By
Alan Leventhal (Tribal Ethnohistorian), Rosemary Cambra (Chairwoman, Muwekma
Ohlone Tribe), Loretta Escobar-Wyer (Chairwoman, Esselen Nation), and Irene
Zwierlein (Chairwoman, Amah Mutsun Costanoan/Ohlone Tribe
Archaeological evidence attests to the fact that Native American populations
occupied the greater San Francisco-Monterey Bay regions for at least 10,000 -
12,000 years. This evidence has been published as part of a major Caltrans
Project (Highway 101 Bypass) located in south San Jose at site Ca-SCl-178
(Hildebrandt 1983) and also derived from prehistoric site Ca-SCr-177 (Cartier
et. al. 1993) located in Scotts Valley near Santa Cruz.
Over the millennia, California became one of the most linguistically complex
areas of the world. Within the Monterey/San Francisco Bay region several major
languages were spoken by over 125 autonomous tribal groups. The San Francisco
Bay region south of Marin to Monterey Bay was occupied by many Ohlone/Costanoan
speaking tribal groups. The autonomous Esselen tribal groups lived in the
mountainous areas surrounding the site which was to become the Carmel Mission.
It is from the intermarriage of these two non-related Native California Indian
groups (Esselen and Rumsen Ohlone) that the present day tribal families
comprising the United Esselen Nation of the Central Coast of California are
descended.
Some Key Dates and Events
in San Francisco/Monterey Bay Region History
December 16, 1602 -
January 3, 1603
Sebastian Vizcaino sailed into Monterey Bay for repairs and supplies. Various
tribal members from the Esselen and Ohlone rancherias visit and provide food
for Vizcaino and his crew.
November 26, 1769
Land expedition led by Gaspar de Portola and Fray Juan Crespi arrive and
establish a settlement at Monterey Bay.
December 27, 1770
The first Native American was baptized from the village of Achasta.
Advent of the Hispano-European Empire
As the Spanish padres and military men were establishing a foothold for the
northernmost frontier of the Spanish Empire, it was the baptized and converted
Esselen and Costanoan/Ohlone Indians who built and supported, as indentured
laborers, the seven northern Franciscan missions, presidios and pueblos. The
end result from the impact of European civilization, culminated in some cases
with the utter destruction of many of these tribal groups.
The California Indian Tribal Side of History: A Perspective From the Esselen and
Costanoan/Ohlone Indians
The ancestors of the present-day Esselen Nation, Amah-Mutsun Band of
Costanoan/Ohlone Indians and the Muwekma Costanoan/Ohlone Indians of the San
Francisco Bay Region tribal groups were born before and during the late 18th
century; into a world experiencing the adverse impact of Hispano-European
contact and cultural transition.
Esselen Nation Ancestry
Ponciana Ysabel was born around 1725 in the rancheria of Tucutnut, located
several miles above the mouth of the Carmel River. She was the
great-grandmother on the mother's side of Inez Lopopche who was born in the
year 1800 at the Carmel Mission.
Ubaldo Jose Lopotschoschu was born around 1775 in the rancheria of Echilat and
married Quiteria Maria who was born about 1753, also in the rancheria of
Echilat. They were the paternal grandparents of Inez Lopopche.
Inez Lopopche married Salvador Mucjai (born 1796, in the rancheria of
Sargenta-ruk, located south of Carmel) on February 27, 1816 and were the
grandparents of Maria Tomasa Dolores Manjares.
Maria Tomasa Dolores Manjares was the mother of Edith Rose Piazzoni who was
registered with the BIA during the 1928 - 1933 California Jurisdictional Act
enrollment.
Edith Rose Piazzoni married Antonio Escobar, who along with his brother,
Augustine Escobar were both registered with the BIA during the 1928-1933
California Jurisdictional Act enrollment. They trace their California Native
American ancestry back to the marriage of Marcelino Escobar and his Native
American wife Tomasa Antonia Garcia (listed as India de Monterey), and the
marriage of Manuel Butron and his Native American wife Margarita Maria (from
the rancheria of Tucutnut). Based upon mission records and other document
research, Augustine and Antonio's mother (Guadalupe Maria Soto) and father
(Jose Theodoro Escobar) were both of local Monterey Bay Native American
descent.
The ancestral relations presented above represent only a portion of the key
contributing lineages comprising the enrolled Esselen Nation families today.
Amah-Mutsun Tribe of Costanoan/Ohlone Indians
The Amah-Mutsun tribe are represented by the various surviving lineages who
spoke the Hoomontwash or Mutsun Ohlone language. The majority of Mutsun
speaking tribal groups were baptized at Mission San Juan Bautista. Some of the
principal family members are historical Native American figures (e.g., Barbara
Solorsano, her daughter Ascencion Solorsano de Cervantes, and Guadalupe
Ortega). Several Amah-Mutsun people still spoke their language fluently at the
turn of the 20th century. Ascencion Solorsano de Cervantes (a renowned Mutsun
doctor), also served (until her death in 1930) as principal linguistic and
cultural informant to J. P. Harrington of the Bureau of American
Ethnology/Smithsonian Institution. Many of Ascencion's descendants are
presently tribal officers and members.
Another lineage traces itself to Guadalupe Ortega. It was Guadalupe Ortega's
daughter Soledad who married Caterino Gilroy (son of John Gilroy). The present
Chairwoman of the Amah-Mutsun tribe, Irene Zwierlein, is the
great-granddaughter of Soledad Ortega Gilroy.
Muwekma Tribe of Costanoan/Ohlone Indians of the San Francisco Bay
The Muwekma tribe, much like the Amah Band, takes its name from the aboriginal
linguistic word for The People. The Muwekma speaking tribal groups were
basically distributed along the East Bay (Contra Costa and Alameda Counties)
and the South and West Bay (Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties). The majority
of the lineages belonging to the Muwekma tribe trace family members who were
baptized at Mission San Jose, with some ancestors coming from Mission Santa
Clara and Mission Dolores in San Francisco. After the missions were secularized
in 1834-36, many of the San Francisco/ Monterey Bay aboriginal groups, although
greatly reduced and intermarried with other neighboring Indians, survived and
were still culturally intact.
Another major devastating impact to the lives and well-being of the all the
California Tribes came in the forms of the 1846 Bear Flag Revolt, the 1848 Gold
Rush and ensuing California statehood. For many of the surviving "Coastal
Groups", their aboriginal homelands became safe havens for their families and
also for interior tribal relations seeking refuge from diseases and hostilities
perpetrated by miners, newly established ranch land owners and the military.
Even though twenty-three Central California Indians were recruited by Fremont
and served in the army against the last Californio/Mexican regime, these
California Indian men were never paid for their services.
It was in the East Bay, near the present-day towns of Pleasanton, Sunol and
Niles that three rancherias sprang-up on Californio-rancho lands and maintained
themselves until 1915, when the last person living on the Alisal Rancheria
(Katherine Peralta Marine) left. Although the rancherias were abandoned, the
various Indian lineages and families still maintained their tribal cohesiveness
during the 20th century, through social mechanisms (e.g., births, marriages,
deaths and etc.), and continued to speak their languages until the 1930's. As
in the case of the Esselen and Amah tribes, several of the Muwekma elders
served as Harrington's Chochenyo (Ohlone) linguistic and cultural informants.
Why Weren't the Ohlones and Esselens Federally Recognized?
After conducting intensive genealogical and historical research over the past 12
years, as Unrecognized tribes seeking Federal Acknowledgement, we found that
during 1851-1852 Congress authorized three commissioners to "treat" with the
tribes of California. During this time 18 separate treaties were negotiated
with 129 tribes signing. We also learned that the treaties were set up to
accomplish two basic goals: first, to formally cede, through treaty, the
majority of California to the United States Government; and second, to set
aside 8.5 million acres of land in the interior of the state to be used by the
California tribes as reservations lands (see attached map). Due to the
prevalent attitudes held by the "post-conquest" elected California Senators
toward Indians, these 18 treaties were never ratified by Congress. Apparently,
they were also suppressed by the Senate, until their rediscovery in 1905.
During this post-American-conquest period (1851-1905) many of the California !
tribal communities were recognized
as existing by the United States Government, but were not entitled to receive
any benefits, subsidies or land. The bottom-line was, that these landless (and
in many cases homeless) Indians had to fend for themselves as individuals or
individual families.
The psychological and sociological impact on these various tribal communities
and families was devastating; so much so that it led Kroeber (one of the
founding Anthropologists from Berkeley) to conclude in 1925 that the Esselens
and Costanoan Indians were "extinct as far as practical purposes are
concerned". This academic death knell would ultimately influence the next
several generations of educators, politicians, scholars and other public
officials to accept, if not further, the absoluteness of tribal extinction.
This process of pronouncing tribal groups extinct continues to this present day
(see Kehoe 1992), even though Kroeber publicly reversed himself during the 1955
California Claims hearings in San Francisco and Berkeley. Furthermore, Heizer
(Kroeber's student , colleague, and co-author) formally published the full text
of the claims docket document in a Berkeley Anthropological Publication series
in 1970.
Independently of the extinction pronouncements discussed above, we also learn
that all of the known Ohlone/Costanoan and Esselen communities were apparently
recognized by the BIA. The various aforementioned tribal groups appear in
several special censuses between 1902-1906, which were conducted by special
agent C. E. Kelsey on behalf of the BIA/Interior Department. These tribal
communities also appear on the official 1913 BIA tribal map for California (see
attached). Here on this map, by 1913, we find that the Ohlones all but
disappeared, as identifiable Costanoan Indians. For the East Bay Muwekma Tribe,
we discover on the map, the population number 30 located near Mission San Jose,
at a place called Verona. Further research has disclosed the fact that there
wasn't any town called Verona. It turned out that Verona was the name of the
railroad station stop at the Hearst's Hacienda estate. Apparently when the
Hearst's purchased their land from the old Californio Bernal family !
in the 1880's, they also, quaintly
enough, acquired the Alisal Rancheria which was established there over 20 years
earlier. As a result, we now find the surviving Costanoan/Ohlone tribal
community formally referenced and designated as the Verona Band of Indians.
In 1924 Indians become citizens of the United States. We also know that Native
Americans throughout the different regions of the United States have served in
all of its major wars including the American Revolution, The War of 1812, the
Bear Flag Revolt, the American Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Korean
War, Vietnam, and Desert Storm (e.g., recently Michael Galvan, a Muwekma Ohlone
tribal member, returned from serving there).
Perhaps one of the most crucial and pivotal, yet historically invisible, events
happened in 1927. It adversely affected many of the aboriginal tribal
communities of California. This event, occurring just one year before the
enactment of the California Jurisdictional Act of 1928, was perhaps the single
most disenfranchising process that would ultimately deny Federal
Acknowledgement to all of the Ohlone and Esselen tribal communities. This
process of denying Federal Recognition did not take place in Washington D.C.,
but from the armchair of Mr. L. A. Dorrington, Superintendent of Indian Field
Service in Sacramento, California.
As a result of responding to an update request from the Commissioner of Indian
Affairs, regarding the purchase "of land for homeless California Indians",
Superintendent Dorrington, apparently relying only on Kelsey's 1902-06 census
data, rather than conducting an on-site tribal community needs assessment,
responded with the following information about the Ohlone/Costanoan and Esselen
tribal communities:
Alameda County
Estimated Indian population of Alameda County is 125, but all of this number,
with the exception mentioned below, reside in the cities of Alameda County,
where they have gone to procure employment. There is one band in Alameda
County commonly known as the Verona Band, which consists of about thirty
individuals, located near the town of Verona; these Indians were formally those
that resided in close proximity of the Mission San Jose.
It does not appear at the present time that there is a need for the purchase of
land for the establishment of their homes.
Monterey County
The Indian population of Monterey County is small, consisting of approximately
79 persons, distributed as follows:
Pleyto.......................26
Jolon........................25
Milpitas.....................8
The Pleyto band have provided their own homes and are not in need of any home
site.
The Jolon band do not require land for home site.
The Milpitas band do not require land for home site.
San Benito County
In San Benito County we find the San Juan Baptista band, which reside in the
vicinity of the Mission San Juan Baptista, which is located near the town of
Hollister. These Indians have been well cared for by the Catholic priests and
no land is required (see Dorrington letter June 23, 1927).
Concluding Comments About Our Disenfranchisement From Federal Recognition
It is our position that had Dorrington conducted a responsible assessment as a
public official, rather than evaluated the needs of the Costanoan/Ohlone and
Esselen Tribal communities from his arm chair, we believe that these tribal
communities would have received home sites with the funding provided by special
legislation for homeless Indians in California. Furthermore, had the purchase
of homesites been accorded to any families from these tribal communities, then
those purchased lands would have, by statute, been allocated rancheria/trust
lands status for the tribe. Therefore, the fact that Dorrington could not
adequately evaluate or identify the needs of these Central Coastal Tribal
communities led him, either intentionally or unintentionally, to undermine
their only access at the time to the Federal Recognition process.
We believe Dorrington based his determinations on selected data from Kelsey's
1904 and 1905-06 incomplete censuses. For instance, Dorrington omitted any
reference to the Esselen/Costanoan Indian people (families) that Kelsey
identified earlier as residing in Monterey County: 50 people living at Monterey
(City), 45 people at Bird Haven, 19 people at Mansfield, 15 people at Pacific,
5 people at Arroyo Seco, and 4 people at Sur; or Muwekma Costanoan/ Ohlone
families residing in other San Francisco Bay counties and communities: 8 people
at Niles (Alameda), 20 at Byron and 5 at Danville (Contra Costa), 35 at Redwood
City and 30 at San Mateo (San Mateo County); or Amah-Mutsun Ohlone families
residing in Santa Cruz County: 40 people at Santa Cruz (City) and 30 at
Watsonville. The adverse effects resulting from Dorrington's armchair
assessment about the housing and general welfare needs for the Central Coastal
tribal groups, is clearly demonstrated in the case of the written inquiry!
sent to the Sacramento Indian Age
ncy in 1936, by Mrs. Dolores Galvan, a Muwekma tribal elder (Verona band) about
the status of her claim. Based upon the written statement of need and inquiry
contained in Mrs. Galvan's correspondence, and the ensuing responses from
several different branches of government, we have to conclude that Mr.
Dorrington was wrong about his assessment of these tribal communities.
This historically invisible, yet detrimental event has adversely affected the
well-being of these surviving populations of Central California coastal tribal
groups. These tribal groups (Esselen Nation, Amah-Mutsun and Muwekma) are as
much Californian Indian as any other California Indian tribe, however, because
they are not "Federally Recognized", they are second class citizens within
their own aboriginal homelands: never validated by public institutions or
agencies representing the dominant society, always having to prove who they are
to these agencies regardless of all of their Mission Record, BIA and other
historic documentation, all because Dorrington, as an appointed public
official, decided to pontificate upon their status and declare unilaterally
that they were not in any need of homes.
Evidence of Continuous Recognition by the United States Government
The Recognized Status of our tribes have been continuously reaffirmed, both
directly and indirectly, by various arms of the United States Government:
1. Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo 1848
2. The President of the United States authorizes three commissioners
(Redick, Barbour and Wozencraft) to "Treat" with the California Tribes. As a
result 18 treaties were negotiated and signed by 139 tribal chiefs and headmen
in good faith. In 1852 these treaties were not ratified by the U.S. Senate,
therefore the surveyed tracts of land slated for cession, were never legally
acquired by the United States. The Muwekma Tribe of the San Francisco Bay,
Amah-Mutsun Tribe and Esselen Nation, were party to and intended beneficiaries
of the following Treaties:
E. Treaty of Dent's and Ventine's Crossing, May 28, 1851;
M. Treaty of Camp Fremont, March 19, 1851;
N. Treaty of Camp Barbour, April 29, 1851.
3. Our families were documented as Indians in all of the Post-1852 Federal
censuses.
4. Formal requests and petitions had been made on behalf of our tribes and
families for land and other benefits to President T. Roosevelt, the United
States Congress, Department of the Interior, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs
during the years 1903 and 1905. As a result Congress authorized, through the
Secretary of the Interior, Special Agent C. E. Kelsey to conduct an inspection
and assessment on the "existing conditions of the California Indians, and to
report to Congress at the next session some plan to improve the same" (Heizer
1979). Kelsey was only partially successful in this monumental task of
inspection. Furthermore, as part of this assessment process Kelsey generated a
special, but incomplete, "1905 -1906 Census of Non-Reservation Indians". Even
though he could not visit five of the Bay Area counties, some of the Muwekma
relations do appear in that document for Alameda County. However, because
Kelsey could not complete his census efforts within our respective!
tribal homelands (Bay Area Counti
es), we essentially "fell through the cracks" and became even more invisible to
the United States Government and Bureau of Indian Affairs relative to the
status of landless Indians in California and Federal Recognition process.
5. As a result of Kelsey's partially successful efforts, however, Congress
did move and passed the Acts of 1906 (34 Stat. L., 325-333), and April 30, 1908
(35 Stat. L., 70-76), which authorized with "special appropriations ... to
provide homes for the tribes in Northern California who were without lands ...
" (Letter dated October 13, 1913 to Representative Raker from C. F. Hauke,
Second Assistant Commissioner).
6. The Muwekma Tribe was reaffirmed by the United States Government in the
following letters concerning funding for land acquisition for the
"Verona-Sacramento bands" (August 19, 1916, C. F. Hauke to J. Terrell, Special
Commissioner), "Sacramento-Verona Bands" (October 16, 1916, John Terrell,
Special Commissioner Indian Service to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs), and
nine years later as identified above as "Verona Band in Alameda County" (June
23, 1927, L. A. Dorrington to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs).
7. As mentioned above, our men served in the United States armed forces.
Immediate family members served in World War I (prior to the Act to make all
American Indians citizens in 1924), World War II, Korea, Vietnam and most
recently in Desert Storm in 1991. Further research may yet identify immediate
family veterans from earlier wars and service prior to World War I.
8. Our various direct tribal ancestors had provided cultural and
linguistic information from 1921-1939 to J. P. Harrington, Cultural
Anthropologist/Linguist for the Smithsonian Institution, funded by the Federal
Government.
9. Our families were enrolled and approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
during the 1928-1933 enrollment census under the Jurisdictional Act of 1928.
10. The 82d Congress reaffirmed their relationship with the Costanoan tribes
in their House Report No. 2503 entitled Report with Respect to the House
Resolution Authorizing the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to Conduct
an Investigation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Pursuant to House Resolution
698; December 15, 1952. In this Congressional report the United States
Government recognizes the existence of the Costanoan tribes and land within
their ancestral territory. On page 217 the Costanoans are listed on the "Chart
of Tribes and Data in Part I and Part II". In Part I - Directory of Indian
Tribal and Band Groups the Costanoan tribes are identified as Costano and
misperceived as "a small group of Indians south of San Francisco Bay. They are
locally known as Santa Cruz Indians" (page 331). Later under Santa Cruz, the
tribes are identified as "a small group of Costanoan stock formerly occupying
that part of California, lying south of San Francisco and Suisan (!
Suisun) Bays, west of the San Joaq
uin River and extending south to a little beyond Monterey" (page 567). Then in
the Special Supplementary Data, we discover that for the 1950 Census, they
identify the tribes residing within 7 counties as follows: Alameda County -
urban Indians; Contra Costa County - urban Indians; Monterey County - Salinan;
San Francisco County - urban Indians; San Mateo County - urban Indians; Santa
Clara County - Costanoan; and Santa Cruz County - Costanoan (page 671). Finally
under the subject of Miscellaneous Indian Lands within California, they
identify the following: "Formerly Sacramento Agency, Rancherias, miscellaneous,
Amador ..., Sacremento, San Benito, ... Counties,..." (pages 716-717) thus
suggesting that the United States recognizes some relationship with the
Costanoans and land within their ancestral territory.
11. Our families continued to participate in the California Claims
Settlement from 1930 up until disbursement of the checks for $668.51 for
eligible tribal recipients in 1972.
12. Various Muwekma/Ohlone family members served on the Board of Directors
of the American Indian Historical Society in San Francisco in 1965. Later
several of the family members created a newly formed non-profit entity called
the Ohlone Indian Tribe, Inc. in 1971, when the American Indian Historical
Society transferred the Ohlone Cemetery to this fledgling tribal organization.
13. The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs
has recognized and certifies the Ohlone Families Consulting Services, business
arm of the Muwekma Tribe, as a Buy Indian Contractor under the provision of the
Buy Indian Act (25 USC 47), since 1988.
14. The Esselen Nation, Amah Mutsun Band of Ohlone Indians and the Muwekma
Tribe of Costanoan/Ohlone Indians of the San Francisco Bay have submitted their
formal request to the Research and Acknowledgement Branch of the BIA, in order
to petition for Federal Recognition as early as 1989.
Implications of Federal Recognition: Past, Present and Future
Without having the benefits of any funding resources or any formal reservation
lands, since the mid-to-late 19th century the various lineages and family
members comprising our three tribal groups have had to formulate survival
strategies for each successive generation. Our respective tribal groups have
also had to endure the distinction of being pronounced extinct (Kroeber 1925),
and then demonstrate the impossible, by coming back from extinction. In
actuality, we were not extinct, we became invisible and insignificant to the
dominant society. Furthermore, because we did not have any reservations nor
conformed to the dominant society's stereotypic view of performing-regalia
dressed California Indians (because we had to deal with just basic family
survival), our respective tribes as well as our sovereign rights were further
diminished during most of the 20th century. Over the past score of years, our
respective tribes and families have been the recipients of additional indign!
ities, perpetrated by the Bureau o
f Indian Affairs as well as other various Federal State, County and Municipal
Agencies and personnel, because of our deteriorated historic position and lack
of Federal Acknowledgement. However, as we have persevered and continue to
organize ourselves as fully functioning tribal governments and document our
respective tribal and family histories as we pursue Federal Recognition, we
have found that these negative factors have greatly diminished, and these
once-adverse agencies are now paying attention to and respecting us. The only
reason why this has happened is because we have demonstrated continuity, we
have proposed mutually beneficial and constructive partnerships with both the
private and public sectors and finally, through a variety of educational
processes, we have successfully dissolved many of the myths about our
respective people and tribes, by suppling all of the necessary documents that
not only prove who we are, but also demonstrate that we never left our ancestr!
al homes. Federal Recognition will
validate to the dominant society who we are, and serve as a vehicle that will
guarantee our children's survival and cultural heritage into the 21st century.
We therefore are seeking your support. Please write letters to your respective
Congressional and Senate representatives (Boxer and Feinstein for California)
stating that you support the Federal Acknowledgement of our tribes as well as
the other California Indian tribes petitioning for recognition throughout
California. Please inform them that you want them to either introduce
legislation or support any Federal legislation concerning Acknowledgement.
Also please address letters to Congressmen Mineta, Miller* and Delums and
Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbit. *[Please note that Congressman Miller did
introduce a Federal Acknowledgement Bill for the California tribes (HR 5436) in
1990 and supported by Congressmen/Congresswomen Boxer, Dellums, Lantos Pelosi,
Mineta, Panetta, Martinez, Brown, Bates and Hunter, but it never reached the
House Floor. In 1992 Miller reintroduced the bill again (HR 2144), but it was
reduced from an acknowledgement bill to a California Indian Advis!
ory Bill. For more information, p
lease contact the Muwekma Ohlone Tribal office 1845 The Alameda, San Jose, Ca.
95126, tel. (408) 293-9952 or fax (408)293-7843. If you need to answer by
e-mail, I will forward your
questions to the office: susanm@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
--