Race Policy And Multiracial Americans Kathleen

Odell Korgen Ed download

https://ebookbell.com/product/race-policy-and-multiracial-
americans-kathleen-odell-korgen-ed-6855800

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Race Policy And Multiracial Americans Kathleen Odell Korgen Editor

https://ebookbell.com/product/race-policy-and-multiracial-americans-
kathleen-odell-korgen-editor-51808176

Race And Education Policy And Politics In Britain Introducing Social

Policy 1st Edition Sally Tomlinson

https://ebookbell.com/product/race-and-education-policy-and-politics-
in-britain-introducing-social-policy-1st-edition-sally-
tomlinson-2430276

When Race And Policy Collide Contemporary Immigration Debates Donathan

L Brown Amardo Rodriguez

https://ebookbell.com/product/when-race-and-policy-collide-
contemporary-immigration-debates-donathan-l-brown-amardo-
rodriguez-51296090

Constructing Race And Ethnicity In America Categorymaking In Public

Policy And Administration Dvora Yanow

https://ebookbell.com/product/constructing-race-and-ethnicity-in-
america-categorymaking-in-public-policy-and-administration-dvora-
yanow-47289114
Race Nation War Japanese American Forced Removal Public Policy And
National Security Ayanna Yonemura

https://ebookbell.com/product/race-nation-war-japanese-american-
forced-removal-public-policy-and-national-security-ayanna-
yonemura-49182886

Diploma Of Whiteness Race And Social Policy In Brazil 19171945 Jerry

Dvila

https://ebookbell.com/product/diploma-of-whiteness-race-and-social-
policy-in-brazil-19171945-jerry-dvila-51891132

Diploma Of Whiteness Race And Social Policy In Brazil 19171945 Jerry

Dvila

https://ebookbell.com/product/diploma-of-whiteness-race-and-social-
policy-in-brazil-19171945-jerry-dvila-5507228

The New Welfare Bureaucrats Entanglements Of Race Class And Policy

Reform Celeste Watkinshayes

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-new-welfare-bureaucrats-
entanglements-of-race-class-and-policy-reform-celeste-
watkinshayes-51442626

The New Welfare Bureaucrats Entanglements Of Race Class And Policy

Reform 1st Edition Celeste Watkinshayes

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-new-welfare-bureaucrats-
entanglements-of-race-class-and-policy-reform-1st-edition-celeste-
watkinshayes-2195260
Edited by

Kathleen Odell Korgen

RACE POLICY AND MULTIRACIAL
AMERICANS
Edited by
Kathleen Odell Korgen
First published in Great Britain in 2016 by

Policy Press North America office:

University of Bristol Policy Press
1-9 Old Park Hill c/o The University of Chicago Press
Bristol 1427 East 60th Street
BS2 8BB Chicago, IL 60637, USA
UK t: +1 773 702 7700
t: +44 (0)117 954 5940 f: +1 773-702-9756
[email protected] [email protected]
www.policypress.co.uk www.press.uchicago.edu

© Policy Press 2016

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book has been requested

ISBN 978-1-4473-1650-3 paperback

ISBN 978-1-4473-1645-9 hardcover
ISBN 978-1-4473-1646-6 ePub
ISBN 978-1-4473-1647-3 Mobi

The right of Kathleen Odell Korgen to be identified as editor of this work has been asserted
by her in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved: no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording,
or otherwise without the prior permission of Policy Press.

The statements and opinions contained within this publication are solely those of the
contributors and editor and not of the University of Bristol or Policy Press. The University of
Bristol and Policy Press disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting
from any material published in this publication.

Policy Press works to counter discrimination on grounds of gender, race,

disability, age and sexuality.

Cover design by Soapbox Design, London

Printed and bound in Great Britain by CMP, Poole
Policy Press uses environmentally responsible print partners
 Contents
List of figures and tables iv
Author biographies v
Introduction 1
Kathleen Odell Korgen
One Multiracial Americans throughout the history of the US 13
Tyrone Nagai
Two National and local structures of inequality: multiracial 29
groups’ profiles across the US
Mary E. Campbell and Jessica M. Barron
Three Latinos and multiracial America 51
Raúl Quiñones-Rosado
Four The connections among racial identity, social class, and 67
public policy?
Nikki Khanna
Five Multiracial Americans and racial discrimination 81
Tina Fernandes Botts
Six Should all (or some) multiracial Americans benefit from 101
affirmative action programs?
Daniel N. Lipson
Seven Multiracial students and educational policy 123
Rhina Fernandes Williams and E. Namisi Chilungu
Eight Multiracial Americans in college 139
Marc P. Johnston-Guerrero and Kristen A. Renn
Nine Multiracial Americans, health patterns, and health policy: 155
assessment and recommendations for ways forward
Jenifer L. Bratter and Christa Mason
Ten Racial identity among multiracial prisoners in the 173
color-blind era
Gennifer Furst and Kathleen Odell Korgen
Eleven Multiraciality and the racial order: the good, the bad, 191
and the ugly
Hephzibah V. Strmic-Pawl and David L. Brunsma
Twelve Multiracial identity and monoracial conflict: toward 207
a new social justice framework
Andrew Jolivette
Conclusion: Policies for a racially just society 221
Kathleen Odell Korgen
Index 227

iii
 Race policy and multiracial Americans

List of figures and tables

Figures
2.1 American Community Survey questionnaire, 2011 32
2.2 Median household income for multiracial adults, divided 38
by city median household income, 2007–2011 ACS
2.3 Median household income for multiracial children, 40
divided by city median household income, 2007–2011
ACS
2.4 Foreign-born adults by multiracial groups and city, 41
2007–2011 ACS
2.5 Bilingual adults by multiracial groups and city, 42
2007–2011 ACS
2.6 Foreign-born children by multiracial groups and city, 43
2007–2011 ACS
2.7 Bilingual children by multiracial groups and city, 43
2007–2011 ACS
2.8 Adult college graduates (age 25+) by multiracial groups 44
and city, 2007–2011 ACS

Tables
I.1 Approval for interracial marriage 3
2.1 Average socio-economic characteristics of the 10 largest 34
multiracial groups: adults, 2007–2011 ACS, weighted
2.2 Average socio-economic characteristics of the 10 largest 36
multiracial groups: children, 2007–2011 ACS, weighted
9.1 Expected probabilities of health measures among 160
non-Hispanic US-born adults by race
10.1 Racial identity of first-generation multiracial descent 177
prisoners
10.2 Racial identity of multigenerational multiracial descent 178
prisoners

iv
 Author biographies
Jessica M. Barron is a postdoctoral fellow in the Social Science
Research Institute at Duke University, Durham. Her research focuses
on racial inequality and the dynamics of race in multiracial churches.
Currently, she is examining multiracial segregation in US cities using
newly refined versions of traditional segregation measures.

Tina Fernandes Botts is a Visiting Assistant Professor & Consortium

for Faculty Diversity at Liberal Arts Colleges Postdoctoral Fellow at
Oberlin College. She is also chair of the American Philosophical
Association’s (APA’s) Committee on the Status of Black Philosophers
and the managing editor of the APA’s Newsletter on Philosophy and the
Black Experience. Professor Botts is currently at work on two books:
Philosophy and the mixed race experience and Race, Aristotle’s proportional
equality and the equal protection clause.

Jenifer L. Bratter is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Rice

University and the director of the Program for the Study of Ethnicity
Race and Culture. Professor Bratter’s research primarily focuses on
the ways racial interactions in the realms of families and identities
have implications for the ways racial disparities in health and poverty
are captured and experienced Her work appears in in peer-reviewed
journals and book chapters.

David L. Brunsma is Professor of Sociology at Virginia Tech. He

is author and/or editor of Beyond Black: biracial identity in America
and Mixed messages: multiracial identities in the “colorblind” era, among
others. He is Founding Co-Editor of the Section of Racial and Ethnic
Minorities’ new journal Sociology of Race and Ethnicity at the American
Sociological Association. He lives and loves with his wife Rachel, and
his three kids, Karina, Thomas, and Henry in Blacksburg, VA.

Mary E. Campbell is an Associate Professor of Sociology affiliated

with the Race and Ethnic Studies Institute at Texas A&M University.
Her work on racial identification and racial inequality has been funded
by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on
Aging, and has appeared in journals such as the American Sociological
Review, Ethnic and Racial Studies, and Social Problems.

v
 Race policy and multiracial Americans

E. Namisi Chilungu, PhD, is a Clinical Assistant Professor in the

Department of Educational Psychology, Special Education, and
Communication Disorders. She has a doctorate and master’s degree
in Educational Psychology from the University at Buffalo. She is
passionate about increasing quality access to education for all students,
particularly students from marginalized populations or high-need
communities.

Gennifer Furst received her doctorate in Criminal Justice from

CUNY Graduate Center/John Jay College. She is an Associate
Professor at William Paterson University of New Jersey. Her research
interests include incarceration and prison programs, particularly those
involving animals.

Marc P. Johnston-Guerrero is an Assistant Professor in the Higher

Education and Student Affairs program, Department of Education
Studies at The Ohio State University. His research interests focus on
racial dynamics in US higher education, with specific attention to
issues of multiraciality within understandings of campus climate and
college student development.

Andrew Jolivette is Professor and Chair of American Indian Studies

at San Francisco State University. He is the author of several books
and essays including Research justice: methodologies for social change (Policy
Press, 2015) and Obama and the biracial factor: the battle for a new American
majority (Policy Press, 2012).

Nikki Khanna is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of

Vermont. Her areas of specialization are multiracial people and identity
and, more recently, the role of race in adoption. She is the author
of Biracial in America: forming and performing racial identity (Lexington
Books, 2011).

Kathleen Odell Korgen is Professor of Sociology at William Paterson

University. She received her BA from the College of the Holy Cross and
her PhD at Boston College. Kathleen, a public sociologist, specializes
in race relations, racial identity, and inequality.

Daniel N. Lipson, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Political Science

at SUNY New Paltz. He earned his PhD in Political Science in 2002
at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His research focuses on the

vi
 Author biographies

legal and political battles over race-based affirmative action in higher

education.

Christa Mason, BA, graduated from Rice University in 2014,

majoring in Sociology. She was accepted to The University of Texas
at Arlington, where she will earn a Master of Science in Industrial/
Organizational Psychology.

Tyrone Nagai is an Assistant Editor at Asian American Literary Review.

He also served as Art Director of the Mixed-Race Initiative.

Raúl Quiñones-Rosado, PhD, is a social justice educator, antiracism

organizer, and Latino leadership coach. His book, Consciousness-in-
action: toward an integral psychology of liberation & transformation, is used
in academic programs in psychology, counseling, social work, and
social justice education in the US and Latin America, as well as by
political activists, community organizers, anti-oppression trainers,
helping professionals, and others. He lives with his family in Cayey,
Puerto Rico.

Kristen A. Renn is Professor of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong

Education at Michigan State University, where she also serves as
Associate Dean of Undergraduate Studies and Director for Student
Success Initiatives. Her research focuses on college student identities,
development, and success.

Hephzibah V. Strmic-Pawl is an Assistant Professor of Sociology

at Manhattanville College. Her teaching and research interests center
on race, racism, and social inequality, with a particular focus on
multiracialism. Strmic-Pawl’s forthcoming book is a comparative
analysis of how Asian–White people’s and Black–White people’s racial
identity and opportunities are differentially shaped by the hegemony
of the US racial hierarchy.

Rhina Fernandes Williams specializes in critical pedagogy, teacher

development, and multicultural education, with a special interest in
education for social justice. She is currently a faculty member in the
Department of Early Childhood and Elementary Education at Georgia
State University in Atlanta.

vii
 Introduction
Kathleen Odell Korgen

This is a book about a controversial topic—race policy and multiracial

Americans. Simply mentioning the term “multiracial” can draw strong
reactions among social commentators and scholars today. As Rainier
Spencer (2014: 166) puts it:

[some] argue that multiracial identity has the potential

to undo race in the United States as long as it attends to
social justice and does not present itself as a racially superior
category, while other scholars contend that multiracial
identity is supportive of White supremacy and is a
throwback to earlier, simplistic, and racist conceptualizations
of the American mulatto.

Many civil rights groups, including the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Urban League,
view the creation of a multiracial category (and its support by opponents
of civil rights and affirmative action policies such as Newt Gingrich)
as a potential threat to race policies established to protect and assist
monoracial racial minorities. On the other hand, many multiracial
organizations and advocates for a multiracial category within the US
Census and other demographic instruments understand the need to
address racial discrimination but also “believe in an all-inclusive society,
where all individuals are afforded the dignity and autonomy to identify
themselves in the ways they believe represent them” (Swirl, no date
[a]: para 3). They aim to “create supportive and inclusive communities
for all people” (MAVIN, 2014: paras 2, 4) and “have created a home
for those who refuse to be boxed into ‘choosing just one’” (Swirl, no
date[b]: para 2). While acknowledging and working to combat all acts
of racism in society, they aim a spotlight on racial issues that impact
multiracial persons because of their mixed heritage.
The acknowledgment of persons who identify as multiracial and
the issues related to them are the foci of the newly recognized field
of critical mixed race (CMR) studies. While building on the work
of critical race and ethnic studies, CMR scholars “place mixed race
at the critical center of focus” (Daniel, 2014: 1). CMR scholars both
stress the social construction of racial categories “that are continuously

1
 Race policy and multiracial Americans

being created, inhabited, contested, transformed, and destroyed” and

challenge “racial essentialism and racial hierarchy” (Daniel et al, 2014:
8). While recognizing “the ambivalence, if not hostility, displayed
toward a multiracial identity among traditional communities of color”
and some White anti-racists, they maintain that critical multiraciality
can serve “as a template for engaging in a transgressive pedagogy and
praxis” that can facilitate coalition-building across racial and issue-based
groups working for social justice (Daniel et al, 2014: 24). This book
is written from and contributes to the CMR perspective.
Regardless of one’s perspective on mixed-race Americans and despite
the lack of consensus on how this population should or should not
be defined and acknowledged, it is clear that the number of people
who identify with two or more races is rapidly increasing (US Census
Bureau, 2012a, 2012b, 2012c). While some legal scholars have begun
to look at the effect of multiraciality on laws dealing with racial
discrimination (e.g., Leong, 2010; Botts, 2013; Lucas, 2014), few social
scientists have included policy implications in their research on this
demographic group. It is time to offer more attention to understanding
how existing race policies impact multiracial people and how policies
can be shaped to protect and assist this group of racial minorities. This
book helps to fill a gap in this area of research on multiracial people
in the US.
While there have always been multiracial people in the US,
multiracials today live under a system of racial identification and a
level of acceptance of interracial relationships much different than in
years past (Daniel, 2002). Gallup polls reveal that 87% of Americans
now approve of marriages between Black people and White people.
This compares to a mere 2% approval rate in 1967, when the Supreme
Court declared anti-miscegenation legislation unconstitutional, and
a dramatic jump of 22% since just 2002. Today, almost all (96%) of
young American adults (18–29) of all races approve of such marriages
(Newport, 2013).
The very concept of race has become much more fluid since the
years when the “one-drop rule” held sway, when racial lines were
perceived as largely Black–White and those with any Black ancestry
were classified as Black (Davis, 1991; Korgen, 1999; Daniel, 2002;
Rockquemore and Brunsma, 2008; Hochschild et al, 2012). Today,
the US is much more racially diverse, and multiracial Americans come
in many different racial combinations. Some Americans, including
growing numbers of those with mixed racial heritage, prefer not to
identify racially at all (Rockqemore and Brunsma, 2008; Hochschild
et al, 2012; see also Chapter Four, this volume).

2
 Introduction

Table I.1: Approval for interracial marriage

Do you approve or disapprove of marriage between blacks and whites?

% Approve

86 87
77
73
64 79
76
48 65
43
36
29 48
20

‘59 ‘62 ‘65 ‘68 ‘71 ‘77 ‘80 ‘83 ‘86 ‘89 ‘92 ‘95 ‘98 ‘01 ‘04 ‘07 ‘10 ‘13
1958 wording: “... marriages between white and coloured people”
1968-1978 wording: “... marriages between whites and non-whites”

Source: Retrieved from: http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx

The exact number of Americans with more than one racial heritage is
almost impossible to determine, as Harris and Sim (2002) and many of
the authors in the forthcoming chapters point out. People can identify
themselves differently based on the location, time period, or type of
racial identification question posed. Persons who fall under the label
of “multiracial” in this text include those who identify, in some way
or another, with more than one racial group (on questionnaires, in
conversations with others, etc). While the term “multiracial” most often
refers to those with parents of different races, it also includes those
who are aware of—and embrace—racial mixing in earlier generations
What is beyond doubt is that the percentage of the US population
that identifies with more than one race has increased tremendously
over the past two decades and, with interracial marriage rates also
increasing dramatically, will continue to do so (US Census Bureau,
2012a, 2012b). Almost one in 10 marriages, and one in seven new
marriages, is now interracial (this statistic includes Hispanics/Latinos),
with a 28% increase between 2000 and 2010 (US Census, 2012c;
Frey, 2014). Almost 3% of the US population identified with more
than one race on the 2010 US Census, a 32% increase from the 2000
Census, the first to allow respondents to check off more than one race
(Jones and Bullock, 2012). The US Census Bureau estimates that this
demographic group will make up 6.4% of the US population by 2060
(US Census Bureau, 2012a). One Census study that included Hispanics
in the multiracial count indicated that 6.8% of the population now
identifies as multiracial (Frey, 2014).
Race policy has not kept up with this surge in the multiracial
population. While many people who oppose a multiracial category also

3
 Race policy and multiracial Americans

oppose creating policies to protect and support multiracial people as

multiracial people (believing that those created for monoracial minority
racial and ethnic groups suffice), others maintain that multiracial people
need and deserve status as a protected minority group. While multiracial
people report facing similar amounts of racial discrimination, anti-
discrimination laws are still based on monoracial categories (Campbell
and Herman, 2010). Moreover, our means for tracking discrimination
against the diverse multiracial population have also fallen short due to
inadequacies in data collection methods. As the chapters in this book
reveal, we must do more to measure the social, economic, educational,
and health status of multiracial members of the US population and to
establish policies that work to ensure their equitable treatment.
As Strmic-Pawl and Brunsma describe in Chapter Eleven, racial
identities comprise doing as well as simply being. They note, as do
Brunsma, Delgado, and Rockquemore (2013), that racial identity is
multifaceted and involves “formation, maintenance, and navigation.”
As racial identity becomes more fluid, creating, maintaining, and
living with such an identity takes effort and involves decisions based
on time and context. Race policies are an important force impacting
racial identities.
The authors of the chapters that follow examine race policy from a
critical race and CMR perspective. Critical race and CMR scholars
recognize racial categories and race policies as social constructions that
vary over time and place (Daniel et al, 2014). While socially constructed,
these categorizations and policies have very real repercussions that can
harm or help minority racial groups (Delgado and Stefancic, 2012). The
racial and ethnic labels used today by the US Census were established
in 1977 by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as part
of the overall effort to implement civil rights legislation. The OMB’s
“Directive No. 15: Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on
Race and Ethnicity” defined five main racial and ethnic categories in
the US: (1) American Indian or Alaskan Native; (2) Asian or Pacific
Islander; (3) Black; (4) Hispanic; and (5) White. In 1997, the OMB
separated the Asian or Pacific Islander category into two—Asian and
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander—and specified that the one
ethnic category “Hispanic” would be changed to “either Hispanic or
Latino.”1
Throughout history, race policies both promoted and prevented racial
discrimination and inequality. In the US, such policies have ranged
from the legalization of slavery and racial segregation to the abolition
of poll taxes and other policies aimed at preventing Black, Native
American, Asian, and Hispanic citizens from voting, to banning racial

4
 Introduction

discrimination in workplaces with 15 or more employees, to promoting

race-based affirmative action programs. Today, multiracial Americans
find themselves caught between existing policies, sometimes benefiting
from those targeted towards minority racial groups but with neither
protection against nor acknowledgement of discrimination based on
their identity as multiracial rather than monoracial.
The chapters that follow focus on this gap in race policy in the US
today. In doing so, they gauge the impact of multiracial people on race
policy, note where race policy lags behind the growing numbers of
multiracial people in US society, and prescribe how race policy can
be used to promote racial justice for multiracial Americans in the US.
Public policy questions addressed by Race policy and multiracial Americans
include: do multiracial Americans experience racial discrimination in
ways similar to minority monoracial groups? Where do they fall in
terms of the current racial hierarchy? Do some multiracial groups face
more discrimination than others? What policies aimed at combating
racial discrimination should cover multiracial Americans? Should all (or
some) multiracial Americans benefit from affirmative action programs?
How are educators responding to the growing multiracial population?
In an institution organized by race, such as a prison, is it possible to
maintain a multiracial identity? Should there be a multiracial category
on the US Census?

Part One: The changing racial hierarchy and multiracial

Americans
The chapters in Part One examine the history of multiracial Americans
and their place(s) in the current racial hierarchy. They offer an overview
of the racial demographics of this subsection of the population and
of the respective social, political, and economic power of the various
multiracial groups within the US. These chapters also take a closer look
at two key topics: (1) where the fast-growing, multiracial population
of Latino descent fits in relation to the overall racial hierarchy and race
policy issues; and (2) the relationships among racial identity, social
class, and public policy.
Chapter One, “Multiracial Americans throughout the history of
the US,” by Tyrone Nagai, provides an overview of the history of
multiracial Americans. Nagai indicates how different cultural groups
treated multiracial members with varied levels of acceptance and how
multiracial persons in the US have been viewed through the lens of the
US Census and race policy. In doing so, he gives readers and students

5
 Race policy and multiracial Americans

the historical knowledge necessary for beginning an examination of

the relationship between race policy and multiracial Americans today.
Mary E. Campbell and Jessica M. Barron describe the socio-economic
status of multiracial people in the US in Chapter Two, “National and
local structures of inequality: multiracial groups’ profiles across the
US.” They make clear the diversity among multiracial Americans and
the unique challenges facing each of the many racial combinations
that may fall under the umbrella label of “multiracial.” Campbell and
Barron also point out that experiences vary based on locale and age.
Raúl Quiñones-Rosado vividly describes the rich multiracial history
of Latinos in the US in Chapter Three, “Latinos and Multiracial
America.” He argues that Latinos in the US now confront policies
designed to re-racialize many into the White racial category. Quiñones-
Rosado demonstrates how this policy encourages the assimilation of
many Latinos while deepening the socio-economic disadvantages of
Latinos deemed “non-White” and compromising the cohesion of the
Latino community in the US.
In Chapter Four, “The connections among racial identity, social
class, and public policy?,” Nikki Khanna looks at the relationship
between social class and racial identity among multiracial Americans.
Khanna illustrates the conflation of “Black” culture and social class.
She shows how social class impacts the racial groups with which we
tend to interact most and the racial identity of multiracial persons. The
higher multiracial people are on the socio-economic ladder, the more
likely they are to identify as White or multiracial—or as no race at all.
Khanna discusses the repercussions of this trend on social support for
race-based public policies in the US.

Part Two: Race policy and multiracial Americans

The chapters in Part Two focus on the impact of multiracial Americans
on various racial policy questions, including affirmative action
programs, racial categorizations, educational programs and pedagogy,
prison procedures, and health policy. These chapters also examine the
influence of race policies on racial identity. Each chapter reveals that
how multiracial people categorize themselves and are categorized by
policymakers affects policy implementation and evaluation.
Multiracial Americans often face racial discrimination from
monoracial Americans across the racial spectrum. However, without
the existence of an official multiracial category, their experiences of
racial discrimination are often ignored or not even noticed. In Chapter
Five, “Multiracial Americans and racial discrimination,” Tina Fernandes

6
 Introduction

Botts looks at how current race policies do not adequately protect

multiracial Americans from racial discrimination. She describes the
prevalence of the racial discrimination they face and suggests policies
that could address such discrimination.
While, as Botts describes, multiracial Americans encounter racial
discrimination often overlooked because of a lack of a multiracial
category, many people believe that they benefit more than they should
from affirmative action programs. Should affirmative action policies
include all—or some—multiracial Americans? This is one of the
questions addressed in Chapter Six, “Should all (or some) multiracial
Americans benefit from affirmative action programs?” Daniel N. Lipson
describes how rationales for affirmative action have changed over the
years and discusses the place of multiracial Americans in current and
possible future versions of affirmative action programs.
In Chapter Seven, “Multiracial students and educational policy,”
Rhina Fernandes Williams and E. Namisi Chilungu delve into issues
related to multiracial Americans in K-12 (kindergarten through
12th grade) schools. These students have largely been ignored in
discussions of educational policy and have even been left out of
multicultural educational curricula. This chapter brings into focus
the experience of multiracial schoolchildren in an educational system
that now overlooks them. Williams and Chilungu conclude with
suggestions for policymakers and teachers about how to create optimal
learning environments in schools to make them more inclusive of and
welcoming towards multiracial students.
After graduating from the K-12 system and entering college,
questions of identity come to the forefront for most young people.
Multiracial students face particular pressures to define themselves on
college campuses, where they are often pressured to “choose sides.”
Complicating this dilemma enormously is the prevailing ideology of
color-blindness, which discourages open discussions about racial issues
(Bonilla-Silva, 2003). Campus faculty and staff must find ways to foster
interracial interaction and discussions of race that enable students to
become aware of racial injustice and empowered to address it.
In Chapter Eight, “Multiracial Americans in college,” Marc P. Johnston-
Guerrero and Kristen A. Renn focus on the impact of the growing
multiracial college student population on college campuses and
how campus environments influence them. They note that “before
multiraciality can become fully integrated into the higher education
landscape … higher education policies must come to terms with
some of the complexities associated with the diversity of students and
institutions.” In this chapter, Johnston-Guerrero and Renn highlight

7
 Race policy and multiracial Americans

and unpack some of those complexities and make suggestions about

how to improve higher education policies that effect multiracial college
students.
In Chapter Nine, “Multiracial Americans, health patterns, and
health policy: assessment and recommendations for ways forward,”
Jenifer L. Bratter and Christa Mason explore the influence of
multiracial Americans on race-based health policy and the effects of
existing policies on multiracial Americans. They answer the following
questions: how can we better understand the health needs of multiracial
Americans? Where do they stand in the racial health-care hierarchy?
How does the lack of reliable racial data on multiracial Americans
complicate health-care policy and services for multiracial people? They
conclude with specific suggestions on how to improve health care for
multiracial persons.
In Chapter Ten, we move from the institution of health care to the
“total” institution of prisons (Goffman, 1961). In “Racial identity
among multiracial prisoners in the color-blind era,” Gennifer Furst and
Kathleen Odell Korgen provide a qualitative analysis of the influence
of the hyper-racialized prison environment on the racial identity of
multiracial prisoners. They examine whether it is possible to identify
as multiracial while incarcerated and whether the prison experience
influences how prisoners from multiracial backgrounds racially identify.
They also consider whether the color-blind ideology—so dominant
in the larger society—has permeated prison walls.

Part Three: Multiracial Americans, the color-blind ideology,

and the future of race relations
The last section of the book looks at how the growing numbers and
recognition of multiracial Americans impact Americans’ perceptions
of race and race policy in the US. These chapters focus on the effect
of multiracial Americans on the color-blind ideology, divisions among
racial minority groups in the US, and race policy in the US.
Chapter Eleven, “Multiraciality and the racial order: the good, the
bad, and the ugly,” authored by Hephzibah V. Strmic-Pawl and David
L. Brunsma, looks at the present and potential influence of multiracial
Americans on the racial hierarchy in the US. In particular, they address
the possibilities of multiraciality creating “a positive window for racial
reconciliation and bridge-building” or working “to reproduce or
strengthen White dominance.” They conclude with some suggestions
for steering multiraciality in a positive direction.

8
 Introduction

In Chapter Twelve, “Multiracial identity and monoracial conflict:

toward a new social justice framework,” Andrew Jolivette looks at how
multiracial Americans can affect efforts to organize for racial justice.
He argues that multiracial activists have prompted many monoracial
organizations to embrace multi-issue organizing that is both more
inclusive and more effective in promoting social change. Jolivette
concludes with an outline of a “new social justice framework” to
ensure “ongoing cross-ethnic coalition-building and policy reform
among mixed-race and monoracial groups.”
In the Conclusion, “Policies for a racially just society,” I describe
the connection between race policies and a racially just society and
outlines the policies that the authors in this book have put forward
toward that goal. While race relations have improved over the past few
decades, and the increasing numbers of interracial marriages and those
who identify as multiracial indicate greater fluidity in race relations
and flexibility in racial identification, evidence of racial discrimination
remains abundant. The color-blind ideology must be put to rest as we
create new race policies that promote racial justice for people of mixed
racial heritage in an increasingly diverse and unequal society.

Note

1
Hispanics and Latinos tend to be viewed as a racial, rather than an ethnic, group and
thus face racial discrimination. They are also usually treated (though not yet on the
Census) as a racial category in terms of interracial marriage rates and the offspring of
interracial relationships.

References
Bonilla-Silva, E.. (2003) Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the
persistence of racial inequality in the United States. Lanham, MD.
Botts, T.F. (2013) Antidiscrimination law and the multiracial
experience: a reply to Nancy Leong. Hastings Race and Poverty Law
Journal 10: 191–218.
Brunsma, D.L., Delgado, D. and Rockquemore, K.A. (2013) ‘Liminality
in the multiracial experience: Towards a concept of identity matrix’,
Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 20(5): 481-502.
Campbell, M.E. and Herman, M. (2010) Politics and policies: attitudes
toward multiracial people and political candidates. Ethnic and Racial
Studies 33(9): 1511–36.
Daniel, G.R. (2002) More than black: multiracial identity and the new racial
order. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

9
 Race policy and multiracial Americans

Daniel, G.R. (2014) Editor’s note, Journal of Critical Mixed Race Studies,
1(1):1-5.
Daniel, G. R., Kina, L., Dariotis, W.M.. and Fojas, C. (2014)
‘Emerging paradigms in critical mixed race studies’, Journal of Critical
Mixed Race Studies, 1(1):6-65
Davis, F.J. (1991) Who is Black. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania
State University Press.
Delgado, R. and Stefancic, J. (2012) Critical race theory: an introduction
(2nd edn). New York, NY: New York University Press.
Frey, W.H. (2014) Diversity explosion: how new racial demographics are
remaking America. New York, NY: Brookings Institution Press.
Goffman, E. (1961) Asylums: essays on the social situation of mental patients
and other inmates. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Harris, D.R. and Sim, J.J. (2002) Who is multiracial? Assessing the
complexity of lived race. American Sociological Review 67: 614–27.
Hochschild, J., Weaver, V., and Burch, T. (2012) Creating a new racial
order: how immigration, multiracialism, genomics, and the young can remake
race in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Jones, N.A. and Bullock, J. (2012) The two or more races population:
2010. United States Census Bureau, US Department of Commerce.
Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/
c2010br-13.pdf
Korgen, K.O. (1999) From Black to biracial, Westport, CT: Praeger.
Leong, N. (2010) Judicial erasure of mixed-race discrimination,
American University Law Review, 59(3): 469–555.
Lucas, L.S. (2014) Undoing race? Reconciling multiracial identity with
equal protection. California Law Review 102(5): 1243.
MAVIN (2014) MAVIN builds healthier communities by providing
educational resources about mixed heritage experiences. Available
at: http://www.mavinfoundation.org/new/purpose/
Newport, F. (2013) In U.S., 87% approve of Black-White marriage, vs.
4% in 1958. Gallup, 25 July. Available at: http://www.gallup.com/
poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx
Rockquemore, K. A. and Brunsma, D.L. (2008) Beyond Black: Biracial
identity in America, 2nd edn. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Root, M.P.P. (1992) Racially mixed people in America. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Spencer, R. (2014) “Only the news they want to print”: mainstream
media and critical mixed-race studies. Journal of Critical Mixed Race
Studies 1(1): 162–82.
Swirl (no date[a]) Our values. Available at: http://www.swirlinc.org/

10
 Introduction

Swirl (no date[b]) Philosophy of work. Available at: http://www.

swirlinc.org/
US Census Bureau (2012a) U.S. Census Bureau projections show a
slower growing, older, more diverse nation a half century from now.
12 December. Available at: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/
releases/archives/population/cb12-243.html
US Census Bureau (2012b) 2010 Census shows multiple-race
population grew faster than single-race population. 27 September.
Available at: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/
race/cb12-182.html
US Census Bureau (2012c) 2010 Census shows interracial and
interethnic married couples grew by 28 percent over decade. 25
April. Available at: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/
archives/2010_census/cb12-68.html

11
 ONE

Multiracial Americans throughout

the history of the US
Tyrone Nagai

While there are many places that could be used as starting points for
a history of multiracial people in the US, perhaps none is better than
acknowledging the fact that the presence of multiracial people in
what we now call North America pre-dates the formation of the US
by at least three centuries (Forbes, 1993). These diverse societies and
peoples once found in what is now the US had very divergent attitudes
and practices for handling racial mixture. This chapter illuminates the
ways in which different cultures responded to multiracial people in
what is now the US by examining: (1) the 17th-century legal decrees
concerning miscegenation between Africans and Europeans and the
children born to such unions in Colonial Virginia; (2) traditional
practices regarding membership and identity among the Seminole in
Florida and the Navajo (or Diné) in the Four Corners region of the
Southwest; (3) the ambiguous status of Mestizos in 16th- to 18th-
century New Spain; and (4) the intermarriage of Chinese men and
Hawaiian women in the 19th century.
This chapter will describe how a dominant ideology concerning
racial mixing developed in the US, beginning in the colonial period
and accelerating with the founding of the nation. This ideology,
based on White supremacy and racial hierarchy (Daniel, 2002), was
enforced through anti-miscegenation laws and the “one-drop rule,”
which was a restrictive form of hypodescent that classified everyone
with African ancestry as Black (i.e., “one drop of blood”) (Davis, 1991;
Jordan, 2014). Racial categorizations were a key means for enforcing
this racial hierarchy. The chapter will also include a discussion of the
evolution of different systems of categorization and enumeration for
multiracial people, as stipulated in the US Constitution, US Census,
and Supreme Court cases.

13
 Race policy and multiracial Americans

African slavery, anti-miscegenation laws, and the one-

drop rule
The history of multiracial people in the US largely follows the nation’s
racialized history as a whole and parallels the history of African-
Americans in particular. By the mid-1600s, the use of African slaves
to provide inexpensive labor for tobacco plantations began to take
root, and an elite group of wealthy European planters “created the
legal and institutional structures needed to guarantee property rights
regarding slaves” in colonial America (Menard, 2013: 380). These new
“legal and institutional structures” defined what constituted a slave—a
form of property or chattel that could be bought, sold, traded, and
owned (Fisher, 1992: 1055). A significant aspect of these property laws
included explanations of how sexual relations between Europeans and
Africans, and the children that resulted, would be governed.
The prevailing colonial patterns of settlement, such as the ratio
of European males to females and Europeans to African slaves, also
catalyzed the development of slavery and a binary racial order (Jordan,
2014). For example, in 1620, the Virginia Company wrote about
the need for more European women in the colony to facilitate the
development of families who would tend to the land (Spruill, 1998).
By the time of the 1790 US Census, there were still just 95 free White
women for every 100 free White men in Virginia (US Bureau of
the Census, 1790; Moller, 1945). The proportion of Africans living
among Europeans in Colonial Virginia was initially very small, but
it increased from 2% in the mid-17th century to nearly 40% by the
late 18th century (Jordan, 2014). Thus, the desire among European
men for more women in Virginia, along with the steady increase of
the African population, produced social conditions ripe for interracial
sexual encounters involving Africans and Europeans.
In 1662, the Virginia legislature was forced to prescribe how children
born of enslaved African mothers and free European fathers would
be considered under the law. The judgment went against traditional
English common law, which generally accorded children the status of
their fathers. Instead, the Virginia legislature decided that all children
born to a slave mother would also be slaves regardless of the father’s
race or station in life (Hening, 1823). The effect and legacy of this law
and others like it was to codify and institutionalize what came to be
known as the one-drop rule (Davis, 1991; Daniel, 2002; Hollinger,
2003; Jordan, 2014). In practical terms, the one-drop rule meant that
any person having any trace of African ancestry was categorized as
Black, no matter the amount of European ancestry in their background.

14
 Multiracial Americans throughout the history of the US

In 1691, the Virginia Assembly went further to create legal boundaries

between Africans and Europeans by outlawing miscegenation or
interracial sexual relationships (Higginbotham and Kopytoff, 1989).
Enforcement fell especially hard on European women with mixed
or “mulatto” children (Higginbotham and Kopytoff, 1989). The
punishment for the European mother was a fine of 15 pounds and
the requirement that the mixed child work in servitude for 30 years
(Takaki, 1993). The effect of this law was not only to discourage
interracial unions, but also to further enforce the subjugation of
mixed or “mulatto” children and their European mothers. European
men would never have to legally recognize any child they fathered
with a slave.
The legacy of the one-drop rule and anti-miscegenation laws
originating in Colonial Virginia spread to other colonies, especially
those in the South, where slavery was particularly profitable. The
one-drop rule and anti-miscegenation laws continued to dominate US
social customs, legal statutes, political discourse, and cultural norms
for the next 300 years, continuing long after the abolition of slavery
in 1865. Some would argue that the specters of the one-drop rule and
anti-miscegenation laws still influence US views on multiraciality, and
this thread will be taken up in other chapters of this book.

Seminole views of multiraciality

Even though the one-drop rule and anti-miscegenation laws formed
the cornerstone of popular attitudes and legal thinking about racial
mixing in the US, these were not the only ways to conceptualize the
status of multiracial people. After all, places like Colonial Virginia
were inhabited by more than just Europeans and Africans. Native
groups also played an important role in the racial hierarchy being
established and negotiated in colonial America. For example, because
of the harsh conditions of plantation life in the South, some African
slaves ran away in the hope of finding freedom. Starting in the
late 1600s and continuing for about 150 years, slaves who fled the
Southern colonies for freedom in the Florida Everglades could find
refuge among the Seminoles, who often invited runaway slaves to
join their ranks (Ogunleye, 2006; Hatch and Still, 2012). The Black
Seminole population was estimated at 1,400 individuals by the mid-
1800s (Thybony, 1991). Many of these ex-slaves lived alongside and
intermarried with the Seminoles, and they and their children were
accepted and protected by the tribe (Claudio, 1998; Soodalter, 2012).
In fact, many Seminoles with some African ancestry were born into

15
 Race policy and multiracial Americans

freedom and lived to an old age without ever having to endure a day
of bondage (Ogunleye, 2006). Thus, while in Colonial Virginia, a law
was put in place to force all mixed children born with even “one drop”
of African blood into slavery, in the Florida Everglades during the same
time period (and even later in some remote parts of the Everglades),
a mixed child of African, European, and/or Native descent would be
born and live free among the Seminoles.

Navajo views of multi-ethnicity and multiraciality

Over two thousand miles west of the Seminole lands, in what is now
known as the Four Corners region—lands where the corners of Utah,
Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico meet—the Navajo developed
another way of integrating other tribes and nationalities into their
nation. Instead of using race, the Navajo drew on a combination
of clanship, language, worldview, and land to accept Zunis, Utes,
Tewas, and Mexicans within their ranks, including children of
mixed parentage. In the Navajo clanship system, Navajo individuals
simultaneously identify themselves through their mother’s clan, father’s
clan, maternal grandfather’s clan, and paternal grandfather’s clan (Lee,
2006). Over time, new clans were created and adopted in order to
accommodate new groups into Navajo society (Lee, 2006). As long as
a Navajo individual knew their clanship, spoke Navajo, and followed
the traditional belief system of the Navajo, they could be considered
a part of the nation even if their Navajo ancestry was quite distant
(Aronilth, 1985; Yazzie, 1994; Lee, 2006).
This system of identity, belonging, and membership among the
Navajo developed organically as a result of intra-tribal relations over the
years, including colonization and wars (Emerson, 2014). The obvious
implication is that cultural affinity superseded “blood quantum” or
hypodescent as a way of defining tribal identity among the Navajo.
So, the Navajo did not have a notion of race or racial membership that
was analogous to the European model. As a result, a Navajo’s “race”
was not part of the criteria for defining tribal membership. In contrast,
the “blood quantum” system, which European legislators first used
in Virginia in 1705, defines tribal membership by meeting a certain
threshold of tribal ancestry or “blood” regardless of one’s cultural
affinity, tribal involvement, or residential location (Spruhan, 2006). The
Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 imposed the blood quantum system
on all Native tribes, including the Navajo and Seminole, to demarcate
membership and the level of racial purity (Spruhan, 2007/2008).

16
 Multiracial Americans throughout the history of the US

Mestizos of New Spain

While the Navajo adapted their traditional system of tribal membership

to include groups, such as Mexicans, within and adjacent to their
traditional homeland, the case of mestizos in 16th- to 18th-century
New Spain (which included the lands of US states such as California,
Texas, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Louisiana,
as well as what is now the country of Mexico) illustrates yet another
type of classifying multiracial people in the “New World.” The word
“mestizo” became common in New Spain to refer to a person of mixed
Spanish, Native, and/or African ancestry. The word “mulatto” was also
used to refer to a mixed person with African ancestry.
When the Spanish began to colonize New Spain in the 1520s, among
their ranks were Africans, Moors, and “mulattos” who served as soldiers
and settlers (Forbes, 1966). Thus, the very colonization of New Spain
introduced not only Europeans and Africans to the Native population,
but also racially mixed persons of African and European descent. Within
a short time, authorities in New Spain became concerned about the
increasing numbers of mestizos, their perceived idleness, and “mestizo
vagrancy” (Garr, 1975). King Phillip II proposed shipping mestizos
to the Philippines and Chile, which were also under Spanish colonial
rule (Garr, 1975). Although it seems unlikely that this specific plan was
actually implemented, there is evidence of mestizos and “mulattos,” as
well as convicts, vagabonds, and orphans, being sent to the frontier areas
of New Spain, such as California, to supplement flagging populations
in those regions (Forbes, 1966; Garr, 1975).
The unreliability of colonial censuses in New Spain makes it difficult
to enumerate the number and proportion of Natives, mestizos,
“mulattos,” Spaniards, and Africans in the population, especially because
the labels for different types of racial mixing became quite subjective
and fluid (Restall, 2009). Nevertheless, a census conducted in 1794
suggests that the approximately 1,000,000 residents of New Spain
were a racially diverse population that was 71% Native, 16% mestizo
or “mulatto,” and 13% Spanish (Valdés, 1978). Among more urban
areas, such as Mexico City, mestizos and “mulattos” made up over
25% of the population (Valdés, 1978).
Several racialized patterns concerning mestizos in New Spain
emerged regarding the ratio of men to women, sexual relations, and
social status. For example, in 1773, Friar Junipero Serra pointed out
the shortage of Spanish women in California and the difficulty of
preventing Spanish soldiers from lusting after Indian women (Garr,
1975). One year later, a military officer remarked that the population of

17
 Race policy and multiracial Americans

Northern New Spain (Northern Mexico) was so racially mixed among

Africans, Natives, and Spaniards that it was difficult to trace anyone’s
ancestry (Forbes, 1966). In the 1790s, California Governor Diego de
Borica requested mujeres blancas (“White women”) from the viceroy
of Mexico City to supplement the “women of quality” in the state
(Garr, 1975). Thus, the shortage of Spanish women led to high rates
of interracial relationships, high birth rates for mestizo and “mulatto”
children, and concern from the colonial government.
Despite mestizos and “mulattos” outnumbering Spaniards, New
Spain’s European rulers viewed them as inferior to those of “pure
blood” Spanish heritage (Garr, 1975; Forbes, 1983). At the same
time, mestizos, often fluent in both Spanish and an indigenous
language, served as intercultural mediators and translators (Schwaller,
2012). Mestizos tended to maintain ties to both sides of their families
because connection to the Spanish side offered social, economic,
and political opportunities while connection to the indigenous side
provided sanctuary when problems or tensions arose with Spanish
authorities (Schwaller, 2012). As a result, being mestizo meant that
one was simultaneously unwanted because of perceived inferiority
while desperately needed in order to enable communication between
different sectors of society and to help populate outlying territories.
Perhaps what best illustrates the ambiguity and fluidity of mestizo
identity was the practice of purchasing cédulas de gracias al sacar (“thanks
for getting out of it”), which were certificates of “whiteness” issued
by King Charles III of Spain (Daniel, 2010). These certificates
enabled mestizos to legally erase their Native and/or African origins.
Possessing a certificate gave mestizos both legal status as Españoles and
greater opportunity for vertical social mobility. It also reflected the
comparatively more fluid racial demarcations between “pure” Spaniards,
mestizos and “mulattos,” and Natives (Daniel, 2010).

The Chinese-Hawaiians
While the treatment of the mestizos of New Spain in the 16th to
18th centuries seemed to vacillate between acceptance and rejection
depending on social, political, and economic considerations, the
experiences of Chinese-Hawaiians in the 19th and early 20th centuries
offer a still different picture of the treatment of multiracial people.
In 1835, William Hooper of Boston established the first sugar cane
plantation in Hawaii and other planters soon followed (Avakian, 2002).
To procure a more cooperative, and less ethnically united, labor force
for the growing plantation economy, the Royal Hawaiian Agricultural

18
 Multiracial Americans throughout the history of the US

Society brought the first group of 293 Chinese workers to the islands in
1852 (Avakian, 2002). One year later, the racial composition of Hawaii
was still less than 1% Chinese and over 95% Native Hawaiian (Nordyke,
1989). By some estimates, Chinese men outnumbered Chinese women
in Hawaii by a 10 to 1 margin at this time (Lorden, 1935). As a result
of the limited number of Chinese women available, some Chinese
men married Hawaiian women (Reece, 1914). In 1871, the Hawaiian
Board Mission reported that 121 of 1,201 Chinese men in Hawaii had
married Hawaiian women, and estimated that 167 multiracial children
had come from these interracial relationships (Takaki, 1989).
What makes the Chinese-Hawaiian example particularly illustrative of
different levels of acceptance and treatment of multiracial people is that
some of the Chinese men married to Hawaiian women simultaneously
maintained pre-existing marriages to women in China (Takaki, 1989).
In other words, some Chinese men who came to Hawaii had left their
wives and children in the old country, married Hawaiian women and
started families with them, but continued to travel back to China to
maintain relationships with their family there. In addition, the wives and
children of these Chinese men sometimes travelled between Hawaii and
China as well. For example, a Chinese-born son might immigrate to
Hawaii to live with his Chinese father, adoptive Hawaiian mother, and
Chinese-Hawaiian siblings. Alternatively, a mixed Chinese-Hawaiian
son might immigrate to China to live with his father’s Chinese wife.
No matter the situation, the personal testimonies from these families
indicate that the multiracial children were treated well and accepted by
mothers in both Hawaii and China, with little regard to their biological
race, and there was often a fusion or blending of Chinese and Hawaiian
cultures (Lorden, 1935; Takaki, 1989).
Beyond the scope of family, Chinese-Hawaiians lived in a society
and culture that, by the early 20th century, became a symbol of the
“melting pot” ideology that celebrated immigrant assimilation into a
homogenized US culture (Griffiths, 1916). Chinese-Hawaiians not only
assimilated into the dominant culture in Hawaii, but attained a high
level of social status and success, even above that of multiracial White-
Hawaiians (Reece, 1914; Smith, 1934). As more Chinese men fulfilled
their labor contracts on the plantations, started their own rice farms
or family stores, and married Native Hawaiian women, they started to
form whole, distinct, and segregated Chinese-Hawaiian communities,
such as in Kau, Hilo, and Honolulu (Lorden, 1935; Takaki, 1989). The
economic prosperity achieved by the Chinese paired with the political
connections of the Hawaiians made Chinese-Hawaiians especially
well-positioned to ascend the socio-economic ladder (Smith, 1934).

19
 Race policy and multiracial Americans

Over time, the numbers of Chinese-Hawaiians began to stabilize and

then wane as more Chinese women became available for marriage in
the islands and as Chinese-Hawaiians married into other multiracial
groups (Smith, 1934; Lorden, 1935).

Multiraciality in the US Constitution, Census, and social

policy
As the examples of the African slaves in Colonial Virginia, Seminoles
in Florida, Navajo in the Four Corners, mestizos in New Spain, and
Chinese-Hawaiians demonstrate, contact among Native, European,
African, and Asian populations between the 1500s and 1800s was
geographically widespread. However, societal reactions to racial mixing,
intermarriage, and the birth of multiracial children varied on a spectrum
from complete subjugation and enslavement to complete freedom and
equality. When attempting to describe the accelerated process of racial
mixing he witnessed in early 20th-century Hawaii, Reece (1914: 104)
wrote: “When two races meet, the normal course of their association
is through introduction, hostility, tolerance, indifference, co-operation,
friendship, fusion.” While Reece’s model might be seen as too linear,
optimistic, or naive, it does raise some important questions. Is it a
natural tendency for different racial groups to blend together if they
live in close proximity to one another? If so, what happens to this
natural tendency when a government attempts to legally enforce racial
segregation in a society composed of multiple races and ethnicities?
The following discussion of the Constitution, Census, and race policy
in the US helps to answer that question.
After Virginia and the other English colonies declared their
independence in 1776 and formed the United States of America,
a series of governmental actions attempted to standardize the
enumeration and status of all racial groups, including multiracial
people, through constitutional means. The first such action consisted
of a 1787 agreement between Northern and Southern states known
as the “three-fifths clause,” whereby three fifths of the population of
slaves would be counted in the official population of the US. Northern
states were largely comprised of free White persons, while Southern
states had higher numbers of slaves in their populations. The Southern
states wanted to include them and the Northern states did not as the
number of representatives per state in Congress is based on each state’s
population. In the end, the compromise became part of Article 1,
Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution.

20
 Multiracial Americans throughout the history of the US

The sentence in the Constitution immediately following the three

fifths clause is particularly relevant to the history of multiracial people
in the US. It mandates that the US government conduct a “decennial”
census (every 10 years). Thus, beginning as far back as 1787, we can
see the importance of using the US Census to collect data on race,
that is, “free persons” and “slaves.” Over the next 200 years, the US
Census questions and categories changed in various ways to suit the
political, economic, and social needs of the nation. One thing, however,
stayed the same. People were always counted as belonging to one racial
category, even if they were racially mixed.
Special categories for multiracial people became common in
the 1800s. Categories such as “mulatto,” “quadroon,” “octoroon,”
“hexadecaroon,” and “quintroon” were used to indicate varying levels
of mixture between White and Black (Hochschild and Powell, 2008).
“Mulatto” described persons of mixed race, part Black and part White;
“quadroon” meant one quarter Black ancestry; “octoroon” meant one
eighth Black; “hexadecaroon” meant one sixteenth Black; “quintroon”
was a person who had one parent who was an octoroon and one White
parent. Thus, people who were mixed were categorized in a single,
independent (non-White) racial group rather than multiple racial
groups simultaneously.
After the Civil War ended in 1865 and slavery was abolished with the
passage of the 13th Amendment, Black and multiracial Americans in
traditional slave states were no longer destined to a life of servitude. This
freedom, while constitutionally guaranteed, was short-lived. Ideologies
of White supremacy, the economic need for cheap labor in the cotton
industry, and the social acceptance of racial segregation—all of which
accompanied the culture and legacy of slavery—became dominant
forces once again after federal troops withdrew from the South in 1877
(Steinberg, 1989). Wealthy Southern White people started to regain
political power by dividing poor White and Black Americans from one
another through laws enforcing racial segregation. These laws were
referred to as Jim Crow laws, after the name given to Black characters
played by White people in blackface in stage shows during the 1800s.
In 1896, Homer Plessy, a man who was one eighth Black, challenged
a Jim Crow law in Louisiana that separated railroad passengers by race.
Plessy’s case made it all the way to the US Supreme Court, which ruled
that the “separate but equal” treatment of Black people (“coloreds”) and
White people was legal in public places. This ruling reaffirmed racial
segregation in schools, hospitals, trains, and many other public places.
While activists worked to overturn racial segregation and challenge
racist policies and attitudes in the late 19th century, eugenicists believed

21
 Race policy and multiracial Americans

that they could prove the superiority of one racial group over another
through scientific investigation. Comparing differences in the average
volume of the human skull was one method used in the attempt to
rank racial groups by intelligence. These so-called biological differences
were found to have originated from researcher bias once blind testing
became the scientific standard (Gould, 1981).
Efforts to avoid “contaminating” the purity of so-called “supreme”
races by discouraging or preventing sexual relations between persons
of different racial groups were also part of the eugenicist agenda, even
in the US (Sandall, 2008). Eugenicists thought that the White race
was weakened through mixing with other races but other races were
strengthened by being mixed with White (Park, 1928).
In 1954, the US Supreme Court effectively reversed the Plessy
decision when it ended “separate but equal” racial segregation in public
schools with the Brown v. Board of Education decision. Just over a decade
later, in 1967, the last legal prohibitions against interracial marriage
were overturned with the US Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in
Loving v. Virginia (Moran, 2001). Richard and Mildred Loving were
residents of Virginia, which had banned marriage between White and
“non-White” partners, so they married in Washington, DC, in 1958.
Richard was White and Mildred was Black and Native American. The
police in Virginia arrested and jailed Richard and Mildred in 1959
for violating a law that criminalized interracial couples who married
out of state and returned to Virginia to live (Newbeck, 2008). The
Lovings were eventually forced to move out of Virginia with their
three children, and they sought additional legal help. The American
Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Lovings, which
eventually led to the legalization of all interracial marriages, and this
finally put an end to anti-miscegenation laws.
As the Loving case made its way through the court system, the
US government continued to develop its methods for counting and
categorizing people by race. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 led to
Executive Order 11185, which aimed to deliver better public education
to minority ethnic and racial groups. The Federal Interagency
Committee on Education (FICE), established to carry out this order,
recommended that “compatible” and “non-duplicative” racial and
ethnic categories be used by all federal agencies in order to collect more
accurate data on race. In 1977, the Office of Management and Budget’s
(OMB) “Directive no. 15: standards for the classification of federal data
on race and ethnicity” defined five main mutually exclusive racial and
ethnic categories in the US: (1) American Indian or Alaskan Native;
(2) Asian or Pacific Islander; (3) Black; (4) Hispanic; and (5) White.

22
 Multiracial Americans throughout the history of the US

This system reinforced a long-standing tradition whereby multiracial

people were forced to identify with only one race.
The 1983 case of Susie Guillory Phipps illustrated the continued
influence of the one-drop rule and the notion of static, immutable
racial categories. It also showcased the way in which racial identification
depends on social construction and legal precedent more than biology
or genetics (Omi and Winant, 1986). In the course of preparing
for a trip she and her husband planned to take, Phipps applied for a
passport, and she was informed that she was not, as she thought she
was, White. It turned out that she was 3/32nds Black, and the state
of Louisiana classified anyone 1/32nd or more Black to be Black. Her
birth certificate, which she had not previously seen, also indicated that
she was Black. Phipps sued the Louisiana Bureau of Vital Records to
change her racial classification from Black to White.
Phipps’s attorney argued that the assignment of racial categories on
birth certificates was unconstitutional and that the classification of all
those with 1/32nd or more Black ancestry as Black was inaccurate. He
asked for expert testimony from a retired Tulane University professor
who cited research indicating that most White people have 1/20th
“Negro” ancestry. Assistant Attorney General Ron Davis defended
the law by pointing out that some type of racial classification was
necessary to comply with federal record-keeping requirements and to
facilitate programs for the prevention of genetic diseases. In the end,
Phipps lost. Despite being 91% “White,” the one-drop rule prevented
her from legally changing her race on her birth certificate, so she
remained “Black.”

The growing acceptance of multiraciality

By the 1990s, growth in the numbers of interracial marriages,
multiracial people, and multiracial organizations began to challenge
and complicate the government’s use of single, mutually exclusive
racial categories. The number of interracial marriages tripled from
321,000 in 1970 to 964,000 in 1990 (US Bureau of the Census,
1994, 2011). Likewise, the number of multiracial children quadrupled
from 500,000 in 1970 to 2,000,000 in 1990 (US Bureau of the
Census, 1997). With the increasing number of interracial marriages
and multiracial children, a number of advocacy organizations—such
as Project RACE (Reclassify All Children Equally), A Place for Us
(APFU), and MultiEthnic Americans (AMEA)—emerged to serve
this growing population.

23
 Race policy and multiracial Americans

The year 1997 marked a significant tipping point in public attitudes

toward multiraciality. That year, 21-year-old golfer Tiger Woods
made headlines on the Oprah Winfrey Show when he described his
racial background as “Cablinasian,” an abbreviation representing
his “Caucasian,” “Black,” “American Indian,” and “Asian” heritage.
Woods explained how he felt uncomfortable being labeled “African-
American,” and was reluctant to check only one box for his racial
background on school forms. Woods’ declaration of a multiracial
identity on national television challenged the one-drop rule and the
idea that racial categories are mutually exclusive and homogeneous.
That same year, the US Census announced that it would allow
individuals to choose more than one racial identity beginning in 2000.
This decision resulted from pressure applied from organizations like
Project RACE, APFU, and AMEA (Spencer, 1999; Daniel, 2002;
Farley, 2002; Williams, 2005; DaCosta, 2007). White women married
to middle-class Black men spearheaded petitions at the state and local
level because they felt that their children were being forced to choose
one parent over the other on government forms (Williams, 2006).
Moreover, close to 500,000 people had identified as multiracial by
checking off more than one race or writing in more than one race in
the “other” category on the 1990 US Census (Williams, 2005). Former
Census Bureau director Kenneth Prewitt remarked that people who
marked two or more racial categories on the 1990 US Census were
assigned to a single race based on which box had the darkest pen mark
(Williams, 2005). For people who used the “other” category to write
in “Black–White” or “White–Black” as their race, the census counted
the former as “Black” and the latter as “White” and ignored the second
race listed (Lee, 1993).
With the change in the US Census rules and the influence of
multiracial celebrities like Tiger Woods, it was clear that, 30 years
after Loving v. Virginia legalized interracial marriage across the US,
the movement to grant multiracial people the freedom to create and
define their own identities on government forms was well underway
(Weisman, 1996). The publication of Maria P.P. Root’s groundbreaking
books—Racially mixed people in America (Root, 1992) and The multiracial
experience: racial borders as the new frontier (Root, 1996)—also reflected
this social change. A flood of other books and articles on multiracial
Americans has appeared since then. Few, if any, though, discuss race
policy issues that accompany changes in the racial categorization of
people with multiracial backgrounds.

24
 Multiracial Americans throughout the history of the US

Closing thoughts
As other chapters in this book will discuss, the paradigmatic shift that
occurred in 2000 in response to the growing number of multiracial
people in the US and pressure from multiracial advocacy groups raises
many new policy questions concerning racial identity, boundaries,
and hierarchy that need to be answered. For example, what are the
implications of treating multiracial people as a separate racial group or
alternative racial category when it comes to discrimination, affirmative
action, and educational and health policy? How can multiracial people
be counted, tracked, and classified in places like colleges and prisons,
where achieving racial parity still poses significant challenges? How
do multiracial identities complicate arguments for or against a color-
blind society, analyses of social class and race, and movements for social
justice? Understanding the tension between the centuries-long history
of anti-miscegenation, racial segregation, and hypodescent, on the one
hand, and the alternative possibilities offered by intermarriage, racial
integration, and unconditional acceptance of multiracial people, on
the other, creates a useful framework for such an endeavor.

References
Aronilth, W., Jr (1985) Foundations of Navajo culture. Tsaile, AZ: Navajo
Community College.
Avakian, M. (2002) Atlas of Asian-American history. New York, NY:
Checkmark Books.
Claudio, S. (1998) The English has now a mind to make slaves of them
all. American Indian Quarterly 22(1/2): 157–81.
DaCosta, K. (2007) Making multiracials: state, family, and market in the
redrawing of the color line. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Daniel, G.R. (2002) More than Black? Multiracial identity and the new
racial order. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Daniel, G.R. (2010) Race and multiraciality in Brazil and the United States:
converging paths? University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.
Davis, F.J. (1991) Who is Black? One nation’s definition. University Park,
PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Emerson, L. (2014) Interview conducted on 10 January in San Diego,
CA.
Farley, R. (2002) Racial identities in 2000: the response to the multiple-
race response option. In: J. Perlmann and M.C. Waters (eds) The new
race question. New York, NY: Russell Sage, pp 33–61.

25
 Race policy and multiracial Americans

Fisher, W.W. (1992) Ideology and imagery in the law of slavery—

symposium on the law of slavery: theories of democracy and the law
of slavery. Chicago–Kent Law Review 68(3): 1051–83.
Forbes, J.D. (1966) Black pioneers: the Spanish-speaking Afro-
Americans of the Southwest. Phylon 7(3): 233–46.
Forbes, J.D. (1983) Hispano-Mexican pioneers of the San Francisco
Bay region: an analysis of racial origins. Aztlan: A Journal of Chicano
Studies 14(1): 175–89.
Forbes, J.D. (1993) Africans and Native Americans: the language of race and
the evolution of Red-Black peoples, Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.
Garr, D. (1975) A rare and desolate land: population and race in
Hispanic California. Western History Quarterly 2: 133–48.
Gould, S.J. (1981) The mismeasure of man. New York, NY: W.W.
Norton & Company.
Griffiths, A.F. (1916) The Japanese race question in Hawaii. The Journal
of Race Development 6(4): 422–40.
Hatch, T. and Still, C. (2012) Osceola fights to save the Seminole.
American Heritage 62(2): 34–39.
Hening, W.W. (1823) The statutes at large: being a collection of all the laws
of Virginia, from the first session of the legislature in the year 1619. New
York, NY: R & W & G. Bartow.
Higginbotham, A.L. and Kopytoff, B.K. (1989) Racial purity and
interracial sex in the law of Colonial and Antebellum Virginia.
Georgetown Law Journal 77(6): 1967–2029.
Hochschild, J.L. and Powell, B.M. (2008) Racial reorganization and
the United States Census 1850–1930: mulattoes, half-breeds, mixed
parentage, hindoos, and the Mexican race. Studies in American Political
Development 22(1): 59–96.
Hollinger, D.A. (2003) Amalgamation and hypodescent: the question of
ethnoracial mixture in the history of the United States. The American
Historical Review 108(5): 1363–90.
Jordan, W.D. (2014) Historical origins of the one-drop racial rule in
the United States. Journal of Critical Mixed Race Studies 1(1): 99–132.
Lee, L.L. (2006) Navajo cultural identity: what can the Navajo Nation
bring to the American Indian identity discussion table? Wicazo Sa
Review 21(2): 79–103.
Lee, S.M. (1993) Racial classifications in the US Census: 1890–1990.
Ethnic and Racial Studies 16(1): 75–94.
Lorden, D.M. (1935) The Chinese-Hawaiian family. American Journal
of Sociology 40(4): 453–63.
Menard, R. (2013) Making a “popular slave society” in colonial British
America. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 43(3): 377–95.

26
 Multiracial Americans throughout the history of the US

Moller, H. (1945) Sex composition and correlated cultural patterns in

colonial America. William and Mary Quarterly 3(2): 128.
Moran, R.F. (2001) Interracial intimacy: the regulation of race and romance.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Newbeck, P. (2008) Virginia hasn’t always been for lovers: interracial
marriage bans and the case of Richard and Mildred Loving. Carbondale,
IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Nordyke, E.C. (1989) The peopling of Hawaii (2nd edn). Honolulu, HI:
University of Hawai’i Press.
Ogunleye, T.M. (2006) Àrokò, Mmomomme Twe, Nsibidi, Ogede, and
Tusona: Africanisms in Florida’s self-emancipated Africans’ resistance
to enslavement and war stratagems. Journal of Black Studies 36(3):
396–414.
Omi, M. and Winant, H. (1986) Racial formation in the United States: from
the 1960s to the 1980s. New York, NY: Routledge & Kegan Paul Inc.
Park, R.E. (1928) Human migration and the marginal man. American
Journal of Sociology 33(6): 881–93.
Reece, E.J. (1914) Race mingling in Hawaii. American Journal of
Sociology 20(1): 104–16.
Restall, M. (2009) The Black middle: Africans, Mayas, and Spaniards in
colonial Yucatan. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
Root, M.P.P. (1992) Racially mixed people in America. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Root, M.P.P. (1996) The multiracial experience: racial borders as the new
frontier. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sandall, R. (2008) Sir Francis Galton and the roots of eugenics. Society
45(2): 170–76.
Schwaller, R.C. (2012) The importance of mestizos and mulatos as
bilingual intermediaries in sixteenth-century New Spain. Ethnohistory
59(4): 714–38.
Smith, W.C. (1934) The hybrid in Hawaii as a marginal man. American
Journal of Sociology 39(4): 459–68.
Soodalter, R. (2012) On removing Seminoles. Military History 29(2):
62–9.
Spencer, R. (1999) Spurious issues: race and multiracial identity politics in
the United States. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Spruhan, P. (2006) A legal history of blood quantum in federal Indian
Law to 1935. South Dakota Law Review 51(6): 1–50.
Spruhan, P. (2007/08) The origins, current status, and future prospects
of blood quantum as the definition of membership in the Navajo
Nation. Tribal Law Journal 8: 1–17.

27
 Race policy and multiracial Americans

Spruill, J.C. (1998) Women’s life and work in the Southern Colonies. New
York, NY, and London: W.W. Norton & Company.
Steinberg, S. (1989) The ethnic myth: race, ethnicity and class in America.
Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Takaki, R. (1989) Strangers from a different shore: a history of Asian
Americans (2nd edn). New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Takaki, R. (1993) A different mirror: a history of multicultural America.
Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Co.
Thybony, S. (1991) Against all odds, Black Seminole won their
freedom. Smithsonian 22(5): 90–9.
US Bureau of the Census (1790) Heads of Families at the First Census
1790. Available at: http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/
documents/1790m-02.pdf.
US Bureau of the Census (1994) Table 1. Race of wife by race of
husband: 1960, 1970, 1980, 1991, and 1992. Washington, DC.
Available at: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/race/
interractab1.txt US Bureau of the Census (1997) Results of the 1996
race and ethnic targeted test. Population Division Working Paper no
18, Washington, DC.
US Bureau of the Census (2011) The 2011 statistical abstract of the
United States. Washington, DC.
Valdés, D.M. (1978) The decline of the Sociedad de castas in Mexico
City. PhD thesis, University of Michigan.
Weisman, J.R. (1996) An “other” way of life: the empowerment of
alterity in the interracial individual. In: M.P.P. Root (ed) The multiracial
experience. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp 152–64.
Williams, K.M. (2005) Multiracialism & the future of civil rights.
Daedalus 134(1): 53–60.
Williams, K.M. (2006) Mark one or more: civil rights in multiracial America.
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Yazzie, R. (1994) “Life comes from it”: Navajo justice concepts. New
Mexico Law Review 24: 175–90.

28
 TWO

National and local structures of

inequality: multiracial groups’
profiles across the US
Mary E. Campbell and Jessica M. Barron

Why compare multiracial groups?

This chapter describes the income and education profiles of the 10
largest multiracial groups in the US. Our goal is to better understand
how these groups are positioned within the racial inequality system
in the US. Racial inequality and discrimination is long-established in
the US, with White people experiencing significantly more privileged
positions along many different axes (e.g., educational, occupational,
income, health, etc) than Black people and Native Americans. Some
have argued, however, that as we become an increasingly multiracial
society, some of the ways in which racial inequality is organized might
change (e.g., Yancey, 2003; Bonilla-Silva, 2004; O’Brien, 2008; Lee
and Bean, 2010), and the rapidly growing multiracial groups (along
with Latino/as and Asians, rapidly growing immigrant groups) might
be at the forefront of these changes because their position in the system
of racial inequality may be shifting (as discussed by Quiñones-Rosado
in Chapter Three and Strmic-Pawl and Brunsma in Chapter Eleven).
What kinds of outcomes might we predict for groups of individuals
who identify with more than one race? One prediction might be that
because multiracial individuals have family or ancestral connections
to more than one racial group, and these racial groups have different
average socio-economic characteristics, multiracial groups will fall
(on average) in between the characteristics of those two specific racial
groups. These many group-specific differences may result in multiracial
groups experiencing different kinds of oppression and/or privilege,
and therefore result in their occupying different positions in the US
“racial hierarchy.” This assumes, however, that there are no other forces
affecting their outcomes. If, in fact, multiracial groups face more or
less discrimination than single-race groups, their outcomes may not be

29
 Race policy and multiracial Americans

a simple averaging of the single-race group outcomes. One goal here,

then, is to gain some leverage on the question of whether the outcomes
of multiracial groups appear to be shaped by the specific histories and
outcomes of their single-race origin groups, or whether multiracial
groups also share some commonalities (because of their shared ties to
multiple racial groups) that distinguish them from groups who only
claim a single racial background. Also, all of these groups are spread
unevenly across the US, and the experiences of these groups might
depend heavily on the region in which they live and the particular
history of that area. We might hypothesize that groups may face more
discrimination in some local contexts compared to others (e.g., the
experience of part-Black groups being different in the South compared
to the West) or experience other geographic variation because of
differences in the local history, size, or composition of the group. We
therefore ask three main questions in this chapter in order to capture
some of the important facets of this variation:

1. What are the inequality patterns for multiracial groups?

2. Are those inequality patterns the same for children and adults?
3. How do those patterns vary across major cities in the US?

One thing that is important to keep in mind throughout this chapter

is that we are examining groups based only on their self-identification,
and past research makes it clear that different groups experience
different influences on their identification. For example, individuals
with both Black and White heritage are often used as the prime
example of a group that has historically faced significant pressure to
identify as Black alone, rather than claim a multiracial identification
(e.g., Korgen, 1998; Spencer, 1999; Daniel, 2002; DaCosta, 2007;
Rockquemore and Brunsma, 2008; Khanna, 2011), while Asian–
White individuals are often used as an example of a group who have
historically had the flexibility to choose their identification more
freely (e.g., Xie and Goyette, 1997; Khanna, 2004). Although many
argue that these historical pressures are weaker today and multiracial
identification is accepted much more broadly, allowing individuals to
claim multiracial identification more freely, we must still remember that
self-identification is a choice, and therefore that not everyone aware of
a multiracial background will claim a multiracial identification, and not
everyone who identifies as multiracial has parents of two different races
(see, e.g., Harris and Sim, 2002; Brunsma, 2005; Campbell, 2007).
As Harris and Sim (2002) famously put it, what we are describing
are the characteristics of “a” multiracial population rather than “the”

30
 National and local structures of inequality

multiracial population. We would be including different individuals if

we, for example, changed the format of the question used to measure
“race” or used the self-identification of parents to identify multiracial
people rather than focusing on the self-identification of the individual.

Why use survey data?

Although national survey data have significant limitations for
understanding the experiences of multiracial people, including the
limitations imposed by the structure of the racial identification
questions and the lack of information on the meaning of those
categories to the individuals, we argue that large-scale survey data
are very useful for the questions we wish to answer in this chapter.
Survey data allow us to take a national approach to answering these
questions and to systematically compare the cities with the largest self-
identified multiracial populations. Still, we acknowledge the limitations
of these data. One significant limitation is that the two-question
format (separating Latina/o “ethnicity” or origin from all of the
“racial” categories; see Figure 1) limits our understanding of whether
individuals who claim both a Latina/o identification and a single racial
identification are actually claiming a multiracial identification. Thus,
although someone who identifies as Mexican-American and White
might be doing so because they have one Mexican-American parent
and one Anglo parent or feel connected to both Anglo and Mexican
ancestry, there is no way to separate those who are doing so from those
who are simply answering “White” in the race question because they
are being forced to choose a box (see, e.g., Rodriguez, 2000). Thus, for
Latinas/os and non-Latinas/os, we only consider individuals who chose
two or more groups in the “race” question (question 6 in Figure 1) as
multiracial because those individuals are clearly identifying with more
than one category in the same question. A second significant limitation
is that because the survey is taken at home and then mailed in, there
is no way to be sure that the individuals we analyze actually filled out
these two questions for themselves. It is likely that in most households,
one person fills out the survey for everyone in the household. Thus,
while we would prefer to use each individual adult’s and child’s self-
identification, in many cases (especially for children), we have a proxy
response filled out by another member of the household.
Using the five-year American Community Survey (ACS) data from
2007 to 2011, we compare the 10 largest non-Latina/o and Latina/o
multiracial groups (non-Latina/o groups: White–Black, White–Asian,
White–American Indian, Black–American Indian, Asian–Some Other

31
 Race policy and multiracial Americans

Figure 2.1: American Community Survey questionnaire, 2011

Race, White–Black–American Indian, and Black Asian; Latina/o

groups: Latina/o–White–Some Other Race, Latina/o–Black–Some
Other Race, and Latina/o–Asian–Some Other Race). We compare
both children and adults from each of these groups, because much of
the literature on multiracial groups has focused on the experiences of
children or adolescents and their socio-economic and demographic
outcomes (see, e.g., Campbell, 2009; Cheng and Lively, 2009; Herman,
2009; Bratter and Kimbro 2013). Less work has been done on adults
who identify as multiracial, so it is less clear whether adults’ experiences
in the racial hierarchy in the US tend to fall “in between” the different
racial groups that they claim as part of their identification.

32
 Race policy and multiracial Americans

Where do the multiracial groups “fit” in the racial

hierarchy in the US?

Adults

There is a tremendous amount of socio-economic diversity among the

10 largest multiracial groups in the US. Table 2.1 includes weighted
sociodemographics for multiracial and single-race groups. Looking
at the descriptive results for multiracial adults in the US in Table 2.1
shows us that the median household income (in 2011 dollars) for the
groups ranges from under $40,000 for Black–American Indian adults
to over $70,000 for Asian–Some Other Race adults. This wide range
of income relates to the many demographic differences between the
groups, such as the sizable variation in family structure (percentage of
the group who are married or never married), nativity (percentage of
the group who were born outside and inside the US) and education
(percentage of the group who have earned at least a high school degree
or at least a bachelor’s degree).
The most educated multiracial groups on average are White–Asian
and Asian–Some Other Race adults. More than 40% of both groups
have earned a bachelor’s degree or more. Adults who identify as
Asian–Some Other Race are as highly educated as those who identify
as only Asian, the most educated of the single-race groups. The groups
with the lowest levels of college attainment are Latina/o–White–Some
Other Race and Latina/o–Black–Some Other Race, both with less
than 20% of the group having achieved at least a bachelor’s degree.
Comparing these numbers to Latinas/os overall, whose rate of earning
a bachelor’s degree or more is 14%, the multiracial Latina/o groups
all have similar or slightly higher educational attainment. This shows
us that like the national numbers for other Latinas/os, these numbers
are likely influenced by the bimodal nature of immigration to the US
today (where many immigrants are very highly educated, and many
have very little education; see, e.g., Bean et al, 2004). On the one hand,
more than one third of each of these groups was born outside of the
US, and many of these individuals have low levels of education. For
example, 11% of foreign-born Latinas/os have at least a college degree,
significantly lower than the average for the group overall. Foreign-born
individuals in the multiracial Latina/o groups are also less likely to have
a college degree than the group overall, with the notable exception
of Latina/o–Asian–Some Other Race adults. On the other hand, the
Asian–Some Other Race group has by far the largest proportion who
are foreign-born (83%), and they also have the highest percentage of

33
 Table 2.1: Average socio-economic characteristics of the 10 largest multiracial groups: adults, 2007–2011 ACS, weighted
Multiracial groups White–Black Latino/a White–Asian White– Latino/a Black–AIAN Asian– White–Black– Black–Asian Latino/a
White-SOR AIAN Black SOR SOR AIAN Asian–SOR
Group size 475,500 450,000 688,600 1,020,400 63,300 191,000 62,000 99,100 84,700 38,400
Average age 32 39 36 45 36 44 43 41 37 39
Median household income ($) 42,486 49,666 64,524 43,145 41,480 39,008 72,820 41,019 52,243 55,902
High school degree or morea (%) 92 73 94 87 82 89 88 93 91 83
Bachelors or morea (%) 28 17 42 20 18 21 50 28 30 24
Married (%) 27 45 43 44 30 30 63 30 35 43
Never married (%) 60 38 46 28 54 43 26 46 48 42
Foreign-born (%) 9 42 29 1 36 2 83 3 43 37
US citizen (%) 94 83 78 99 84 98 51 98 69 81
Bilingual (%) 8 57 21 5 52 6 69 7 21 49

34
Single-race groups White Black Asian AIAN Latino/a
Group size 156,774,600 27,024,000 11,511,100 1,473,500 32,449,500
Average age 49 43 43 43 40
Median income household ($) 58,742 38,180 70,000 37,473 41,388
a
High school degree or more (%) 92 84 88 82 64
National and local structures of inequality

Bachelors or morea (%) 32 18 51 14 14

Married (%) 56 32 61 41 49 Notes

Never married (%) 23 44 28 23 35 SOR = Some other race

Foreign-born (%) 5 11 81 2 58 AIAN = American Indian, Alaska Native
a
Educational attainment rates for adults 25 and older, all other
US citizen (%) 97 94 53 99 83 statistics refer to adults 18 and older
Bilingual (%) 6 7 74 23 69
 Race policy and multiracial Americans

college-educated group members, showing that many of the foreign-

born in the US are highly educated.
One of the important and often overlooked demographic
characteristics of a group is the percentage who are functionally
bilingual (in both English and a heritage language). Bilingualism
has some significant advantages, including the ability to maintain
strong intergenerational ties with relatives who do not speak English
while still being able to easily navigate US social institutions that rely
almost exclusively on English-speaking ability. Table 2.1 shows that
bilingualism varies widely among multiracial groups as well, with more
than 50% of the sample of some groups reporting that they are bilingual.
Two of these groups are Latina/o (Latina/o–White–Some Other Race
and Latina/o–Black–Some Other Race), while one is not (Asian–Some
Other Race). For these groups, connection to two or more racial and
ethnic backgrounds is also often tied to strong connections to two or
more languages. For others, however, like White–American Indian
and Black–American Indian respondents, very few speak a language
other than English, suggesting that Native American language ability
is not a strong characteristic of these multiracial groups. The other
two part-Asian multiracial groups (White–Asian and Black–Asian)
fall in between, with about one fifth of the group reporting that they
are bilingual.

Children

We see similar diverse patterns of outcomes for children in Table 2.2.

It is important to note that these demographic characteristics do not
follow exactly the same pattern we see if we look at multiracial adults.
First, let us consider group size. If we examine children only, we would
find that the largest multiracial groups in the US are White–Black and
White–Asian children. If we examine adults only, we would conclude
that White–American Indians are the largest group by far, followed by
White–Asians. This difference is important for our thinking about the
diversity of multiracial groups, and likely reflects differences in: (1) the
history of interracial relationships among racial groups; (2) patterns of
self-identification compared to identification by someone else in the
household (i.e, few children are self-identifying—someone else, such
as a parent, is likely filling out the form for them); and (3) the meaning
of the categories for the individuals who claim a multiracial identity
(e.g., many have argued that adults who formerly called themselves
White make up a large portion of the White–American Indian category
among adults; see, e.g., Nagel, 1997; Snipp, 2003).

35
 Table 2.2: Average socio-economic characteristics of the 10 largest multiracial groups: children, 2007–2011 ACS, weighted

Multiracial groups White–Black Latino/a White–Asian White– Latino/a Black–AIAN Asian– White–Black– Black–Asian Latino/a
White-SOR AIAN Black SOR SOR AIAN Asian–SOR
Group size 1,105,500 418,100 777,800 420,800 101,900 73,000 23,200 78,300 84,200 40,000
Median household income ($) 38,623 51,430 88,881 47,596 36,871 34,435 80,711 37,249 56,000 62,610
Foreign-born (%) 1 5 6 1 3 1 21 1 6 4
US citizen (%) 99 98 96 99 99 99 93 99 96 98
Bilingual (%) 3 37 15 4 30 7 48 6 15 33

36
Single-race groups White Black Asian AIAN Latino/a
Group size 42,756,300 11,125,800 3,474,800 620,400 17,651,200
Median income household ($) 89,960 45,308 98,239 36,215 51,105
Foreign-born (%) 2 3 25 1 11
US citizen (%) 99 98 90 100 98
Bilingual (%) 6 6 62 15 65
National and local structures of inequality

Notes

SOR = Some other race

AIAN = American Indian, Alaska Native
a
Educational attainment rates for adults 25 and older, all other statistics refer to adults 18 and older
 National and local structures of inequality

The demographic data for multiracial children also reveal different

patterns than we find for multiracial adults. There are greater household
income disparities among the groups of children identified as multiracial,
with household incomes of multiracial youth ranging from an average
of $34,000 for Black–American Indians to an average of $89,000 for
children with a White–Asian identification. This is a higher average
household income for the richest group of youth, White–Asians,
and a lower average income for Black–American Indians, the poorest
group, than we see among adults. Children identified as multiracial
are also more likely to be born in the US and to speak only one
language than adults. Asian–Some Other Race children are the only
multiracial youth group to have a significant number of foreign-born
group members, and rates of bilingualism are far lower for children than
for adults identified as Asian–Some Other Race. Almost all children
identified as multiracial in this survey were born in the US, and most
speak only one language fluently. As Table 2.2 indicates, the most
bilingual group of children is Asian–Some Other Race youth, 48% of
whom are bilingual, followed by Latina/o–White–Some Other Race
youth at 37%, Latina/o–Asian–Some Other Race youth at 33%, and
Latina/o–Black–Some Other Race youth at 30%. All of the other
groups are below 20% in their rates of bilingualism, whereas six of the
10 adult groups had bilingualism rates above 20%.
These patterns of inequality, for both adults and children, show that
the same structures of racial inequality that affect single-race groups
also affect multiracial groups (as Botts points out in Chapter Five).
African-Americans, Native Americans and Latinas/os face high levels
of discrimination in the US, and we see that multiracial groups with
some Black or Latina/o background also have lower levels of income
than, for example, multiracial groups with Asian and White heritage. If
we look at median household income for adults, of the five groups with
incomes below $45,000, four are part-Black, and the fifth is part-Native
American. The three groups with the highest incomes (over $55,000)
all are part-Asian. Of course, multiracial groups do complicate these
questions; for example, the groups that are part-White are expressing
a connection to a racialized minority and the majority group, while
the other groups are expressing connections to multiple racialized
minority groups with different histories and experiences in the US.
Still, the outcomes of multiracial groups do often follow patterns that
resemble the racial inequality experiences of the single-race groups to
which they are connected.

37
 Race policy and multiracial Americans

Does it matter where you live?

In addition to comparing the national averages for group outcomes, we
include a comparison of a few important socio-economic outcomes
for multiracial groups living in the 10 cities in the US with the greatest
number of multiracial people (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago,
Houston, San Diego, Honolulu, Phoenix, San Jose, San Antonio, and
Philadelphia) in order to test whether the racial stratification system for
multiracial people is similar across the US or varies by local context.
We began our investigation by looking at all 10 groups for all 10 cities,
but in many cases, the sample sizes were too small to result in reliable
estimates. Thus, we show selected results for the four largest multiracial
groups in the 10 cities, excluding any estimates that are based on a
sample of fewer than 100 respondents in that city.
Figure 2.2: Median household income for multiracial adults, divided by city
median household income, 2007–2011 ACS
2.00

1.80

1.60

1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40
White–Black Latino / a White Some Other Race White–Asian White–American Indian Alaska Native
New York Los Angeles Chicago Houston San Diego Urban Honolulu Phoenix San Jose San Antonio Philadelphia

As an example of why this local variation is important, consider

Figure 2.2, in which we examine the median household income of
each multiracial group divided by the median household income in
the city in which they live (in 2011 dollars) for adults who identify
as multiracial. We divide the group’s income by the median value for
the city because some cities have higher median incomes overall than
others; incomes appear high for all groups in San Jose, for example,
if you do not control for this variation across cities. If the group’s
value is greater than 1, their median household income is above the
city average. This figure shows us that only White–Asian adults have
household incomes that are consistently above the median for their

38
 National and local structures of inequality

city, but that there is also considerable variation by place for some of
the groups, though many of these differences are not significant when
we examine statistical models of family income divided by city median
income.1 For example, White–Black adults who live in the cities shown
in Figure 2.2 do not have relative incomes that differ significantly from
White–Black adults who live in Honolulu, and, similarly, there is little
significant variation by city for White–Asian adults. If we compare
the incomes (relative to their city medians) for Latino/a–White–Some
Other Race adults across cities, however, there are variations that are
statistically significant (p < .01). For example, Latino/a–White–Some
Other Race adults who live in Honolulu earn significantly more relative
to the city median than those who live in Los Angeles, New York, or
Philadelphia, among other cities. White–American Indian adults who
live in Houston are also earning significantly more relative to their city
average than their peers in Honolulu (p < .01). These variations are
important because they show us that even with a basic adjustment for
variation across cities in the overall level of economic well-being in the
city, the experience of these groups varies considerably across places.
Equally important, if we are only comparing groups in New York or
Philadelphia, we would conclude that Latina/o–White–Some Other
Race individuals come from the most disadvantaged group, but in Los
Angeles, Chicago, San Diego, or Phoenix, we would conclude that
the most disadvantaged group is White–Black adults. These disparities
mean that our conclusions about the structure of racial oppression and
privilege in the US depend at least in part on where in the US we are
examining those disparities.
We also see sizable local variation if we consider the household
incomes of children identified as multiracial, though these differences
are again not all statistically significant. In Figure 2.3, we see the median
household incomes for children identified as multiracial (with only
those cases where at least 100 respondents under the age of 18 from
that group live in that city, and again divided by the median household
income in the city), and these patterns also show large disparities in
the experiences of the same group across multiple cities. White–Asian
children who live in Honolulu are significantly (p < .05) disadvantaged
relative to their peers in every other city listed here. Note that the
median household income for children identified as White–Asian is
significantly (p < .001) greater than the median household incomes
for adults who identify as White–Asian; this remains true even if you
control for differences between the cities in which the children live.
Interestingly, this is true for all four of the largest multiracial groups; the

39
 Race policy and multiracial Americans

Figure 2.3: Median household income for multiracial children, divided by city
median household income, 2007–2011 ACS

2.00

1.80

1.60

1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40
White–Black Latino / a White Some Other Race White–Asian White–American Indian Alaska Native
New York Los Angeles Chicago Houston San Diego Urban Honolulu Phoenix San Jose San Antonio Philadelphia

children identified with that group come from significantly (p < .01)
higher-income families than the adults identified with that group,
controlling for differences between cities. This serves as an important
reminder of our earlier point that multiracial children and multiracial
adults are in some ways quite different from each other, and the lessons
we learn from one population should not be applied uncritically to
the other population. Perhaps this is because of differences in how
adults self-identify compared to how parents identify their children
(e.g., there could be a relationship between parental income and the
likelihood that you identify your child as multiracial, but a different
relationship between income and self-identification), or perhaps this
relates to other differences between the groups.
We created figures similar to Figures 2.2 and 2.3 for the percentage
of the adults in each group who were married, born outside the US,
bilingual, high school graduates, and college graduates. Some of the
patterns vary little across cities; for example, the marital status of the
groups is very similar across contexts (although most of the groups are
slightly more likely to be married if they are living in Houston, Texas,
than in the other cities), and high school graduation rates are quite
consistent for most of the groups as well (although Latina/o–White–
Some Other Race adults are a little more likely to have completed
high school if they are living in Honolulu rather than elsewhere).
These results are available from the authors on request, and for the
remainder of this section, we focus on the outcomes that have more
variation across cities.

40
 National and local structures of inequality

When we consider patterns of foreign birth among multiracial adult

groups in Figure 2.4, we see very large variations across urban contexts.
More than 20% of adults identifying as White–Black in New York
City were born outside the US, while only 5% of the same group
in Chicago were born abroad. Similarly, the majority of New York’s
Latina/o–White–Some Other Race population was born abroad, while
that is not true of that population in any of the other cities. Another
dramatic comparison emerges for White–Asian adults, the majority
of whom in Houston were born outside the US, but in Honolulu,
less than 10% of this group were born outside the US These wide
disparities highlight the fact that in different areas, these groups are truly
different populations. This is not surprising because these contexts are
very different. Honolulu has a long history of Asian immigration and
acceptance of intermarriage, for example, neither of which is typical
of Houston’s history. Still, it means that when we are thinking about
these groups in a national setting, we need to remember that local
contexts may influence who identifies with the group, as well as what
they experience in their daily lives.

Figure 2.4: Foreign-born adults by multiracial groups and city, 2007–2011 ACS
%

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
White–Black Latino / a White Some Other Race White–Asian White–American Indian Alaska Native
New York Los Angeles Chicago Houston San Diego Urban Honolulu Phoenix San Jose San Antonio Philadelphia

Figure 2.4’s findings help to explain the large differences in bilingualism

between the groups, which we see in Figure 2.5. The relationship
between place of birth and bilingualism is not necessarily direct
because bilingualism for the first generation often requires learning
English, while bilingualism for second and higher generations generally
requires the ability and desire to maintain the heritage language of
earlier generations. Both of these patterns can vary by place because of
differences in the support systems available for each requirement. Adults

41
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Topanga Culture:
Final Report on Excavations, 1948
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever.
You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project
Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If
you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the
country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: The Topanga Culture: Final Report on Excavations, 1948

Author: Adan E. Treganza

Agnes Bierman

Release date: May 6, 2013 [eBook #42654]

Most recently updated: October 23, 2024

Language: English

Credits: Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper and the Online

Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TOPANGA CULTURE:

FINAL REPORT ON EXCAVATIONS, 1948 ***
 THE TOPANGA CULTURE
FINAL REPORT ON EXCAVATIONS,
1948

THE TOPANGA CULTURE

FINAL REPORT ON EXCAVATIONS, 1948

BY

A. E. TREGANZA AND A. BIERMAN

ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS
Vol. 20, No. 2

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS

Editors (Los Angeles): C. W. Meighan, Harry Hoijer, Eshref Shevky

Volume 20, No. 2, pp. 45-86, plates 17-24, 6 figs., 3 maps

Submitted by editors July 15, 1957

Issued March 27, 1958
Price, $1.00

University of California Press

Berkeley and Los Angeles
 California

Cambridge University Press

London, England

Manufactured in the United States of America

 CONTENTS
Page
Introduction 45
Review of Earlier Work at the Tank Site 47
Location and Description of Sites 47
Summary of Sites 51
Field Techniques 51
Features 53
Burials 54
Description of Artifacts 55
Flaked Tools 55
Scraper Planes 56
Scrapers 56
Choppers 59
Crescentic Stone or “Amulet” 59
Drill or Reamer 59
Hand Pick 59
Projectile Points 59
Small “Dart” Points 61
Large Blades and Large Points 61
Ground or Pecked Stone 63
Manos and Metates 63
Mortars 65
Pestles 65
Abrading Stones 65
Cog Stones 65
Stone Disks 66
Rubbing Stones 67
Core Hammerstones 67
 Cobble Hammerstones 67
Slate Pendants 67
Miscellaneous Artifacts 67
Bone Implements 68
Other Remains 68
Unworked Bone and Shell 68
Fossil Remains 68
Pigments 68
Excavation of Site LAn-2 69
Disposal of the Dead 70
Description of Artifacts 70
Flaked Tools 70
Projectile Points 70
Ground or Pecked Stone 71
Metates 71
Manos 71
Mortars 71
Pestles 71
Rubbing Stones 71
Stone Disks 71
Pendants 71
Other Remains 71
Unworked Bone and Shell Remains 71
Summary and Conclusion 72
Bibliography 76
Plates 79

MAPS
1. Topanga Canyon facing 49
2. Tank Site LAn-1 facing 53
3. Site LAn-2 69

FIGURES
 1. Location of Features and Burials 55
2. Scraper Plane Types 57
3. Scraper Types 58
4. Projectile Points 60
5. Metate Types 62
6. Mano Types 64

TABLES
1. Burials LAn-1 54
2. Frequency of Scraper Planes by Depth 56
3. Frequency of Flaked Artifacts by Depth 59
4. Projectile Points 61
5. Mano Types 63
6. Burial Data on Site LAn-2 70
7. Flaked Tools and Materials from LAn-2 70
8. Suggested Chronology of Early Milling and 74
Hunting Cultures of Southern California

THE TOPANGA CULTURE

FINAL REPORT ON EXCAVATIONS, 1948
BY
A. E. TREGANZA AND A. BIERMAN
 INTRODUCTION
The year 1946 marked the discovery of the Tank Site by Robert F. Heizer and
Edwin M. Lemert. Their work was synthesized in a paper entitled “Observations
on Archaeological Sites in Topanga Canyon, California” (Heizer and Lemert,
1947). Here, so far as the small sample from test pits and surface collections
permitted, they briefly defined the Topanga Culture, described the artifacts
related to it, and indicated its possible cultural associations. Heizer and the senior
author of the present paper were convinced that the Tank Site could fruitfully be
further examined in the light of large-scale excavation. This was considered
necessary to determine more closely the context of the Topanga artifacts, and the
nature of the occupation here expressed. The answers to these two problems
should contribute importantly to our understanding of the archaeology of
southern California.
In the spring of 1947 R. L. Beals, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and
R. F. Heizer, of the University of California, Berkeley, agreed to sent a joint party
into the field the following summer. This coöperation between the two institutions
marked a new step in furthering the progress of archaeological research in
California, and gave students an opportunity to participate in active field research.
In June, 1947, the senior author, assisted by Miss Consuelo Malamud, a graduate
student at UCLA, initiated excavation at the Tank Site. Undergraduate and
graduate students from both campuses of the university as well as from San
Francisco State College acted as volunteer workers. The results of this
investigation have appeared under the title, “The Topanga Culture: First Season’s
Excavation of the Tank Site, 1947” (Treganza and Malamud, 1950).
The activities of the first season should have brought to light a fairly
representative sample from the site, but time imposed certain limitations, and
much of what was uncovered only added to the list of problems. Further, the Tank
Site as a unit was, presumably, known with some certainty, but there was little
comparative material in which to frame the results. Therefore, three major lines
of evidence remained to be investigated: (1) Additional excavation was necessary
to verify the possible stratigraphy noted and to fill out the burial data and certify
the typology established on the basis of the finds to date. Moreover, the Tank Site
had demonstrated itself to be a deposit of unusual interest and importance;
whatever added knowledge could be gained from it would be valuable. (2) LAn-2,
just west of the Tank Site, required more intensive examination. From surface
collections and test pits it was apparent that this site afforded clues to the
interpretation and extension of the stratigraphy noted at the Tank Site, and it
might represent a cultural development heretofore undescribed for the area. (3)
A survey of the canyon should be undertaken so that the Topanga Culture could
be viewed beyond its narrowly known confines. The problem was to gain an
estimate of the number of lithic sites within the canyon drainage, and the points
of similarity and difference between these and the Tank Site.
With the above three problems in mind, archaeological investigations were
renewed in Topanga Canyon on the same coöperative basis as the previous year.
We are indebted to the following students, drawn from the three state institutions
mentioned above, for volunteering their time and energies in behalf of the
project: Richard Bachenheimer, Alan Beals, Hal Eberhart, Robert Farrell, David
Frederickson, William King, Harland Kinsey, Joseph Kreisler, Donald Lathrap,
Albert Mohr, Arnold Pilling, and Barbara Wyman. The authors acted, respectively,
as field director and assistant field director. Agnes Bierman and Albert Mohr are
responsible for most of the field photography, mapping, and surveying.
The general conclusions reached in 1947 were not substantially altered by the
additional excavation. Nor did it help to solve all the dubious aspects of the
Topanga Culture. As might be expected, it led, rather, to the formulation of
further questions. However, new specimens and more complete data add fullness
to this report, and it is hoped these will increase its utility for comparative
studies.
With respect to physiographic location and archaeological assemblage, the Tank
Site does not conform to other sites previously known for the general environs.
Comparisons with the earliest horizon yet recognized to the north, the Oak Grove
of the Santa Barbara region (Rogers, D. B., 1929), seem to offer the most
satisfactory parallels as related to mortuary practices and milling activities;
however, inasmuch as the Oak Grove Culture is not characterized as having a
well-defined flake and core industry we are forced through necessity to seek
further comparative data as expressed in the cultural inventory of the San
Dieguito complex in the extreme southern coastal area of southern California and
among the remains from the region of ancient Lake Mohave in the eastern
desert. It is both interesting and a problematical that here at Topanga we find in
a single cultural complex an almost complete record of all the recognized cultural
elements typifying early man in southern California. In addition to this early-man
complex there remains a residue of material which appears to be best associated
with cultural traits characteristic of a “middle” time position. Such middle cultures
can be tentatively identified with Point Dume, the lower levels of Malaga Cove,
the Little Sycamore, the Hunting Culture of Santa Barbara, the Pinto-gypsum of
the desert, and the La Jolla phases of San Diego although the latter are at
present poorly defined. At the Tank Site (LAn-1) these traits, which are of
“middle” position, have been named Topanga Phase II, and significantly enough
they are confined to the upper 18 inches of the deposit. Site LAn-2, excavated
this season, proved to be almost exclusively Phase II from top to bottom. Since
these two sites occupy almost contiguous positions and with the distribution of
cultural elements being such as it is, the suggested cultural stratigraphy observed
in 1947 seems to be fairly well confirmed.
In addition to the economic and subsistence aspects we now know something
concerning the socioreligious patterns as practiced at the Tank Site. Disposal of
the dead is expressed in three forms: (1) primary inhumation in the flesh; (2)
partial reburials under metates; and (3) fractional burials with interment of leg
bones only. This variation in a single site is of interest. Formality appears present
only in the first form; here all the bodies were fully extended with the heads
orientated toward the south. Other than manos and metates, mortuary offerings
were rare. In only one instance (Treganza and Malamud, 1950, burial 3) did we
find what could be called a positive artifact association, that of a chert blade and
a quartz crystal.
Artifacts of apparent nonutilitarian usage leave us with the convenient, but not to
satisfactory, classification of “ceremonial.” It is only through inference that we can
assume functional use in ceremonies of such objects as cog stones and a variety
of stone disks. Since the spindle-shaped charm stone and the stone cogs and
disks appear to be nearly mutually exclusive of one another in their distribution
between central and southern California, it is not improbable that the latter
constitute the “charm-stones” of the south.
Too frequently typological construct and metric measurements lead to sterility of
interpretation divorced of any humanistic concept. At one time the Tank Site was
occupied by a living culture and to some degree the occupants must have
participated in activities other than those surrounding a fulfillment of a food
economy. To this point it is difficult to explain large lithic concentrations consisting
of unworked stone, broken metates and manos, core tools, and occasional
sections of human long bones. Such occurrences are too large and too frequent
to have resulted from mere chance, and for this reason we have given them the
term “features.” The material content of these aggregations suggests refuse
dumps of worn out and broken implements, but if so they would collectively have
occupied a considerable part of the central living area. Conceivably their central
location could suggest some ceremonial involving the concept of a “shrine.” That
these features could represent some manifestation of the “Annual Mourning
Ceremony” seems most dubious. Irrespective of the probability that the Mourning
Ceremony is ancient in southern California the differences in cultural inventory
and time between the Tank Site and the early and historic phases of the
Gabrielino are such that it would be wishful thinking to imply any historical
connection.
Earlier the Topanga Culture as depicted by the Tank Site has been characterized
as largely constituting a seed-gathering economy. This characterization rests
upon the presence of a large number of manos and metates as opposed to the
decided rarity of projectile points and the near absence of mammal bone in the
site deposit. Some what of a problem is the high ratio of core and flake tools. In
American archaeology it has been popular to assume that flaked lithic
assemblages automatically imply a hunting and skin-dressing economy. Possibly
this assumption represents an Old World hangover with its overemphasis upon
faunal associations merely because of their tangible nature as opposed to the lack
of preservation of organic plant remains. In the light of all evidence, the situation
at the Tank Site strongly suggests the possibility of alternative interpretations up
to the point where we might consider a dual usage, or if the data permit,
emphasize either a plant or animal economy.
During the first season’s excavations it was our belief that the area excavated at
the Tank Site was, so far as we knew, undisturbed, and any conclusions reached
rested upon that basis. It is significant to note that during this season, as a result
of our regional survey, we contacted a man named Trujillo, a resident of Topanga
Canyon for some sixty years, and from him we gained considerable information
pertaining to the Tank Site and the Topanga Culture in general. Mr. Trujillo
informed us that it was his practice for some years before 1920 to plant a small
hay crop over the area we were presently excavating, and prior to the first
planting he had removed numerous oaks and pointed out a now dead, native
black walnut that was alive during his earlier days of cultivation. Mr. Trujillo was
fully aware that this was an archaeological site and told us he was forced to move
many metates and large stones away from the area under cultivation. This action
on his part may account in some measure for the somewhat reduced number of
large stones in the very upper levels of the site (0 to 8 inches). As the habitation
deposit occupies the very top of a knoll, the frequent plowing must have
increased surface erosion to some degree.
Unknown to us earlier were two springs near the Tank Site which possibly had
some bearing on the original selection of this local. It was through Mr. Trujillo that
these springs and several additional Topanga Culture sites were found. Mr.
Trujillo, in his own way, had come to recognize these metate- and mano-bearing
sites to be old and contrasted, as he says, “with the sites down along the creek
where the soil is soft and dark with some sea shell and where mortars occur and
the burials are all folded up.” Such characteristics are typical of sites occurring in
the protohistoric and historic period.
Probably most significant of this season’s work was the partial excavation of LAn-
2 located on the same ridge and about 350 yards below the Tank Site. Through
our efforts here we were able to confirm the suspected stratigraphy in the Tank
Site and, at least partly, define Phase II of the Topanga Culture. Of greatest
contrast is the appearance of flexed burials and the exclusive occurrence of light
projectile points. Although core and flake tools are still present, a definite shift
occurs in the material from which they are made and the tools themselves do not
dominate the cultural inventory.
From the Tank Site the artifact yield per cubic foot almost doubled that of the
1947 season. From the removal of approximately 2,496 cubic feet of mound we
obtained 5,895 typable artifacts (all specimens and original data for 1947-1948
are now deposited in the Museum of Anthropology, University of California,
Berkeley) or on the average of 2.3 artifacts per cubic foot of dirt removed.
Compared to other California mounds, this figure is exceptionally high. Only in the
Sacramento Valley among Late Horizon sites where baked clay objects were
manufactured as a substitute for stone do figures run correspondingly as high,
and even here one has to consider a single class of artifacts rather than a full
range as expressed in the Tank Site. One explanation for the great increase for
this season is that most of our excavations were conducted in the shallow part of
the site (0 to 8 inches) where the bulk of the artifacts occurred.
 REVIEW OF EARLIER WORK AT THE TANK
SITE
Concerted excavation at the Tank Site was first carried on from June 19 to August
5, 1947. The immediate aim was to explore as fully as time permitted the nature
and extent of the deposit. In the main, interest revolved on cutting long trenches,
test pitting, and expanding in favorable areas. The compact nature of the soil and
the heavy artifact yield retarded clearing. Nevertheless, some 5,000 cubic feet of
mound earth was removed which bore an artifact content of one finished
implement to every 1.5 cubic feet.
Within the limitations imposed by archaeological conditions, the excavation made
possible certain inferences regarding the over-all pattern and associated
complexes derived from an open site typified by crude percussion-flaked core
tools and basic milling implements. The chipped stone has been compared to that
described for the San Dieguito and Lake Mohave cultures. It includes a somewhat
ill-defined variety of scraper planes, scrapers, choppers, projectile points, and
large blades. Our Topanga series of scrapers and planes was numerically large
enough and exemplified a sufficient degree of internal variation to warrant a
breakdown into descriptive categories or types. Ground- and pecked-stone pieces
consisted mainly of manos and metates. Here too, quantity and diversity allowed
a reduction to types. The cultural validity and developmental implications of the
typology presented are limited although some such considerations were
discussed. Specimens represented only sparingly, as was true with a number of
forms of flaked tools, and especially mortars, pestles, cogged stones, disks, and
ornaments, have been described individually. For additional details and for
information not included here the reader is referred to the earlier published report
(Treganza and Malamud, 1950).
On the basis of eight burials, all in poor condition, two modes of interment were
recognized: primary inhumation and reburial. Difficult to characterize concisely
are the various manifestations defined as features. They include unusual
aggregates of stone and/or implements, hearths, or any circumstance that
appeared atypical of the relatively homogeneous midden deposit as it was
understood in 1947.
A physical analysis of the mound mass and its contents indicates a considerable
degree of antiquity for the occupation represented. The midden material is
extremely compact, and there is a suggested development of a soil profile. With
the exception of fragmentary, occasional bits of shell, charcoal, bone, and a trace
of ashaltum, all organic substances have long since disappeared from the site.
What little mammal bone remained was almost inevitably in a poor state of
preservation, generally fragmentary, and considerably decomposed. Marine shell,
crushed and friable, was encountered in occasional pockets in the lower limits of
the deposit and under inverted metates. This shell probably represents evidence
of the occasional use of shellfish as a dietary item. No shell artifacts were found
below 6 inches and all shell refuse was found below 48 inches. The few artifacts
as were found in the upper levels were only in a fair state of preservation and can
probably be assigned to Phase II occupation.
As our primary interest was in the Tank Site, and our time limited, archaeological
reconnaissance in the vicinity was necessarily curtailed. Four lesser sites yielding
core tools, and manos were noted along the small tributary system on which the
Tank Site is located. One of these, LAn-2, was test-pitted. An additional site, LAn-
6, typified by “Topanga-like” artifacts, was recorded on the western periphery of
the San Fernando Valley just over the divide from Topanga Canyon.
 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITES
The prefix and numbers used in this paper to designate archaeological deposits
will follow the system now being used by the University of California
Archaeological Survey. All data on sites are filed in the central office of the
Survey, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley. In this
paper, LAn stands for Los Angeles County.
LAn-1 (Tank Site).—Our type locality, the Tank Site, occupies a well-drained knoll
high up on the eastern side of Topanga Canyon (elevation 1,214 feet) some 4
miles inland from the Pacific Coast. The tract of land upon which the site lies is
known locally as the “92 acres” (See Treganza and Malamud, 1950; and maps 1
and 2).
LAn-2 (map 3).—This site lies on the “92 acres,” about 350 yards west-southwest
of the Tank Site, on the same ridge but at a lower elevation. At this point the
ridge narrows almost to a hogback about 75 feet wide, terminating in a small
knoll. There were signs of occupation for a distance of 300 feet along the ridge.
The exact limits could not be determined since the vegetation had been bulldozed
off earlier and the deposit had been dragged. Excavation at this site established
the basis of Topanga Culture Phase 11.
LAn-3.—This site is located on the Trippet Ranch just within the city limits of Los
Angeles. It occupies the same ridge as the Tank Site but lies at a higher elevation
and some 450 yards to the east. The western edge of the site and the nearby
canyon are covered with live oaks, sage, and manzanita. Most of the surface has
been disturbed, for the land was formerly planted to grain. The limits of
habitation are marked by compact light-brown soil, which discolors slightly the
yellow surrounding earth. There is no perceptible rise in contour. Artifacts typical
of the Tank Site were observed weathered out of the occupation surface. The
former living area was estimated about a hundred square yards. The deposit
appeared only a few inches deep; however, this was probably a village site,
though occupied only for a short time. An abundance of tarweed, restricted to the
deposit area, might well be considered a vegetation association.
LAn-4.—This site is located in the saddle of the ridge which separates the
Topanga Canyon drainage from that of the Santa Ynez Canyon, about one-half
mile east-southeast of the Tank Site. The saddle is well covered with live oaks
and manzanita. The habitation deposit is marked by a slight discoloration of the
soil and yielded a few manos like those of the Tank Site. At best, the site was
probably just a temporary camping spot.
LAn-5.—As at LAn-4, the evidence of occupation, consisting of typical manos, was
found in a small saddle of a ridge directly across the ravine from, and about one-
half mile south of the Tank Site. Large live oaks are the predominant vegetation.
No extensive habitation area was noted, though the evidence might well have
been hidden under leaf mould.

LAn-6.—This site is of interest since it may indicate an occurrence of the Topanga

Culture in the San Fernando Valley. The deposit is located on the periphery of a
citrus grove in the eastern foothills of the valley, near Girard. Cultural associations
consisted of Topanga-like scrapers and choppers composed of a tough, light-
colored rhyolite. There were no signs of occupation. It is not improbable that this
was a quarry site; an outcrop of rhyolite is close at hand. However, no quantities
of reject refuse were noted; nor did any core or flake tools composed of rhyolite
occur in the Tank Site series to suggest trade or contact between the two sites.
The two San Fernando Valley sites, the Big Tahunga and Porter Ranch sites,
reported on by Mr. Edwin Walker (Walker, 1936, 1945) of the Southwest Museum,
appear to have no relation to LAn-6 or bearing on the problem of the Topanga
Culture.
LAn-8.—Topanga Post Office and a number of smaller buildings now stand directly
on this site, though parts of it are still evident where it extends south to the
highway. Except in the dry summer, water is available in the creek just across the
road and there are two springs less than half a mile to the west.
The low mound has been badly cut through by latterday road and building
operations, thus an area of only about 200 square feet remains uncovered. Even
here the surface has been considerably disturbed, but, at the same time, a large
number of artifacts have been exposed and are to be found scattered over the
dark, friable midden soil, interspersed with rejects and shell fragments. The
artifacts noted consist of general core tools and a possible mano fragment. One
shell disk bead (diameter, 3 mm.; thickness, 1 mm.; diameter of perforation, 1
mm.; unidentifiable shell) was collected.
LAn-9.—Located on a small rocky knoll, formed by a spur descending from the
range on the west side of the canyon, the site is .5 (unless specified, all mileages
noted are in air miles) of a mile northwest of LAn-8 and .3 of a mile due south of
the ranch house of R. Kiewit. Water is available at a spring, .25 of a mile
northwest, rising from the bed of an intermittent creek that drains into Topanga
Creek.
In appearance the site is very different from LAn-8. The mound soil has been
consolidated to a near-clay, so that it varies only from the surrounding clayey soil
in being somewhat darker. It extends over an area of 100 square feet, but few
artifacts are evident on the surface. Those collected consist of 8 single-edged
scraper planes and 1 bifacial chopper. Of the planes, 2 were additionally utilized
as choppers on the edge opposite that which had been worked. All artifacts were
basalt with the exception of 2 quartzite planes. Patination was evident on all the
basalt specimens, though not as heavy as on similar implements from a number
of the other sites.
LAn-10.—This site is situated on the adjoining ridge, only .13 of a mile northwest
of LAn-9 and is correspondingly closer to the spring, which from here is due
north. Both in physiographic location and appearance the two sites are very
similar.
The area covered by mound soil stretches along the ridge some 250 feet and is
70 feet wide. But the soil is compact and consolidated and only slightly dark. A
portion of the site area has been somewhat disturbed by the construction of a
milk house, stockyard, and fences. Artifacts picked up from the surface consist of
manos, choppers, scraper planes, and hammerstones. Of the manos, 5 are
bifacial—3 with parallel wear surfaces, 2 wedge-shaped in cross section—and of
these, 2 are trifacial, with the two sides that form the keeled back meeting at
right angles. In cross section, all the used areas are only slightly convex. Most
show considerable wear and good shoulder development, display pecking on their
grinding surfaces, and all but 2 granitic specimens are of sandstone. A single
monofacial chopper of basalt is well battered along its edge. Out of 7 single-
edged planes, 2 have been secondarily worked and used as choppers on an edge
other than that developed on the periphery of the plane, and 6 are basalt and 1
is quartzite. One small, flat scraper has two localized adjacent concavities struck
from its margin and is also of basalt. Of the 3 core hammerstones, 2 are basalt
and 1 is quartzite. Considerable chemical alteration is obvious on even the flaked
surfaces.
LAn-11.—Located in the vineyard of the Kiewit Ranch, this site is less than .2 of a
mile west of north from LAn-10. The spring already mentioned is immediately to
the east, and another, on the property of S. Barton, is .3 of a mile north-
northeast.
This site has much in common with LAn-9 and LAn-10. The sloping knoll on which
the site is situated is part of the ridge that forms the north bank of the
intermittent creek. The leeched, indurated soil is hardly recognizable as
occupational deposit, but the fact that it forms a site is obvious from its slightly
darker coloring and the scattered surface artifacts and reject material. These are
thinly strewn over an area of 200 feet by 100 feet, and are found to a depth of 2
feet in the bank resulting from a road cut at the base of the site.
The 10 single-edged planes that come from the surface range from large to
small, 9 of which are basalt and 1 a pink mudstone. A single massive double-
ended plane of basalt is much battered on its worked edges, which are flaked
back on their upper side. Battering is also in evidence along the flaked edge of 4
bifacial choppers, 3 of which are basalt and 1 quartzite. Out of 4 basalt flake
scrapers, one has been much used; and of 4 core hammerstones, 2 are basalt, 1
is quartzite, and 1 is mudstone. Manos were represented by 3 bifacial types, the
grinding surfaces of 2 being parallel, and 1 meeting at an angle to effect a
wedge-shaped cross section. All are well-shouldered, 1 displaying a pecked
depression on a single wear surface; 2 are of sandstone, 1 of which is
carbonized; and the third is of an igneous rock. Again, on all the basalt specimens
the patination is very marked.
LAn-12.—The largest site yet found in the canyon is on the property of Mr. Miller
on the road to the Trippet Ranch, .25 of a mile southeast of the Tank Site across
an intermittent creek. It was noted that in the creek bed, just downstream from
the Miller residence, pools of water, which, according to Mr. Trujillo were spring
fed, an exceptionally dry summer season.
The site extends from the ridge where the house is located into the knoll west of
the orchard, covering an area of 400 by 300 feet to a depth of at least 30 inches.
Artifacts are plentiful on the ploughed and cultivated surface, and the highly
indurated mound soil is dark and clayey. Where the deposit has been cut by
recent developments, little worked stone is found in the banks; and a 5-foot
square pit netted only one fragment of a ground slate pendant, though the
deposit extended below the 30 inches to which the excavation proceeded. From
the walls of the pit it could be noted that some soil profile had already developed.
Tools from the surface included general core tools, manos, and metates. A basin
metate had been reported; and a fragment of one, of sandstone and shaped on
its outer surface, was found. Of 9 manos and mano fragments, 5 are bifacial and
relatively thin and 4, monofacial. All but 2 of the monofacial artifacts are
sandstone, these being of a granitic rock. In cross section the majority of grinding
surfaces are unusually convex, especially as they reach the edge and roll partly
up the side. A single basalt pestle fragment was obtained. Scraper planes are well
represented by 10 with a U-shaped edge development, some well-battered along
the worked margin; and 25 single-edged planes, some of which are very large
and most displaying flaking back on their edges, generally on the upper surface
of the used edge. Four of quartzite and 1 of felsite porphyry are single-edged, the
remainder are basalt. The 4 side scrapers are thin flakes, 2 of basalt, 2 of chert.
The 3 choppers are of basalt, 1 having served additional use as a hammerstone,
and the 4 hammerstones are basalt cores. Patination is noticeable on all, and
smoothed flake scars are not uncommon.
LAn-13.—Six bedrock mortars were found here in a sandstone outcrop of the
south bank of the creek, 200 feet upstream from the Kiewit Ranch. As the area is
covered by a relatively dense oak grove, the fact that no artifacts were found on
the surface in the vicinity may be due in part to the thick fall of dead leaves.
However, the soil here beneath the leaf mold is no different from that of the
region as a whole, being of a light-colored clayey consistency.
LAn-14.—Three-tenths of a mile northeast of Mineral Springs is a basalt quarry
and possible habitation site. The spring water is potable and affords the nearest
available water source. Over an area of 100 by 75 feet, surrounding the basalt
outcrop, the sandy soil is somewhat darker. Whether this is owing to the
decomposition of organic refuse strewn about a habitation site or merely to rock
weathering, or in part to both, was indeterminable. The only evidence of former
activity are several percussion bulbs and a number of specimens displaying a
small amount of regular chipping, which suggest crude scrapers. All of these
pieces, moreover, have undergone considerable patination so that they are now
quite yellowed even on their flaked surfaces. In general appearance and degree
of patination the artifacts from this site show marked resemblance to those from
San Fernando, LAn-6, just over the divide.
Four-tenths of a mile to the south, .2 of a mile southwest of the home of M.
Biencourt, an isolated chopper was picked from the surface of a spur ridge
leading to Garrapata Creek. It is a large bifacial tool, battered on the slightly
fashioned working edge, of basalt and patinated. No further indication of
aboriginal habitation could be discovered in the near vicinity. Lithic tools and
rejects, however, were found on the slope just southeast of the Biencourt
residence, apparently weathering from a higher source. Investigation at the time
was not feasible, however, and further investigation has not as yet been possible.
LAn-16.—Now almost completely destroyed or disturbed by bulldozing and
animals, this site is centered in the chicken run of the W. R. Hamilton Ranch,
some 3 miles up the Fernwood-Pacific Road, 1.7 air miles southwest of Topanga
Post Office. It sits on a somewhat more level shelf of an otherwise steep slope,
the east bank of a ravine from which a permanent spring emanates 12 miles from
the site. Over an area 60 feet in diameter, dark friable mound soil is still in
evidence, though artifacts are now scarce. Three deep bedrock mortars, and
some seven smaller, have been worn into a sandstone outcrop toward the upper
end of the site, and a single pestle, and scraper plane of quartzite, came from the
surface.
LAn-17.—LAn-17 surrounds the spring on the Barton School property to an
indeterminable extent. Recent building and cultivation have obliterated or
disturbed considerable portions of the old habitation site; however, from what
remains, it appears very similar to LAn-8, .3 of a mile southeast. Artifacts lie on
the surface of the dark, friable midden deposit, which contrasts with the
surrounding light clayey soil, though the discoloration may have been intensified
to some extent by seepage and decay of organic matter derived from the heavy
oak grove. The artifacts noted consist of a shallow basin metate, manos, only a
few general core tools, and a bedrock mortar in a boulder, some 300 feet from
the spring.
LA-21 and LAn-21.—Located on a level shelf adjacent to the west bank of
Garapata Creek, the site is .72 of a mile east-northeast of Mineral Springs. The
upper half is separated from the lower by a 4-foot sandstone face that divides the
site midway between the bank and its upper extremity. In all, an area of 50 feet
by 75 feet is covered with dark, friable, sandy midden deposit to an
undetermined depth, which contrasts with the surrounding light, brown-colored
sand. Surface finds included only some scrapers, and a quartz core hammerstone,
along with a few cores and more concentrated chert flakes; by far in the majority
were head-fractured, carbonized rock fragments. A shallow 10-foot test trench
again yielded only fired, fractured rock.
A number of springs are located in this vicinity, all, at present, permanent and
potable. Two are within a quarter of a mile, one upstream and one downstream.
Two others are within a three-quarter mile radius, one upstream on the old Santa
Maria Ranch, and the other at Mineral Springs, to the west across a low range.
LAn-23.—This site is on the east side of Garrapata Creek located in a small cave
near the top of a large sandstone outcrop. The habitation deposit consists of
loose, ashy dark soil charged with clam and abalone shells, and mammal and bird
bones. Artifacts recovered were typical of the late protohistoric period. This site
was partly examined by R. F. Heizer in 1946 and called by him “Cave 1” (Heizer
and Lemert, 1947, p. 238).
LAn-24.—This site is in the open adjacent to LAn-23. It consists of a refuse
deposit some 75 square yards in area. Surface and subsurface artifacts resemble
those of Topanga Phase II. This was Heizer’s “Upper Site” (Heizer and Lemert,
1947, p. 238).
LAn-25.—A cave site, LAn-25 is .4 of a mile east of LAn-23 in the same sandstone
ridge. It has a northwest exposure and is very near the top of the outcrop. A
small opening leads into a circular room 15 feet in diameter; the walls and ceiling
are somewhat smoke-blackened. However, the cave probably bore little
habitation, for the floor deposit is hardly discolored and includes very little
charcoal, only two flakes and no artifacts. Water is available at the Santa Maria
spring a half a mile north, but the ascent to the cave is difficult because of the
thick brush and sheer rock faces.
LAn-27.—This is one of a series of caves reported by W. King and D. Lathrop.
They stretch along the north bank of Garrapata Creek for .25 of a mile on the
property of M. Biencourt, just south of the owner’s house, all with a more or less
southerly exposure. Water is available from the spring in the creek bed a few
hundred feet upstream and from Mineral Springs, less than a half a mile to the
west. As none contain deposit of any depth, and the majority are relatively low
overhangs, these caves probably served only as temporary shelters.
LAn-27.—This is a high-roofed cave, 25 feet wide and 12 feet deep, with a
maximum floor deposit of 12 inches. The slope in the front of the cave also bears
dark, loose deposit, which appears to have a greater depth than that in the cave
itself. Surface finds include a few scrapers, as well as some flakes and marine
shell fragments.
LAn-28.—100 feet west of LAn-27, and slightly higher, is another cave, only 8 by
5 feet. The rock floor bears no artifacts, the only evidence of possible habitation
being the intensely fire-blackened roof. As extensive brush fires are not
uncommon in this region the blackening may well be the result of unintentional
firing.
LAn-29.—This is the largest of the caves, 60 by 16 feet, and is 400 feet southwest
of LAn-27 and somewhat lower. A thin erosional or aelian layer covers the surface
of the deposit, which bears scrapers, marine shell fragments, and burnt bone; the
interior of the cave is completely carbonized.
LAn-30.—Only 30 feet southwest of LAn-29 is another small cave, 20 by 10 feet,
with fire-blackened walls and shallow deposit containing scrapers, marine shell,
and flakes.
LAn-31.—This is a low circular cave with two entrances, some 80 feet southwest
of LAn-30. The dark ashy deposit covers a floor 10 by 15 feet where pockets
attain a maximum depth of 24 inches, and extends some 20 feet beyond the cave
mouth. Aside from marine shell and flakes, it contained a few cores and scrapers.
LAn-32.—The last of the caves is 200 feet west of LAn-31 and slightly lower. Here
a long shallow overhang leads to a dry circular room with blackened walls. The
deposit covers an area 15 feet in diameter, is dark, ashy, and dry, and yielded a
few scrapers, some cores, and a quantity of marine shell fragments.
LAn-33.—In a sandstone cliff overlooking the valley, 3 potholes have been used
as bedrock mortars. They are .25 of a mile west-southwest of the spring on the
Barton School property, and the same distance west-northwest of the spring on
the Kiewit Ranch, surrounded on the west by oaks. Again, neither surface
artifacts nor other habitation deposits are evident in the immediate vicinity.

SUMMARY OF SITES
On the basis of physiographic location, nature of deposit, artifact types, and the
degree of implement patination, sites LAn-2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 24
resemble the Tank Site and, therefore, could probably be classed as
representative of one of the phase developments of the Topanga Culture. Sites
LAn-8, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32, because of the friable, dark
soil, presence of steatite, quantities of mammal bone and mollusk shell, or
associated bedrock mortars, have been classed as late protohistoric sites and are
not considered within the scope of this paper. Several sites, e.g., LAn-17, were of
dubious mixed origin and would require more extensive examination to determine
their cultural affinities. Where omissions in the numbering occur, e.g., 7, it is
because sites were reported for an area and later failed to materialize as much.
 FIELD TECHNIQUES
Our major purpose in continuing field work at the Tank Site was to establish with
greater certainty the relationships between the diverse artifact types and classes,
and other manifestations, already recognized. In the hope that the general region
in which burials had been located in 1947 would continue to be productive in this
respect, we expanded from there in all directions, especially toward the center of
the mound. Digging in the deeper northwestern part of the site was furthered
with the intent of verifying the suggested stratigraphy and acquiring, possibly, a
deep undisturbed burial in better condition than those from the upper soil
horizons.
The procedure of excavation and notation was essentially unaltered from that
previously employed. A grid of coördinates had already been established with
reference to permanent data. Burials and features were again entered on
standard University of California archaeological forms. A slight change, however,
was made in the method of recording and cataloguing field data.
Originally a data sheet had been completed for each 6-inch interval of a 5-foot
grid section, on which artifacts were plotted in exact horizontal location. In
working up the material it became clear that the specific spatial distribution of
isolated implements lacked patterning. It was therefore considered adequate,
when returning to the field, to designate provenience by excavation unit and level
only. In addition, the method of cataloguing was simplified and so organized that
90 per cent of the tabulation of data could be completed in the field. This was
possible because the specimens derived from the 1947 field work had already
been classified and constituted a sample on which expectations could reasonably
be based.
The procedure followed was to strip each 5-foot section in 6-inch levels, and to
sack together all the artifacts from one such test unit. At the end of the day the
level bags were taken to camp where the artifacts were washed, labeled, and
tabulated. All items were marked in India ink according to section number and
level interval, e.g., 15R10-1, a specimen from the 0- to 6-inch level of the pit;
15R10-2 would indicate the 6- to 12-inch level, etc. A tabulation sheet was kept
for each excavation unit. This sheet listed the most frequently occuring types or
categories, allowing for the notation of rare forms, and was ruled vertically to
indicate depth intervals. Artifacts were entered according to type, or category,
and level, and then packed for transport. Atypical specimens or those to be used
for illustration were set aside for separate shipment and more intensive
examination.
This system had many advantages. Records were readily kept up to date,
problems that suggested themselves as excavation progressed could be more
closely defined and investigated, and artifacts could be expeditiously and finally
cleared from the work area. The data sheets served as a field catalogue and
covered the groundwork of the final statistical compilation. The number assigned
each specimen referred not only to its catalogue entry but also its provenience.
In 1947 we could not anticipate what might be found, nor could we establish
immediately the significance of what we did encounter. Thus it has been our
policy to save all worked stone and ship it back to the Museum of Anthropology
at Berkeley for study. During the second season, however, we felt a little more
discrimination was warranted in order to save the museum valuable storage
space. Therefore, the bulk of the hammerstones and a number of complete, and
all fragmentary, manos, metates, and scrapers were tabulated and piled into pit
21R4 before backfilling.

Map 2. Tank Site LAn-1

 FEATURES
Since the Tank Site showed promise of being an unusual and important deposit,
considerable care was observed during both seasons of excavation to isolate and
expose any concentration of lithic remains which appeared to be in any way
atypical of the average mound matrix. As a result, numerous associations of
stones, such as mano caches, highly weathered inverted metates, and massive
piles of rejected cores, broken manos and metates, and plain cobbles, were set
apart from the rest of the site and given the term “feature.” In some instances
these features possess obvious meaning, as was true of the mano caches and the
inverted metates, but in other instances the purpose remains unknown. If
nothing else, this technique of isolating features as excavation progressed
provided an adequate view of the internal structure of a village, a type of
information largely lacking in southern California archaeology.
The features described below represent a continuation of the series reported for
1947.
Feature 14 (pl. 19, b).—Cache of 4 manos. The placement of these specimens
precludes a chance affinity; they were closely grouped and each was standing
more or less on end. No other artifacts were found in association.
Feature 15 (pl. 19, d).—Owing to its areal extent, feature 15 is somewhat difficult
to define. The complex of stone by which it is characterized has been arbitrarily
broken down for descriptive convenience. There is no way of knowing whether
the entire complex exemplifies a single unit or if in the course of time it merely
developed from a single point of departure.
Feature 15a.—This was 10 by 10 feet with an average depth of 4 to 8 inches.
Four inverted metates, additional metate fragments, manos, core tools, and a
single fragment of a slate pendant. In the southeast portion were 12 symmetrical
stream cobbles of different sizes. This latter aggregation is of interest. The almost
perfect symmetry of the stones suggests selection, and the physiographic location
of the Tank Site implies such stones must have been transported to it. None
shows any evidence of utilitarian use, and in the light of present knowledge the
existence and function of such objects cannot be explained.
Feature 15b.—Badly weathered, fragmentary metates; altered “lumps” of
sandstone; manos; and core tools. Three small pestles were found near
association.
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com