Alameda Native History Project

Tag: ohlone

  • Alameda Shellmound Map Re-Released

    More detailed Alameda historical ecology.

    All four Alameda Shellmounds.

    Featuring Alameda’s Ancient Live Oak Forest, Historic Shoreline, and Bay Area Historic Wetlands layers.

    All juxtaposed against the modern day landscape to provide accurate scale and positioning.

    Available in several sizes.

    Preview the new Alameda Shellmound Map V.2. Available in 3 sizes. Get it now!

    More Detailed Historic Geography

    Because of the juxtaposition of the historic peninsula with it’s present day silhouette, it is much easier to see which parts of Alameda were physically connected and formed the peninsula more recently known as the “Encinal”.

    Both Alameda and Oakland are in a region referred to as Xučyun (also known as “Huchiun”.) Xučyun is part of the ancestral homeland of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area. Muwekma have lived in the Bay Area for over 10,000 years.

    Includes All Four Alameda Shellmounds

    For the first time, all four of the Alameda Shellmounds have been put onto one map. Most people only know about the shellmound on Mound Street. But there are more shellmounds, in Alameda. There were over 425 shellmounds in the Bay Area. Including Alameda’s largest shellmound, at the foot Chestnut.

    Why is this important?

    • The existence of the three other Alameda Shellmounds was overlooked by all of Alameda’s previous historians*, including long-time (since retired) curator of the Alameda Museum: George Gunn.
    • From 1948, to 2020: the Alameda Museum falsely identified the First Alamedans as “a branch of Miwok”, instead of “Costanoan” or Ohlone.
    • The Alameda Native History Project is responsible for stepping forward and correcting the record, and educating the public about the real Alameda Native History.

    This map proves that Alameda History is more than Victorian houses.

    See also: Shellmounds – What Are Shellmounds?

    Features:

    Alameda’s Ancient Live Oak Forest

    This place we call Alameda was once called “La Bolsa de Encinal”. Meaning, “the Encinal forest”. Because the peninsula was host to a verdant, “ancient”, Live Oak forest. (The forest still exists. It just looks different.)

    Many of the first accounts of the historic peninsula use rather idyllic, and paradisaic language to describe the rich pre-contact ecosystem that thrived here.

    Alameda was once referred to as a “Garden City”. This is the place where the Loganberry was supposedly born.

    Historic Shoreline

    tl;dr : Everyone wants to know where the landfill is. [There! I said it, okay?] They don’t even really care where Alameda used to be connected to Oakland. Or about the ancient whirl pool in la bahia de san leandro. But, whatever.

    Look closer, and you can see the footprints of present day buildings. That’s the landfill.

    For real though, I made this layer using pre-1900 shoreline vector data I compiled for the Bay Area region, and stitched together.

    Bay Area Historic Wetlands layers

    In Version 1, I made a kind of sloppy polygon with historical shoreline vectors, and painted it green. It was a good placeholder for the historic marshes and wetlands of the Bay Area.

    Version 2 features the finely detailed historic wetlands layer created for the Bay Area Shellmounds Maps. It features very precise cut-outs for historic creeks, channels and waterways; and features full-coverage of the Bay Area region.

    If you want some actual historical eco-data, check out the San Francisco Estuary Institute. They have some brilliant historical ecology GIS you would probably love, if you’ve read this far.

    The Alameda Shellmound Map, Version 2, is ground-breaking in its completeness and exquisite detail.

    Available Now!

    Printed in vivid color, on premium paper. Purchase through the Alameda Shellmounds Map square payment link. 10% of all proceeds from Alameda Shellmounds Map sales go to the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area.

    Get the Alameda Shellmounds Map

    [Footnote: Imelda Merlin mentioned numerous shellmounds in her Geology Master Thesis, but none of her assertions were backed up with any relevant citations. And geology is not archaeology, ethnology, or anthropology, the areas of study that normally concern themselves with Tribal Cultural Resources like shellmounds.

    Furthermore, the famous “Imelda Merlin Shellmound Map” was actually a map of Live Oak trees present in Alameda at the time Merlin wrote her thesis (in 1977).

    The “Map of Whitcher’s Survey of ‘The Encinal’ in 1853. In Alameda City Hall.”, cited on page 104 of Merlin’s thesis, has never been found by Alameda City Hall, the Alameda Free Library, or the Alameda Museum.

    Certainly this means Imelda Merlin has failed to meet the burden of proof required for institutions like Alameda Museum to take reliance upon her claims re: Whitcher’s Survey, and locations of any mounds. Yet, somehow, Merlin’s geology thesis was Alameda Museum’s sole reference regarding shellmounds. (For years Imelda Merlin’s geology thesis was viewed as the authoritative source of information about Alameda shellmounds.)]

    Decolonize History

    One of the ways Alameda Native History Project decolonizes history is by interrogating the record. This means tracking down and reading citations. Critically evaluating reports and studies for bias. And calling out poor research, and prejudiced conclusions for what they are.

    We decolonize history by updating the maps and diagrams of our past. Producing accurate, fact-based educational and reference materials to replace the biased and inaccurate educational products–which are still misinforming our schoolchildren and the greater public today.

    By providing a more nuanced and comprehensive perspective; and doing away with the old, over-copied handouts from decades past: we are able to shed the misinformed, and racist, stereotypes and quackery that typify generations which brought us things like: “kill the indian, save the man”, Jim Crow, and “Separate But Equal”.

    We vigorously challenge the cognitive dissonance of so many California Historians, asking “Where did all the Indians go?”, at a time when the entire United States had declared war on Native Americans. … Including the first Governor of California, who called for “war of extermination” against California Native Americans.

    These ideas, stereotypes, attitudes, and beliefs have managed to propagate themselves time and time again in the textbooks and lesson plans used to “educate” countless generations of Americans.

    Isn’t it time to set the record straight?

    👉🏼 Your purchase of the Alameda Shellmound Map supports our mission of decolonizing history. 🙌🏼

  • Save Shellmounds (Not Parking Lots)

    Shellmounds are ancient structures created by thousands of years of indigenous occupation.

    Shellmounds are cemeteries, or mortuary complexes. The final resting places of the first people to live in this place we call the San Francisco Bay Area.

    There were once over 425 shellmounds in the San Francisco Bay Area alone. In fact, there were many more shellmounds than that.

    If you look closely at the distribution of shellmounds in Marin and Sonoma Counties, and apply that density to the rest of the Bay Area, you will very easily top 600 shellmounds.

    Despite the fact that shellmounds are cemeteries, hundreds were still destroyed all around the Bay Area.

    And–to make matters unimaginably worse–the bodies inside were ground up, and used as overspread to level out train tracks, and build massive infrastructure (like the Angel Island Immigration complex.)

    “How was this possible?” (You may ask yourself.)

    Wouldn’t someone be able to tell there were bodies inside of these mounds?

    Yes. People could tell there were bodies in the mounds.

    Even though some news stories feature witnesses who described bones disintegrating, or “turning to dust” as soon as they were handled…. People are still finding skeletons in places like Alameda, California, whenever they dig somewhere for the first time in a hundred years–which isn’t hard to do when many houses in Alameda are 100 years old.

    In spite of the desecration, and destruction visited on hundreds of shellmounds here in the San Francisco Bay Area, many still survive. And a surprising amount shellmounds survive intact.

    The most well known, “intact” shellmounds in the Bay Area reside in the Coyote Hills Regional Park. They are known as the “Ryan” and “Patterson” Mounds.

    They join a long list of shellmounds which have been reported upon and studied over the past 100 years or more.

    This list includes (but is not limited to):

    • Ellis Landing (Contra Costa)
    • Emeryville (Alameda)
    • West Berkeley (Alameda)
    • San Bruno Mound (San Mateo)
    • Miller Mound (Colusa)
    • Alameda Shellmound (Alameda)
    • Ryan Mound, and Patterson Mound (Alameda)
    • Burton Mound (Santa Barbara)
    • Herzog Mound (Sacramento)

    … Just to name a few.

    Excerpts of Illustrations from “Shell midden” surveys in SoCal showing shellmounds in situ:

    Many of the ancestors and artifacts exhumed and stolen from these mounds reside in the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, on the University of California, Berkeley Campus.

    These objects and human remains were taken during a period of “salvage archaeology“. Which was a period of intense extractive and exploitive research into Native American Language, Arts, Culture and Religion under the premise that the “Aboriginal Indians of North America” would soon become “extinct”.

    Obviously, much of this work was made easier by the dispossession, missionization, forced internment (on reservations), and annihilation, that Indigenous People endured since First Contact with Europeans.

    Just as Indigenx, Native American, First Nation and all First People of this place survived colonization: so did their shellmounds.

    It’s up to us to break the cycle of destruction. The cycle of purposely disconnecting people from the places they come from. And then destroying those places (literally) for no other reason than the speculative amount of value or resources the land is worth.

    One of the ways we can put the earth back into balance is by letting those who are from this earth gain access to their ancestors; and traditional places (like hunting camps) and resources (like a river) which provide a tribal cultural benefit.

    Traditional tribal hunting grounds provide a tribal cultural benefit as source of traditional sustenance…. A river (or certain parts of it) where fish are caught, or plants or other things are gathered, is a natural resource which provides a tribal cultural benefit.

    There is an air gap between the idea of land stewardship as a Native American landscaping service; and land stewardship through traditional cultural practices which have shaped much of the natural ecosystems of the Bay Area for over 10,000 years.

    Render of a shellmound on the shore of the Carquinez Strait.

    The mounds which still exist are not flat; have not been dug out; and are certainly not parking lots, transit stations, or shopping malls.

    Parking lots are not “undeveloped” space.

    Parking lots are not “open space”.

    Parking lots have been levelled, packed, and paved.

    …Just because parking lots are flat does not mean the land “isn’t developed”.

    You need to know this:

    When we talk about saving sacred sites. We’re talking about real sacred sites. Places which have been spared from development, either by ignorance, or by luck.

    Render of a shellmound across the bay from San Francisco. Possibly in Albany, or El Cerrito.

    Shellmounds are a part of the natural environment.

    Shellmounds support the ecosystems they reside in.

    Shellmounds are not parking lots!

    Aside from the spiritual impact of shellmounds to their surrounding areas: shellmounds today provide habitat for plants and wildlife where that habitat is endangered–and, under constant threat of development.

    You can help protect sacred land by protecting the environment around it.

    You can help protect sacred land by advocating for its conservation, and return to the San Francisco Bay Area Ohlone Tribe: the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe.

    While support for land trusts,
    and ideas like “rematriation” are wonderful….

    Fundraising campaigns like “Shuumi Land Tax” take away from the real causes of Ohlone Tribal Recognition, Ohlone Tribal Sovereignty, and Ohlone Ancestral Land Back.

    Ohlone people deserve respect and deference. When you give your land acknowledgment or money, do your research first. Don’t confuse non-profit corporations with actual tribes.

    *The Shellmounds section of this website has more links to information.

  • BART Decolonized: Travel the Indigenous Bay

    It’s The Bay

    The Indigenous Bay, that is.

    Alameda Native History Project has remixed the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) System Map to show:

    • Bay Area Tribal Regions
    • Station Names
    • Indigenous IATA [Airport] Codes

    Travel the Indigenous Bay with Native Pride!

    A small run of prints are available now on our merch page.

    Get yours before they run out!

    For real, though, once they run out, it’s going to be a minute before another run is printed. And you’ll be forced to make due with one of our other awesome maps.

  • 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:

  • 2024-2025 Cultural & Education Programming Announced!

    The Alameda Native History Project is proud to announce their Cultural & Educational Program Offerings for 2024-2025.

    2024 Acorn Granary Challenge

    Beginning July 1, 2024; and,
    Ending on July 31, 2024.

    Mix modern and traditional methods of acorn granary construction to create a semi-permanent structure which will hold the acorns from our First Annual Acorn Harvest.

    The challenge is creating something that will withstand the elements over winter.

    We will meet as a team to construct these Acorn Granaries. Together we will learn about the different kinds of Acorn Granaries; integrated pest management uses of California Native Plants; and how indigenous technology works to keep food safe for centuries.

    This is a series of free events which happens 10am-2pm Every Sunday in July.

    Sign Up Happening Now

    2024 Alameda “City-Wide” Acorn Harvest

    September – October 2024

    Take part in the First Annual Alameda Acorn Harvest.

    Learn about the ancient Live Oak Forests of this place now called “Alameda”.  Learn about the nutritional value and the cultural significance of acorns.

    There are a number of different ways in which everyone can participate. Please check out the list of roles available on the Sign-Up Form, right after our Community Guidelines.

    Snacks, Water, Coffee, and Lunch, will be provided.

    Sign-Up Now

    Alameda Native Food Lab: ACORNS!

    Multiple Sessions Held in March 2025

    Learn how to process acorns.

    Sample traditional Acorn Mush.

    Make different baked goods using Acorn Flour made from Alameda Oak Trees. Leave with your own Acorn Flour, and recipes to try at home!

    This session is Free!

    Tickets Available in September 2024

  • East Bay Indigenous History Resources

    Where to find Selected Primary and Secondary Sources regarding the Native American (Indigenous) History of the East Bay.

    Sources for the studious, tenacious, and determined, scholars.

    Muwekma Ohlone Tribe

    Muwekma Ohlone Tribal Recognition Process

    US DOI Bureau of Indian Affairs, Petition #111 Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of San Francisco Bay, CA

    Muwekma Tribal Publications (Research Documents)
    Featuring articles by Les Field, Alan Leventhal, and more.

    Randall Milliken

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

    Native Americans at San Jose

    Old research papers by

    • Maxwell Uhle (Final Report on the Emeryville Shellmound),
    • N.C. Nelson (Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region),
    • Robert F. Heizer (The California Indians, a source book),
    • Richard Levy (Handbook of the North American Indians),
    • and Alfred Kroeber, among others.

    Can be found under Keywords like:

    • “Costanoan“; “Mission Indians“; “California Indians”; “Shellmound”; “Verona Band“; “Fremont Indian“; “Rosemary Cambra”; “Jose Guzman”; etc.

    Find UC Berkeley Research Papers

    Access Archive Finding Aids

    These resources are for people who are willing to commit the time and effort into finding and reading the primary and secondary resources created by anthropologists, archaeologists, the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, and Ohlone People themselves.

    This is not a complete list of sources. For instance, the California State Universities are another source for information not listed here–even though Alan Leventhal is associated with the CSU system. This is just a selected list of some resources to get you started.

    If you find other resources for primary and secondary materials which are not listed here, please let us know.

    Right now, we’re in the process of finding and compiling local archival sources.

    If you are an individual or organization who also keeps their own libraries and collections regarding this subject, or Native Americans in the San Francisco Bay Area, and you would like to share, please don’t hesitate to reach out.

  • Alternatives to Shuumi (2023)

    Wondering which Native American organizations you should give to on Giving Tuesday?

    Hopefully, when you read this, you already know that Shuumi Land Tax doesn’t really go to all Ohlone people. (But we don’t want to discourage your well-meaning intent and your need to help Indigenous people in anyway you can.)

    If you really want to help the Native American People in the San Francisco Bay Area, I’ve compiled a list of organizations where your generous donation and goodwill have a measurable impact.

    The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area

    This is the real Ohlone tribe you probably thought you were donating money to when you considered paying Shuumi “Land Tax”.

    With over 10,000 years of continuous habitation of this place now known as the San Francisco Bay Area, your donation directly to this tribe of over 600 enrolled members will be felt immediately; and put to use as Muwekma reawaken their Chochenyo language, remember dances, and revitalize their culture.

    The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe is a bonafide native American Tribe, which has been recognized over and over again by The Courts, but still struggles for recognition with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Muwekma is set to begin their Trail of Truth in their epic battle for justice; in the form of a Tribal Homeland, Education, Housing, Medical Services, and–last but not least: Sovereignty.

    If you want to help Ohlone people in the San Francisco Bay Area (and beyond):

    Go to Muwekma.org to educate yourself and your friends about the Indigenous People of the San Francisco Bay Area.

    [See also: “Who/What/Where is Lisjan?“, “Who are the Lisjan Ohlone? What does Chochenyo mean?”, “Corrina Gould Convicted of Fraud“]

    Intertribal Friendship House Oakland

    Established in 1955 as one of the first urban American Indian community centers in the nation.

    It was founded by the American Friends Service Committee to serve the needs of American Indian people relocated from reservations to the San Francisco Bay Area.

    “The Bay Area American Indian community is multi-tribal, made of Native people and their descendants—those who originate here and those who have come to the Bay region from all over the United States and from other parts of this hemisphere.“

    IFH Oakland’s local programming is important and impactful.

    Friendship House SF

    Friendship House SF provides a girth of wellness services for Native American People in the SF urban rez.

    One of the most important services the Friendship House SF provides is treatment and recovery services for Native Americans. Lots of tribes will send their members to the Friendship House SF for their treatment and recovery services.

    The Friendship House SF also provides meeting space for other organizations to hold their events and retreats. Very thankful to the Friendship House SF for giving me and organizations I’ve been a part space for so many years.

    Native American Health Center

    Provides primary care, mental health, and dental services primarily. Also organizes and hold the Indigenous Red Market, contributes to Powwows, and other Native American Events and Programs throughout the San Francisco Bay Area.

    Contributing to this organization will also support a wider range of programs and services in the Bay Area.

    NAHC is a pretty solid choice, all around.

    American Indian Cultural Center

    A member of Intersection for the Arts.

    Since 1968, the purpose of the American Indian Center has been to create a community space based on Native American values, culture, programming, traditional foods, and community support.

    Contributing to this organization will help sustain AICC’s mission to improve and promote the well-being of the American Indian community and to increase the visibility of American Indian cultures in an urban setting in order to cultivate awareness, understanding and respect.

    American Indian Child Resource Center

    The American Indian Child Resource Center is a non-profit social services and educational community-based organization serving American Indian community members from across the greater Oakland/San Francisco Bay Area and surrounding counties.

    The American Indian Child Resource Center is a COA Accredited Organization.

    First Nations Development Institute

    Economic Development Corporation which invests in and creates innovative institutions and models that strengthen asset control (land stewardship is one example) and support economic development (through grants and programs) for American Indian people and their communities.

    First Nations Development Institute is another solid choice because you know your money will be well invested, and you can read the reports on how it was used.

    Which Native American Organizations Should You Donate To?

    Hopefully, this helps you decide where to invest for Giving Tuesday in the year 2023!

    P.S.
    You can always donate to the Alameda Native History Project, or any of these other organizations, any time of the year! Don’t wait until Thanksgiving.

  • Scarcity Mindset As A Hurdle to Museum Accountability

    By now there should be no doubt that most museums, which display or hold Native American artifacts, directly benefit from grave robbing, or the often racist, prejudiced language and ignorant beliefs regarding Native Americans first uttered by now dead anthropologists [like Alfred Kroeber], and perpetuated by the ailing volunteers and aging septuagenarians responsible for interpreting and curating these artifacts today.

    Many of these museums do no care to get the information or facts straight, and continue to present California Native Americans as “extinct”, “disappeared”, and brush off or dismiss any mention of actual living Native people as someone trying to raise trouble.

    Advocates for the truthful portrayal, accurate naming, and return of tribal objects and remains are often called “hostile”, dismissed as rabble rousers, and subjected to projection by the very people who should have read White Fragility.

    Even more infuriating is the belief consulting with any Native American individual on any subject–whether or not it’s related to the stolen Tribal Grave Goods or Ceremonial Objects in these Museum’s possession–is used as cover for the Museum to continue to disregard the wishes of the very real, and still living Native American people who have a lawful claim, and a legal right to demand the return and repatriation of these Native American Tribal Resources and Cultural Objects.

    In fact, many of the people museums choose to consult with regarding Native American artifacts are not Native Americans at all.

    Truthfully, Native American people are consistently shut out of events, exhibitions and lectures about their own culture and identity.

    A lot of apologists will say “it’s not like this anymore”; or dismiss the Standard Operating Procedures museums as a thing of the past…. But these conditions till persist.

    Native American People continue to be discounted, ignored; and their history, culture and contributions continue to be minimized and ignored.

    But the truth remains: The artifacts and objects on display in most museums have been stolen from Native American People, their graves, and do not belong to the museums who refuse to return them.

    There are three main reasons why Museums refuse to return Tribal Cultural Objects.

    The first is that there is no Federally Recognized Tribe which claims these objects to return them to. This is especially true for the Repatriation of Native American Remains.

    It’s a shame that these institutions are unwilling to do the research and work necessary to properly identify Tribal Cultural Objects and Native American Remains to repatriate the same way they did the research to identify and prepare the same goods and burials for exhibition.

    It’s despicable the way Museums claim such helplessness and ignorance when it comes time to give stolen objects back, even though the exact same objects are the she subjects of fundraising events and lectures proudly given by white anthropologists, and non-native experts, even today.

    Charlene Nijmeh, the Chairwoman of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, talks about how the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe was removed from the rolls of Native American Tribes simply for the purpose of denying Ohlone people in the San Francisco Bay Area their right to a tribal land base; because land in the Bay Area is so valuable.

    In this same way, institutions like the University of California Berkeley (which holds the remains of thousands of Native Americans) are incentivized to claim an inability to identify which tribes the bodies in their crypt belong to.

    So, too, are Museums incentivized to weaponize their incompetence in order to keep their pilfered goods.

    The second reason is the fallacy that Native American Remains are “more valuable” as research or display objects.

    This is a completely reprehensible argument that bears no merit, as far as I’m concerned. Simply because these same people would not agree that their family members are more valuable being dug up, defiled in the name of science, and put on display without so much of a whisper of their name or life’s story.

    It’s worth saying, “If you’re not okay with your grandma being dug up and put on display, why are you doing it to mine?”

    The blatant disrespect of Native American Graves as things which can be dug up, broken, moved to a landfill, reburied, and used as overspread is something which has been enabled by the statements of people like Alfred Kroeber, who explicitly declared entire tribes of Native Americans (like Ohlone people) “extinct”.

    It s because these remains are considered “ancient”, or attributed to a time before our modern history where no living descendants exist–“pre-historic” for all intents and purposes–that oil companies, city, state and federal governments have dug up the bodies of our ancestors with impunity. And why money is still being given to universities to study our ancestors’ remains, even today.

    But this is a fallacy, because Native American people are not extinct; they have not disappeared. We are still here, today. And we do not want anyone digging up our relatives to build pipelines, parking lots… or “for science”. Period!

    (How come laws against the abuse of a corpse apply to every body except for Native American bodies?)

    The third, and final, reason why institutions refuse to even consider returning stolen Native American artifacts to tribes is an extension of the preceding “more valuable for science” reasoning.

    However, the very basis of some museums’ refusal to return tribal objects is clearly rooted in the scarcity mindset.

    Museum Fallacy #3:

    “If we give away all of our artifacts, we won’t have any left!”

    “If we give away all of our artifacts, we won’t have any left!” This was actually said to me by a volunteer at the Alameda Museum.

    This is dissonant because many museum’s holdings are made of stolen property. Repatriation is the only correct course of action; anything less is a travesty.

    This standing also presumes the only thing of value the museum has to offer is the exhibition of original artifacts, no matter how broken or uninteresting those artifacts are; and, in spite of the fact that curators and museum staff and volunteers have no […] clue how those objects are used, where they actually came, or what the history of their use and development is.

    In all of this, there is not even a hint of concern about whether or not the museum has a duty to investigate/research, find, and try to contact the tribe associated with the Native American objects and artifacts in their possession.

    Consideration of actual Native American People is so far removed from the discussion, it’s a little ridiculous.

    Representation of average museum volunteer docents. (AI-generated.)

    Especially given the fact that these Museum are inviting Native American people to give lectures during Native American Heritage Month. (But consider the audience….)

    The idea that there aren’t enough artifacts is a fallacy based upon a false sense of ownership and authority magically imbued by the mere possession of these stolen grave goods.

    The implied scarcity mindsight that the only thing which gives museums like the Alameda Museum any value is a handful of broken pieces of bones and tools–which no one knows the use for (or even the names of)–is laughable in its appeal to ignorance.

    The fact that Alameda Museum is not, and has never been, the place to see Native American artifacts belies this mindset as a straw man argument for the lack of interest or determination of the museum to change or do any better. But, in the end, it’s the museum which must do the work.

    So let’s get down to brass tax here:

    1. Museums need to get real about the fact that no one cares whether or not they exhibit real artifacts if their exhibits are trash and don’t actually provide any education value; especially if Museum Staff & Volunteers don’t know anything about them. [There’s no value here.]
    2. Returning Native American Grave Goods is the right thing to do. (It’s probably illegal for museums to possess them.) And Museums owe money, and other restitution, to Tribes for their illegal conversion of Tribal Property.
    3. Contacting Tribes to begin the repatriation process is necessary.
    4. Museums need to seriously consider purchasing replicas made by Native American artisans in exchanging for the return of Grave Good and Ceremonial Objects.
    5. Museums are required to pay Indigenous People for their time and consultation at a rate commensurate with like professionals in the same or similar industries–regardless of whether or not those Indigenous Consultants have any academic credentials.

    Indigenous Peoples’ lived experiences and actual subject matter expertise are more valuable than any degree.

    Indigenous science is valid.

    Indigenous science is a distinct, time-tested, and methodological knowledge system that can enhance and complement western science. Indigenous science is about the knowledge of the environment and knowledge of the ecosystem that Indigenous Peoples have. It is the knowledge of survival since time immemorial and includes multiple systems of knowledge(s) such as the knowledge of plants, the weather, animal behavior and patterns, birds, and water among others.

    Indigenous people are experts.

    Museums will do well to remember these facts when treating Indigenous People with the reverence and respect they deserve.

  • Beyond Land Acknowledgment

    Alameda Native History Project has a standing policy to never contact or involve Tribal Members or Tribes unless there is a clear and tangential Tribal Benefit To Participation.

    Truthfully, the reason why this policy was set was mostly out of respect for the lived experiences of the Tribal Members of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area.

    And as a direct response to the continuing tokenization and empty promises of non-indigenous corporations, governments, and individuals who seek to monetize the appearance of Indigenous People at their events, solely for the exclusive benefit of the hosting organization/corporation.

    And, while people like Corrina Gould are more than happy to take a check for their appearance, and play the part of a Tribal Chairperson; the real Indians–bona fide Native Americans–actual, self-respecting Indigenous People–will likely never respond to these invitations.

    Because Land Acknowledgements don’t mean shit to someone looking across the sea of pale faces who now occupy their tribal territory, destroy their tribal homelands, and want us to acknowledge that this land is stolen by the very same people who are giving us these false platitudes and empty promises.

    I mean… really… how do “well-meaning”, “progressive”, non-indigenous people manage to come up with more and more ritually ridiculous ways to re-traumatize a group of people they tried to murder, and wipe off the planet?

    And they think letting us tell them they’re thieving, murderous interlopers is doing us a favor? No, Land Acknowledgments are yet another song and dance indigenous people are being expected to perform (for free) to put white people at ease.

    The earliest examples of the Land Acknowledgment ritual goes back to Australia in the form of a “Welcome to Country” ritual, which is meant to put newcomers at ease, in order to form a friendly relationship between indigenous people, and their visitors, so mutually beneficial exchanges can begin between the two groups.

    [Read that as: Welcome to Country rituals were created by aboriginal people to appease white people, and put them at ease in order to foster an exploitive/extractive interaction which didn’t result in aboriginal people being massacred; yet. See also: Dear White People, and, What It Means to Be Unapologetically Black, to understand why “putting white people at ease” is even a thing.]

    Mind you, every interaction with white people during the “Discovery Era” was exploitive and extractive; and, of course, only benefitted the colonizer with free food, riches, labor, etc.

    It’s important to note the similarities between the intent of both Aboriginal Australians, and Indigenous, and First Peoples of the Americas, when meeting newcomers.

    In a very American context: Native Americans dancing exhibitions commonly occurred at Forts and Missions to appease visiting dignitaries and military officials; and were another way for indigenous people to ensure their ongoing survival. By making their captors look good in front of their superiors, and put white people at ease in doing so. [“Look how well he commands the savages under his control!”]

    Veritably, the white-washed version of the “discovery” and “founding” of America includes references to the “First Thanksgiving” as a celebration of how Native people “helped” white people to survive a place these Colonizers knew nothing about, and would have perished in, if left on their own.

    The clean, anesthetized, version of White History yields so many selfless examples of Indigenous generosity and kindness.

    And demonizes the audacity of indigenous people who object to the taking of their land, destruction of their resources, and kidnapping, enslavement and abuse, and murder, of their people.

    Such examples of White-Washed History include:
    • “The Indians gave us their food so we could live,”
    • “The Indians agreed to move off their land so we could build our cities,”
    • The Indians agreed that white people were superior, and decided to learn their language, religion, and culture, so they could finally abandon their dirty, heathenness savagery and live clean and pure, like God intended.

    It’s all so guilt free.

    White History carries with it a sense of smugness and blamelessness, which purports to release all white people, all colonizers (and their descendants), of the liability for their damages, ill-doings, and complicity, in what today are called War Crimes, and Crimes Against Humanity….

    And Land Acknowledgments are just another way to side step “all of that ugliness.”

    Using Indigenous People to perform Land Acknowledgments gives white people another way to avoid acknowledging the ugliness of their ancestors. Because it makes us apologize for them, for everything they did, including stealing our land.

    Even worse, Indigenous People giving Land Acknowledgments can sometimes give corporations and organizations the green light to continue desecrating sacred land, exploiting natural resources, and completely disregard indigenous people from that point on because we already apologized for them.

    And, even more worse than that: when indigenous people give headdresses out to people like The Pope: it really signals absolute forgiveness for something which white people haven’t even begun to admit to, much less atone for; and releases them from the burden of ever performing a genuine confession, reconciliation and/or atonement.

    Most of the time, Land Acknowledgments are used in the place of real soul-searching, and a meaningful truth and reconciliation process.

    When pressed, organizations will fess up pretty quickly:

    “We didn’t invite you here to acknowledge the wrong-doings of our ancestors, or the continuing injustices against Native Americans we commit, or are complicit in….

    “We really just wanted someone with shell jewelry and feathers to burn sage, give a blessing–and play the part of what we believe an idealized Native American should look like, so we can check that box on our Diversity Equity and Inclusion component for this year….

    “We didn’t actually mean to do any work.“

    But maybe you should do the work of making sure the tribe you contact is bona fide; making sure the money you donate actually benefits indigenous people; and making sure you understand that land acknowledgments are meaningless tokenization without true tribal benefits.

  • 99% of Alameda Museum’s Ohlone Artifacts Were Stolen from Native American Graves

    We’ve found a pattern of reckless and careless treatment of 100% of those stolen artifacts.

    The Alameda Museum has roughly 186 Native American Artifacts. All of those artifacts were found in connection with Native American Graves, except for 2.

    So, we can’t say ALL of the artifacts are grave goods. But we can say:

    99.93% of Alameda Museum’s Indigenous Artifacts are Stolen Burial Goods from Native American Graves all over the place we now call “Alameda.”

    Shellmounds are cemeteries, ancient structures, sacred sites, historical resources, and ancient structures built by the first inhabitants of this area, Ohlone people.

    Shellmounds are made rows of burials stacked vertically and alternately; covered with the shell-laden soil found along the San Francisco Bay Region’s shorelines.

    There were several excavations of the shellmounds of Alameda.

    Artifacts saved from excavations attended by professional and amateur anthropologists/archeologists were donated to both the Alameda Library, and the U.C. Berkeley Museum. [Some artifacts were notably kept by a City Engineer by the name of I.N. Chapman.]

    Alameda Free Library existed long before the historical Alameda Historical Society, or the Alameda Museum were ever founded.

    The Two Alameda Historical Societies

    To be clear about the two Alameda Historical Societies: one of these societies existed in the early 1900’s, and is mentioned in newspaper articles, as being interested in the early Alameda Free Library’s “Museum” in the Carnegie Library.

    The second iteration of the Alameda Historical Society started in the 1940’s, and was instrumental in moving the Museum from the basement of the Alameda Free Library, into the old Alameda High School Auto Shop in the 1980’s. And then, into the storefront of the Masonic Building, on Alameda Avenue–where it remains [“lies in state”?] today.

    Transfer of Artifacts & Records from Alameda Free Library to Alameda Museum

    All of these artifacts taken from the mounds were transferred from the Alameda Library to the Alameda Museum when the Museum moved into the old Alameda High School Auto Shop.

    Those artifacts weren’t the only things transferred to the Alameda Museum.

    At it’s inception, the Alameda Museum was designated as the Official City Repository for City Records, and the Records of the City of Alameda’s Departments, including (but not limited to,) Alameda’s Fire and Police Departments.

    I know this isn’t incredibly relevant, but it’s important to know this background information, especially when the Alameda Museum claims they don’t have stolen artifacts, or that the artifacts the museum displays aren’t Native American Grave Goods. You’ll know that 99.93% of artifacts in the Alameda Museum’s possession are Grave Goods because they were taken from the Alameda “mounds”, which are Native American Graves.

    Out of the approximately 186 Ohlone Artifacts in the possession of Alameda Museum, only two of them are unrelated to Native American Graves.

    The other 184 artifacts are directly attributed to the shellmounds of Alameda.

    What’s more: the Alameda Museum’s pattern of wanton “inattention”, and reckless disregard for these burial goods are clearly stated in the museum’s own records:

    History:

    Stone mortar and pestle found in one of Alameda’s mounds. The information on the pestle can be connected to a donation documented in the museum records: Subject: One Indian Mortar and Pestle. Date received: April 1954. Unfortunately, as a result of earlier inattention there is no further description, and as a result of later inattention during moves and minor catastrophes, it is not certain the mortar and pestles are together anymore, and the connection has been lost. Part of a collection of objects found in the largest Shellmound, also known as Sather’s Mound in Alameda, or smaller mounds. The excavations at Sather’s Mound were carried out in 1908 by Captain Clark, an amateur anthropologist. The items were donated to the Alameda Free Library, and passed on to the museum when the museum moved to a separate location. Date: April 1954 Mortar Acquired from: unknown Date: before 1991

    Condition:

    Notes: 6/30/2020 MvL: The label has suffered water damage when a pipe in the museum burst. Any accession numbering of the mortars and pestles was lost and has been redone.

    The above excerpt of an artifact’s description establishes the Alameda Museum’s pattern of careless disregard, and reckless neglect of Native American artifacts.

    Grave goods belong in graves; not museums.

    Mismanagement of Ohlone Artifacts by Alameda Museum:

    • Misidentified the tribe associated with these stolen Ohlone artifacts;
    • Mixed up mortars and pestles, (among other things) so they no longer match;
    • Lost records and identifying information about the stolen burial goods;
    • Carelessly and recklessly stored, handled, and moved Ohlone grave goods.

    This mismanagement, and noncompliance with their Service Provider Agreement with the City of Alameda; with the standards and practice of commensurate professionals and institutions engaged in the conservation and preservation of historical records and artifacts; and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA); has resulted in damage to these priceless, irreplacable artifacts, which the Alameda Museum possesses without permission, or right of ownership.

    This evidence of unreported and unclaimed, loss/damage to Ohlone grave goods; and the established pattern of careless and reckless neglect of Ohlone artifacts…

    Should be reason enough for the Alameda Museum to concede it cannot adequately care for any of the 186 Ohlone artifacts it possesses; and return them to the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area in the most expeditious way possible.