A Call to Action from the Alameda Native History Project
OUR MISSION IS TO:
Advocate for tribal restoration,
Promote Native American representation, and,
Educate the public about Indigenous rights and perspectives,
Honoring the ancestral legacy of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, and,
Enriching our community through innovative tools, immersive experiences, and collaborative efforts.
Through initiatives like ACORNS!, the GIS Lab, and Land Lab, we bring this mission to life.
ACORNS!
ACORNS! is a year-round program, aligning with natural cycles: acorn harvests (fall), seed germination and curriculum development (winter/spring), community seedling giveaways and culinary classes (spring/summer), and ongoing tree nursery management.
GIS Lab
The GIS Lab is a core component of the Alameda Native History Project, and its founder is an Opensource Geospatial Foundation Member. We are currently in the process of pursuing accreditation as a Geo For All Lab, further solidifying our commitment to open-source geospatial education and community empowerment.
We are committed to fostering the free exchange of information, training our community members in open source software and, showing people how to use open data to both learn and advocate.
Our goal has always been to enable tribes and indigenous people to collect, analyze, and store sovereign data using a myriad of tools and methods. But it’s our immersive educational tools that we need the most support to develop.
Land Lab
Launching the Indigenous Land Lab has taught us valuable lessons, informing our approach to infrastructure development and community engagement. The natural materials available, open workspace, and potential as a restoration nursery are too much to pass up.
Once we are able to get the Land Lab going, we will be able to support the rest of our projects with the actual materials we need, by producing them ourselves, rather than having to buy them. And we would be able to model actual acorn granaries in situ.
Join us in empowering the Alameda Native History Project – your support will directly fuel these initiatives, fostering a deeper sense of community and Indigenous cultural connection through immersive experiences and events.
This was created as a direct response to our community’s need for restorative justice–making things right.
You likely feel a personal connection to Indigenous People. You want to contribute to the well-being and sustainability of First Peoples locally, and around the world. (Especially Ohlone people who are the first inhabitants of the San Francisco Bay Area.)
We wanted to help guide you towards contributing to reputable, accountable, and transparent organizations making measurable positive impacts in the local Indigenous and Native American communities.
We wanted to re-frame “decolonization,” “landback,” and “rematriation” (all centered around returning ancestral lands to their original Indigenous caretakers) into locally actionable concepts that celebrate the plurality and diversity of our local community organizations, and the work they do to:
Uplift our voices. Empower and Advocate.
Cultivate wellness, vitality and expression.
Preserve and celebrate our Heritage and Traditions.
Benefitting the local Native American and Indigenous Communities of the San Francisco Bay Area means looking at the big picture.
Our diversity is our strength. Understanding the inter-tribal nature of the Bay Area, as well as being able to recognize true Tribal Governments, and Indigenous Organizations is essential for your role in supporting Indigenous Liberation.
By presenting you with local Indigenous organizations making a positive, measurable impact in the community, we are re-focusing attention on community driven initiatives with a proven track-record of success and accountability.
We acknowledge that the Bay Area is an Inter-tribal Urban Reservation. That the continued un-recognition of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area has resulted in political erasure and loss of Muwekma’s hereditary homelands in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, San Jose, and parts of Napa, Santa Cruz, Solano, and San Joaquin counties.
We occupy Muwekma Ohlone Land. And we should do what we can to honor the first people of the Bay Area.
You deserve to know that your contributions are being used to benefit Ohlone People and the greater Native American Community. This is why it’s essential to contribute only to organizations which are transparent, accountable, and provide a measurable positive impact to Ohlone People and local Indigenous Communities.
Dedicated to preserving Ohlone culture, language, and traditional practices, this foundation supports the direct needs of Ohlone people in the Bay Area. Contributions fund cultural revitalization, education, and ancestral territory preservation efforts, promoting Ohlone self-determination and community well-being.
(Pronounced “courage”) seeks to unlock the leadership of young people to “dream beyond bars.” From their website: “We look to young people to lead the way in transforming our communities by investing in their healing, aspirations, and activism.”
Promotes Community Wellness, Provides direct Medical Care, Celebrates the rich Culture and Heritage of All Nations through diverse programming and events, including the Indigenous Red Market, and Annual NAHC Powwow.
Provides wellness and rehabilitative services to Native American People from all over the Nation. Many tribes send their members to the SF Friendship house for care. [As of writing, the website is down. Best way to reach them is to call. (415) 865-0964 Ask for Finance, or: Lena Ma ext. 4021, or Pinky Huree ext. 4012]
Intertribal Friendship House
Legit Native American community center in Oakland. A small place with a big impact. From their website: “Intertribal Friendship House (IFH), located in Oakland, CA, was founded in 1955 and is one of the first urban American Indian community centers in the nation… For urban Native people, IFH serves as a vital “Urban Reservation” and cultural homeland, providing a crucial space to stay connected to their heritage and traditions.”
Our community deserves better than empty promises and appropriation.
By supporting transparent, accountable organizations that truly benefit Ohlone people and local Indigenous communities, we can create meaningful change.
Let’s reclaim our responsibility to honor the first people of this land and work towards a future where Indigenous voices are amplified, not erased.
Together, we can make a difference – let this be a starting point for positive action.
An Investigative Report by the Alameda Native History Project
Preserving Accurate Ohlone History and Culture
The Alameda Native History Project is dedicated to preserving the accurate history and culture of the Ohlone people. As part of this effort, we have conducted research on Sogorea Te Land Trust, a non-profit organization [501(c)(3)], and its claims of representing the Ohlone people.
Why We Investigated
We followed this story because it was newsworthy and of significant public interest. Moreover, we believe that people have the right to know where their money is going, particularly when it comes to donations intended to support Native American communities–in this case: Ohlone people, the First Alamedans.
Concerns and Findings
Our research has raised several concerns about Sogorea Te Land Trust’s claims and actions:
Claims by trust leaders, particularly Corrina Gould, about being part of an Ohlone tribe called “Lisjan“, which is actually a Nisenan name for “Pleasanton”, not East Oakland or Berkeley.
Over the past three years, the Alameda Native History Project has reached out to Sogorea Te Land Trust multiple times seeking clarification on these issues, but they have not provided any substantive responses.
Call to Action
We encourage everyone to seek out multiple sources and consult with Ohlone elders and experts before supporting or promoting initiatives related to Ohlone history and culture. Specifically, we recommend reaching out to the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area and other Ohlone leaders who may have valuable insights and perspectives on the issues raised in this report. By engaging in open and respectful dialogue, we can work together to ensure the accurate representation and well-being of the Ohlone people.
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.
For real, though, once they run out, it’s going to be a minute before another run is printed. And you’ll be forced to make due with one of our other awesome maps.
Nothing about this is an act of charity, or legitimate “return” of native land. The fact that the property being purchased is a 2.2 acre parking lot–instead of a real shellmound–is kind of embarrassing; especially because these headlines are so wrong.
Just because the City of Berkeley City Council voted on an agenda item with the title:
Adopt first reading of an Ordinance authorizing the City to acquire the portion of the West Berkeley Shellmound located at 1900 Fourth Street and also authorizing the City to transfer that property to the Sogorea Te Land Trust, thereby returning the land to the Ohlone people.
Does not mean that land is actually being returned to Ohlone people.
It’s a conclusory statement based on the bandwagon fallacy: that donating money, creating cultural easements, and transferring property to the Sogorea Te Land Trust benefits Ohlone people.
And this false equivocation between a non-Ohlone organization, and “The Ohlone People” is dangerously close to the impersonation of a tribe. Especially when the transfer of money, property and benefits meant for the enjoyment of an Ohlone Tribe goes to an organization which is neither a Tribe, nor Ohlone.
2. The City of Berkeley did not Buy the West Berkeley Shellmound
The City of Berkeley only chipped in about $1.5 Million worth of City Money. That’s less than 10% of the total purchase cost of the West Berkeley Parking Lot–which is $27 Million Dollars.
I just want to note that the Valuation for the land at 1900 4th Street, which are two parcels [57-2101-1-3, and 57-2101-5], is currently $9,690,000.00 (or $9.69M).
…And also let you know that the valuation for this property jumped between 2022, and 2023; from a combined (Land + Improvements) value of $1,306,140, to its current, $9,690,000. That’s a difference of $8,383,860 in value, in just one year. I’m not sure if this has to do with $60K worth of delinquent property taxes being paid in December 2023. But there hasn’t been any obvious change on the ground which would indicate a higher valuation.
All of this is to say that a purchase cost of $27 Million Dollars is way more than what the land is worth.
So, there’s actually a really good chance the inflated cost of the property includes legal fees and losses involved in the decade long struggle of the property.
And, if that’s true, this is much more of a win for the developers than it is for anyone else. Like, $18 Million Dollars more.
3. Sogorea Te Land Trust is Not An Ohlone Tribe or Organization
Sogorea Te is not even an Ohlone word. Sogorea Te is a place name for Glen Cove, in Vallejo, which is currently Wintun and Patwin Territory.
Sogorea Te Land Trust is a non-profit Land Trust that’s supposedly gathering money to purchase [Ohlone] land to return to indigenous people; support “rematriation”; and create urban gardens, and community centers.
However….
None of the money Sogorea Te Land Trust has raised, has benefited any actual Bay Area Tribe.
The only group benefitting from the Sogorea Te Land Trust’s work seems to be a corporation posing as a Tribal Government, the Confederated Villages of the Lisjan Nation, INC.
But the fact that:
Sogorea Te Land Trust is so often being confused with an Ohlone Tribe, or representing an Ohlone Tribe; and the fact that,
Sogorea Te is now accepting land on behalf of “the Ohlone people”; and the fact that,
Sogorea Te Land Trust is not correcting this misidentification, false equivocation, or,
Making it clear that the Sogorea Te Land Trust is not an Ohlone tribe, and does not speak for one…
Means that the Sogorea Te Land is getting closer and closer to impersonating a tribe, or at least benefitting from the false impression that the Land Trust is an Ohlone Tribe or Ohlone Tribal Organization–which it is not.
4. The West Berkeley Shellmound is not “endangered”
It’s destroyed.…
But it’s easier for people to believe they are helping to “undo”, or “right centuries of wrong” by allowing a Land Trust to purchase an insignificant piece of what’s left of the West Berkeley Shellmound.
Wallace, W.; Lathrap, D. (1975) Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, Vol. 29, “West Berkeley (CA-Ala-307): A Culturally Stratified Shellmound on the East Shore of San Francisco Bay” https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4616g044
I would argue: the only reason the West Berkeley Shellmound has received so much attention is because it’s a flat, empty space which is easy to fit a hundred protestors on top of. [Other shellmounds are behind fences, and protected by Oil, Quarry and Other Industries’ Private Security Companies.]
But, as a sacred site that needs protecting, the West Berkeley Shellmound is at the bottom of the list–mostly because it’s already 👏🏽 been 👏🏽 destroyed 👏🏽; and, also, because the Spenger’s Parking Lot is not where the shellmound used to be.
Map of West Berkeley showing CA-Ala-307 (West Berkeley Shellmound)
The historic location of the West Berkeley Shellmound is on the other side of the train tracks, under what’s now mostly a Truitt & White Lumber Yard.
5. Lisjan has never been the name of any Ohlone Tribe
Lisjan (or “lisyan”) does not appear in any historic mission records–or anywhere else–until 1921: when a Muwekma Ohlone ancestor (Jose Guzman) said “Yo soy lisjanes“, to define himself as someone from the Bernal, and Alisal Rancherias, in what’s known as Pleasanton today.
Aside from the fact that “Lisjan” appears in an interview of Muwekma ancestor Jose Guzman, which occurred about 87 years after the secularization of the Missions in California: there is nothing to prove that an Ohlone village named Lisjan ever existed. In fact, the only thing passages referring to “Lisjan” prove is that “Lisjan” is the place name for Pleasanton, California; not East Oakland–where Corrina Gould claims the “Lisjan” homeland is.
To dive in deeper to the references of “Lisjan” in the 1921 interview of Jose Guzman: Guzman was busy discussing how his family came from the North–which was Nisenan territory, where the word “Lisjan” came from–to Pleasanton. In this passage, Guzman talked about his family’s history, and of his grandfather speaking Russian.
But, let’s be clear: Lisjan is not an Ohlone word at all.
So a woman calling herself the chairperson of an Ohlone “tribe” (which is supposedly a “confederation” of Ohlone villages) named after Pleasanton, but based in East Oakland, should be considered extremely suspect. 🚩🚩🚩
But Corporations are not Tribal Governments, because Tribal Governments are Sovereign Nations which exist outside of the normal U.S. Corporate Structure.
7. Corrina Gould isn’t a tribal chairperson.
There are a number of different reasons why Corrina Gould is not a Tribal Chairperson. The fact that the Confederated Villages of the Lisjan Nation, INC. is not a tribe is the strongest. And it’s evidenced on the faces of everyone you see in every picture of CVL’s “tribal members”.
Real Tribal Leaders are actually voted for by Tribal Members who represent all the different families which make up a Tribe.
Look at the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area:
The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe was federally recognized; they have a documented 10,000 year history continuous habitation in the San Francisco Bay Area; not just Federal Documentation, but family trees, and DNA documentation directly linked to archaeological sites.
The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe is comprised of all the remaining known Indian lineages who survived the California Missions. They have over 614 enrolled tribal members.
The reason why the Muwekma Ohlone tribe seems like it’s “The San Jose Tribe”, or is only in Santa Clara is because Mission San Jose was down in Fremont. That’s where all the “Indians” got let out from when the Mission systems closed down. So that’s why the Governor issued an order re: squatters on Mission Lands; and why the present-day Muwekma population is distributed the way it is. [That is a completely different historical topic for another day.]
“But we have members all over the Bay Area,” Muwekma Chairwoman Charlene Nijmeh told me. This includes places outside of San Jose, like Castro Valley, Oakland, Berkeley, San Francisco–and even in Manteca, and Sacramento, and beyond.
But this is an argument about Traditional, Hereditary Muwekma Territory. And that territory includes Berkeley, and Oakland, and Alameda, and Albany. This whole area is Muwekma Ohlone Territory. The only reason they’re not here is because they haven’t got their land back.
When you look closer, the “tribe” Corrina Gould purports to represent is comprised only of her own immediate family members.
Official Portraits of the Confederated Villages of the Lisjan Nation, Inc. have never shown many (if any) members of the tribe Corrina Gould purports to be the Chairwoman of.
Take this into consideration when you compare the Confederated Villages of the Lisjan Nation, INC. to real tribes, like the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area–which has 600+ members from many different families, who have well-documented, hereditary links to their land and ancestors.
If Corrina Gould were really trying to educate the public, she would have told you the truth a long time ago, and actually stepped aside to let the real tribe she came from benefit from the work she purports to do “for Ohlone people”–instead of doing it for her personal benefit, and the benefit of her immediate family members.
It’s up to you to educate yourself before you give money, land, or support to Native People.
We get it, you feel guilty about what your ancestors did Native Americans.
But your desperation to absolve yourself of your White Guilt, and the Sins of Colonization lead you into problematic “fixes”, following straw man causes which end up contributing to the erasure of the very people you’re trying to help.
“Lisjan” has been referred to as a Traditional Ohlone Village Site, in East Oakland.
Both the San Leandro Creek, and San Lorenzo Creek bear the name of “Lisjan” creek.
But “Lisjan” isn’t even an Ohlone word.
“Lisjan” is what Nisenan People call the city of Pleasanton, California.
Uldal, J. & Shipley, W. (1966) “Nisenan Texts and Dictionary”
And, just to be clear: Pleasanton wasn’t called “Pleasanton” until the 1860’s. Up to that point, it was called “Alisal”, or “Alizal”, or “El Alizal”, or “Alisal Rancheria”. And, before that, Alisal was the Bernal Rancheria.
And Nisenan People are not Maidu People. They’re totally seperate tribes.
You could say, the present day Nisenan capitol is Nevada City, California….
The “definition” of Lisjan, a Nisenan Word…
In 1929, A.L. Kroeber published “The Valley Nisenan“, which contained an expansive, and categorized Nisenan vocabulary; and a decent explanation of phonetics. However, this was only a short list, which did not contain Place Names. But, this book is an indication of the linguistic study and research going on behind the scenes, in California, in the early 20th century.
It wouldn’t be until 1966, that Hans Jørgen Uldall, would publish “Nisenan Texts and Dictionary“, with William Shipley. This volume includes some very adult stories. So, beware. But, there are Nisenan-English, and English-Nisenan dictionaries in the back.
Uldall’s dictionary contains the entry for “Lisjan”; as a Place Name for Pleasanton, California.
But, how did that name, get all the way up to Nisenan territory, 100 miles away from Pleasanton? And 45 years after Harrington’s interviews? Why is “Lisjan” being touted as a traditional Ohlone Village Site in deep East-Oakland, if “Lisjan” is another name for Pleasanton?
Excerpt from “Chochenyo Field Notes” showing the word “muwekma”.
J.P. Harrington’s “Chochenyo Field Notes” (1921)
One of the most-cited references in Ohlone History…
In 1921, J.P. Harrington performed a Language Survey of Native Americans in the East Bay. Harrington gathered numerous languages during this time, including the “Chocheño” language; which is known as the East Bay Ohlone language, today. Despite being deeply flawed, and extremely sus at times, this document continues to be a primary influence on mainstream discussions about Ohlone History in the San Francisco Bay Area.
One of Harrington’s interviewees was a man by the name of Jose Guzman. Guzman was interviewed, along with a man named “Angelo”, and a third man who is known as “informant”–presumably, Harrington’s fixer. Francisca is another interviewee who appears separately from Jose and Angelo, most times.
This volume is incredibly informative. Even though, a good portion of the information provided by Jose Guzman, and Angelo become problematic in many places–when viewed in context with later anthropological work, and the lack of clear attribution to a speaker (if any) in many of the entries. This is a problem with Harrington, really.
A majority of contemporary work on East Bay Ohlone People cite J.P. Harrington’s “Chochenyo Field Notes”, from 1921.
This document is never more than one step removed from almost any article or research paper.
But who’s actually read it? As daunting as these tomes look in the beginning: I have to be honest, and tell you, it’s not as bad as it seems. 355 pages of hand-written notes goes kind of quickly if you can hang with the kind of Spanglish that’s spoken on many a rez, today.
It’s easy to get a feel for the personalities of the interviewees by how their interviews progress; and even the type of setting. Some interviews were taken at gatherings. There are write-ups of methods of fabrication for food and tools; songs; as well as old stories, passed down to Jose Guzman. Harrington’s hand-writing also changes, depending on the speed of the information he’s being given, and whether or not he’s having a good day. Sometimes, he had to switch pens, until ultimately finding a pencil.
In the beginning, Harrington focuses on the basics. Where are you from? What’s the name of your tribe? Have you heard of these people? Can you tell me the history of this place?
Harrington wouldn’t ask twice about something the same day. He would circle back to it again, on another day.
As his notes progress, the words move to phrases. The lists become Chocheño lists, with Spanish or English translation.
This is how “Lisjan” kept popping up.
Harrington’s Synthesis of Chocheño VS. The Way Chocheño Was Actually Being Spoken
Aside from where the notes explicitly said who the speaker was, or whether or not the interviewees agree, it’s difficult to tell the difference between Harrington’s own ideas and synthesis of Chocheño; and the Chocheño language as it was actually spoken.
The following entry shows how Harrington took a variation of the phrase “makin miwikma” (we are good people), and applied it to “lisjan”, to form “lisjanikma”–which, to Harrington’s understanding of Chocheño, means “lisjan people”.
makin lisjanikma, we are lisjanes. approved lisjanikma but could not get tongue around it.”
The result was a valid form of the word. But not a word which was actually in use; or even really pronounceable.
This would continue on the next page, with:
makin Jinijmin, somos muchachos, cannot say *makin jinijminka inf. tells me clearly
Hand-writing is unclear for “mak[n]ote”, “mak[in]ote”, “mak[s]ote”, “mak[‘n]ote”…
This is when I started suspecting there may have been drinking involved in some of these later sessions with Jose Guzman and Angelo. (Because it looks like they’re having fun, and getting kinda goofy at times.) The informant’s answer seems to say more about the philosophy, or [machismo] culture, of the group being interviewed. I can actually see it playing out:
You can’t just say, “We’re some men.” You have to say, “Puros muchachos estamos aqui!”
It was at this point, that I started noticing the strong Spanish-language influence in many of these examples of Chocheño given to Harrington by Chocheño speakers.
References to “Lisjan”
Page 54: The Ind. name of the Chocheños is lisianij.
In the first few pages, we find an entry that says the “Indian Name” of the Chocheños is “Lisjan“.
This may seem like an authoritative, and all-encompassing reference. But the specifics change over time.
Page 59: lisjanis, In. Infor. They said that S.Jose was an early mission [upside-down triangle symbol]; they called the Inds. here sometimes los viejos cristianos. Jose knows this trbu. too and uses it every day, in talking to me.
In the next entry, we find out that San Jose Mission Indians were also called “los viejos cristianos”.
We also find out that Jose Guzman references San Jose Mission Indians this way, as well. No location information is given yet. But that changes.
Soon, there are distinctions made between who is, and who isn’t Lisjan.
On page 95 of the PDF, a paragraph begins with “lisjanes were the San Jose.” It goes on to say that, neither the Doloreños, nor the Clareños, were Lisjanes.
Page 95: lisjanes were the San Jose — the name covered up as far as S. Lorenzo Angelo thinks. 8ing. lisjan. yo soy lisjan. The Doloreños were not lisjanes, nor were the Clareños. [Mention of Dumbarton Rail Bridge (opened 1910) at bottom of page?]
This entry includes a little more information about location. It states that the name Lisjan covered up as far as San Lorenzo. This is interesting, because the very first entry said Lisjan is the “Indian Name” of the Chocheños.
It’s also interesting, because the Chocheño-speaking Indians at San Lorenzo were called “Los Nepes”. Which means, they were considered a completely different group by Harrington’s interviewees.
Unfortunately, this entry only gives us a rough northern boundary to a possible Lisjan “territory”, certainly not enough information to pin to a certain geographic region. This also means that “Lisjan” was definitely not located in present-day Oakland, at all.
Pages 105-106: kana lisjanka, yo soy lisjan. makin lisjanikma, we are lisjanes. approved lisjanikma but could not get tongue around it.
The next entries that we see, are on pages 105 and 106. While the phrases “yo so lisjan”, and “we are lisjanes” are present; so is a real problem.
There is no distinction between the words and phrases that are actually used/spoken in Chocheño–and given to Harrington; and, the words and phrases J.P. Harrington created, or invented, on his own, and “pitched” to his informant, and interviewees.
Using the information found in Harrington’s notes, I prepared the following visual aids.
I wanted to find the answers to a number of questions I had:
Where is Lisjan? Is it in Oakland, Pleasanton, or somewhere else?
Who are the Lisjanes? Are they a specific group, or family?
Regarding what Angelo said about a Northern Boundary for Lisjan: is it possible the boundaries for Lisjan fall within the historic bounds of Mission San Jose?
Map showing Historic Place Names, Mission San Jose, and approximate North and South Mission Lands boundaries, as surveyed in 1852.
Where is Lisjan? Is it in Oakland, Pleasanton, or somewhere else?
[If this is the only document you’re going by….] And, if the Northern bounds of the name “Lisjan”, were located just before San Lorenzo, that means that:
Lisjan was not located in Oakland.
Lisjan was not bound by the historical Mission San Jose property lines.
Pleasanton was probably not called “Lisjan” by locals.
Who are the Lisjanes? Are they a specific group, or family?
Not much light is shed on who the Lisjanes are. While Jose Guzman probably declared himself Lisjan; it’s unclear the extent of Angelo’s affiliation to the name. At one point, one man touches his chest and tells Harrington that he is Lisjan in name, but his heart is from somewhere else.
Does this mean that Lisjan is somehow a transitory, or new affiliation based on where someone lives, now? Is this person simply saying something akin to, “I left my heart in San Francisco?” Or, “My heart yearns for home?” Or even something like, “This heart was made somewhere else; my blood pumps the blood of my ancestors, from a different place than here?”
We are told that the San Jose’s are Lisjan. The indian name for Chocheños from Mission San Jose are Lisjan. Indians from Santa Clara, and Dolores are definitely not Lisjan. Los Nepes aren’t Lisjan, either. And a tribe, from Sunol, the name of which no one could remember, was never affiliated with Lisjan.
This was one of the reasons I began to suspect that the bounds of Lisjan could be tied to the property lines of Mission San Jose.
But, alas, no matter which San Lorenzo you draw the Northern boundary of the name Lisjan upon, they always exceed the extent of mission property lines.
Wondering which Native American organizations you should give to on Giving Tuesday?
Hopefully, when you read this, you already know that Shuumi Land Tax doesn’t really go to all Ohlone people. (But we don’t want to discourage your well-meaning intent and your need to help Indigenous people in anyway you can.)
If you really want to help the Native American People in the San Francisco Bay Area, I’ve compiled a list of organizations where your generous donation and goodwill have a measurable impact.
This is the real Ohlone tribe you probably thought you were donating money to when you considered paying Shuumi “Land Tax”.
With over 10,000 years of continuous habitation of this place now known as the San Francisco Bay Area, your donation directly to this tribe of over 600 enrolled members will be felt immediately; and put to use as Muwekma reawaken their Chochenyo language, remember dances, and revitalize their culture.
The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe is a bonafide native American Tribe, which has been recognized over and over again by The Courts, but still struggles for recognition with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Muwekma is set to begin their Trail of Truth in their epic battle for justice; in the form of a Tribal Homeland, Education, Housing, Medical Services, and–last but not least: Sovereignty.
If you want to help Ohlone people in the San Francisco Bay Area (and beyond):
Go to Muwekma.org to educate yourself and your friends about the Indigenous People of the San Francisco Bay Area.
Established in 1955 as one of the first urban American Indian community centers in the nation.
It was founded by the American Friends Service Committee to serve the needs of American Indian people relocated from reservations to the San Francisco Bay Area.
Friendship House SF provides a girth of wellness services for Native American People in the SF urban rez.
One of the most important services the Friendship House SF provides is treatment and recovery services for Native Americans. Lots of tribes will send their members to the Friendship House SF for their treatment and recovery services.
The Friendship House SF also provides meeting space for other organizations to hold their events and retreats. Very thankful to the Friendship House SF for giving me and organizations I’ve been a part space for so many years.
Provides primary care, mental health, and dental services primarily. Also organizes and hold the Indigenous Red Market, contributes to Powwows, and other Native American Events and Programs throughout the San Francisco Bay Area.
Contributing to this organization will also support a wider range of programs and services in the Bay Area.
Since 1968, the purpose of the American Indian Center has been to create a community space based on Native American values, culture, programming, traditional foods, and community support.
Contributing to this organization will help sustain AICC’s mission to improve and promote the well-being of the American Indian community and to increase the visibility of American Indian cultures in an urban setting in order to cultivate awareness, understanding and respect.
The American Indian Child Resource Center is a non-profit social services and educational community-based organization serving American Indian community members from across the greater Oakland/San Francisco Bay Area and surrounding counties.
The American Indian Child Resource Center is a COA Accredited Organization.
Economic Development Corporation which invests in and creates innovative institutions and models that strengthen asset control (land stewardship is one example) and support economic development (through grants and programs) for American Indian people and their communities.
First Nations Development Institute is another solid choice because you know your money will be well invested, and you can read the reports on how it was used.
Which Native American Organizations Should You Donate To?
Hopefully, this helps you decide where to invest for Giving Tuesday in the year 2023!
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.
