Thank you for your reply to Chairman Andy Salas regarding the study
“The Evolution of the Tongva Tribal Name” which I compiled and reported.
I would like to respond to some of your questions and comments as you
provided to Chairman Salas in order to clear up any misunderstanding that
may have occurred.
First of all, I am not a Native American nor am I a member of any Native
American tribe. I am a historical researcher with a career background in Audit.
These two skillsets allow me to objectively look at a topic, perform information
gathering research and base my conclusions on the facts as researched. As you
will probably agree, no matter how much a topic is researched, it will never be
100% accurate but as I learned in my audit career, if you are able to gather a
significant sample size of the population, you will be able to draw reasonable
conclusions based on the information that was gathered, reviewed and validated.
This study reviewed 161 sources of information relating to the “Tongva”, and as
far as I know it is the most complete and comprehensive study ever done on the
term “Tongva” as a tribal name. There is no other identified source, whether
published or not, which provides as many sources on the evolution of the “Tongva”
tribal name as this study, which contains over 1,000 pages.
Secondly, your reference to J.P. Harrington is quite accurate and I ensure you I did
not overlook his expertise on Southern California Native Americans. Dr. Harrington
lived from 1881-1961 and performed research for the Smithsonian Institute. His
focus was on disappearing languages of Native Americans and from 1915-1955
he researched the “Tongva” language, even noting that the term “Tongva” was
‘a place to grind seeds’.
Dr. Harrington primarily worked alone and published little before his death but much
of his works, like Dr. Merriam’s, were published well after his death after being heavily
edited. It should be noted that one of Dr. Harrington’s final published works was the
introduction to Bernice Eastman Johnston’s California Gabrielino Indians published in
1962 through the Southwest Museum.
In his introduction, Dr. Harrington did not use the term “Tongva” and Ms. Johnston
also did not use the term throughout her book as well. In regards, to William McCawley’s
book, we are in agreement that he used the “Tongva” term as a language, however
McCawley wrote his book “First Angelinos” in 1996, after the “Tongva” term was
introduced and publicized, and was probably influenced by its public use.
Furthermore, as this study was focused on the “Tongva” tribal name origin, references
to “Tongva” as a language or place name were only considered as “Tongva” general
documentation and information. Speaking a language or living in a location does not
mean that is one’s ancestral tribal name. As a point of reference, I speak English but
I am not from England or of English blood. I also speak Spanish but I am not from
Spain or of Spanish blood.
In addition, I live in San Gabriel but I do consider San Gabriel as my ancestral name.
As such whether one speaks a language or lives in a town/city/village, that does not
mean his heritage is of those languages or places.
Thirdly, your reference to Table 5.2 and identified sources of the “Tongva” term needs
further explanation. This survey included a review of 161 source of information.
Between 1771 and 1992, only nine (9) sources were identified which used the term
“Tongva”. These are listed here:
UC Berkeley Archaeology Survey Part 1 and Part 3, taken from notes written by
C. Hart Merriam between 1903 – 1933 but compiled, edited and printed in 1966;
American Anthropology Association meeting announcement written in 1905;
A newspaper article written in 1905 announcing the reading of a “Tongva” poem;
Notes written by J.P. Harrington in 1905 but edited, complied and published in 1978;
C. Hart Merriam’s book “Studies of California Indians” published in 1955 but based
on his notes from 1903 -1933;
Notes written by C. Hart Merriam between 1905 and 1929, significantly edited and
published in an undetermined timeframe;
Robert Heizer’s Territories and Names of California Indian Tribes published in 1966; and
Robert Heizer’s Handbook of North American Indians Volume 8 written in 1978
These are the only nine references of the term “Tongva” prior to 1992 which were identified
in this study and only three of the nine reference “Tongva” as a tribal name while the other
sources refer to “Tongva” as a language, stock or linguistics. It should be noted that six
of the 9 documents are based on C. Hart Merriam’s research, works that were extensively
edited, modified and published after his death.
In the only book written in his own words, “Studies of California Indians” Merriam refers to
San Gabriel Indians as ‘San Gabriels’ not “Tongva”. He references the “Tongva” in four
places in his book: a) as a remote relation to the Shoshonean, b) a reference to the
“Mortuary Ceremony”, c) a reference to a puberty dance and d) in reference to the
“Tongva” language for tobacco and pipe. Merriam refers to the “Tongva” as being from
Tejon and never identifies them from San Gabriel.
Finally, in respect to the Chumash, please do not compare the Chumash to the “Tongva”.
The Chumash were federally recognized in 1901 and were given their own reservation lands
by the federal government. The “Tongva”, attempted to gain California recognition in 1994
and were rejected.
In 2001, 2004 and 2008, the “Tongva” attempted to gain federal recognition, acquire
reservation lands, and gain casino and gaming rights from the U.S. and California legislature.
Each time their attempts failed and their bills were rejected because of the lack of historical
support and documentation. To compare the Chumash, a proud and honored tribe, to the
“Tongva”, a fictional, self-proclaimed and politically driven tribe, is disrespectful to the
Chumash Tribe and its ancestors.
I thank you for your comments and I hope my response helps you better understand the
purpose and results of this study.
Respectively,
Joe Castillo
