Alameda Native History Project

Tag: native american history

  • Giving to Indigenous Futures

    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.

  • 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:

    1. Where is Lisjan? Is it in Oakland, Pleasanton, or somewhere else?
    2. Who are the Lisjanes? Are they a specific group, or family?
    3. 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:

    1. Lisjan was not located in Oakland.
    2. Lisjan was not bound by the historical Mission San Jose property lines.
    3. 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:

  • Shellmounds: Spanish and American Influence on Indigenous Burial Practices and Shellmound Use

    A shellmound is a graveyard, a mortuary complex, an ancient structure. It’s a place where the first peoples who live along the coasts and rivers of California, used to bury their dead. This article briefly explores why that is.

    Spanish Influence on Indigenous Use of Shellmounds

    This changed when Spain Conquistador’s invaded the San Francisco bay area, on June 27, 1776, and established what’s known now as The Presidio, in San Francisco, California. [On July 4th, 1776, thirteen British colonies in North American declared their independence, and formed the United States.] Three months later, on October 9, 1776, is when Mission San Francisco de Assisi was founded and missionization of the Bay Area officially began.

    This missionization of local indigenous people can be characterized by the abduction, forced baptism, and slavery of Indigenous people by Spanish Priests and Conquistadors. And, the outright theft of natural resources (like food) which indigenous people had helped cultivate and depended upon for all of their food, medicine, building materials, etc.

    In spite of the homefield advantage, and larger numbers, indigenous people could not defeat the colonizing Spanish force.

    Spanish conquistadors were cruel, paranoid, psychopathic, mass murdering kleptomaniacs. Their expeditions were marked by massacres of unarmed people; looting of villages’ water, food and gold; and the enslavement of surviving indigenous people. Indigenous objections to the Spanish invaders were often met with attacks on villages, and public executions–a fear tactic meant to terrorize local indigenous people into submission.

    Spanish Missions are places where indigenous people were brainwashed into accepting their slavery and the belief that “indigenous people are inferior to Spanish” colonizers, conquistadors, and especially clergy. Indigenous people were indoctrinated into the Catholic labor system by Clergy through coercion, torture, and threat. And reinforced with food, personal living quarters, better jobs, and some form of acceptance into the Spanish way of life.

    When Spanish colonizers had ruined the ecosystem by grazing, logging, razing, and waste, indigenous people found themselves with little choice but to join the missions or flee to places outside of the reach of the mission system. (In reality, no Indigenous Californians were safe from the missions, except those in the far North of California, where Missions did not exist.)

    Because the Missions were located in Central Areas; and because of the Area of Influence Spanish Invaders were able to exert dominance over was so vast (due to horses); indigenous people of the area known as the Bay Area were forced to abandon their burial practices because they had to abandon the land their graveyard was situated upon.

    This meant that indigenous people had to figure out how to bury their dead using the resources found away from the coasts and rivers they were used to.

    It also meant that, indigenous people were being buried in graveyards at Catholic Missions all around the Bay Area.

    American Influence on Indigenous Use of Shellmounds

    Soon, American aggressors would begin to appear in what they though was their frontier land; an “Indian Frontier”. This was during the time of the “Wild West”, when Indian Wars were being actively fought.

    The Indian Wars would be romanticized for years to come in newspaper stories, and on the screen especially during the 1950’s with such films/shows as:

    • Winchester ’73
    • Gunsmoke
    • The Lone Ranger
    • Davey Crockett
    • They Died with Their Boots On

    But there was nothing romantic about the real story of the California Genocide.

    Americans would purposely destroy or vandalize sacred sites for entertainment or out of spite. One famous shellmound, in Alameda, California, was used to pave Bay Farm Road in 1908. The bodies of ancestors were routinely ground up and used as aggregate for cement, or even calcium enrichment for roses and other flowers (instead of eggshells.)

    The vandalization, desecration and disrespect of Native American Graves and Bodies continues to this day.

    Militias were paid by the United States Government, and (later) the State of California, to hunt and kill all indigenous people. The United States Army “expeditions”, especially what they liked to call “punitive expeditions”, were marked by the execution of indigenous men, and the rape, torture, and mass-murder of indigenous women and children.

    In 1848, the area now known as California was ceded by Mexico, at the end of the Mexican-American war. Two years later, California would officially earn statehood, and its first governor, Peter Hardeman Burnett, during his first State of the State address mentioned the California genocide explicitly.

    “A war of extermination will continue … until the Indian race becomes extinct,” Peter Hardeman Burnett, the First Governor of California continued, “the inevitable destiny of the race is beyond the power or wisdom of man to avert.”

    Now, all Indigenous people were actively under threat by all white people, who were paid for each “Indian” they killed, baby they stole, or person forced into slavery via “prisoner debt” to white business and property owners. Prison debt was money owed to a person or business for a crime committed against it. These were often times for extraordinary amounts of money which the debtor was only able to pay through involuntary labor or servitude. The prison debt system was created to control Indigenous People, and People of Color, and prevent them from gaining any foothold or capital in a society and world which white people viewed themselves as being solely entitled to because of their religious or racial beliefs.

    Once Native Californians were being displaced, forced onto reservations, into indebted servitude, boarding schools, orphanages; and their burial places forced abandoned, and desecrated by American invaders. Many indigenous people began the practice of cremation. One of the most common reason for why someone is cremated was because they wouldn’t be able to be buried with their ancestors, next to their loved ones, or with their family or tribe. It was better to live the afterlife free of their body than to have it defiled.

  • Unceded Indigenous Territories in the Contiguous United States

    My History Is American History

    Honor the Treaties

    Indigenous Land Back

    More views:

    Northwest
    Southwest
    East Coast
    Texas Area
    Great Lakes Area

    Unceded Indigenous Territories in the Contiguous U.S.

  • Ohlone: The First Alamedans, “Were Not a ‘Branch of Miwok Indians’”

    When “The Spanish” came to the San Francisco Bay Area, they called all of the people who lived here “Costanoans”; and promptly killed, and corralled them into the California Missions; then began to colonize the land by bringing cows, catfish, eucalyptus, and other foreign plants and animals.

    The primary language for the Mission San Jose was Miwok.

    Miwok was a common language for most missions in the San Francisco Bay Area. But, Coast Miwok is the name of just one Tribal Group in the Northern Bay Area. In fact, Coast Miwok and Miwok consider themselves as distinct Tribal Groups of their own; and should not be confused with one another.

    Richard Levy’s 1978 essay, entitled “Costanoan”, and featured in the California Volume of the Handbook of North American Indians, edited by Robert F. Heizer… has been widely relied upon since its publication. Despite its obvious errors, and out-dated nature. [For instance, the term “Costanoan” was already beginning to fall out of style. It was recognized as a blunt umbrella term for an entire region, which is actually diverse af.]

    Before Richard Levy’s 1978 “Costanoan” Essay was published, J.P. Harrington had already come through the Bay Area–in 1921–to document and study California Native American Languages. This is where Harrington documented the existence of a language called “Chochenyo”; and recorded it separately from the known Miwok Language.

    In fact, it was Harrington, in 1921, who first recorded the phrase, “Yo soy lisjanes.” Words spoken by Jose Guzman, the last Chochenyo speaker, and “Captain” of what was then known as the “Verona Band of Indians” by white people.

    But the Verona Band was just a small part of a larger group known collectively today as Ohlone People.

    It was noted, then–in 1921–that these languages (Chochenyo and Miwok) somehow fit into the “Penutian” Language Tree; and that a completely different group of people from the South-West of the Delta Area around Byron (ostensibly, the “other side” of Mount Diablo) spoke a Yokutian dialect.

    In fact, from the work leading up to Richard Levy’s 1978 “Costanoan” Essay, the following facts were already established, peer-reviewed, and easily discoverable by scholars such as Levy, and Alameda’s Imelda Merlin–who was a UC Berkeley student herself, and within easy counsel of Kroeber, now infamous (and former) head of the UC Berkeley Anthropology Department, and Phoebe A. Hearst Museum….

    Anyway, these established facts were:

    • There is a group of Yokutian-speaking people who live on the East Side of Mount Diablo, up to at least the “Byron Delta Area”, probably spanning farther east toward the Sierra Foothills–joining the rest of the Yokutian-speaking area;
    • Neither Miwok, nor Chochenyo languages were related to the Yokutian-speaking Tribal Group in language, and diverged in custom;
    • The aforementioned group of people were errantly included under the term “Costanoan”, despite the obvious differences in language, religion, and culture;
    • Miwok is a language, and also a Tribal Group;
    • Coast Miwok and Miwok are two different Tribal Groups;
    • Chochenyo is a separate and distinct language from Miwok, spoken by at least one East Bay Tribal Group that has called themselves the “Lisjanes”–and been called the “Verona Band”, among other names;
    • Both Miwok and Chochenyo are linguistically related to each other, as branches, not as derivatives of one or the other.

    The detrimental effects of Richard Levy’s work have undermined the fundamental understanding of the Indigenous Bay Area landscape, reducing it to something uniform, monolithic. The historical narrative Levy pushes in this work is out-dated; even for the time it was published.

    It should also be noted that Levy’s work presented several claims, conclusions, and information that simply wasn’t corroborated or supported by citations, or other evidence.

    In spite of these facts, the “Costanoan” essay is still relied upon by Park Services, City Governments, Developers, (and more,) today.

    Levy’s work has been heavily relied upon for a number of reasons:

    1. It was published in what is still considered to be one of the most authoritative volumes to this day: The Handbook of North American Indians;
    2. It’s short;
    3. It has pictures.

    The map included with Levy’s essay was heavily relied upon up until the seemingly arbitrary placement of markers, and borders were pointed out.

    But let’s be clear. The difference in time between when these papers were published in academic journals, and when they get published in books, like “The Indians of California: A Source Book” is notable enough for me to point out that the public side, and the interior, academic, research side of the the anthropology/archaeology/ethnology department are completely different. They move at completely different speeds.

    And students/student-researchers are privy to material that just isn’t available to anyone outside of that institution.

    So let’s shift gears to look at yet another scholar.

    This one probably shouldn’t even be cited as a reference for Alameda Native History, anymore–given lack of credible citations and research regarding what she termed as “Aboriginal Settlement”.

    Her name is Imelda Merlin, and her thesis was published as a book in 1977 as “Alameda: A Geographical History”.

    This book has been referred to as the Alameda “historical bible“.

    However, Merlin’s thesis is actually dated in 1964–thirteen years before publication of her book. The thesis was submitted for partial satisfaction of the requirements for a Master’s Degree in Geology.

    Should I point out that Geology is not archaeology, anthropology, linguistics, or “ethnology” in any recognizable form? Because Geology is the study of the Earth. You know, like rocks, and how mountains were formed.

    In the second chapter, “Aboriginal Settlement” [p. 16], Merlin presents a brief history of “man’s” occupation of the area now known as Alameda.

    Here, Merlin refers to Ohlone People (known then, at least, as the Lisyan, Costanoan, and Verona) as a “branch of the Miwok tribe”. The citation for this claim refers to the unpublished, personal correspondence of Robert F. Heizer. It is unknown whether Merlin claims Robert F. Heizer shared this information during the interview, listed the bibliography; or whether there is a letter in Robert Fleming Heizer’s correspondence file that says this.

    But, remember the name Robert F. Heizer (aka “R. F. Heizer”) because he’s all over this.

    Merlin did not cite any academic research paper, archaeological or ethnographical reports to support her assertion that Heizer said this; in spite of his own work–contrary to the preponderance of academic papers that Heizer compiled and published, himself.

    If the interview in the bibliography was performed by Merlin, as the interviewer, how come she didn’t include the transcript? If the interview wasn’t performed by Merlin, who was it performed by? What was the date of the interview?

    Is the Heizer interview in the bibliography the ‘(Heizer, Personal correspondence)’ that Imelda Merlin refers to?

    [Please, don’t get me started on the maps.]”

    Me, This Article
    Yes, I honestly expected Imelda Merlin, in the 13 years between submitting her thesis, and publishing it as a book, to fix some of these issues. I expect anyone who has that much time between writing and printing, to have edited the […] out of their manuscript.

    This is troubling for a number of reasons; not the least of which is that Heizer (most probably) didn’t say that.

    Merlin’s assertion that the unnamed tribe of Alameda, and its adjacent lands was “now thought to be”, a “branch of miwok” really flies in the face of what Archaeologists, Anthropologists, and Ethnologists actually believed.

    J.P. Harrington’s 1921 Linguistic Survey of the Niles/Pleasanton area was well-known, and continues to be the authoritative reference concerning Ohlone People from Mission San Jose, and descendants, and family of Jose Guzman. Harrington’s work (as already mentioned in length) makes a clear distinction between the Chochenyo, and Miwok language; as well as Miwok and the “Lisjanes”.

    In 1955, Alfred Kroeber, and Robert F. Heizer, had already written “Continuity of Indian Population in California From 1770/1848 to 1955”. This work specifically distinguishes between “Miwok” and “Costanoan” people who appear in the Mission Rolls.

    This was, of course, after publication of Robert Heizer’s 1951, “Indians of the San Francisco Bay Area”, in the Geologic Guidebook of the San Francisco Bay Counties (Bulletin #154); which made it clear:

    The San Francisco peninsula, western Contra Costa County, and Alameda and Santa Clara Counties were the home of the Costanoan tribes.”

    First paragraph of the Preface to the “Indians of the San Francisco Bay Area”, Geologic Guidebook of the San Francisco Bay Counties. Bulletin 154, Division of Mines, Ferry Building, San Francisco, 1951.

    Mind you, “Costanoan” territory started out as the whole of the San Francisco Bay Area, and then kept getting smaller, and more defined, until it became the area we now associate with Ohlone Territory.

    Ohlone Territory is the area from Yelamu, to Huchiun Aguasto, from below Ssalson, to way far down, past Carmel, and well into the Santa Cruz Mountains.

    In Merlin’s second Heizer citation, “The California Indians”, we are brought to what was considered the sequel of….

    The undisputed authority on the California Indians, A.L. Kroeber, heads the list of outstanding anthropologists whose writings have been selected to appear in this book.

    Here, then, for the first time since the appearance, many years ago, of A.L. Kroeber’s Handbook of the Indians of California (Smithsonian Institution, 1925) is a book which covers the material and social cultures, the archaeological findings, and a wealth of other materials on the Indians of California.

    Dust cover of “The Indians of California: A Source Book”, Compiled and Edited by R. F. Heizer and M. A. Whipple, Fourth Printing, 1962, Cambridge University Press, London, England

    The Handbook of the Indians of California, mentioned above, was also edited by Robert Heizer (aka “Robert F. Heizer”, aka “Robert Fleming Heizer”.)

    So, Heizer is all over this stuff. As an editor, and a contributing author.

    Of all the works bearing Heizer’s name, the “Indians of California” took pains to specify, exactly, the relationships of the Tribal Groups of California with each other.

    This came out in the form of maps, data tables, and hundreds of pages of narrative.

    Population “Table 1” Showing Costanoan and Miwok as separate Groups
    Mentioning Dances Miwok Received from Costanoans
    “Map 1” Penutian Language Family List, Showing Costanoan and Miwok as different Languages
    Three examples of Miwok and Costanoan Tribal Groups mentioned as separate, and distinct groups. Figure 1 shows a population “Table 1” with Costanoan and Miwok separate. Figure 2 mentions that certain Miwok dances were received from Costanoan Groups, from the Kuksu Big Head cult, specifically. Figure 3 shows “Map 1”, and gives a “Penutian Family” language list, showing Costanoan and Miwok as separate branches of the Penutian Language Family.
    Despite some of the most “authorative”, widely publicized, even celebrated source material on the “Indians of California” at her finger-tips.

    In her own citations.

    Somehow….

    Merlin writes:

    Man was present on the shores of San Francisco Bay at least 3500 years ago according to Carbon-14 tests made of shellmound material (Gifford, pp. 1-29). Since at least one mound has revealed a layer of skeletal material below the present ground level, in much the same way as did the Emeryville mound, presumably Indians now thought to have been a branch of Miwok Indians, (Heizer, personal correspondence) occupied the Encinal as early as they did the adjacent areas.”

    “Alameda: A Geographical History”, Imelda Merlin, 1977, Friends of the Alameda Library, Alameda Musuem, Alameda, California, [p.16]

    The most important fact here is that the word “Costanoan” isn’t mentioned at all.

    “Well, that’s what people thought in 1964.” Was one reply, when I brought up this in recent conversation with Valerie Turpin, VP of the Alameda Museum Board.

    But it isn’t the Miwok who people thought occupied the Encinal as early as they did the adjacent areas.

    In 1964, people thought Native Americans from the San Francisco Bay Area were called “Costanoans”. People already knew that Costanoans were different, and distinct from Miwok, Pomo, Delta Yokuts, and all the rest of the “Indians of California”.

    I expressed my confusion as to why Imelda Merlin would be so wrong. I shared with Turpin the breakdown of Merlin’s sources, including the “most authoritative” sources by A.L. Kroeber, and Robert F. Heizer.

    I also mentioned other work, which was published, just one year after Imelda Merlin’s book was published. It’s called “The Ohlone Way”.

    Malcom Margolin wrote, or contributed, to three of the most famous books about Native Americans in the San Francisco Bay Area:

    • The Ohlone Way
    • The Way We Lived
    • Life in a California Mission (Introduction)
    These are non-fiction narrative books; collections of stories, and songs; not academic research papers, or post-graduate theses.

    Even though they’re made by a white man, for a white audience, Margolin’s work was the kind of stuff that brought solace, as I pined for home. Oh yeah, and the references to Margolin’s work can be found in Park Service Project Plans, CEQA filings, Berkeley City Council Briefs, etc.–right next to the references to Levy, and Heizer we’ve already covered, above.

    Certainly, Margolin would be a fine resource to consult, when curating an exhibit on the First Alamedans, and the way they lived.

    More recent events have brought the fact that Alameda is Ohlone land into the forefront of the conscious of almost every person who lives here.

    Those, of course, were the visible protest actions against housing development in West Berkeley [which isn’t where the shellmound actually is]; and, before that, the takeover of Wintun/Patwin land, in Vallejo, by an activist who was the self-proclaimed “chairwoman” of the corporation known as the Confederated Villages of the Lisjan, INC, which claimed to be a forgotten Ohlone Tribe.

    In reality, Corrina Gould was a rogue “fallen member” of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area; who refused to go back home, even though Muwekma offered her enrollment in the tribe.

    Despite the bad optics, and the confusion, we now know that, “Ohlone People are The Native American People From the San Francisco Bay Area”.

    Because of all of this “awareness”, a City of Alameda park was renamed to “Chochenyo Park”, in recognition of the Ohlone language spoken in the Alameda area.

    The City of Alameda even voted to donate city funds to the Sogorea Te Land Trust, a purportedly Ohlone Land Trust, using the Wintun name for Glen Cove, in Vallejo… and has no affiliation to any Tribal Government, whatsoever. [FYI: Nonprofit corporations cannot be Tribal Governments because the exercise of Tribal Sovereignty is not a “Charitable Purpose”.]

    The City stopped short of issuing a Land Acknowledgement, though.

    But this seems like enough for the Alameda Museum to take notice, and update their website, and exhibits.

    But the issue still lingers:

    Why didn’t the Alameda Museum vet Imelda Merlin’s book?

    Why didn’t they check the citations?

    When asked why the Alameda Museum only relied upon this one resource for their information (Imelda Merlin’s book), I was told that they are simply sharing the information the Museum was given when the Native American Grave Goods from the Alameda Shellmounds were transferred from the possession of the Alameda Free Library, to the Alameda Museum, sometime in the 1970’s.

    But what about the ethical, and legal duties behind possessing, and curating, Native American Grave Goods?

    What about:

    1. Proper identification of the Native American Grave Goods, and Native American Artifacts in the Alameda Museum’s possession?
    2. Proper attribution of Native American Grave Goods, and Native American Artifacts to the correct Tribal Group?
    3. Asking the Native American Tribes for permission to possess the Native American goods and objects already in their possession?

    I mentioned the prosecution of David van Horne, and how he was ordered to return the Native American Grave goods as a function of law. And how pursuant suits have ended in order to return the goods to the tribe’s possession “just because that’s the law.”

    I let Valerie Turpin know that simply possessing the Native American Grave Goods without permission put them in violation of the NAGPRA laws.

    She told me that the Museum had reached out to a few groups, and was working on that. I asked her if the Confederated Villages of the Lisjan, INC. was one of the groups, and informed her that I’m now the CEO of that corporation; as of January 2022.

    I told Valerie that the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area is the actual Ohlone Tribe of this area: Named In Treaty.

    But that the California Native American Heritage Commission is the proper authority to contact, to determine who the Most Likely Descendants are, for the things in the Alameda Museum’s possession.

    When it came to discussing “help”; voluminous reminders that the Alameda Museum is entirely run by volunteers, I just have to get this out of the way:

    1. Museums are supposed to be an authority on their subject.
    2. We expect museums to verify the authenticity and provenance of their exhibits before curating them.
    3. Being “volunteer run” should not be an excuse for why the Alameda Museum’s exhibits are less credible than a 4th Grade Science Fair Project.

    What did I want to do to help?

    When the Alameda Museum and I first met: I offered to scan the entire card catalog with our production scanner that scans at 130 Pages Per Minute. This was just because I wanted to find what I was looking for; and scanning the entire catalog seemed like a win for both of us. I specifically mentioned that it would be a good time, then, because of the COVID-19 Lockdown, and this extended period of free time.

    I never heard back on that offer. [I didn’t think the Alameda Museum took me seriously.]

    But, I remembered. And, when I brought it up, I learned that the Alameda Museum Card Catalog had been entirely scanned, and was now in a database. That database, while not public (and still being worked on), was available to be searched only in the Alameda Museum.

    So I basically asked how come the Alameda Museum didn’t just search its own database. Turpin asked me if I would help research.

    I responded that the Alameda Museum has the only holdings on this subject that I haven’t seen. They (the museum) probably have the only remaining primary sources regarding this subject. And, that, once they locate their materials, that I (of course) would be able to cross-reference that with everything that I already have, and have put together.

    Then she asked if I made that map of the shellmounds in Alameda.

    Yeah.

    Valerie mentioned the problem. The problem that these artifacts could be taken and locked away from the world’s view forever. And I really understand that fear. Because I feel it, too. As a lover of history. As an inquiry-based, tactile, experience-seeking, life-long learner.

    I told her the California Indian Museum had the same problem. But they solved it. By “inviting contemporary Native Americans to come and make some contemporary Native American stuff.” The whole museum is filled with it. It’s in Sacramento, California. And it’s beautiful.

    We left it there.

    But here is the link to the California State Indian Museum.

    Stay tuned to find out what happens next.

    NOTE: This article was amended to include a brief mention of the California State Indian Museum’s solution to the idea that Native American Grave Good, Artifacts, Objects, Resources, and Other Things could simply be “locked up” and “no one could see them.” Because these Native American Artifact Laws do have a chilling effect on the activities of Museums.

  • The Side Effects of Institutional Gatekeeping of Tribal Knowledge & Native American Sacred Sites and Cultural Assets

    From the beginning of my life, I never had the opportunity to learn about my culture, or where I was from. For the first 12 years of my life, I never even saw another Paiute person.

    This was because I was adopted at birth. I knew that I was Native American. That I should be on a reservation somewhere in Central California. But, instead, I found myself in Alameda; trying to navigate the expectations and life plans set by my new, white, parents.

    This kind of estrangement is common.

    It comes in many different forms, for many different reasons. Boarding schools are pointed to, most often. But cultural estrangement started in California with the Mission System. It continued on through Mexican Occupation, when the missions were secularized, and “Spanish” land was granted to Mexican citizens, and select Indigenous People, who were associated with the Missions as ranchers and herders, or were deeded land in some other way. This was actually the first Native American “buy-in” that occurred in California.

    When the American government came in, their imperative was to destroy or pacify people who they viewed as “savage”, and sub-human. Giving land to these people who Americans found so hard to wipe off the face of the planet was unheard of. All land, property, and wealth held by the First Californians were immediately seized, destroyed, or transferred to white interlopers.

    Some Native Americans went into hiding. Claimed to be Spanish. (They already spoke Spanish.) …Leaned into their baptismal names.

    This was the second estrangement.

    American Occupation came with a number of different attempts to destroy, pacify, and ultimately assimilate and “breed out the savage”. Each of these attempts divided (and sub-divided) tribal groups; moved us farther and farther away from our homelands, each other, and purposely tried to destroy everything linking us to the old ways. This was a sophisticated attempt at genocide, and population control; and people need to stop minimizing effects of this recent history on Indigenous People in America, today.

    Native American People have been forced to live as Prisoners of War since the 17th Century. For more than three centuries, Indian Children and Infants were taken from their families, and placed into Missions, Orphanages, Boarding Schools, and worse. For most of the 19th and 20th centuries, it was legal for White Women to take Indian Children away from their families, and keep them as “wards”. [Like in the series “Them”.]

    So it’s not uncommon for a Native American Person to be so estranged from their family and culture. To have such a conflicted self-image of what it means to be Native American, and what Native American really is. For Spanglish to be spoken on the rez out here, in California. For former “Mission Indians” to be so heavily involved in the Catholic Church, and the veneration of the Missions.

    But what if a Native American Descendant from California doesn’t want to go to the Catholic or Mormon church to find out about their own people?

    What if they’re tired of listening to a narrative from white people’s perspective? From the Eastern U.S. perspective of tribes like Dine, Lakota, Sioux? From the perspective of people who view Native America as a homogeneous group?

    Where does someone go to find the stories of their specific tribe? The songs of the place they come from? Pictures of their ancestors? The history of their reservation? Where their ancestors lived before that?

    Where do you go when your only sources are generic, pan-Indian narratives, and single-page, one-sentence mentions of your tribe?

    I decided to search historic newspapers, museums, government, and institutional records.

    Historic Newspapers are hard to locate. And even harder to read for free. Many of these newspapers were taken out of circulation, and stored on microfilm. Even more are locked behind Ancestry.com (and affiliate) pay gates, specifically. It is interesting to note that “Ancestry” is based in Salt Lake City, Utah, though.

    Museums store items by the Date Received; not by Keyword, or Subject–which shows that Museums have historically been about accounting and fundraising more than they were about collecting items which they intend to reference, much less curate. This makes the situation even more problematic, because researchers are expected to do the work of tracking something down, and often times creating a new library information system in the process. [Basically, re-cataloging every single object to find the two or three that were actually being sought after.]

    The amount of free labor some museums get on the backs of unpaid researchers is very disproportionate to the amount of useful information researchers actually find when laboring for said museums.

    Government Records only had to be stored for a certain period of time. Certainly, anything more than 100 years old was more likely to be destroyed, than it was preserved. Much of the City of Alameda records were converted to microfilm; combined with transcriptions of the Official Alameda Newspaper of Record, then simply labeled “Historic Rolls”.

    Much of these rolls contained little to no useful information, and was simply a transcribed duplicate of several newspaper reels, which were also available. Still, missing records stymied my search. It almost seemed as if things were intentionally removed from the City of Alameda Historical Record between 1910, and 1960.

    Other cities which were consulted, like Pleasanton, San Leandro, and Hayward, do not have historic newspapers from before the early 1900’s. These inquiries were usually passed on to local museums. Then on to local genealogical and historic societies–where the inquiry usually died. This is to say that there are no contrasting reports available from other historical newspapers (yet.)

    Governmental Chain of Custody

    Furthermore, because of the changeover from Spanish, to Mexican, to American hands: the chain of custody of important documents was broken each time the land changed hands. The U.S. Government was not interested in keeping prior records[; which also explains the fundamental lack of understanding of tribal cultures American anthropologists still experience to this day.]

    This is why the “California Land Grants” case happened, in 1851. Because rich Mexicans (and Spanish ex-pats) were getting jilted out of their land they had old titles to, by white people, who claimed their American land deed superseded any other. (I mean, this is consistent with the U.S. policy of west-ward expansion during the late 1800’s, to test Mexico’s control over ‘The West’, and eventually gain control of California–among other territories.)

    Mission/Spanish/Mexican records are still somewhat of a mystery and records were basically abandoned “as the vine withered”.

    This is because many of the missions and forts Spain installed in California were actually remote forward operating bases.

    Paperwork flowed back through California, to Mexico, and over the Atlantic Ocean, to Spain–when everything was working as planned. This organization was already broken down by “Corporate Office”, “Regional Managers”, “District Managers”, “Store Managers”, “Shift Managers”, and Baristas.

    So, when the Spanish were sent back to Spain, those documents stayed here, were hastily mailed out, or were destroyed.

    When the Missions were secularized, those documents were abandoned, taken by cardinals (or whoever), or destroyed.

    Anything that wasn’t specifically removed and preserved was probably destroyed in the [totally righteous] fires that destroyed many of the the San Francisco Bay Area Catholic Missions the first time.

    So, when it comes time to track down the records of these organizations; it’s necessary to chase them all the way back to the original departments and agencies which created them. This search almost always leads to institutions like the University of California, at Berkeley.

    Why? Because, it turns out, the University of Berkeley Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, and the U.C. Berkeley Library has the largest collection of relevant materials within 50 miles.

    Institutional Records and Academic Studies

    Academic Institutions, like The Smithsonian, and the University of California, made their names on robbing the graves of Native American and Indigenous People all around the world.

    Thousands upon thousands of bones, and cultural artifacts are in the custody of these institutions, waiting to be returned to their descendants, and laid to rest in the manner of each of their hundreds of individual tribes. More than half of the remains are “tribally unaffiliated”; and stay in limbo, because they have no living descendant to receive them, and no ancestral land to be laid to rest in.

    The “researchers” who did this physically separated people from their final resting places, mixed and miss-matched parts of other people’s bodies together, failed to properly label our ancestors, and now have what amounts to a “spare parts bin” of archaeological malfeasance.

    As much as Archaeologists and Anthropologists would like you to believe the opposite, these bones were found by systematically cutting open cemeteries, and removing rows of bodies under the guise of “legitimate scientific research”.

    They did this all the while wondering, “Where did these people disappear to?”

    Knowing full well that Indian Wars were raging nearby.

    Conflicts such as:

    Sioux Wars – 1854-1891 in the Great Plains
    Ute Wars – 1850-1923 in Utah
    Apache Wars – 1854-1924 in the South-West

    They wondered…

    Even with the knowledge that an Indian Reservation or Indian Town existed within 100 miles of any place mentioned in any anthropological or archaeological study/survey from 1860-1920.

    These “ethnologists”, anthropologists and archaeologists were living through the California Land Grant Cases.

    Anybody in the business of “antiquity” should well know the whereabouts and disposition of any of the Indigenous People whose graves, bones, and property they were “studying”, or auctioning off to private collectors.

    Especially when the battles were making front page news daily.

    There is no answer for this willful ignorance, and unethical exclusion of important facts and datum. The narrative of Native American History, as told by colonizers, is full of these types of falsities, and lies by omission. And things like this really call to question the accuracy, and reliability of any of these works.

    If you can even get access to them.

    Institutional Gatekeeping of Tribally Affiliated Knowledge/Artifacts

    Because Universities, Museums, and other Grave Robbers (“hunters of antiquities”, “tomb raiders”, etc.)–as well as Ethnologists, Linguists, and Archaeologists–stole bodies; sacred, ceremonial, and cultural artifacts; caused the damage and loss of cultural land and sites; and attributed Native American intellectual property to themselves, instead of to the Native American creators of said property;

    And,

    Because of the sustained and forceful objections to the theft and kidnapping of Native American Bodies and Culture by Native Americans, and The Public; as well as demands for the return of Native American Remains and Items & Artifacts:

    The Native American Graves Repatriation Act was enacted Federally, and by the State of California to protect the Graves, Remains, Cultural Sites, Artifacts, and Other Native American Objects within the State; as well as to create a framework for the repatriation of Native American remains in the possession of Universities and Institutions.

    The Native American Heritage Commission was created in California to directly administer these efforts. In 1982, the Commission was authorized to make a determination of “Most Likely Descendant” when Native American remains are found. Most Likely Descendants are people or tribal groups who have documented ties to the land where Native American Graves were disturbed, and Native American bodies have been found. The Native American Heritage Commission is charged with assisting Tribal Notification, and the process of Tribal Consultation by the Most Likely Descendants.

    The tribal consultation process only offers two ways to “mitigate” the damage to Native American Graves, Remains, Landmarks, Objects, and/or other Funerary Things:

    1. Re-bury the remains in a place where they will not be disturbed;
    2. Remove the remains, and return them to the Most Likely Descendant for proper burial.

    The process of notification goes something like this:

    1. Human remains found, notification to Coroner.
    2. Coroner determines remains are Native American, and therefore under the jurisdiction of the California Native American Heritage Commission (CalNAHC).
    3. CalNAHC provides a notification list to property owner. This list contains the contact information for Tribal Groups who are Most Likely Descendant(s) of the Native American body found.
    4. Tribal Group is notified and only has a certain amount of time to make a response as to how the Native American remains should be treated, or how a project can avoid disturbing cultural resources.

    If the Tribe does not respond within 30 days of notice, the developer or property owner will be able to continue work, unencumbered by the Native American Graves Protection Repatriation Act. And, in the case of housing development, the building process will be allowed to be streamlined, via AB 831, an act relating to housing, and declaring the urgency thereof.

    But, if the Most Likely Descendant and Property Owner are not able to reach a compromise….

    Say the MLD wants absolutely no more development of the land; and the property owner (CalTrans, Ruegg & Ellsworth, San Rafael Rock Quarry, etc.) is unable to reach a compromise, the desecration will be allowed to continue if the developer simply alleges they tried their best. The construction just won’t be “streamlined”, and will have to go through the normal Environmental Assessment procedure; and will likely still result in the destruction or desecration of Tribal Cultural Resources.

    The aforementioned refers to situations where Native American Graves and/or Remains (funerary objects, etc.) have been found.

    CalNAHC also plays a role when Public Entities, like Caltrans, Amtrak, Los Angeles Public Works, East Bay Municipal Utility District, East Bay Recreation and Parks Department, the City of Menlo Park, etc., want to develop anything on what’s considered “public land” or subsidized by public funds.

    We’re talking: Public Works Projects, Improvement Projects…. Things which translate into freeway on or off-ramps, giant rain water caches underneath Glen Cove Park (in Vallejo, California), water pumps in Alameda, Treasure Island, San Francisco… BART stations, Water Treatment Plants… And more.

    All of these places around us started as project proposals.

    And each proposal needs to comply with local, state, and federal law. Each facility, site, or subject property–after being built–needs to operate in compliance with local state, and federal law.

    Namely: CEQA. The California Environmental Quality Act.

    CEQA was one of the first set of laws that recognized Native American Graves, Objects, etc., as being valuable, and worth saving.

    Because of CEQA, when these proposed public works projects, projects on public land, or projects using public money, are submitted, they are also required to perform an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

    You’ve probably seen the Public Notice of Hearing(s) that are posted on the front of buildings, or on the fences outside of where buildings once stood.

    These are Required Notices to The Public. You. These hearings decide the very fate of the sacred places which have, up to this point, become Shopping Malls, and Subdivisions with Waterside Parks.

    These Notices tell you when a Water Treatment Plant, Waste Management Facility, Shooting Range, or Quarrying Operation has an upcoming Permit Hearing.

    In fact, multi-year operations, like the San Rafael Rock Quarry, are required to resubmit an Environmental Impact Report periodically, and submit to a public hearing (to the County Board of Supervisors, in this case), to keep their permits, and continue operating.

    These EIA’s are often very long (more than 40 pages,) and contain a multitude of very technical information regarding the current state of the land intended to be “used”, and the speculative impact of the operations intended upon said land (e.g. pollution, destruction of natural habitat, etc.) The specifics change with every project. However, the demands of the Environmental Impact Assessment remain constant.

    Recently, the passage of Assembly Bill 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes 2014) codified the inclusion of a single question regarding “Tribal Cultural Resources”:

    Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

    a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

    b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.”

    Because of this, the California Native American Heritage Commission is charged with yet another duty: maintaining a Tribal Contact List for CEQA Purposes, per AB 52 (CA PRC §21080.3.1…); and when Cities and Municipalities create their General Plan [among other things], per SB 18 (CA GOV §65352.3).

    The California Native American Graves Protection Repatriation Act, and the authoritative statutes empowering the California Native American Heritage Commission, specifically state the importance of the “confidentiality of information regarding specific identity, location, character, and use of those [Native American] places, features, and objects.”

    In the courts, this has often played out as the misreading of statute from “confidential” to “secret”. However, statutes surrounding the confidentiality of Native American (Tribal) Cultural Resources simply state that NAHC is “not required” to disclose certain records, or information specifically enumerated in the California Government, and Health & Safety Codes.

    The statutory scheme, as it stands:

    requires Tribal Cultural Assets to be listed (in a confidential appendix) in Environmental Impact Assessments. The specific information regarding the Tribal Cultural Resource is hidden. But general, non-confidential information regarding the Existence Of A Tribal Cultural Resource that could be significantly effected by a proposed project should be published and made available to the general public. [PRC §21082.3(f)]

    These public sections of the Proposed Environment Impact Report, or Proposed Negative Impact (“Declaration”), which mentions “Tribal Cultural Resources”, will be small. Maybe the heading won’t even catch your eye. And the “general information” presented on the document will minimize the existence of Tribal Cultural Resources, even though the report is supposed to clarify how significantly the Tribal Cultural Resource will be affected.

    In fact, the EIR, or Negative Impact Declaration, is supposed to tell you how damage to Tribal Cultural Resources could have been mitigated, or the circumstances behind why the destruction of Tribal Cultural Resources was “unavoidable”. It should say whether or not Tribal Consultation (or “Scoping Activities”) were conducted or concluded, or if an agreement was reached with the direct Lineal, or Most Likely Descendants of the Tribal Cultural Resource.

    The EIR, or Negative Impact Declaration should make it clear whether or not the tribe even responded to invitations for consultation. That information should be in bold. But it’s not. And, who actually knows how to read an Environmental Impact Report?

    At some point, we have to realize that our ignorance is being taken advantage of every day.

    The fact that we are distracted every single waking second is an advantage that is being leveraged against us in the long wars of attrition against corporations and governments who want nothing more than to exploit our land, and tear the bodies of our ancestors out of the ground to build condos that cost $1.5-2M, each.

    This is why property owners refuse to register Native American Historical Sites. Because this land is worth more money than many of the people who live on it will see in our entire lives. This land is worth more than us. And erasing us, or creating a statutory scheme that makes it easy to disregard Native American objections to the desecration and theft of our land, also makes money for themselves while they do it.

    This is a Billion dollar industry that Native American “Consultants” are sucking the dew off of in only the most parasitic, “bottom-feeder” kind of way. The disrespect to the bodies of our elders. Our great grandparents…. It’s all just for the zero’s.

    No matter how the statute is written. No matter how much commitment legislators and politicians can claim to have, the easy-out that Developers and Governmental Agencies has hinges upon the responsibility of a Tribal Organization to respond to these “invitations” for tribal “scoping” and “consultation”.

    The statute presupposes that Government Agencies and Developers are law-abiding. But, when it comes to the required “consultation” with Native American Tribes, Lineal, or Most Likely Descendants… all of the exceptions hinge upon the “nonparticipation” of Native Americans.

    (d) In addition to other provisions of this division, the lead agency may certify an environmental impact report or adopt a mitigated negative declaration for a project with a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource only if one of the following occurs:

    (1) The consultation process between the California Native American tribe and the lead agency has occurred as provided in Sections 21080.3.1 and 21080.3.2 and concluded [in an agreement with Tribal Consultants.]

    (2) The California Native American tribe has requested consultation pursuant to Section 21080.3.1 and has failed to provide comments to the lead agency, or otherwise failed to engage, in the consultation process.

    (3) The lead agency has complied with subdivision (d) of Section 21080.3.1 and the California Native American tribe has failed to request consultation within 30 days.

    Assembly Bill 52

    According to Assembly Bill 831, housing projects meeting the above criteria would still be “streamlined”, removing most of the public response and permit hurdles necessary for quick development.

    The problem is that Native American Graves, Cemeteries, Cultural Sites, and Sacred Lands are still being given the green-light for demolition.

    They are being rubber-stamped for desecration by a function of law that simply added Notification, and “Due Process” instead of actual Justice, and Accountability.

    There must be a way to advocate for Native American Tribal Cultural Resources, like Graves, Cemeteries, and Sacred Places, when Lead Agencies and Private Developers receive no response through the Tribal Contact List.

    Either the Native American Heritage Commission must step up for all of these places, or they need to devise an apparatus that will allow true conservation work (the very basis of NAHC’s Mission) to take place without them.

    Stay tuned for more.

  • Who are the people who inhabited the area now known as the City of Alameda?

    A Frequently Asked Question about Ohlone People, the First Alamedans, and the Tribe Fighting for Federal Re-Recognition.

    This is one such reply.

    (more…)

  • Wiki Down (For Now), Merch Section Removed, New Content On The Way

    I can’t believe we’re nearing the end of the second year of Alameda Native Art, and the Alameda Native History Project, already. I feel like I’ve been sleeping on this site. Now there’s a whole bunch of stuff to add, and update.

    ANHP Wiki

    The ANHP Wiki reached it’s functional limit on Tuesday; when it broke for the last time. Hopefully, DokuWiki, or MediaWiki will upgrade their code a little in the next update. (Fingers crossed.)

    Merch Section

    I opened a Merchandise section to see if I could offer more prints and stickers for cheaper than RedBubble does. (It’s expensive.) But… I need the storefront and everything to be fully automatic, because I can’t be bothered with processing orders, payments, and shipping. And, I’m also not gonna buy 1,000 stickers, and just hope I can sell them all.

    I have considered buying a bunch of slaps to give away or send to friends. That’s always an option.

    New Content Coming

    Lemme just list the things I’ve done in the past couple of months:

    Visual Art, Maps, Graphic Design

    1. San Francisco Bay Area Tribal Language Groups Map
    2. San Francisco Bay Area Tribal Groups Map
      1. And combinations of the above, sometimes with the San Francisco Bay Region Shellmounds Map
    3. Verona Area Maps
    4. Cover Art of various Historical Newspaper Articles, and for Books
    5. Social Justice Art
    6. Other collages.

    Articles/Pages

    I have a number of write-ups to start. I’ve got some drafts to re-visit, and finish; as well as new topics. And, lots of pages to update, and redesign, with all this content.

    Writing, Stories, Serials

    I’ve been having difficulty deciding whether or not I want to start talking about ghosts, and spirits, and stuff. I know it’s close to Halloween now, and everything….

    And I’m concurrently devoting a lot of time to a project that is rooted in fact, and basically exalts the kinds of documentary evidence that does not exist, and cannot be found, when it comes to ghosts, and spirits, (and stuff.)

    But I desperately need to address the spiritual intersectionality of being Native American–and having a spirituality that is deeply connected with the earth and the celestial bodies–and doing something which is supposed to be “administered”, or carried on dispassionately.

    I can’t argue with my feelings as if they’re facts. I can’t use a hunch; a hummingbird; or the faint sound of singing on the wind as evidence.

    I want to tell you that these things led me to the shellmounds; showed me to the evidence; helped me out without any real information to go off of. That I seemed to arrive there by magic, or Luck (with a capital “L”.)

    Common Sense isn’t scientific, either. But this is investigative journalism, if you really put me in a corner. I’m just answering all of the questions I had as kid; I’m trying to accumulate all the information I need to form a model of “what it looked like” in my head. Somehow continuing an inquiry-based education.

    But this journey is based on a deep-seeded wound that I have held on to for too long. Something I still can’t really define, yet. (But I’m working on it.) It has to do with my adoption. And my search for myself, and my birth family.

    It’s almost the end of second year of this project (“Season 2′).

    It’s time for some deeper reflection. And some story-telling.

  • Milliken 2009, “A Time of Little Choice”, Has Just Been Liberated

    Anthropology, Archaeology, and Ethnology have always been competitive fields. In the East Bay, Native American Graves Consulting is a booming, and exclusive business.

    And, the documented existence of the Ohlone people, who have occupied the East Bay continuously, for thousands of years, hinges upon the information locked away behind paygates; only being referenced by Developers, and City Attorneys.

    The exclusivity of this information has been exploited for money. And used to bolster false claims of sovereignty.

    • Cover
    • Page 28
    • Page 180
    • Page 252
    • Page 279
    But, let me be clear:
    The only reason you have this information is because you robbed our ancestors’ graves.

    On a very basic level–without being reductive–these academic papers; all of the information; tangible and non-tangible things that have been developed, derived, or created from the desecration of our ancestors….

    All of that still belongs to us.

    ” A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area 1769-1810″

    Randal Milliken, 2009

    Milliken 2009 A Time of Little ChoiceDownload

  • Independent Alameda Native History Project Develops First 3D Shellmound Model

    Local Native American-led Research Project Aims to Educate Public, Advocate for Shellmounds

    Click here to skip the article and download the Alameda Native History Project Shellmound Model, made by Gabriel Duncan.

    For the first time ever, an entirely independent research project, led by a Native American descendant, has produced a tangible representation of pre-contact Native American Spirituality and Engineering.

    Shellmounds, up until now, have largely only been talked about as a theoretical object, which “used to exist.” And shellmounds have been used as a tool to gain funding, and political influence.

    As a descendant of California Native Americans, adopted out of my tribe at birth, raised by white people, and growing up in a place like Alameda–which is a “good ole boy” town, and known for it’s white racist, residents, and it’s over-policing of people of color….

    As all of that…

    I needed more than these pretty words and vagaries.

    More than a rock in the middle of Lincoln Park, in Alameda, Commemorating the Ohlone Shellmound the City of Alameda dug up and used to pave Bay Farm Road.

    When public figures speak about shellmounds, they are referred to in terms of what shellmounds symbolize.

    We’re given a rosy, idealized, wash of what life was like in the San Francisco Bay Area before the Spaniards and “White People” came.

    It’s very light on details, but gives us just enough to sort of “dream” of what life was like.

    This is all well and good if you’re not that interested.

    If all you wanted was a simple answer to the question of,

    “What happened to those shellmounds in Emeryville and Alameda?“
    “Where was the shellmound in West Berkeley?“

    But some people want to know what it looked like, really. In the sense of being able to know where things were. Being able to see what kind of plants were growing at that time (some plants and animals have gone extinct in the intervening 300 or so years.)

    Some people would like to see the same attention devoted to Native American History, Research, Preservation, Conservation, and Education that has been devoted to:
    Bodie State Historic Park
    Bodie, California
    • Old Mining Towns
    • Victorian Houses
    • Military Forts and Installations
    • Warships
    • Mount Rushmore
    • Stone Mountain
    • Arlington National Cemetery
    • Foreign Archeology & Anthropology

    We’re entering an era of what could be considered “Salvage Archiving“, or something of the sort.

    Where an impetus should be placed on saving those withered, orphaned pages, plastered to the back of shelves, and in the dark grimy corners of filing cabinets. Getting those pages archived, digitally. Creating new renditions of old data and information, in modern formats. In high-fidelity.

    Why? Because they’re primary sources.

    The last scribbled field notes, and crumpled photographs that are almost lost to history; but which carry the little bits and pieces glossed over by researchers who were never looking for more than statistical data, or a PhD. Or who just hunted for the citation, without bothering to read and comprehend the rest.

    These bits of real world meta- and scrape-data…

    We need our histories, language, and secrets, to help us re-imagine what a De-Colonized Future really looks like. To help us repatriate the ancestors being returned to us from these museums and universities. And we need land back, so we can have a place to bury our ancestors, and let them rest in peace.

    Native American History and Culture was taken away from the First Californians.

    It was cataloged and scattered around the world, to different museums, universities, and private collections. Everything from our oral histories to our ancestors’ bodies are in pieces.

    This is our inheritance.
    Our family property.

    It should not have to take feats of academic, and legal, scholarship to gain access to our own language, history, and the physical bodies of our ancestors.

    But not everybody knows they’re family…

    There was a time in America where white-passing Hispanic people claimed to be White, and light-skinned Native Americans pretended to be Mexican.

    This was because Native Americans who were caught in public, off the reservation, could be subject to arrest–where a white man could “buy an Indian” as a slave–forced on to a nearby reservation, or just killed on the spot.

    Indian Census Roll

    Mexicans and Spaniards were allowed agency, and relative freedom, when compared to the possibility of being criminalized and sold into slavery, or killed.

    So that’s why many Native Americans declared Mexican ancestry, and took Spanish last names, or married into those families: to hide from the terror and racism Native Americans were subjected to by the American Government.

    It wasn’t until recently that people started talking about their abuelitas,

    “I think mentioning something that they were really some part American Indian, or Native American?”

    These people, with surprise ancestry, or “hidden heritage” cannot be discounted. They have been completely oblivious to their own ties to this land, and these shellmounds.

    But, an awakening is happening, the veil of [necessary?] secrecy is finally being lifted.

    This begs to question the fairness of gate-keeping.

    Tuibun Village Reproduction
    Coyote Hills Regional Park
    Fremont, California
    • Shouldn’t the living descendants of these ancestors be given the opportunity to visit, experience, and learn about all of these things?
    • Is it really the role of anyone to deny them their birth rite, or the ability to at least find some solace or peace within themselves; because here is a place where they can pilgrimage to learn about themselves?
    • How can we really expect to know what “rematriation” or “land back” looks like, if we don’t even know what Native Land looks like (outside of vast pictures of forests, and dingy shots of dust-swept reservations?)

    How can we teach ourselves, and each other about what Native Land really is, without being able to visit it, or even talk about what they look like?

    Examples like the diorama of the Tuibun (Ohlone) Village at Coyote Hills Regional Park, in Fremont, California, are invaluable to helping one imagine, envision or just “picture what it was like.”

    There is more than one type of “estranged”, or,
    “dis-enfranchised” Native American….

    Strange word, “dis-enfranchised”.

    There are Native Americans who were adopted, who grew up outside of their communities.

    People who never chose to be separated from their people, and Tribe. People who were never given the opportunity to be reunited. Sometimes forever.

    As a descendant of California Native Americans, adopted out of my tribe at birth, raised by white people, and growing up in a place like Alameda–which is a “good ole boy” town, and known for it’s white racist, residents, and it’s over-policing of people of color….

    As all of that…

    I needed more than these pretty words and vagaries.

    More than a rock in the middle of Lincoln Park, in Alameda, Commemorating the Ohlone Shellmound the City of Alameda dug up and used to pave Bay Farm Road.

    The symbolism of shellmounds is tied to colonization, and landback, and rematriatrion, and gardens.

    But this only uses shellmounds as a strawman, an existential fallacy. Because the argument is only ever over places where shellmounds have been destroyed.

    But what about the other shellmounds?

    Shellmounds still exist in the San Francisco Bay Area

    Every article says the San Francisco Bay Area had at least 425 Shellmounds. But these rely on the recitation of the same, stale facts. The main narrative, and recurring implication, is that, all the shellmounds have been destroyed, and there’s nothing left but three locations in the San Francisco Bay Area:

    • Emery Bay outdoor mall, in Emeryvile, California;
    • Glen Cove, in Vallejo, California; and,
    • Spenger’s Parking Lot, in Berkeley, California….

    Because the mission of the Alameda Native History Project was to discover what happened to the Alameda Shellmounds; and that, of course lead to researching other Shellmound locations, I learned: of these three locations, only the shellmound in Emeryville is the correct location.

    Alameda Native History Project map showing true location and observed (approximate) dimensions of West Berkeley Shellmound.

    Upon closer inspection both Glen Cove and West Berkley Shellmounds exist, or existed about 100 feet away from the locations Corrine Gould has alleged, on average. Which wouldn’t be such a big deal if there weren’t huge protests and millions of dollars spent in legal battles over protecting a thing that wasn’t even there. It’s not even a masked-man fallacy. But it’s close. (Especially in West Berkeley.)

    This brought about frank questions like, How come Corrine Gould is only interested in Shellmounds that are already destroyed? How come her groups aren’t interested in protecting other shellmounds, like the four at San Rafael Rock Quarry? (She went out to Miwok Territory, despite the fact she’s Ohlone and occupied Glen Cove Park, without the permission or endorsement of the real tribes who’s territory Vallejo falls in.)

    Is it just easier to advocate for seizing parking lots? An open space can fit hundreds of protestors, and garner much more attention, when it’s in the middle of a city. Places like outdoor malls, and the center of a shopping district are perfect for garnering public attention. Maybe that’s why more remote mounds in places like Contra Costa and Marin county haven’t been advocated for?

    Regardless of the new questions the research has uncovered, the Alameda Native History Project has a self-proclaimed mission to educate the public about shellmounds, and provide detailed, actionable information for their preservation, and protection.

    As such, this project will continue to produce and release educational and research materials; to bring attention to all San Francisco Bay Area Shellmounds, and advocate for their protection.

    But it’s hard to do that when the leading voice is trying to limit, or stifle the discussion about Shellmounds, to the point of providing incorrect information about their locations.

    So let’s start with this:

    What is a shellmound?

    A lot of people wanted to know, “What is a shellmound? What does a shellmound look like? How big were the shell mounds?”

    And, while one could spend time curating schematics, maps, and historical images there are truths which reveal themselves.

    Basic traits of a shellmound….

    1. Shellmounds range anywhere from about 3 to 70 feet tall.
    2. Shellmounds have a diameter of about 10 to 300 feet.
    3. Shellmounds have a distinctive domed shape,
      usually with a pavillion, and a ramp or walk-way down one side.
    4. Each shellmound accounts for hundreds to thousands of Native Americans.
      Around 2,000 people were buried in the Emeryville Shellmound.
    5. Shellmounds are not trash heaps.
    6. Shellmounds are burial grounds.
    7. Shellmounds are sacred burial structures, built by the first occupants of the San Francisco Bay Area.
    8. Over 425 shellmounds existed in the San Francisco Bay Area.
    9. Only a few dozen shellmounds still remain, intact, and undisturbed.

    ANHP Shellmound Model
    Featured in Augmented-Reality

    Available Shellmound Models

    This video has loud background noise.

    There are two Shellmound Models available. They are version 2.5, and 2.6, respectfully.

    Version 2.6 is in .REAL format, which is used with Adobe Aero, a mobile-based Augmented Reality platform.

    Version 2.5 is in USDZ format. Universal Scene Description is used by Pixar (among other companies); and is now a native 3D Object Format for both iOS and Android 3D Object Viewer.

    These shellmound models were created for educational, and research purposes. Commercial use of this model is strictly prohibited. When featuring this model, please include the following citation:

    “Shellmound Model created by Gabriel Duncan.”

    Shellmound Model v.2.5(download)
    Android / iOS (.usdz)
    Shellmound Model v.2.6(download)
    Adobe Aero (.real) (in-app)
    Info about Adobe Aero “Adobe Aero Get Started” on the Adobe website.

    Let us know how you use the Shellmound Model!

    Tag your AR experience on Instagram using @AlamedaNativeHistoryProject!

    Send us a note, share your stories via collab@alamedanativehistoryproject.com!