 but retained
strongtiesto PuebloViejo(Camarillo1996:63,72, 110,185;
Conrow1993:115;Garcia-Moro etal. 1997:215;U.S. Census
Bureau1850, 1860, 1870, 1880, 1900, 1910).
In 1849, the Californiaconstitutional conventionful-
filledtreatyprotectionsforthe rightsof formerMexican
citizensby enfranchising Californios(Pitt1966:45,84). At
thetime,theUnitedStatesgrantedfulllegalprivileges only
to personsconsidered"white,"so the phenotypically di-
verse Californios officiallybecame white. Table 2 includes
fourindividualswho have Spanishcasteand U.S. raceclas-
sificationsrecorded.In additionto thechangeling, Maximo
Alanis(C), who previouslywas recordedas mulato,indio,
mestizo,and espafiol,CasildaSinoba's(D) motherand ma-
ternalgrandparents werelistedas mestizosin 1790 (Mason
1998:83, 104). Despiteofficialclassification,ambiguityre-
mainedin practice.In the 1880s,HubertH. Bancroft char-
acterizedCalifornios'whitenessas a mere "badge of re-
spectability" (Haas 1995:172). Complicatingmattersand
giving new salienceto theold divisionbetweenCalifornios
and Mexicanswas growinganti-Mexicansentimentstirred
by labormigrationfromMexico between1890 and 1920.
Santa Barbara'sCaliforniosfeltthisprejudicein 1916-27,
even thoughMexicannewcomerssettledmainlyin other
neighborhoods.Pejorativeuse of Mexicanand greaserby
Anglostriggered schoolyardand workplaceconflicts. Some
facilities
segregated orexcludeddarker-skinned Californios.
Voluntaryrepatriations of indigentfamiliesto Mexico to
relievewelfarecostsstartedin 1926; mass deportations in
1930-33 includedsome Californios.In 1923, membersof
a recentlyformedSanta BarbaraKu KluxKlan chapterac-
costed a descendantof a presidiosoldier.Althoughthe
incidentignitedpublic scornof the Klan, the eventwas
searedinto the memoriesof cousinsof generationsG and
H (Camarillo1996:55,142, 161-163,188, 190-195,290 n.
26; Conrow1993:117;Ruizn.d.b).By1910,twohouseholds
in generation F and one in generation G increasedtheirsep-
arationfrommostMexicanimmigrants bymovingto Santa
Barbara'swestside,whereall ofgenerations H and I in one
chartofFigure2 concentrated shortly thereafter.
Theothers
continuedto residein theMontecitoenclave.10
By the late 19th century,assertingSpanish identity
emergedas a strategyto evade anti-Mexicanprejudice.
Espafiol or gente de raz6n ancestry became widely in-
terpreted as proof of pure Spanish "blood" and white-
ness (Miranda 1981:8, 20 n. 24; 1988). This was risky
for Californios because any other ancestry implied racial
inferiority,as some early Anglo historians declared. Sym-
pathetic scholars, therefore,left caste out of their pub-
lications until the 1970s (Mason 1998:45-46). The suc-
cess of Spanish identity lies in its importance to Santa
Barbara tourism.The City of Santa Barbara spent the 1870s
and 1880s demolishing Pueblo Viejo adobes to create new
streets,yet the city was quickly becoming a tourist desti-
nation with Pueblo Viejo one of its attractions.As tourism
440 AmericanAnthropologist* Vol. 107,No. 3 * September2005
grew,Anglosand Californiosalikeexpressednostalgiafor
the town'sdisappearingcharacter(Camarillo1996:38-41,
54-56; Schultz 1993:9-15). These feelingspartookof a
romanticism creatinglucrativeinterpretations of Spanish
and NativeAmericanculturesthroughoutthe Southwest
(McWilliams1990:43-50; Thomas 1991). The California
movementcreatedan idyllicpastoralSpanish past with
sweepingmissionarchitecture, refinedrancheros,kindly
missionaries, and contented yet childlikeIndians.Aftera
1925earthquakeleveledmuchofSantaBarbara,officials im-
posed a Santa Barbara architectural stylethatHispanicized
the cityvisually.These moves solidifiedbeing Spanishas
an acceptableidentityeven whenbeingMexicanwas not.
Spanishnesscould help individualsgain accessto thosein
power,escape anti-Mexicanprejudice,and perhapsobtain
a civicappointment(McWilliams1990:43-50).
One of SantaBarbara'sexpressionsof Spanishnesswas
thecreationoftheannualOld SpanishDays Fiestain 1924.
The firstOld Spanish Days FiestaCommitteesoughtthe
participationof local Californiosto lend "authenticity"
to the event(Conrow 1993:115-116,118). Some scholars
suggestthat only Californioelites asserteda Spanish
identity(Camarillo1996:69-70; McWilliams1990:44-50;
Pitt1966:284-296).However,theindividualscreditedwith
bringingSpanishparticipation into the 1924 Old Spanish
Days Fiestawere Geronimo Ruiz's (E) nieces(Haleyin press),
and participantsincludedour farmworking and laboring
in
families generations G-I.
The pursuitof Spanish identityby workingclass
Californiosleftmanytraces.Becauseof space limitations,
we offerjust one example (see also Haley in press):de-
scendantsofJoseYgnacioLadr6nde Guevara(D) through
the"lessdistinguished" family(Miranda1978:189,195 nn.
18, 20) of his Santa Barbara-bornson JoseCanuto Gue-
vara (E; see Table 1). Bytheearly1900s,thehomesteadsof
Canuto'sson (F) and grandson(G) failed,so theyreturned
to vaquero,day laborer,and teamsterwork(U.S. Census
Bureau1900:District 155 Sheet3A, 1910:District 173 Sheet
13B, District221 Sheet 9B, 1920:District 101 Sheet 10B).
In 1911,the Morning PressmemorializedCanuto'sjust de-
ceased son (F) as the "lastof the old vaqueros,"whose fa-
ther[JoseCanuto]"camefrom Spain,from Madrid.So theold
vaquero's traditions reached back to old Castile"(Obituary
Filesn.d.:BookG,emphasisadded).The 1930censusrecords
the race of the grandson's (G) familyas Spanish, presum-
ably as theyreportedit (U.S. Census Bureau 1930:District11
Sheet 26A). His wife,daughters,and granddaughtersmade
Spanish costumes for and participated in the Old Spanish
Days Fiesta formany years. Decades later,a granddaughter
(H) and grandson of the "old vaquero" (F) stated separately
that Canuto had been born in Spain but gave differentlo-
cations (Obituary Files n.d.:Books G and H; Pico Ruiz
n.d.;
n.d.a). The grandson also rationalized the "old vaquero's"
(F) physical appearance: He had spent "many hours each
day on horseback caring for the animals. The outdoor life
gave him a tawny brown skin, which contrasted dramati-
cally with his curlywhite hair" (Ruiz n.d.a).
This content downloaded from 193.144.61.254 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:15:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Alloftheancestorsofourneo-Chumashlivingbetween
1850 and 1930,includingthe oldestfutureneo-Chumash,
were recordedas whitein U.S. and statecensuses:67 of
those in generationsC-I in Figure2. This includesall of
generationsF-I in one chart(excludingtwospouses),even
as tensionsoverimmigration heightened.Evenin the 1930
census-the onlyone withMexicanas an official race-this
group is recorded as whiteor Spanish.Most census enu-
meratorsin SantaBarbarafrom1910 through1930 distin-
guishedSpanishor Californios fromrecentMexicanimmi-
grants. Suburban Montecito,however,wheregenerations
F-H in the otherchartin Figure2 lived,was polarizedbe-
tweenwealthyelitesand theirservantsand laboringclasses
(Camarillo1996:63). In 1910, 13 of these were recorded
as Other,with "Mex" writtenin the form'smargin.In
1920, theywererecordedas white,but in 1930, fourwere
recordedas Mexican.The persistent low-classstatusofgen-
erationsF-I in both chartsand theirlong-standing asser-
tions of Spanishancestrysuggesttheyall facedrepeated
challengesto sustainingwhitestatus.GenerationsH and
I were still identifyingthemselvesas whiteby 1946 on
Social Securityforms.All continuedto associateprimarily
withotherSpanish-Californios (Conrow1993:116;Schultz
1993:13).
CLAIMING CHUMASH IDENTITY
Spanish identitylost its lusterin the 1960s, as scholars
embracedCareyMcWilliams's1948 call forreplacingthe
Southwest'sSpanish"fantasyheritage"with"racialpride"
thatrecognizedSpanishAmericans and MexicanAmericans
as a singlepeople (Camarillo1996:1;McWilliams1990:53;
Pitt1966:277-296;Thomas1991:136).The Chicanomove-
mentemergingalongsidethisessentialistideologybriefly
attracted somefutureneo-Chumash.However,at thesame
time,theU.S. Bureauof IndianAffairs reopenedjudgment
rollslistingpersonsqualifiedto receivesharesof a federal
cash settlementof CaliforniaIndian land claims.Assum-
ingthatmostCaliforniaIndianshad mergedwithSpanish-
Californios,Santa BarbaragenealogistRosarioCurlettiof-
feredto help SpanishfamiliesdocumenttheirCalifornia
Indian ancestryto obtaina settlement share.Descendants
ofgenerationG wereamongCurletti's clients.The oraland
written recordindicatesthattheyknewlittleoftheirances-
trybeforegeneration E or G. Once on this path, they con-
tinued to claim Native Californiaancestrydespite Curletti's
failure to find any. Faced with a deadline in one of these
cases, Curlettisubmitteda letterassertingher clients' right
to judgment fund payments based on descent fromMaria
Paula Rubio (D), whose mother Ursula was an indio from
Baja California. Curletti hoped to take advantage of the
judgment's definitionof California Indians as "all Indians
who were residingin the Stateof Californiaon June 1, 1852,
and theirdescendants now living in said State" (25 USC 14,
Sub. 25, Sec. 651). Curlettiwrote,"So I submitthat although
the original bloodline of Ursula is fromBaja California,she
moved into California a full 200 years ago and her descen-
dants continue to enrich the warp and woof of California

being.Paula was consideredIndian and her Indian blood
was respectedby hercontemporaries" (Curletti1969).
Curletti
accurately reconstructed descent,butherclaim
thatPaula'scontemporaries consideredherIndianappears
unfounded.Ursulawas MariaUrsulaDominguez(C) from
Baja California(see Table 1). Her motherwas a neophyte
of MissionSanta Gertrudis, Baja California,probablyeth-
nicallyCochimi.Ursula'srecordednaturalfatherwasJuan
JoseDominguez(B), stationedin San Diego when Ursula
arrivedfromBaja Californiain 1778 at roughly15 yearsof
age and marriedMateo Rubio (C). The 1790 census lists
JuanJose as espafiol,Ursula as india, and Mateo Rubio
as europeo;it does not, however,providea caste forMa-
teo and Ursula'schildren,who could have been classified
as eithermestizosor castizos.OtherSpanishand Mexican
recordsclassifytheirchildrenas gentede raz6nratherthan
indios.11Paula Rubio'sdescendantswererecordedas white
in U.S. censuses,and the "old vaquero" in generationF
noted above-whose fatherwas born in Spain according
to hisgrandchildren-wastheoldestlivingancestorin this
line on July1, 1852,the judgment'sdate forqualifying as
a CaliforniaIndian (Hoar 1852; U.S. Census Bureau1850,
1900, 1910). Curlettiappearsto be the firstauthorityto
classifyUrsula'sdescendantsas Indiansand to assertthat
neo-Chumashhave CaliforniaIndian ancestry.It appears
likelythatmostoftheSantaBarbaraSpanishor Californio
familiesthatsubsequently becameneo-Chumashgottheir
initialsparkfromCurletti's research.
In 1969, the two-year-old Indian Projectat the Uni-
of
versity California, Santa Barbara, launchedtheChumash
IdentificationProject(n.d.) to "restorethe'Chumash-ness'"'
to the region.It formeda loose coalitionin 1970 tryingto
uniteChumashand increasepublicawarenessofChumash
culture.Includedamong its 144 foundingmemberswere
enrolledmembersof the federallyrecognizedSanta Ynez
Band,SantaBarbaraChumashfamilies,and Curletti's neo-
Chumash. Althoughthe group'sby-lawsrequiredvoting
membersto be Chumashdescendants,no one verifiedan-
cestry.Therefore, votersin the firstelectionincluded 11
membersofgenerations H-J,one ofwhomwasevenelected
to office.Membersof generationsI and Jthenalso joined
the coalition.Curletti'sinabilityto findtheirostensible
Chumashancestry, in additionto othercoalitionmembers'
memories of them as Spanish, fueled conflictsthat caused
the Santa Ynez and Santa Barbara Chumash to quit. There-
fore,by the late 1970s, the coalition was controlled by gen-
erations I and J (O'Connor 1989:13).
Some members of generation Jwere participants in a
non-Indian counterculturalcommune, the leader of which
advanced the idea that Santa Barbara lies in a sacred
space where the Chumash, an ancient civilized race, would
return to prominence after a great apocalypse (Trompf
1990).12 wereencouragedto ex-
GenerationJparticipants
press Chumash identityin these settingsand were inspired
to constructa more satisfyingculture,which theypromoted
as "Chumash Traditionalism."The Chumash Identification
Project's coalition provided participants entree into local
This content downloaded from 193.144.61.254 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:15:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Haleyand Wilcoxon * Talesof Ethnogenesis 441
environmental disputes;there,Chumash identityproved
valuable to developmentopponents.These environmen-
tal disputes,ofteninvolvinginterventions on behalfofthe
neo-Chumashby anthropologists, earnedthemwiderle-
gitimacy(Haleyand Wilcoxon1997; O'Connor 1989). The
coalitionalso soughtfederalacknowledgment as an Indian
tribeforneo-Chumashmembers.Becausefederalacknowl-
edgmentrequirespoliticaland socialcontinuities, thepro-
cess fosteredclaimsthatearliergenerations"had to hide
theirIndianness,"went"underground," or had "passedas
Mexican."However,the push forfederalacknowledgment
stalledwhenthecoalitionranoutoffundsand a secondge-
nealogistconfirmed the lackof Chumashancestryin neo-
Chumashhistory.
In a recent study, Martha Menchaca uses her
"Chumash"in-lawsto supporther "unconventionalview
thatMexicanAmericanswerepartof the indigenouspeo-
ples of the AmericanSouthwest,"because "by the turnof
the nineteenthcenturya largepart of the mestizocolo-
nial populationwas of southwestern AmericanIndian de-
scent" (2001:2, 17). However,Menchaca makesa serious
error:She assumesthatcastes,races,and currentidentity
assertionstransparently reflect ancestry.Unfortunately, her
in-lawsare amongthe neo-Chumashin Figure1, so much
ofMenchaca'sworkis simplyuntenable.Nevertheless, the
significance of Menchaca's legitimizing of neo-Chumash
is its reassertionand racializingof territorial primacy-as
when theirCalifornioancestorscalled Mexicans"foreign-
ers."Previously an advantageofSpanishidentity, territorial
primacy is reassertednow in indigenous form to counter-
acttherenewedimmigrant loathingrampant in theregion.
Bornintoan immigrant familyherself, Menchacahas both
experiencedand studiedCalifornia'santi-Mexicanpreju-
dice.Ourownresearchconfirms itsseverity(Haley1997),so
againwe findourselvessympathetic to a scholar'smotives
althoughnot necessarilyher scholarship.Menchaca does
not challengetheideologicalbasisofanti-immigrant preju-
dice;instead,shesimplyredirects itagainstothercategories
ofpeople.
NORMALIZINGNEO-CHUMASHETHNOGENESIS
Froman arbitrary16th-century startingpoint, we have
tracedchanges in culturalidentitywithinrelatedfami-
lies transiting through various castes, gente sin and de
raz6n, Californio,white,Spanish, and neo-Chumash. These
changes occurredbecause of an inherentdefectof the classi-
ficationscheme, as an identitylost salience amidst changing
conditions, as subjects sought higherstatus,or because of a
combination of these. Within this context,the transforma-
tion of Santa Barbara Spanish families into neo-Chumash
does not seem unusual. Certainly,it is a revision of history
fromwhole cloth, yet it also reflectsthe local social con-
text in ascertainable ways. Clearly,people can create iden-
tities fromwhole cloth if they have access to appropriate
knowledge and outside support, and if the identityfitslo-
cal expectations. Neo-Chumash ethnogenesis is a rejection
of two viable alternativeidentities,whose originstoriesalso
442 ,American Anthropologist* Vol. 107,No. 3 * September2005

incorporate objectiveerrors:(1) Spanish-Californio, which alness"to derivemorefromtheirlevelofcommitment and

stressesthe frontier as formative yettendsto romanticize usefulness to others(Barth1969). Thishas proveneffective
and whitenhistory, and (2) ChicanoorMexicanAmerican, in establishingand maintainingneo-Chumashlegitimacy
whichracializesMexicanheritageand appropriates "thede- locallyand in certainwidernetworks.Theongoingdenialor
clineoftheCalifornios"forlaterimmigrants. The simulta- concealmentofthehistoricalrecordby neo-Chumashand
neous existenceof all threeidentitieschallengesassump- supporters suggeststhatthingsarenot at thepointreached
tions that an associationwith Mexico dictatesa unified after1790 in Spain'scolonieswhenauthorities precipitated
identity. caste'scollapseby decliningto declarepeople's caste.We
Nation-statepolicies,frontiers, and bordersplay ma- see no scholarlyneed to demonizeneo-Chumashformak-
jor roles in shapingidentity. The we have de-
identities ingtheirclaims,and we do not seekto defendtheveracity
scribedincludesome accompaniedby legal sanctionsand of theirclaims.Theirsocial historydemonstrates and ex-
some that are not. The formerinclude colonial castes, plainsidentity's continuousreformulation. Neo-Chumash
gentede raz6n-gentesin raz6n,U.S. categoriesof "white- arewho theyarenow,but not who theyhave alwaysbeen
ness"preceding1960,Indian,Mexicanin 1930,and immi- orevenwho theyarelikelyto alwaysbe. Nevertheless, with
grant.Those not legallysanctionedincludeCalifornioand newsaliencein thecontextofimmigration, indigenization
Spanish identities.Caste, white,and neo-Chumash(esp. ofidentityin theSouthwestis unlikelyto end soon.
throughtheCalifornia judgmentroll'suseofa datetodefine
CaliforniaIndians) each conflatelegal statuswithorigin,
BRIAND. HALEYDepartment of Anthropology,State Uni-
even thoughprecisionregarding originwas not crucialto
theoriginalactofclassifying. Thisgivesriseto similarissues. ofNewYorkCollegeatOneonta,Oneonta,NY 13820
versity
of identityby outsidersis one of culturaliden- LARRYR. WILCOXON Wilcoxon and Associates,Santa
Ascription
most crucialelements(Barth1969). It normallyin- Barbara,CA 93101
tity's
volvesnegotiationand frequently contestation.Legalsanc-
tioning formalizes some of the ascriptionprocess,inviting
NOTES
contestation. Contestationof any identitymaytakea per-
Acknowledgments. Olivera
Phyllis thebasicgenealogical
compiled
nicious "real" versus"fake"debate form,but this is vir- dataforWilcoxonin 1986.Weresumedthestudyin 1999.Research
tuallyguaranteedwhen legal standingis conflatedwith wasfundedbytheUniversityofCalifornia forMexicoand
Institute
notions of ancestry.In the debate over the "indigeniza- theUnitedStatesandtheStateUniversity
ofNewYorkCollegeat
Wethank
Oneonta. thestaffs
oftheSantaBarbara
MissionArchive
tionofmodernity," ourdatairrefutably confirm Friedman's SantaBarbaraPresidio ofAnthropol-
Library; Archives;
Department
(1999:392-393) "new and strangecombinations"rather ogy,SantaBarbaraMuseumofNatural GledhillLibrary,
History;
than MarshallSahlins's(1999) reemergence of indigenes. Santa BarbaraHistoricalSocietyMuseum; and Santa Barbara
GenealogicalSocietyLibrary. MichaelKearneygenerouslyshared
But althoughFriedmanclaims that indigenizationcon- hismanuscript priortopublication.CynthiaKlink,MichaelBrown,
testsnation-state hegemony,neo-Chumashidentityarises RichardHandler,FrancesMascia-Lees, SusanLees,andthreeanony-
in symbiosiswithnation-state policiesthatassisteditsrise mousAAreviewers madehelpfulcommentson drafts. Wealoneare
responsible forall remaining errorsor omissions.
in the judgmentroll processyet also erectedconstraints
1. We arerelievedto see Haleyand Wilcoxon1997 also accurately
in the federalacknowledgment process.In a sense, fed- represented (see, e.g., Arnoldet al. 2004; Brown2003:171-204;
eral acknowledgment confersa higherstatus,much as a WarrenandJackson2002; Weiner1999).
decisionabout an individual'scastedid
court'sor official's 2. Theprimary sourcesconsistofcolonialexpeditionand garrison
in the past. A problemforneo-Chumashis thatthe offi- lists,censuses,churchand civilregisters, oral and writtenfamily
histories,landrecords, maps,citydirectories,obituaries, andletters.
cial "realness"oftheirchosenidentity is predicatedon one See thereferences fordetails.
criterionin negotiatingjudgmentroll statusand another 3. The repfiblica de espafiolesand reptiblica
de indioswerepoliti-
forfederalacknowledgment. It is preciselythe same prob- cal distinctions imposedearlyin thecolonialerato establishdiffer-
lem thatplagued espaftiol caste and whiteracialstatuses, entlegalstatuses,settlements, rights,and obligationsforcolonists
which fromthe outset never conformed to their idealized (espafioles)and thecolonized(indios).
4. The upperchartin Figure2 excludesa siblingrelationship in
purity. generationB, and both chartsexcludeindividualsin generations
The historicaldata we have presentedare the same sort H-J.
officialsuse to evaluate federal acknowledgment applica- 5. We use a varietyofterms(ethnonyms) to denoteidentity cate-
tions. Barringa major change in policy,our findingssuggest gories.Onlya fewofthemanySpanishcolonialcastetermsappear
in ourdata.Ancestry foreach casteis putativeand variesconsider-
that federalacknowledgment is unlikely to be achieved by thehighestcasteand fullSpanishancestry;
ably.Espaholdesignated
these neo-Chumash. This is one potential consequence of negro, a low casteof fullsub-SaharanAfricanancestry;and indio,
historical social analysis to which we alluded in our intro- a low casteof fullNew Worldancestry. Presumedmixedancestry
and intermediate statusesweredesignated mestizo (1/2espaiol, 1/2
duction. The best option neo-Chumash may have for re-
indio),mulato(1/2espafiol,1/2negro),castizo(3/4espafiol,1/4in-
taining public identitiesas local indigenes may be what Les dio), coyote(3/4indio, 1/4espafiol),and morisco(3/4negro,1/4
Field (1999) calls a "culturalist"strategy,
which eschews fed- espafiol).We haveone instanceoftheuse ofeuropeo to designatea
eral acknowledgmentin favorofadopting practicesthought highcasteofnon-SpanishfullEuropeanancestry (Mason 1998:47-
50). Californiois theethnonym chosenbyCalifornia-born colonial
to be central to a particularidentity.This permitstheir "re- descendantsduringMexican rule. Neo-Chumash is our termfor

This content downloaded from 193.144.61.254 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:15:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HaleyandWilcoxon* TalesofEthnogenesis443

persons who began claiminglocal aboriginal-or Chumash- ChumashIdentification Project

identityin thelate 1960swho lackthisancestry. N.d. PapersoftheChumashIdentification Project.Archivedma-
6. Sources:Allen1976:15,18; Anonymous1834; Bancroft1884- terial,RosarioCurlettiCollection.Departmentof Anthropol-
89, 1964; Barrios1999-2000; Bean and Mason 1962:60; Crosby ogy,SantaBarbaraMuseumofNaturalHistory, SantaBarbara,
1994:418,420-421;Eldredge1912; FranciscanFathers1999,n.d.a, CA.
n.d.b, n.d.c, n.d.d, n.d.e; Geiger1972; Gillingham1983; Layne Conrow,Douglas
1934; Lo Buglio1977, 1981; Mason 1998; Northrop1984, 1986; 1993 The PresidioHispanicCommunity, 1880-1920.In Santa
BarbaraPresidioArea 1840 to the Present.Carl V. Harris,
Ortega1781,1939.
JarrelC. Jackman, and CatherineRudolph,eds. Pp. 113-118.
7. Wehavenotfoundcastesfornineimmigrants. Threeothersnot Santa Barbara:University of California,Santa BarbaraPub-
recordedin 1790wererecordedat othertimesas espafiol,mestizo,
and indio.See N. 5 forinformation on terms. Slic HistoricalStudies,and Santa BarbaraTrustfor Historic
Preservation.
8. Ex-grantees Josede la Asenci6nDominguez(E) andJoseRam6n Cope, R. Douglas
Romero(F) werelistedas laborersin 1860 and 1880,respectively 1994 The Limitsof RacialDomination.Madison:University of
(U.S. Census Bureau1860:181, 1870:475,1880:District 82, Sheet WisconsinPress.
16). Crosby,HarryW.
9. Two in generationF ownedland thatdid not produceenough 1994 AntiguaCalifornia: Missionand Colonyon thePeninsular
to supportthem. Frontier,1697-1768.Albuquerque:University ofNew Mexico
Press.
10. See Santa BarbaraCity Directory1943. Also U.S. Census Curletti,Rosario
1900:District 150 Sheet5A,District154 Sheets13Aand B, District 1969 Letterto the AreaDirector, Bureauof IndianAffairs "RE:
155 Sheet3A; 1910:District166 Sheet9B, District172 Sheet5A,
District173 Sheet13B,District221 Sheet9B; 1930:District 8 Sheet Applicationsin grouplabeled:Descendantsof Paula Rubio-
her motherbeing 'la India-Ursula,'" September18, 1969.
16A,District54 Sheet6B. Archivedmaterial,RosarioCurlettiCollection.Department of
11. See Bancroft1964:122-123;FranciscanFathers1999: July4, Anthropology, SantaBarbaraMuseumofNaturalHistory, Santa
1793; Gillingham1983:86,191-192,392; Layne1934:202;Mason Barbara,CA.
1998:78;Northrop1986:125,289. de la Guerra,Jos6
12. We have mentionedcountercultural influencespreviously 1864 Josede la Guerrato Pablode la Guerra,May4, 1864,Santa
Barbara.Archivedmaterial,de la GuerraPapers,Folder368.
(Erlandsonet al. 1998:505; Haley 2002:116) withoutexplaining
theroleofthosecommunities' beliefs.Reference
hereis notto the SantaBarbaraMissionArchiveLibrary, SantaBarbara,CA.
communeofthelateSemuHuaute. Eldredge, ZoethSkinner
1912 The Beginningsof San Francisco.New York:John C.
Rankin.
REFERENCES CITED Erlandson,Jon McVey,ChesterKing,Lillian Robles,Eugene E.
Allen,Patricia Ruyle,Diana Drake Wilson,RobertWinthrop,ChrisWood,
1976 Historyof RanchoEl Conejo. VenturaCountyHistorical BrianD. Haley,and LarryR. Wilcoxon
SocietyQuarterly 21(1):1-97. 1998 CA Forumon Anthropology in Public:The Makingof
Anonymous ChumashTradition:Repliesto Haleyand Wilcoxon.Current
1834 Padr6nde SantaBarbara,afiode 1834.Archived material, Anthropology 39(4):477-510.
StatePapers,Missions,vol. V,p. 506. Bancroft Univer-
Library, Field,Les
sityofCalifornia,Berkeley. 1999 Complicitiesand Collaborations.CurrentAnthropology
Arnold,JeanneE., MichaelR. Walsh,and SandraE. Hollimon 40(2):193-209.
2004 The Archaeology of California.
Journalof Archaeological Forbes,JackD.
Research12(1):1-73. 1966 Black Pioneers:The Spanish-Speaking Afroamericans of
Bancroft,HubertHowe theSouthwest. Phylon27(3):233-246.
1884-89 Historyof California.7 vols. San Francisco:A. L. FranciscanFathers
Bancroft. 1999 MatrimonialInvestigation Records,MissionSan Gabriel,
1964 California Pioneer Registerand Index, 1542-1848. 1788-1861.Archived material,theMcPhersonCollection,Spe-
Baltimore:RegionalPublishing. cial Collections,Honnold/MuddLibrary,ClaremontColle-
Barrios,Phelipe ges, http://voxlibris.claremont.edu/sc/collections/marrinvest/
1999-2000[1773] List of Individuals of the Compafia de matinvest.htm, accessedOctober6, 2000.
Cuera of [Loreto]... Garrisonedin the New Presidiosof San N.d.a San GabrielMissionBaptisms.Archivedmaterial,Santa
Diego and San Carlos de Monterrey. In Spanish-American BarbaraMissionArchiveLibrary, SantaBarbara,CA.
Surname Histories.Lyman Platt, comp. and ed. Records N.d.b San GabrielMissionMarriages.Archivedmaterial,Santa
312192-312193.Provo,UT:Ancestry, Inc.Electronicdatabase, BarbaraMissionArchiveLibrary, SantaBarbara,CA.
http://www.ancestry.com, accessedJanuary12,2001. N.d.c SantaBarbaraMissionIndian Burials.Archivedmaterial,
Barth,Fredrik SantaBarbaraMissionArchiveLibrary, SantaBarbara,CA.
1969 Introduction. In EthnicGroupsand Boundaries: TheSocial N.d.d SantaBarbaraPresidioBaptisms.Archived Santa
material,
Organizationof CulturalDifference. FredrikBarth,ed. Pp. 9- Barbara Mission ArchiveLibrary,Santa Barbara,CA.
38. Boston:Little,Brown. N.d.e Santa BarbaraPresidioMarriages.Archivedmaterial,Santa
Baudrillard,
Jean Barbara Mission ArchiveLibrary,Santa Barbara,CA.
1988 America.NewYork:Verso. Friedman,Jonathan
Bean,JohnLowell,and WilliamMarvinMason 1999 Indigenous Strugglesand the Discreet Charm of the Bour-
1962 Diaries and Accountsof the Romero Expeditionsin geoisie. Journalof World-SystemsResearch 5(2):391-411.
Arizonaand California.Los Angeles:WardRitchiePress. Garcia-Moro, Clara, D. I. Toja, and Phillip L. Walker
Boggs,JamesP. 1997 Marriage Patterns of California's Early Spanish-Mexican
2002 Anthropological Knowledgeand Native AmericanCul- Colonists (1742-1876). Journalof Biosocial Science 29(2):205-
turalPracticein the LiberalPolity.AmericanAnthropologist 217.
104(2):599-610. Geiger,Maynard, O. F. M. (Order of FriarsMinor)
Brown,MichaelF. 1972 Six Census Records of Los Angeles and Its Immediate
2003 Who Owns Native Culture?Cambridge,MA: Harvard Area between 1804 and 1823. Southern California Quarterly
UniversityPress. 54(4):313-342.
Camarillo,Albert Gillingham, RobertCameron
1996[1979] Chicanos in a Changing Society.2nd edition. 1983[1961] The Rancho San Pedro. Rev. edition. Los Angeles:
Cambridge, MA:HarvardUniversity Press. Museum Reproductions.

This content downloaded from 193.144.61.254 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:15:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
444 AmericanAnthropologist* Vol. 107,No. 3 September2005

Gonzales,Angela 1998 The Censusof 1790: A DemographicHistoryof Colonial

1998 The (Re)Articulation of AmericanIndianIdentity:Main- California.Menlo Park,CA: BallenaPress.
tainingBoundariesand Regulating Accessto EthnicallyTied McLendon,Sally,andJohnR.Johnson,eds.
Resources.AmericanIndian Cultureand ResearchJournal 1999 CulturalAffiliation and LinealDescentof ChumashPeo-
22(4):199-225. plesin theChannelIslandsand theSantaMonicaMountains.
Goycoechea,Felipede ReportpreparedforArchaeology and Ethnography Program,
1785 Census of the Populationof Santa Barbara,October31, NationalParkService.Santa Barbara:Santa BarbaraMuseum
1785.Archivedmaterial,StatePapers,Missions,vol. 1, pp. 4- of NaturalHistoryand HunterCollege,City University of
9. BancroftLibrary,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley. NewYork.
Guti&rrez,Ramon A. McWilliams, Carey
1991 WhenJesusCame, the Corn MothersWentAway.Stan- 1990[1948] NorthfromMexico:The Spanish-Speaking People
ford:Stanford University Press. oftheUnitedStates.2nd edition.NewYork:Praeger.
Haas,Lisbeth Menchaca,Martha
1995 Conquestsand HistoricalIdentitiesin California,1769- 2001 Recovering History,Constructing Race:The Indian,Black,
1936. Berkeley:University ofCaliforniaPress. and WhiteRootsofMexicanAmericans. Austin:Universityof
Haley,BrianD. TexasPress.
1997 Newcomersin a Small Town: Change and Ethnicityin Miranda,GloriaE.
RuralCalifornia.Ph.D. dissertation,Universityof California, 1978 FamilyPatternsand the Social Orderin HispanicSanta
SantaBarbara. Barbara,1784-1848.Ph.D.dissertation, Department ofHistory,
2002 Going Deeper: Chumash Identity,Scholars,and Space- University ofSouthernCalifornia.
1981 Gentede Raz6nMarriagePatternsin Spanishand Mexi-
portsin Radic' and Elsewhere.Acta Americana10(1):113- can California:A Case StudyofSantaBarbaraand Los Angeles.
123.
2003 LiberalorCultural:A Comment.American SouthernCaliforniaQuarterly 63(1):1-21.
Anthropologist 1988 Racialand CulturalDimensionsin Gentede RazonStatus
105(2):476-477. in Spanishand MexicanCalifornia. SouthernCalifornia
2004 Reviewof PlacesThatCount:TraditionalCulturalProper- Quar-
tiesin CulturalResourceManagement.Southeastern Archaeol- terly70(3):265-278.
Moore,JohnH.
ogy23(2):226-228. 1994 PuttingAnthropology BackTogetherAgain:The Ethno-
In press The Case oftheThreeBaltazars:Indigenizationand the
Vicissitudesof the WrittenWord.SouthernCaliforniaQuar- geneticCritiqueofCladisticTheory.American Anthropologist
96(4):925-948.
terly. 2001 Ethnogenetic Patterns in NativeNorthAmerica. InArchae-
Haley,BrianD., and LarryR. Wilcoxon
1997 Anthropology andtheMakingofChumashTradition. Cur- ology,Language,and History:Essayson Cultureand Ethnic-
rentAnthropology 38(5):761-794. ity.JohnE. Terrell,ed. Pp. 31-56. Westport, CT: Berginand
1999 PointConceptionand the ChumashLand of the Dead: Garvey.
Notes.Journalof Californiaand Nabokov,Peter
RevisionsfromHarrington's 2002 A Forestof Time: AmericanIndian Ways of History.
GreatBasinAnthropology 21(2):213-235.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
2000 On Complicitiesand Collaborations. CurrentAnthropol-
Northrop, MarieE.
ogy41(2):272-273. 1984 Spanish-Mexican FamiliesofEarlyCalifornia:1769-1850,
Handler,Richard vol. 2. Burbank:SouthernCaliforniaGenealogicalSociety.
1985 On Dialogue and Destructive Analysis:Problemsin Nar- 1986[1976] Spanish-Mexican FamiliesofEarlyCalifornia:1769-
ratingNationalismand Ethnicity. JournalofAnthropological 1850, vol. 1. 2nd edition.Burbank:SouthernCaliforniaGe-
Research41(2):171-182.
nealogicalSociety.
Hoar,EdwardS. Nugent,Daniel
1852 CaliforniaCensus,1852,SantaBarbaraCounty.Archived 1998 Two,Three,ManyBarbarisms? The ChihuahuanFrontier
material,SantaBarbaraPresidioArchives, SantaBarbara,CA. in TransitionfromSocietyto Politics.In ContestedGround:
Jackson, RobertH. Frontierson theNorthern and SouthernEdgesof
1999 Race, Caste and Status: Indians in Colonial Spanish Comparative
the SpanishEmpire.Donna J.Guyand ThomasE. Sheridan,
America.Albuquerque:University ofNew MexicoPress. eds. Pp. 182-199.Tucson:University ofArizonaPress.
Johnson, JohnR. ObituaryFiles
2003 Will the "Real" ChumashPleaseStandUp? The Context N.d. BooksG and H. Archivedmaterial,GledhillLibrary, Santa
fora Radic'alPerception ofChumashIdentity. ActaAmericana BarbaraHistoricalSocietyMuseum,SantaBarbara,CA.
11(1):70-72. O'Connor,MaryI.
Kearney, Michael 1989 Environmental
2004 The Classifying and Value-FilteringMissionsof Borders. ImpactReviewand the Constructionof
Contemporary ChumashEthnicity. In NegotiatingEthnicity:
Anthropological Theory4(2):131-156. The ImpactofAnthropological Theoryand Practice.Susan E.
King,ThomasF. Keefe,ed. Pp. 9-17. NAPABulletin,8. Washington, DC: Amer-
2003 Places that Count: Traditional Cultural Propertiesin Cul- ican Anthropological Association.
tural Resource Management. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira
Ortega,Jose Francisco
Press. 1781 The Company which is to Garrison the Presidio and Mis-
Kohl, Philip L. sions of the Channel of Santa Barbara, October 30, 1781.
1998 Nationalism and Archaeology: On the Constructions of Archivedmaterial,CA 15 Provincial State Papers, Benicia Mil-
Nations and the Reconstructionsof the Remote Past. Annual itary.Pp. 106-108. BancroftLibrary,Universityof California,
Review of Anthropology27:223-246. Berkeley.
Layne,J.Gregg 1939[1782] Santa Barbara Presidio Company, July 1, 1782. In
1934 Annals of Los Angeles, Part I. California Historical Society Historyof Santa Barbara County. Owen H. O'Neill, ed. Pp. 54-
Quarterly13(3):195-234. 55. Santa Barbara: Union Printing.
Lo Buglio, Rudecinda Pico, Georgia
1977 Presidiode San Francisco,31 December 1776. Antepasados N.d. Memories of Mrs. Georgia Pico. Archived material, Fam-
2(3):21-32. ily Files. Gledhill Library,Santa Barbara Historical Society
1981 The 1839 Census of Los Angeles. Antepasados 4:40- Museum, Santa Barbara,CA.
44. Pitt,Leonard
Mason, William Marvin 1966 The Decline of the Californios: A Social History of the
1978 The Garrisons of San Diego Presidio: 1770-1794. Journal Spanish-Speaking Californians, 1846-1890. Berkeley:Univer-
of San Diego History24(4):409-411. sityof California Press.

This content downloaded from 193.144.61.254 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:15:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Haleyand Wilcoxon * Talesof Ethnogenesis 445

Powell,PhilipWayne ComparisonsofNew ReligiousMovements.GarryW. Trompf,

1952 Soldiers,Indiansand Silver:The Northward Advanceof ed. Pp. 35-94. Berlin:Moutonde Gruyter.
New Spain, 1550-1600. Berkeley:Universityof California U.S. CensusBureau
Press. 1850 Census of Santa BarbaraCounty-Started 8 Oct. 1850.
Radding,Cynthia Archivedmaterial,Santa BarbaraPresidioArchives,Santa
1997 WanderingPeoples: Colonialism,Ethnic Spaces, and Barbara,CA.
Ecological Frontiersin Northwestern Mexico, 1700-1850. 1860 EighthCensus of the United States,1860-Population
Durham,NC: Duke University Press. Schedules, Santa Barbara County, California.Electronic
Ruiz,JamesT. document,http://www.rootsweb.com, accessed October24,
N.d.a Don Vico. Archivedmaterial,FamilyFiles,JamesT. Ruiz 2000.
Recollections.GledhillLibrary, SantaBarbaraHistoricalSociety 1870 Ninth Census of the United States, 1870-Population
Museum,SantaBarbara,CA. Schedules,SantaBarbaraCounty,California.Electronic docu-
N.d.b The Ku KluxKlan.Archived material,FamilyFiles,James ment,http://www.ancestry.com, accessedDecember11,2001.
T. RuizRecollections. GledhillLibrary,SantaBarbaraHistorical 1880 Tenth Census of the United States, 1880-Population
SocietyMuseum,SantaBarbara,CA. Schedules,Santa Barbaraand VenturaCounties,California.
Sahlins,Marshall Electronic document,http://www.ancestry.com, accessedMay
1999 WhatIs Anthropological Enlightenment? SomeLessonsof 17, 2001.
the20thCentury. AnnualReviewofAnthropology 28:i-xxiii. 1900 TwelfthCensus of the United States: 1900-Population
Sainchez,Rosaura Schedules,Santa BarbaraCounty,California.Electronicdoc-
1995 Telling Identities: The Californio Testimonios. ument,http://www.ancestry.com, accessedJuly31, 2001.
Minneapolis:University ofMinnesotaPress. 1910 Thirteenth CensusoftheUnitedStates,1910-Population
SantaBarbaraCityDirectory Schedules,SantaBarbaraCounty,California.Electronic docu-
1943 Electronic document, http://www.vitalsearch-ca.com/ ment,http://www.ancestry.com, accessedAugust3, 2001.
gen/ca/sba/sbadlink.htm#CD, accessedMarch2, 2002. 1920 Fourteenth CensusoftheUnitedStates,1920-Population
Schultz,Karen Schedules,Santa Barbaraand Venturacounties,California.
1993 The Presidioand Surrounding Community,1840-1880. Electronicdocument,http://www.ancestry.com, accessedDe-
In Santa BarbaraPresidioArea 1840 to the Present.Carl V. cember18,2000.
Harris,JarrelC. Jackman,and CatherineRudolph,eds. Pp. 1930 Fifteenth Census of the UnitedStates,1930-Population
1-15. Santa Barbara:University of California,Santa Barbara Schedules,SantaBarbaraCounty,California.Electronic docu-
PublicHistoricalStudiesand Santa BarbaraTrustforHistoric ment,http://www.ancestry.com, accessedMay22, 2002.
Preservation. Warren, KayB.,andJeanE. Jackson
Seed,Patricia 2002 Introduction:StudyingIndigenous Activismin Latin
1982 Social Dimensionsof Race: Mexico City,1753. Hispanic America.In IndigenousMovements,Self-Representation, and
AmericanHistoricalReview62(4):569-606. theStatein LatinAmerica.KayB. WarrenandJeanE. Jackson,
JohnEdward,ed.
Terrell, eds. Pp. 1-46. Austin:UniversityofTexasPress.
2001 Archaeology, Language,and History:Essayson Culture Weber,DavidJ.
and Ethnicity.Westport, CT: Berginand Garvey. 1992 The SpanishFrontier in NorthAmerica.New Haven,CT:
Thomas,David Hurst YaleUniversity Press.
1991 HarvestingRamona'sGarden:Lifein California'sMyth- Weiner, JamesF.
ical Mission Past. In ColumbianConsequences,vol. 3: The 1999 Culturein a Sealed Envelope:The Concealmentof Aus-
SpanishBorderlands in Pan-American DavidHurst
Perspective. tralianAboriginalHeritageand Traditionin the Hindmarsh
Thomas,ed. Pp. 119-157.Washington, DC: Smithsonian Insti- IslandBridgeAffair. Journalof the RoyalAnthropological In-
tutionPress. stitute5(2):193-210.
Trompf, Garry Wolf,EricR.
1990 The Cargoand the Millenniumon BothSidesof the Pa- 1982 Europeand thePeoplewithoutHistory. Berkeley:Univer-
cific.In CargoCultsandMillenarian Movements: Transoceanic sityofCaliforniaPress.

This content downloaded from 193.144.61.254 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:15:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions