Fully updated, featuring new historic wetlands, shorelines, and more.
Available exclusively at the Alameda Native History Project.
Find it on our website:
NativeHistoryProject.org > Maps > Alameda Shellmounds Web Map
Tag: muwekma ohlone
Who, What, and Where is Lisjan?
“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.
As a digital file this document is 2.3 gigabytes large. It has 355 pages of original scans. It is entirely hand-written in cursive. [J. Alden Mason’s “Plains Miwok, Chocehnyo Field Notes”, from 1916, actually are written in cursive.] And uses a mix of Chochenyo, Spanish, and English (in that order.)
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
‘aji jinijmin mak[n]ote, puros muchachos estamos aqui”
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.
1921 Harrington Lisjan Map OSM View Stay tuned.
References:
Alameda Museum Contract Expires
Should the City renew the agreement?
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 09/05/2018In 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
1991.1.42 
1991.1.89 
1991.1.87 
1991.1.168 
1991.1.9 
1991.1.6 
1991.1.15 
1991.1.16 
1991.1.33 
1991.1.17 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.
What about the East Bay Ohlone of Oakland, Emeryville, Alameda?
Someone recently responded to the article “Who are the Lisjan Ohlone? What does Chochenyo mean?” with some questions of their own.
What about the East Bay Ohlone of Oakland, Emeryville, Alameda? [The] Muwekma are not the only Lisjan in the area.
B. RichmanI publicly responded:
[B.] Richman this article seeks to educate people like you about Ohlone people in the east bay. So you stop calling them “chochenyo ohlone”, “Lisjan Ohlone”, and other misnomers.
Alameda Native History ProjectBut, I wanted to address the confusion and misinformation about Indigenous People, being perpetuated by non-indigenous people.
So I sent this message directly to that person, which I wanted to elaborate on, and share with you. What follows is based on that message, illustrated with pictures and relevant links.
“What about the East Bay Ohlone of Oakland, Emeryville, Alameda? [The] Muwekma are not the only Lisjan in the area.”
Questions like this are problematic because they show how much the person asking really doesn’t know about the indigenous history of their area.
[Everyone is aware of the hype behind the Sogorea Te Land Trust, a corporation fronted by Corrina Gould, an indigenous woman who claims to be a chairwoman of an Ohlone Tribe–a corporation called the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation, Incorporated. A corporation formed by Corrina Gould, and her daughters; which is less than two years old.]
Take a look at Corrina Gould and ask yourself why the pictures of her and her “tribe” only ever show about five people.
Oakland, CA 
Alameda, CA 
Albany, CA Seriously… ask yourself why the members of the other Confederated Villages never appear in the pictures.
If you take a step back, you’ll realize that Corrina Gould’s support is not from Ohlone people.
It’s from non-indigenous people, and native people who aren’t even Ohlone.
The truth is: Corrina Gould appointed herself as a “chairwoman”; she doesn’t represent Ohlone people beyond herself and her immediately family.
The Muwekma Tribe has hundreds of members.
Coyote Hills Regional Park 
Muwekma Group Picture 001 
Muwekma Group Picture 003 
Why Federal Recognition is Important 
Muwekma Tabling at Event Muwekma are actually the people who called themselves “Lisjanes” (Lisjanikma), who were called the Verona Band of Alameda County. The Muwekma Tribe is actually composed of the descendants of those who survived the missions, attempted genocide and cultural erasure.
More pictures of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area can be found on their website: Muwekma.org
The present-day Muwekma Ohlone Tribe is comprised of all of the known surviving American Indian lineages aboriginal to the San Francisco Bay region who trace their ancestry through the Missions Dolores, Santa Clara, and San Jose; and who were also members of the historic Federally Recognized Verona Band of Alameda County.
Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay AreaIf you take away anything from this, it should be that:
You need to know the difference between Tribe, and a corporation run by a convicted fraud whose main activities consist of fundraising for her own personal benefit, and that of her immediate family.
In truth, Shuumi does not help Ohlone people.
It’s a distraction created by someone who’s done this kind of stuff before.
Take a second to stand back and see that Corrina Gould’s narrative is a washed down version of the real history of Muwekma.
Corrina Gould is a recognized descendant of the Muwekma Tribe; and she betrayed her own tribe by weaponizing their own language and history against them.
I thought her story was compelling too, until I did the research, and followed the facts.
Once I learned to truth, I had to publicly withdraw my support. It was kind of embarrassing, and a mistake to support a group without doing my research first.
But it’s a mistake I want you to avoid, too.
This isn’t some nebulous grey zone. There are peer-reviewed articles and genetic studies establishing these facts. All you need to do is look at Muwekma’s petition to the BIA to learn way more than you ever needed to know about this subject.
You should do your own research, and educate others.
This confusion and misinformation is detrimental to the sovereignty of real, bona fide tribes.
The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area is trying regain their Federal Recognition, and restore their homeland. Find out how you can help Ohlone people (for real) by going to Muwekma.org
You can also learn more Ohlone History, and see more pictures of the Muwekma Tribe, as well as read a selection of academic articles, interviews, and watch Chairwoman Charlene Nijmeh at TEDXBerkeley.
Who are the Lisjan Ohlone? What does Chochenyo mean?
Who are “The Lisjan Ohlone”?
This article will introduce you to where Lisjan is; who “Lisjan Ohlone” are, what what “Viva Lisjanes” means.
Where is Lisjan?
- Lisjan is the big valley that spans the area from Pleasanton, to the Altamont Range (Amador and Livermore Valleys) which were also rancherias Alisal, Bernal, Del Mocho, and more.
- Lisjan homeland of Jose Guzman, who is a Muwekma Ohlone Ancestor and Captain of the Verona Band of Indians of Alameda County.
- Lisjan is a Nisenan (Maidu) name for the area now known as Pleasanton, California.
Why does it seem like Ohlone people are only in the South Bay?
Because the Spanish Missions in the Bay Area were in San Francisco and the South Bay.
- Mission San Jose is in Fremont
- Mission Santa Clara is in San Jose
- Mission Delores is in San Francisco
The present-day Muwekma Ohlone Tribe is comprised of all of the known surviving American Indian lineages aboriginal to the San Francisco Bay region who trace their ancestry through the Missions Dolores, Santa Clara, and San Jose; and who were also members of the historic Federally Recognized Verona Band of Alameda County.
Secularization and Mission Abandonment
When the Missions were abandoned, secularized (in 1833), or destroyed, indigenous people continued to live on Mission Land, in what was most definitely their tribal homeland.
“Mission Indians” who continued to live on their homeland after secularization were not “squatters”; as the California (Military) Governor proclaimed in 1847.
They were simply continuing to live and survive on their land, through the rise and fall of the California Mission System—which only lasted 64 year, yet had a profound and cataclysmic effect on all Indigenous people within their spheres of influence.
Many indigenous people stayed in this area, and blended in with Spanish, and Mexican work forces to avoid the American treatment of Indigenous People–which was well-known by the mid-1850’s to be sadistic and unpredictable. It was in the interest of survival that people blended in, and kept a low profile.
Verona Band of Alameda County
The “Verona Band” was an administrative name used to refer to a group of indigenous people who lived around the area where a train station named “Verona” was built by William Hearst in 1901. This is the Niles Canyon/Sunol Region of the Bay Area. Relatively close to the Mission San Jose.
Yo Soy Lisjanes
In 1921, a linguist interviewed a member of the Verona Band known as Jose Guzman. Guzman was considered an “Indian captain” and shared much of his language and life stories with John P. Harrington—the linguist. (Jose Guzman was not the only person Harrington interviewed.)
So where/who is Lisjan?
One of the things Jose Guzman said was, “Yo soy Lisjanes.”
As in: I’m Lisjanes, I am from Lisjan.
He was saying he’s from the area North of Verona: valleys now known as Amador and Livermore–but which had been split into many different rancherias by Spanish and Mexican colonizers, including Alisal, Bernal, and Del Mocho, among others.
One of the reasons that Guzman may have referred to the area around present-day Pleasanton by its Nisenan name could be that Jose Guzman’s parents were both from Maidu Territory, farther north, in a region where people spoke Nisenan.
Indigenous people are polyglottal by nature.
What does Chochenyo Mean?
Jose Guzman was the last fluent Chochenyo Speaker. Chochenyo is an Ohlone Language spoken in the East Bay.
When Jose Guzman passed, in 1934, some people thought Chochenyo would never be spoken again. But, his words and phrases from 1921 make it possible for the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe to reawaken the Chochenyo langauge today.
It all started when Jose Guzman said, “Yo soy Lisjanes”.
So when you recognize “The Lisjan Ohlone”; you’re recognizing Jose Guzman.
You’re recognizing the historic Verona Band of Indians of Alameda County. The present-day Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area.
Viva Lisjanes!
Jose Guzman (1854-1934) Toxic Land Is Not Land Back : Proper Remediation Must Be Performed First
Just to be clear: eating food grown in contaminated soil may not result in contaminated food…
Even though petrochemical aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are largely unstudied “likely” carcinogens–some of which have been found to move through the soil easily into water; and that contamination can move from soil to food to animals.
Petrochemical Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) include chemicals like Benzene, Naphthalene, Xylene, and other chemicals which are part of a complex and ever-changing family of petroleum-derived products.
While we know that lead, mercury, arsenic, and other heavy metals can concentrate in root vegetables, causing various ailments. The effects of PAH have not be sufficiently researched or linked to the varying illnesses of those living in and around former brownfields and industrial complexes, or exposed to contaminated soils.
While everyone is so excited to line up for their #landback/#rematriatetheland photo ops, ask yourselves if this is the land that you actually want back.
Proper remediation, decontamination, and detoxification of these places must be done by the city/government and/or corporations “giving” this land back.
It helps no one to turn a blind eye to the real-world challenges behind soil and water contamination.
Exposing us to contaminated soil through dust, accidental ingestion, or to the detritus which accumulates on vegetables and fruit above the ground, is not healing. It’s a slow death.
Furthermore, a substance doesn’t just have to be “carcinogenic” to cause harm. Some mutagenic substances can be carried down through generations.
Part of a proper #landacknowledgement not only mentions the @MuwekmaOhloneTribe; it admits to the harms western society committed against the environment during colonization and industrialization.
Coyote Hills Translates All 35 Trail Markers to Chochenyo: Honoring the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area
Muwekma Ohlone Tribal Members unveiling first Trail Marker in their language, Čočeño (Chochencyo), at Coyote Hills Regional Park (aka Máyyan Šáatošikma) On Sunday, November 27, 2022, we gathered at Máyyan Šáatošikma (aka Coyote Hills Regional Park, in Fremont) to witness the unveiling of the first of 35 trail markers, redesigned, and translated into Čočeño (Chochenyo).
Čočeño is the official language of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, once recognized as the Verona Band of Indians, and comprised of all of the known surviving American Indian lineages aboriginal to the San Francisco Bay region who trace their ancestry through the Missions Dolores, Santa Clara, and San Jose.
It was through the work of J.P. Harrington, and Ohlone Ancestor Jose Guzman, that the Čočeño language was preserved, and survived centuries of attempted erasure.
The renaming of these 35 trail markers–which account for all of the trail markers in the Coyote Hills Regional Park–are the culmination of decades of (continuing) partnership with the East Bay Regional Park District.
The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area is a bonafide tribe, with more than 600 enrolled members. Muwekma holds elections for their leaders, who are now Charlene Nijmeh (Chairwoman), Monica Arellano (Vice Chairwoman). Muwekma has a strong Tribal Council, made of elders and enrolled members; without whom the re-awakening of the Čočeño language, and traditions, such as almost-forgotten dances, would not be possible.
As supporters of Tribal Sovereignty, of Ohlone People’s struggle for recognition, for Land Back, and those who wish to Decolonize, and Rematriate The Land: Remember that Muwekma is a bonafide tribe–and not a corporation, like the Confederated Villages of the Lisjan “Nation”, INC.; or the Sogorea Te Land Trust.
The important distinction between these groups is that Muwekma has been here since time immemorial. That Muwekma can trace its lineage in the San Francisco Bay Area back to at least 7,000 years ago. That Muwekma accounts for hundreds of Ohlone People. That Muwekma holds regular elections, and–most importantly–Muwekma can back all their claims with extensive documentation, including pictures going back to at least the 1930’s.
Picture of Jose Guzman in Niles, California; taken 1934. Unknown Photographer. Resources for Supporting the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area:
Sign the “Restore the Homeland” Letter
Sign the “Restore Muwekma” Letter
There are more ways to support Muwekma, at http://muwekma.org
