It sounds so distant when people use the word “ancestors”. Because it’s so safe; and sterilized by a false sense of temporal distance.
Even though those shellmounds contained the Great-Great-Grandparents of Muwekma (the word for “Ohlone People“, in their language, Chochenyo) who are alive and well today.
But the bodies didn’t stay buried.
Bones from shellmounds were used to fertilize the fields, gardens, and flower beds which became iconic as soon as Mark Twain called Alameda the “Garden of California”.
The remains of hundreds of Native Americans were used to pave Bay Farm Road. Twice.
The bodies of thousands of Ohlone people were crushed, and pulverized, to make concrete for sidewalks, and foundations for houses. Their graves pushed over to fill marshland, and level out the numerous railways running through the island we now call “Alameda”.
So it’s no wonder you found someone in your backyard.
Native American Graves are being Still Being Uncovered in Alameda Today
The story goes: a contractor working on a new deck, or a foundation crew digging around the cribs will find some bones. Human bones.
You’re supposed to stop work, supposed to call the Police Department and report the discover of a burial. Because it could a crime scene. Or it could be a Native American Grave.
If the bones look old enough, some contractors will turn a blind eye, and toss them back into the ground for some other guy to dig up.
But that’s not how you should do it.
Here are the 5 Steps to Honoring Native American Graves on the Stolen Land You Now Occupy
Step 1:
Don’t call the Museum!
If you find bones in Alameda while digging, do not call the Alameda Museum.
The Alameda Museum has no one on staff, or on call, who is qualified to identify or store Native American artifacts.
Since 1948 the Alameda Museum had mis-identified Ohlone people as “Miwok”, instead of “Costanoan” which is what Ohlone people in the Bay Area were known as until about the 1970’s. This mis-identification ended abruptly when the Alameda Native History Project interceded in the miss-identification of the First Alamedans (Muwekma) and mis-attribution of their stolen property.
So don’t call them. They don’t know what they’re doing.
Step 2:
Let the ancestors rest!
Stop work.
Don’t touch a damn thing.
🤬 around and catch a curse. Or a case.
[CA HSC §7050.5(a) : Every person who knowingly mutilates or disinters, wantonly disturbs, or willfully removes any human remains in or from any location other than a dedicated cemetery without authority of law is guilty of a misdemeanor….]
I know it sucks: but pay the crew for the rest of the day and send them home.
You’re done for the day.
Step 3:
Report the discovery to the police!
Who honestly knows if this is an ancient burial? Your contractor isn’t an expert either. It doesn’t matter what they say.
Stop work and call the police immediately.
The sooner you call, the sooner this gets settled.
The Coroner is the only person who has the authority to identify whether or not the remains are Native American.
“[I]f the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American” he or she will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours.
NAHC will send for a Tribal Consultant from the Tribal Groups affiliated with the area where the discovery was made, and whomever NAHC also determines is the Most Likely Descendant.
Step 5:
Step back. Tribal Consultants will handle the rest.
Consultation is private. Anyone who isn’t directly involved, won’t be.
At the end of consultation, you will generally be presented with two options:
Re-Inter (or Re-Bury) the ancestor(s) in a place on the property where they will not be disturbed again.
Tribal Consultants will remove their ancestor(s) and repatriate them at their Tribal Cemetery.
That’s it!
You just helped protect Native American Graves, and reunited someone’s ancestor with their family!
Encourage your neighbors to do the same.
Encourage the Alameda Museum to do the right thing, and give their collection of stolen artifacts back to the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area.
What did Alameda look like before the Oakland Estuary was dredged out; and Bay Farm, South Shore, and the West End were filled in?
Where was the Live Oak Forest? What kind of animals roamed what was once known as la Bolsa de Encinal?
The new Alameda Historic Ecology Web Map shows you in exquisite detail, using never-before-seen GIS data compiled and developed exclusively by the Alameda Native History Project.
You can have this map on your wall. Find out how: visit our merch page now.
Decolonizing History
The Alameda Native History Project decolonizes history by providing real and accurate information about the geography and ecology of places like Alameda, which is occupied Muwekma Ohlone territory.
Before now, only over-copied handouts, and over-generalized information has been made available by Alameda’s Historians and Schools. No concerted effort has been made to update this content since (at least) the 1970’s.
This map is a wake-up call for Alameda Historians….
And a challenge to the groups like the Board of the Alameda Museum, and Alameda Historical Commission, to step up their game, and, meaningfully and accurately represent and honor the contributions and lives of all Alamedans, like Quong Fat and Mabel Tatum, with permanent exhibits, public art made by someone of the heritage it represents, and historical districts commemorating more than Victorian houses.
Because, mentions only in museum newsletters, city council declarations…. Or once a year appearances at speaker panels for [AAPI/Black History, Pride, Native American, etc.] Heritage Months are not cutting it.
Featuring Alameda’s Ancient Live Oak Forest, Historic Shoreline, and Bay Area Historic Wetlands layers.
All juxtaposed against the modern day landscape to provide accurate scale and positioning.
Available in several sizes.
Preview the new Alameda Shellmound Map V.2. Available in 3 sizes. Get it now!
More Detailed Historic Geography
Because of the juxtaposition of the historic peninsula with it’s present day silhouette, it is much easier to see which parts of Alameda were physically connected and formed the peninsula more recently known as the “Encinal”.
Both Alameda and Oakland are in a region referred to as Xučyun (also known as “Huchiun”.) Xučyun is part of the ancestral homeland of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area. Muwekma have lived in the Bay Area for over 10,000 years.
Includes All Four Alameda Shellmounds
For the first time, all four of the Alameda Shellmounds have been put onto one map. Most people only know about the shellmound on Mound Street. But there are more shellmounds, in Alameda. There were over 425 shellmounds in the Bay Area. Including Alameda’s largest shellmound, at the foot Chestnut.
Why is this important?
The existence of the three other Alameda Shellmounds was overlooked by all of Alameda’s previous historians*, including long-time (since retired) curator of the Alameda Museum: George Gunn.
From 1948, to 2020: the Alameda Museum falsely identified the First Alamedans as “a branch of Miwok”, instead of “Costanoan” or Ohlone.
The Alameda Native History Project is responsible for stepping forward and correcting the record, and educating the public about the real Alameda Native History.
This map proves that Alameda History is more than Victorian houses.
This place we call Alameda was once called “La Bolsa de Encinal”. Meaning, “the Encinal forest”. Because the peninsula was host to a verdant, “ancient”, Live Oak forest. (The forest still exists. It just looks different.)
Many of the first accounts of the historic peninsula use rather idyllic, and paradisaic language to describe the rich pre-contact ecosystem that thrived here.
Alameda was once referred to as a “Garden City”. This is the place where the Loganberry was supposedly born.
Historic Shoreline
tl;dr : Everyone wants to know where the landfill is. [There! I said it, okay?] They don’t even really care where Alameda used to be connected to Oakland. Or about the ancient whirl pool in la bahia de san leandro. But, whatever.
Look closer, and you can see the footprints of present day buildings. That’s the landfill.
For real though, I made this layer using pre-1900 shoreline vector data I compiled for the Bay Area region, and stitched together.
Bay Area Historic Wetlands layers
In Version 1, I made a kind of sloppy polygon with historical shoreline vectors, and painted it green. It was a good placeholder for the historic marshes and wetlands of the Bay Area.
Version 2 features the finely detailed historic wetlands layer created for the Bay Area Shellmounds Maps. It features very precise cut-outs for historic creeks, channels and waterways; and features full-coverage of the Bay Area region.
If you want some actual historical eco-data, check out the San Francisco Estuary Institute. They have some brilliant historical ecology GIS you would probably love, if you’ve read this far.
The Alameda Shellmound Map, Version 2, is ground-breaking in its completeness and exquisite detail.
[Footnote: Imelda Merlin mentioned numerous shellmounds in her Geology Master Thesis, but none of her assertions were backed up with any relevant citations. And geology is not archaeology, ethnology, or anthropology, the areas of study that normally concern themselves with Tribal Cultural Resources like shellmounds.
Furthermore, the famous “Imelda Merlin Shellmound Map” was actually a map of Live Oak trees present in Alameda at the time Merlin wrote her thesis (in 1977).
The “Map of Whitcher’s Survey of ‘The Encinal’ in 1853. In Alameda City Hall.”, cited on page 104 of Merlin’s thesis, has never been found by Alameda City Hall, the Alameda Free Library, or the Alameda Museum.
Certainly this means Imelda Merlin has failed to meet the burden of proof required for institutions like Alameda Museum to take reliance upon her claims re: Whitcher’s Survey, and locations of any mounds. Yet, somehow, Merlin’s geology thesis was Alameda Museum’s sole reference regarding shellmounds. (For years Imelda Merlin’s geology thesis was viewed as the authoritative source of information about Alameda shellmounds.)]
Decolonize History
One of the ways Alameda Native History Project decolonizes history is by interrogating the record. This means tracking down and reading citations. Critically evaluating reports and studies for bias. And calling out poor research, and prejudiced conclusions for what they are.
We decolonize history by updating the maps and diagrams of our past. Producing accurate, fact-based educational and reference materials to replace the biased and inaccurate educational products–which are still misinforming our schoolchildren and the greater public today.
By providing a more nuanced and comprehensive perspective; and doing away with the old, over-copied handouts from decades past: we are able to shed the misinformed, and racist, stereotypes and quackery that typify generations which brought us things like: “kill the indian, save the man”, Jim Crow, and “Separate But Equal”.
We vigorously challenge the cognitive dissonance of so many California Historians, asking “Where did all the Indians go?”, at a time when the entire United States had declared war on Native Americans. … Including the first Governor of California, who called for “war of extermination” against California Native Americans.
These ideas, stereotypes, attitudes, and beliefs have managed to propagate themselves time and time again in the textbooks and lesson plans used to “educate” countless generations of Americans.
By now there should be no doubt that most museums, which display or hold Native American artifacts, directly benefit from grave robbing, or the often racist, prejudiced language and ignorant beliefs regarding Native Americans first uttered by now dead anthropologists [like Alfred Kroeber], and perpetuated by the ailing volunteers and aging septuagenarians responsible for interpreting and curating these artifacts today.
Many of these museums do no care to get the information or facts straight, and continue to present California Native Americans as “extinct”, “disappeared”, and brush off or dismiss any mention of actual living Native people as someone trying to raise trouble.
Advocates for the truthful portrayal, accurate naming, and return of tribal objects and remains are often called “hostile”, dismissed as rabble rousers, and subjected to projection by the very people who should have read White Fragility.
Even more infuriating is the belief consulting with any Native American individual on any subject–whether or not it’s related to the stolen Tribal Grave Goods or Ceremonial Objects in these Museum’s possession–is used as cover for the Museum to continue to disregard the wishes of the very real, and still living Native American people who have a lawful claim, and a legal right to demand the return and repatriation of these Native American Tribal Resources and Cultural Objects.
In fact, many of the people museums choose to consult with regarding Native American artifacts are not Native Americans at all.
Truthfully, Native American people are consistently shut out of events, exhibitions and lectures about their own culture and identity.
A lot of apologists will say “it’s not like this anymore”; or dismiss the Standard Operating Procedures museums as a thing of the past…. But these conditions till persist.
Native American People continue to be discounted, ignored; and their history, culture and contributions continue to be minimized and ignored.
But the truth remains: The artifacts and objects on display in most museums have been stolen from Native American People, their graves, and do not belong to the museums who refuse to return them.
There are three main reasons why Museums refuse to return Tribal Cultural Objects.
The first is that there is no Federally Recognized Tribe which claims these objects to return them to. This is especially true for the Repatriation of Native American Remains.
It’s a shame that these institutions are unwilling to do the research and work necessary to properly identify Tribal Cultural Objects and Native American Remains to repatriate the same way they did the research to identify and prepare the same goods and burials for exhibition.
It’s despicable the way Museums claim such helplessness and ignorance when it comes time to give stolen objects back, even though the exact same objects are the she subjects of fundraising events and lectures proudly given by white anthropologists, and non-native experts, even today.
Charlene Nijmeh, the Chairwoman of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, talks about how the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe was removed from the rolls of Native American Tribes simply for the purpose of denying Ohlone people in the San Francisco Bay Area their right to a tribal land base; because land in the Bay Area is so valuable.
In this same way, institutions like the University of California Berkeley (which holds the remains of thousands of Native Americans) are incentivized to claim an inability to identify which tribes the bodies in their crypt belong to.
So, too, are Museums incentivized to weaponize their incompetence in order to keep their pilfered goods.
This is a completely reprehensible argument that bears no merit, as far as I’m concerned. Simply because these same people would not agree that their family members are more valuable being dug up, defiled in the name of science, and put on display without so much of a whisper of their name or life’s story.
It’s worth saying, “If you’re not okay with your grandma being dug up and put on display, why are you doing it to mine?”
The blatant disrespect of Native American Graves as things which can be dug up, broken, moved to a landfill, reburied, and used as overspread is something which has been enabled by the statements of people like Alfred Kroeber, who explicitly declared entire tribes of Native Americans (like Ohlone people) “extinct”.
It s because these remains are considered “ancient”, or attributed to a time before our modern history where no living descendants exist–“pre-historic” for all intents and purposes–that oil companies, city, state and federal governments have dug up the bodies of our ancestors with impunity. And why money is still being given to universities to study our ancestors’ remains, even today.
But this is a fallacy, because Native American people are not extinct; they have not disappeared. We are still here, today. And we do not want anyone digging up our relatives to build pipelines, parking lots… or “for science”. Period!
(How come laws against the abuse of a corpse apply to every body except for Native American bodies?)
The third, and final, reason why institutions refuse to even consider returning stolen Native American artifacts to tribes is an extension of the preceding “more valuable for science” reasoning.
However, the very basis of some museums’ refusal to return tribal objects is clearly rooted in the scarcity mindset.
Museum Fallacy #3:
“If we give away all of our artifacts, we won’t have any left!”
“If we give away all of our artifacts, we won’t have any left!” This was actually said to me by a volunteer at the Alameda Museum.
This is dissonant because many museum’s holdings are made of stolen property. Repatriation is the only correct course of action; anything less is a travesty.
This standing also presumes the only thing of value the museum has to offer is the exhibition of original artifacts, no matter how broken or uninteresting those artifacts are; and, in spite of the fact that curators and museum staff and volunteers have no […] clue how those objects are used, where they actually came, or what the history of their use and development is.
In all of this, there is not even a hint of concern about whether or not the museum has a duty to investigate/research, find, and try to contact the tribe associated with the Native American objects and artifacts in their possession.
Consideration of actual Native American People is so far removed from the discussion, it’s a little ridiculous.
Representation of average museum volunteer docents. (AI-generated.)
The idea that there aren’t enough artifacts is a fallacy based upon a false sense of ownership and authority magically imbued by the mere possession of these stolen grave goods.
The implied scarcity mindsight that the only thing which gives museums like the Alameda Museum any value is a handful of broken pieces of bones and tools–which no one knows the use for (or even the names of)–is laughable in its appeal to ignorance.
The fact that Alameda Museum is not, and has never been, the place to see Native American artifacts belies this mindset as a straw man argument for the lack of interest or determination of the museum to change or do any better. But, in the end, it’s the museum which must do the work.
So let’s get down to brass tax here:
Museums need to get real about the fact that no one cares whether or not they exhibit real artifacts if their exhibits are trash and don’t actually provide any education value; especially if Museum Staff & Volunteers don’t know anything about them. [There’s no value here.]
Returning Native American Grave Goods is the right thing to do. (It’s probably illegal for museums to possess them.) And Museums owe money, and other restitution, to Tribes for their illegal conversion of Tribal Property.
Contacting Tribes to begin the repatriation process is necessary.
Museums need to seriously consider purchasing replicas made by Native American artisans in exchanging for the return of Grave Good and Ceremonial Objects.
Museums are required to pay Indigenous People for their time and consultation at a rate commensurate with like professionals in the same or similar industries–regardless of whether or not those Indigenous Consultants have any academic credentials.
Indigenous Peoples’ lived experiences and actual subject matter expertise are more valuable than any degree.
Indigenous science is valid.
Indigenous science is a distinct, time-tested, and methodological knowledge system that can enhance and complement western science. Indigenous science is about the knowledge of the environment and knowledge of the ecosystem that Indigenous Peoples have. It is the knowledge of survival since time immemorial and includes multiple systems of knowledge(s) such as the knowledge of plants, the weather, animal behavior and patterns, birds, and water among others.
Indigenous people are experts.
Museums will do well to remember these facts when treating Indigenous People with the reverence and respect they deserve.
We’ve found a pattern of reckless and careless treatment of 100% of those stolen artifacts.
The Alameda Museum has roughly 186 Native American Artifacts. All of those artifacts were found in connection with Native American Graves, except for 2.
So, we can’t say ALL of the artifacts are grave goods. But we can say:
99.93% of Alameda Museum’s Indigenous Artifacts are Stolen Burial Goods from Native American Graves all over the place we now call “Alameda.”
Shellmounds are cemeteries, ancient structures, sacred sites, historical resources, and ancient structures built by the first inhabitants of this area, Ohlone people.
Shellmounds are made rows of burials stacked vertically and alternately; covered with the shell-laden soil found along the San Francisco Bay Region’s shorelines.
There were several excavations of the shellmounds of Alameda.
Artifacts saved from excavations attended by professional and amateur anthropologists/archeologists were donated to both the Alameda Library, and the U.C. Berkeley Museum. [Some artifacts were notably kept by a City Engineer by the name of I.N. Chapman.]
Alameda Free Library existed long before the historical Alameda Historical Society, or the Alameda Museum were ever founded.
The Two Alameda Historical Societies
To be clear about the two Alameda Historical Societies: one of these societies existed in the early 1900’s, and is mentioned in newspaper articles, as being interested in the early Alameda Free Library’s “Museum” in the Carnegie Library.
The second iteration of the Alameda Historical Society started in the 1940’s, and was instrumental in moving the Museum from the basement of the Alameda Free Library, into the old Alameda High School Auto Shop in the 1980’s. And then, into the storefront of the Masonic Building, on Alameda Avenue–where it remains [“lies in state”?] today.
Transfer of Artifacts & Records from Alameda Free Library to Alameda Museum
All of these artifacts taken from the mounds were transferred from the Alameda Library to the Alameda Museum when the Museum moved into the old Alameda High School Auto Shop.
Those artifacts weren’t the only things transferred to the Alameda Museum.
At it’s inception, the Alameda Museum was designated as the Official City Repository for City Records, and the Records of the City of Alameda’s Departments, including (but not limited to,) Alameda’s Fire and Police Departments.
I know this isn’t incredibly relevant, but it’s important to know this background information, especially when the Alameda Museum claims they don’t have stolen artifacts, or that the artifacts the museum displays aren’t Native American Grave Goods. You’ll know that 99.93% of artifacts in the Alameda Museum’s possession are Grave Goods because they were taken from the Alameda “mounds”, which are Native American Graves.
Out of the approximately 186 Ohlone Artifacts in the possession of Alameda Museum, only two of them are unrelated to Native American Graves.
The other 184 artifacts are directly attributed to the shellmounds of Alameda.
What’s more: the Alameda Museum’s pattern of wanton “inattention”, and reckless disregard for these burial goods are clearly stated in the museum’s own records:
History:
Stone mortar and pestle found in one of Alameda’s mounds. The information on the pestle can be connected to a donation documented in the museum records: Subject: One Indian Mortar and Pestle. Date received: April 1954. Unfortunately, as a result of earlier inattention there is no further description, and as a result of later inattention during moves and minor catastrophes, it is not certain the mortar and pestles are together anymore, and the connection has been lost. Part of a collection of objects found in the largest Shellmound, also known as Sather’s Mound in Alameda, or smaller mounds. The excavations at Sather’s Mound were carried out in 1908 by Captain Clark, an amateur anthropologist. The items were donated to the Alameda Free Library, and passed on to the museum when the museum moved to a separate location. Date: April 1954 Mortar Acquired from: unknown Date: before 1991
Condition:
Notes: 6/30/2020 MvL: The label has suffered water damage when a pipe in the museum burst. Any accession numbering of the mortars and pestles was lost and has been redone.
The above excerpt of an artifact’s description establishes the Alameda Museum’s pattern of careless disregard, and reckless neglect of Native American artifacts.
Grave goods belong in graves; not museums.
Mismanagement of Ohlone Artifacts by Alameda Museum:
Misidentified the tribe associated with these stolen Ohlone artifacts;
Mixed up mortars and pestles, (among other things) so they no longer match;
Lost records and identifying information about the stolen burial goods;
Carelessly and recklessly stored, handled, and moved Ohlone grave goods.
This mismanagement, and noncompliance with their Service Provider Agreement with the City of Alameda; with the standards and practice of commensurate professionals and institutions engaged in the conservation and preservation of historical records and artifacts; and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA); has resulted in damage to these priceless, irreplacable artifacts, which the Alameda Museum possesses without permission, or right of ownership.
This evidence of unreported and unclaimed, loss/damage to Ohlone grave goods; and the established pattern of careless and reckless neglect of Ohlone artifacts…
Should be reason enough for the Alameda Museum to concede it cannot adequately care for any of the 186 Ohlone artifacts it possesses; and return them to the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area in the most expeditious way possible.
On Monday, September 4, 2023, the City of Alameda’s five-year agreement with the Alameda Museum to provide archival storage expired.
According to the agreement, the Alameda Museum, as an Independent Contractor, would provide the following:
Be open to the public for free at least 15 hours a week.
Be open for free group tours, especially for education based groups.
Store historical records of the city and provide archival preservation.
Dedicate 25% of warehouse to archival storage.
Dedicate an additional 25% of warehouse to the City’s historical exhibits, including documents and photo archives from the Library, City records, Police and Fire Departments, Alameda Recreation and Park Department, and other City records.
Assist with providing archive digital photos and text for City historical interpretive signage as requested.
The agreement made it clear the Alameda Museum is a Service Provider; and not a Civil Servant.
The agreement also provided a standard of care:
Provider agrees to perform all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with the prevailing standards of like professionals or service providers… all services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel[.]
Service Provider Agreement Between the City of Alameda and the Alameda Museum executed 09/05/2018
In the Recitals, the Agreement states that the Alameda Museum “possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, volunteer and staff time, and knowledge to provide the services described in this agreement on the terms and conditions described herein.”
But, even when this was signed, in 2018, the Alameda Museum didn’t possess any of the skill, experience, ability or background to perform these services.
George Gunn wasn’t qualified to preserve historical documents; and he didn’t.
George Gunn was an architect; not a serious records preservationist, or an archivist. Sure, he was able to inventory houses outside of the museum. But he never inventoried or organized the inside of museum in any useful or practical way–and this is a truth uncovered by what was supposed to be a routine records request that started almost four years ago.
Before 2019, the Alameda Museum had never bothered to organize the catalogue by Keyword, or Date.
Museum staff had simply redirected visitors to the Alameda Free Library, hoping the Library would do the Museum’s heavy lifting for them; instead of providing access to the relevant materials the Library actually transferred to the Museum.
This is why it always feels like a run-around.
Because the Alameda Museum always tries to redirect you to Alameda Free Library, even if the Library referred you to the Museum.
But this story lead straight to the Alameda Museum from the beginning; and I was not going to be redirected. I had the receipts.
I was following up on a number of items referenced in historical newspapers as donated to the Alameda Library; so I knew those items were in the possession of the Alameda Museum because of the transfer.
Of course the Museum didn’t know what I was talking about at first, and forced me to show them my sources to validate my inquiry.
Despite inheriting such a well organized, and cross-referenced volume of data and objects from the library, the Alameda Museum still managed to index it in a way that made it impossible to search the historical City Records, and City Exhibits. This was the second major hurdle.
When George Gunn finally left, the shadow of his leadership still remained.
The Museum Warehouse was not indexed. And, despite the efforts of the Museum’s volunteers, many of Alameda Museum’s holdings that were indexed, were indexed incorrectly.
This isn’t just proof Alameda Museum wasn’t in compliance with their contract; these circumstances underscore the need for the Archives to be maintained and preserved by a qualified Archival Preservation specialist.
Identification, dating, authentication and assignment of keywords of Alameda Museum’s artifacts needs to be performed by qualified persons. Data Entry and Cross-Referencing of existing card catalogs needs to be performed accurately, and with care.
And this is not to mention the financial and existential challenges George Gunn left Alameda Museum Board Members to deal with in his wake.
None of this is an excuse for the fact the Board Members didn’t do anything to encourage Gunn to provide the services or fire him. Point of fact: Gunn was constantly co-signed; his seat was never contested.
George Gunn, for his part, was belligerent in his noncompliance and perceived omnipotence [read: hubris].
George Gunn thought he would always be able to “survive” his critics… But he resigned in 2021, two years before the Museum’s contract expired.
While people like Dennis Evanosky [sorry, Dennis] and Woody Minor lauded Gunn’s “accomplishments”: Gunn’s only listed accomplishments reflected his own personal interests–outside of the museum–and unintentionally highlighted that Gunn’s notable achievements did not confer a public benefit.
Coincidentally, Dennis Evanosky was a signator to the Agreement with the City of Alameda, as the President of the Alameda Museum Board of Directors.
Museum Lacks Skilled Staff or Volunteers to Provide Preservation Services
Even if the Alameda Museum has been able to stay open for the 15 hours required of it for some of 5 years of this agreement, the Museum certainly does not have the volunteer or staff time to provide the archival services necessary to manage and preserve Alameda City Records.
This is because the Alameda Museum lacks any staff or volunteer hours to do the work that piled up during George Gunn’s tenor.
The Alameda Museum openly admits this:
They lack trained staff, they’re volunteer run.
They don’t have enough staff or volunteer hours to provide access to the Archives.
Board members are largely only scheduled for 2 hours a week.
The Alameda City Records are invaluable, priceless materials the City pays to be conserved in a warehouse suited for archival preservation.
Charging for Admission & Tours At Meyer House could Violate Agreement
Meyers House required $5 cash only admission fee.
The Service Provider Agreement specifically states the Museum must be open to the public (for no admission fee) for at least 15 hours per week.
Is the Meyer House exempt from the Agreement for some reason?
If so, the Meyer House and Garden hours of operations should not count towards to the total amount of time the Alameda Museum is open to the public.
Which would bring the Alameda Museum’s total time “Open To The Public” to only 7.5 hours–exactly half of the 15 hours the museum is required to be open for.
Museum Does Not Have Important Documents Regarding Transfer of Artifacts From Alameda Library
To be honest, my research request has less to do with the Alameda Museum, than with the Official City Repository they are paid to manage.
For context, my research request with the Alameda Museum started on November 24, 2019. And I was looking for archival materials like Newspapers of Records, Archival Photographs and Documents from the Library, City Records from the Council and other Departments and City Offices, as well as objects, artifacts, and other things donated to the Alameda Free Library’s Museum — all materials that were transferred to the Alameda Museum for safe keep, per the Service Provider Agreement between the Alameda Museum and the City of Alameda.
The first hurdle was the Museum’s lack of useful, practical, or accessible index/catalog.
Today, Valerie Turpen claims the Museum’s holdings have been catalogued and can now be searched by keyword — which was impossible before. But this doesn’t mean that my records request has been satisfied, or that I am any closer to reviewing the historical documents I request nearly four years ago.
Part of the reason is because some records are missing.
For instance, it appears that all records of the donation of Ohlone Artifacts to the Alameda Library are missing. There is no record of when the artifacts were donated, or by who. Every artifact in the “Native American Collection” seems to bear the same boiler-plate language:
Part of a collection of objects found in the largest Shellmound, also known as Sather’s Mound in Alameda, or smaller mounds. The excavations at Sather’s Mound were carried out in 1908 by Captain Clark, an amateur anthropologist. The items were donated to the Alameda Free Library, and passed on to the museum when the museum moved to a separate location.
Alameda Museum, “Native American Artifacts” as of May 31, 2022
The images above are a small selection of the Ohlone Artifacts stolen from the Alameda Shellmound and put on display as “Miwok” artifacts until I called the Museum out for their inaccuracies in 2019.
As you can tell from the object description quoted above: the exact provenance is impossible to tell because of Alameda Museum’s failure to accurately identify these stolen burial goods, and preserve integral paperwork related to their “donation”.
The plain and obvious disregard for indigenous objects and history stands in sharp contrast to the careful cataloguing and indexing of the white, Victorian-era artifacts proudly displayed and advertised by the Alameda Museum.
And it begs the question: How can the Museum have spent so much time cataloguing all of the objects owned by white Alamedans, from artwork to silverware to shoes, to the smallest, most inconsequential objects… but completely neglect the provenance, identification, and indexing of the most historically important objects in the entire Alameda Museum: proof of what life was like for the First Alamedans.
These artifacts were celebrated and popular during the early 1900’s. Several lectures were given on the Alameda Shellmounds, which featured artifacts now in the possession of the Alameda Museum.
Is this indicative of how other collections in the Alameda Museum are being mismanaged, improperly attributed, and haphazardly stored?
What other “city exhibits” are being neglected and what other records have been lost by the Alameda Museum?
When’s the last time the Museum even took inventory of their holdings? Seems like the answer is never, if their holdings weren’t even catalogued in 2019.
How could the Alameda Museum have let these conditions persist for so many decades?
Has the City ever inspected it’s own Archives for Compliance with the Service Provider Agreement?
All signs point to, “No”.
Maybe it’s time for the City of Alameda to take a better look at how the Alameda Museum has mismanaged the City Archives;
And either take serious steps to provide required access to those Archives at the Alameda Museum;
Or put out a Request for Proposals from qualified records storage and preservation companies.
It’s hard to say exactly what this plaque meant to me, growing up, adopted, in Alameda. This was a tangible symbol of my Native American heritage; something connected to my identity. Proof that my people actually existed somewhere. Even though I couldn’t see them, or be with them. It was also a source of horrors; knowing that I was living on an Indian Burial Mound.
This was supposed to be an art project; with some ghost stories, hand made beading, and hand-made historic reproductions of traditional Native American garments and adornments.
All I wanted to do was find out if my grandfather’s house really was built on an Indian Burial Mound. I thought I was asking a simple question, that local historians would be able to answer in the same way they could erudiate on Victorian Houses, and Electric Railways.
Instead–when I went to the Alameda Museum–the subject was dismissed.
“Somebody already did that,” I was told.
An unnamed docent from the Alameda Museum asked me, “Wasn’t it just a trash heap?”
Searching For Answers
It soon became obvious that Non-Native Historians were neither interested, nor knowledgeable about the Alameda Shellmounds, or the First Alamedans; I realized I would have to perform the work.
Not just to find out for myself; but to counter non-native apathy, and gate-keeping; and hold this knowledge in trust for other native people who search for their own heritage, too.
But how do I find out more about the Alameda Shellmounds, and their history, when the Alameda Museum doesn’t even care?
I would have to find, search, index, and analyze several volumes of information; across several sources, and locales.
This is the progression of sources I consulted, regarding this topic. Research is still ongoing. Check the ANHP Wiki for specifics, excerpts, transcriptions, and more.
Existing, Aggregated Information RE: Shellmounds in Alameda
Books:
Alameda: A Geological History, Imelda Merlin, 1977
Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Area, N.C. Nelson, 1914
Alameda Historic Records
Learned:
Where the “Sathers Mound” actually was;
There was more than one shellmound in Alameda;
People used shellmounds to pave sidewalks and roads.
Newspapers
Search expanded to regional and state newspapers; like the Oakland Tribune, and the Alta Daily California.
Learned:
First excavation of the Alameda Shellmound was 1892, sponsored by the San Francisco Call newspaper;
California Academy of Science was involved in 1892 excavation;
Several artifacts reportedly gifted to U.C. Berkeley Anthropology Museum.
University/Research Institutions
Relevant material found in the holdings of:
University of California, Berkeley;
San Francisco State University;
California Academy of Science.
Museums
Phoebe A Hearst Museum, Berkeley, California
California Academy of Science, San Francisco, California
Coyote Hills Regional Park, Fremont, California
California Indian Museum and Cultural Center, Santa Rosa, California
California State Indian Museum, Sacramento, California
Alameda Museum, Alameda, California (Errantly attributed Ohlone artifacts to “a branch of the Miwok tribe” for decades.)
“Somebody already did that.”
Imelda Merlin
Imelda Merlin is a famous Alamedan. Her Master’s Thesis for the University of California, Berkeley, was published in 1977 as Alameda: A Geological History. This book contains a Map of Live Oaks, which features several shellmounds.
Imelda Merlin’s book is considered the “Alameda bible” as far as local historians are concerned. It contains excerpts from, and references to, some of the core historic records of the City of Alameda. However, the map is of Live Oaks, and does not appear to be a serious attempt to show the accurate locations of shellmounds which existed in Alameda around 1850; and the sections concerning indigenous occupation of Alameda and extremely light on verifiable citations.
N.C. [Nels Christian] Nelson
Was an anthropology student at the University of California, Berkeley. Worked for John C. Merriam. Merriam and Nelson both went on an exploratory expedition of the San Francisco Bay Region, where Nelson surveyed and analyzed shellmounds.
In 1914, N.C. Nelson published his findings in “Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region”, which featured the “Map of the San Francisco Bay Region, Showing the Distribution of Shell Heaps”.
This is the most thorough survey of the Bay Area Shellmounds ever made; and Nelson’s work is heavily cited by historians, newspapers, and researchers, alike. Nelson’s map represents the positions of shellmounds he and his team personally observed, which makes his work a primary source.
Confronting the Current Record
Reconciling local “common knowledge” with Public Records and Official Studies
Issues presented by Imelda Merlin’s Map
Citations are missing, incorrect, and/or do not substantively match or explain the locations of shellmounds in content, or context. For instance, the 1850 “Whitcher’s Survey” map of the Alameda area has been lost to time, even though it was referenced as being on prominent display in Alameda’s City Hall. This survey appears several times in Merlin’s work, all with hand-drawn additions by Imelda Merlin, herself.
Multiple Versions of N.C. Nelson’s Map
Aside from the official U.C. Berkeley, University Press printing of Nelson’s Map; there are versions with more Shellmounds, and different numbers. However no addendum or update by Nelson has been recovered; drawing into question the accuracy of these other, unofficial, maps purportedly attributed to Nelson.
Complete Reliance by Non-Native Historians on Unvetted Sources
Hometown pride may have blinded local historians. But even credible witnesses can give unreliable testimony. There is an argument for considering Merlin’s map as a Tertiary Source.
Non-Native Attitudes that the Burial Mound Issue is “Settled”
Resulting in a fundamental lack of knowledge and comprehension of local historical events by local historians and curators–who are supposed to be the experts on this subject, among other Alameda History. The assumption that there is nothing more to find, and no more to learn about the Alameda shellmounds, meant that no research was performed regarding the History of the First Alamedans–until now.
As this project continued, I learned that there was a lot left unsaid, and even more Alameda History to be uncovered beyond answering the question: “What happened to the shellmounds?”
Recognition and Acknowledgment can only do so much; we know. But it’s the start of a larger truth and reconciliation process that America needs to engage in.
This may be a project that focuses on Native American “stuff”, but…
Native American History isn’t the only American History that has been ignored by Alameda’s Colonial Historians.
“The Chinese Vegetable Vendor”, Bancroft Collection, UC Berkeley Bancroft Library, (undated.)
Asian-American History is largely overlooked; despite the fact that Alameda was the terminus for the Intercontinental Railroad. And Chinese people are primarily credited for building the railways connecting the Eastern and Western United States. There was an influx of Chinese immigrants, who would become the backbone of a service industry, in California.
During the same time:
Alameda was being founded (1853);
Intercontinental Railroad terminus in Alameda (1869);
Chinese Exclusion Act (1882);
First Excavation of “Sather’s Mound” for San Francisco Call (1892);
During 1908, during reporting on the second (and final) excavation of the Mound Street Shellmound, a “Chinese Vegetable Garden” was pictured, and described in newspaper articles, to be on the shellmound itself.
“The Alameda Indian Mounds”, San Francisco Call, Sep. 11, 1892
In the last example, the “Chinese Vegetable Garden” was pictured as part of a “Chinese Camp”. The garden itself appeared to be fairly large, and the image seemed to show the boundary of the camp itself butting up against more farmland.
“A Comparison”, the Alameda Argus, July 25, 1878.
In Alameda and Brooklyn townships there are not less than 300 Chinamen engaged in gardening operations.
“A Comparison”, the Alameda Argus, July 25, 1878.
Research into “Chinese Vegetable Gardens” around the San Francisco Bay Area, California, and beyond, show that these “gardens” were misnomers. In reality, these “gardens” were farms; and could cover several acres. Many were terraced.
These farms produced food for entire towns. Not just the Asian-American people who would later be confined to Chinatowns across America.
Sam Hop Co., San Francisco, California, Feb. 5, 1908
In historic City of Alameda Municipal Codes, there are laws against the sale of vegetables specifically by Chinese people who did not purchase a vegetable sales permit. These kinds of laws were created as economic barriers to knock the legs out from under any possible competition with white grocers and farmers. White people were so blinded by their own poison that they had no problem publishing their thoughts in black & white.
“The Determined Heathen”, Alameda Daily Evening Encinal, April 7, 1894
Chinese-Americans were already barred from owning land, and were excluded from full citizenship because of the same racist, white supremacist ideologies that were already affecting African-American, and Indigenous/Native/First American people. And, just like them, Chinese-American History has been largely ignored, and unspoken.
Despite the extraordinary measures by white people to insulate their fragility with false “exceptionalism”–by cheating, and excluding fair competition at every turn–rumors of Chinese wealth generated through farming began to circulate.
One rumor claimed that a man was able to amass $4,000 within four years, and return to China a well-off man from just the sale of vegetables, alone. [$4,000 in 1890 is roughly equivalent to $123,581.54 today.]
Untitled, Undated (between 1880-1910), picture of Chinese Man with Pail of Vegetables in His Left Hand
Such was the contempt for any nonwhite citizen of Alameda, that a strong opposition rose by White Alamedans against the minority farmers, who–despite feeding the island–began to be demonized for “benefitting” from the “best land for residences”; and for their practice of enriching bad soil with manure. The land owners who rented to Chinese immigrants, the Alameda Board of Health, Alameda Chief of Police, were all assailed as enemies of Alameda; responsible for the detriment of city life, and degradation of Alameda’s haut monde.
This story continues. But it’s continued in the shadows of Alameda’s white history. The accomplishments of the Chinese immigrants who literally built this island were re-appropriated and claimed by White Men, who are extolled as “heroes” and “visionaries”. When it is truly the work of the (non-white) global majority.
Of course, none of this history has been made available at the Alameda Museum. Maybe one day soon multi-cultural and multi-ethnic Alameda History will be made available to us all. George Gunn, Alameda Museum’s White History curator was allowed to quietly retire like the coward he is. And the Alameda Museum is currently looking for a new curator. [Good luck.]
The Alameda Native History Project project presents a map of the three Alameda Shellmounds, as seen by N.C. Nelson in 1907, restored and presented in the present-day landscape.
For the first time ever, the Shellmounds of Alameda are being visualized, and presented as a physical, tangible land feature.
The purpose of this map is to:
Acknowledge that Alameda was a place were local Ohlone communities came to bury their loved ones;
Illustrate the large size and scale of shellmounds, in general;
Visualize a theoretical landscape where the Alameda Shellmounds were preserved;
Fill the gaps made by Alameda Museum’s lack of accurate or meaningful information about the First Alamedans: Ohlone People.
