Talk:Ohlone/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Opening paragraph

The opening paragraph has many errors. I want to reduce it, eliminating errors. I would rather rewrite it, but I am far afield from my current tasks. I'll wait until Monday (2006/10/09) to do this. Any comments? -- meatclerk 21:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I also note I have two more section tonight. One more paragraph under Name and another under Population. -- meatclerk 22:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I did fixed intro up a little. Goldenrowley 23:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

SUGGESTED TO DO ITEMS

• As Graphic artist neaten up the "division section" to blend the table with the text below it I'll try. -- issue went away when the table was moved to populationGoldenrowley 15:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Connect (or even move) the new Language section to the Utian languages section that already exists.
• Ohlone Mythology. Does anyone want to write a full article? If not I'll at least start a stub.
• Meatclerk's list of 50 potential topics can be carried forward and sorted...Done 10/7/06

Goldenrowley 22:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm reorganizing the outline as follows for better readibility, with less overlapping of sections. Goldenrowley 03:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Contents [hide] Contents [hide]

• 1 Description
• 2 Divisions
• 2.1 Villages and Tribes
• 3 Population
• 4 Mythology
• 5 Etymology
• 5.1 Languages
• 5.2 Words
• 6 History
• 7 Notable Ohlone People
• 8 See also
• 9 Notes
• 10 References
• 11 External links

---

Goldenrowley, thank you for your work today. But as you might note, here are my thoughts. As I originally left the article, under the section Names, please take note:

• The first sentence discusses "tribes, villages, languages and selected words". The next header, lower in order, is Tribe, followed by villages, etc.

• • I am copy editing right now. Admittedly I have trouble understand the first draft of the sentence: "Lists of names available are for tribes (bands), villages (also known as rancherias or triblets[3]), languages (as assign by ethnolinguists), and selected words from the language. " I deleted rancherias, I changed triblets to tribelets. Does "selected words" mean symbolic words? I am also searching for a better title to the section rather than "Names" or "Etymology" -- how about "Ethno-lingual Research ? ? Goldenrowley 01:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• The second sentence discusses spelling and pronuncations, which are covered in paragraph #2 and #3.
• The third and fourth sentence discusses ethnoists issues, which is to be the missing paragraph #4.

• Ethnoists: Since it discusses the historians of the California Indians, it might almost be a new article that all 50 California India pages can link to, rather than only on the Ohlone Page ?Goldenrowley 01:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This is generally my writing style. Work from general to specific, leaving details in footnotes, not as adjuncts to the sentence.

• I agree, my style as well. Goldenrowley 01:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a complaint; just a note such that you might see my style. To that, in my mind the constant errors, or should I say disagreements between ethnoists, makes our job interesting - to say the least. I hold no religion in this writing; it is a smaller section to the aforemention salmon.

I recognize we are working sometimes at odds, but I also note we are generally heading in the same direction. Specifically, I would like to see the sections Etymology higher up, or perhaps mentioned in the opening paragraph. This being one of the reason I outlined the previous 30, or so, odd topics. Specifically, the language, or lack thereof for the Ohlone, has created confusion in their understanding. Add to that the egos of others which give us multiple spellings for the same name.

Two minor points: 1) you are using a passive tense, such as The native people were described vs. active The native people are described. This conflicts with my style as well. But this is easy to resolve. 2) the reference for ranchos and "Mexican land grants" are not the same. Ranchos, as we know them, were assign from the treaty. "Mexican land grants" is the subject of many essays, very tedious, but one I will write.

Your comments most welcome. --meatclerk 05:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean I am using the Past tense (sorry-- can't stop being an English major). Yes when it's in the past, generally in the history section, I'd stick with past tense. If Alta California's section on land grants did not link to the right thing, its okay to remove, generally the link project people like us to link articles together... when possible. As for where language goes, I feel history and divisions and description are the basics, I would like to see history higher to tell the truth. I think the 5 W's should be first (who, what, where, why, then detailed discussion next). I was going to suggest looking at getting meatclerk involved on the bio of Kroeber page with some of your research. Goldenrowley 15:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Selected words, are words I choose out of those on the list.

Sorry I meant active voice. As for writing history, since it is history, it won't change. This is a common business writing style. For instance you would say, "We use blue steel", vs. "We used blue steel". The former is active, the later is passive.

On linking projects, ususally I work Wikipedia:Orphaned_Articles, but I'm taking a month of to update and cleanup articles, like this one. :-)

As for writing stuff on Kroeber, while my opinion is what it is. I don't feel comfortable writing on unfamilar authors. -- meatclerk 08:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Evolutionary state of Costanoan

Sorry Bruce, but I thought I needed to make this clear. Technically, the Costanoan are not hunter-gathers. This definition is being seperated, likely as I write this, to proto-farmers. The evidence on this is that many so-called "stone-age" people that were living then, now are highlighted as proto-farmers becuase they would burn "open fields" to promote seed growth. Certainly, this was the case with the Costanoans. Travelers accounts, as well as missionary accounts show this. Also were confrontation between Spainards and Indians.

In one noted case, a cow had wandered onto an open pasture. The Indians seeing it as an encrochment on to thier territory, killed the cow and proceeded to eat it. The soilders saw it as thievery. The Spanish response was to imprison(sp?) the natives and whip them. The Missionaries later realized this and boundaries were set up for settlers, converted indians and unconverted indians. To this day the reservations, in part, acknowledges this need for land.

On other matters, I'm sorry I won't converse much over the next week, but the rain has started and I'm stuck inside, and that means I'm concentration on organizing my records. There are 5 more used books on indians I am picking up today, all on California indians from several authors - Bean and Whipple noted amoung them. -- meatclerk 17:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I should also note I am tired. -- meatclerk 17:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

(Not a big thing worth fighting about)smile, but might the concept of proto-farmer be akin to WP:NOR? I step back and see the gathering of acorns, and the giant shell middens, and that looks a lot like a 'gathering' economy. Reading the hunter-gatherer article I see a lot of wiggle room and it could be inclusive of some 'proto-farming'...? BruceHallman 18:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

On proto-farming, they subject is still being hashed out by ethnoist (et al). So yes I believe that it would be WP:NOR if we added that as a description. But also, Wikipedia:The perfect article has the notion of WP:NPOV. In that, I cannot (yet) present both points of view, niether is there an article to assist us in that. Niether on the web, nor on wikipedia. Likely, there are a few books, but I would stray far from my work to do this. Hence, the shallow decision to not mention it at this time becomes my logisitical choice.

What about adding the word fishing? I would be surprised if they did not live off the yummy sea food in the bay Goldenrowley 19:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

On fishing and aquaculture you can expect a complete and thourgh (sp?) article from me.. Geehzz I'm tired. I also have a meeting for the RWC Archive Comittee at 2pm today. -- meatclerk 20:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents/Outlining

This section begun by Goldenrowley 04:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC) but is editable/negotiable by you (other editors). Your opinion Counts! Here are all Proposed topics from the 001 list: I've started them out by suggesting what section the topic belongs under if added to the article. This would be only a very preliminary checkoff list to remember suggested topics. These topics might be one sentence to paragraphs. As items are covered please remove to bottom of this list between the 's' marks:

Description Section:

1. burial, cremations, etc., # dances, # pictures of, # surround hunt, # Sweat houses, # trails, # weapons, # women, # basket made by (image of), # minerals (book?), # as guides (?what kind of guides?), #fishing

History Section:

1. horse and cattle thieves, # battles with (see MIlliken, regarding Suisunes/Saclan/Carquin), # expeditions against (see Milliken, Suisunes)

Mythology Section:

1. beleifs of ("World Order" or "World View" as suggested title), # medicines and medicine men, # ceremony, myths and religion (expand)

Modern or Current Affairs Section:

1. legislation concerning, # reservations,

striking topics as not applicable to Ohlone: # in the mines, # salt journey, # treaties, # as witnesses

Topics already finished/covered: # appearance and dress, # boats, # dwellings,# employment of, # foods, # rancherias or villages, # sickness among, #servants, # tribes and groups, # language. # mounds made by, attacks and uprisings,

Outline end by end day 10/6/07

Contents as of 10/6/07

• 1 Description
• 2 History
• 2.1 The Mission Era
• 2.2 Secularization and Survival
• 3 Divisions
• 3.1 Villages and Tribes
• 4 Population
• 5 Mythology
• 6 Etymology <== comparison to other pages, this word is commonly used at WIKIPEDIA Goldenrowley 05:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 6.1 Old Place Names - I also was thinking of "Obscured Place Names"
  • 6.2 Spelling and Pronounciation
  • 6.3 Ethnoist Issues - I also was thinking of "Interpretation" or "Mis-Interpretation"
• 7 Languages **
  • 7.1 Ohlonean Words
• 8 Notable Ohlone People
• 9 See also
• 10 Notes
• 11 References
• 12 External links

One concern - Shouldn't Language and words go on the Utian languages or Costanoan language page? See Karkin language for example - If Karkin get their own page for language what about the other divisions...

Your thoughts. Goldenrowley 05:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I need to be upfront on this point, as its getting lost. The largest problem for communications about the Ohlone is the language and words. We have none, and their is no one to tell us about them. The problem is compounded by looking at original historic records. Wheter the record is a mission baptismal (sp?) record, or a field note from Merriam himself.

Since the Ohlone had no written language we have made one up. Worst every person that has worked on this has made one up. So, we have not only 6 to 8 spellings for olhone, but two or three for each village. Then possibly 5-6 for each object, like salmon.

We might ask if we can get a convention on this. We do, Milliken is one of three books, Teixeira is another, Bean's The Ohlone, Past and Present; Native Americans of the San Francisco Bay Area (c) 1994 ISBN 0-87919-130-9 is the last. After that, most literature is either research (Cook, Heizer) or classic writings (Bancroft, Kroeber, Merriam).

In short, pointing out the language barrier early will allow us to flex the article more. Order, in this case, can be anything. But failing to point out the many and varied research tools will make section contradict each other.

The reason I am stressing this so strongly is that the more I look, the larger of a mess I see. If the reader gets the same sense of confusion, as I do researching this, then they will give up early. On that, I dragged myself into this, so I can complain to no one. Is this better? -- meatclerk 08:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I think I understand your point of view but having researched genealogy for many years I sort of take it for granted how many different spellings in English they used to use for just ONE surname in the 1700s-1900s, and how many SURPRISES history has in store for us, so I was not discouraged if I keep seeing for example Tamyen/Tamien, I was ready to take it in stride that no one spelled the tribes consistently, and that the meanings are somewhat unclear. I think its already clear by the article that the subject is complicated and their way of life is largely lost to us, but perhaps a sentence like this will drive home your point: "It is very hard to reconstruct in modern words the Ohlone's world, once relocated into the missions, their lives were recorded for the first time, but their cultural memory of their history and former lifestyle was lost in translation, and their language became extinct." <-- That's attempt at trying to put a nutshell sentence for the article Goldenrowley 17:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

In review of everything so far, I think I will just let you continue. You know the stuff I have and I will continue reading. Your writing seems to be better than mine, except I might have different opening paragraphs. Even so, I will wait until you are done, read, make additions, correction, etc, then we can move from there. If anything looks majorly wrong, I will let you know. Does this sound good? Is majorly poor english, like swell? -- meatclerk 05:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

J, I am starting to like this page, it's sounding much more intelligent. I'll keep working in my spare time. I am waiting for my final sources to arrive. I like to expand on the description and mythology section a little further. I'd like to suggest to you that the very NICE word table might need a footnote on what language you translated (there are 6-8 right?) thanks for your hard research and sources and scans Goldenrowley 05:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Evolutionary state of Ohlone

I thougth it would be good to get some notes on this issue, even though we may not resolve it. Currently we have hunter-gatherer, proto-farmer or hunter-harvester. The complete notes will be done on Wens or Thurs with all the pluses and minuses on each. -- meatclerk 06:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

hunter-gatherer meets WP:V, the other two seem like they violate WP:NOR BruceHallman 20:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

More reading completed. They did hunt and gather plus netted ducks and geese and fish, and lampooned fish and trapped them. I've seen several books mention "acorn crops" but I've seen no other mention of "crops". One book says that acorns were actually a smart way to go, far less labor intensive than farming, grinding acorns is nothing compared to the labor to farm and do the planting. The people knew the best places for food during the year, they knew the seasonal runs of ducks, paths of geese paths and fish. Goldenrowley 07:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a note to let you know I am done with the note for hunter-gather vs. others. Tonight I am working on my version of wikipedia, alias wikitype, and the notes for this will be available later tomorrow. Right now I am a bit tired, but plan on finishing up before 1am. Tomorrow last day off, then my brother is in town, so that cuts into this. In any case, the notes should be available tomorrow some time, with some luck. --meatclerk 06:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. The notes are done. I should do one (1) more revision to check for errors, but I think I am done. The notes can be transfered to wikipedia, if need be, but the last few pages I simply scanned, as the matter seem relevant. This pagelink should provide sufficent material without explaination, but let me know eithe way. http://www.didgood.com/wikitype/hunter-gatherer/ --meatclerk 09:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

10-11-06 revisited

The populations from 1770 to 1920 will be revisited and checked, as soon as I go to the library tomorrow. I don't think we should mention Ishi as he's not an Ohlone (so his life is not the subject) and it seems conjectural that his being the "last Indian" changed the course of the research of the Ohlone people by triggering all sort of jealousy . Any news or progress on hunter gathering sources and other topics? Goldenrowley 04:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

• Guys, what happened to the footnotes, etc.? never mind
• Population is subjective. There were no censustakers, so numbers are a sophisticated guessing game.
  • • But USA took census from 1790 to 1880.... I'm looking for that data sort of.Goldenrowley 18:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
      • For census, the earliest I have been able to find is a 1850 USA count. I don't recall where it is, most likely Cook. The missions were offically "secularized" in 1834, I think. Therefore mission counts may be available via reports to the Viceroy of Mexico. However, I don't recall exactly why everyone was using mission records. There may not be exact numbers, if any. If this is helpful, can we start a new thread. This is getting confusing. --meatclerk 00:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Ishi is not "last indian", by any means. But I think you are right. We need to leave him out for now. There is likely a paper on that somewhere, but I'm not going to follow that up right now.
• hunter-gather -> wed or thurs, like I said. --meatclerk 07:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • • Nice notes ! Goldenrowley 18:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• I changed the former Old Place names to Old Names to avoid term confusion, although I am not crazy about the later either. -- meatclerk 09:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It looks like "old names" is touching upon Historical linguistics or else Sociolinguistics ... as an idea for topic title.... Goldenrowley 01:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • • We should pass on renaming that topic for now. --meatclerk 00:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Milliken

Milliken has a nice book with great points and great list of tribes at the back. I'll be adding a book report to the talk section, after gathering my thoughts. I think the article should definitely mention the wave of conversions in 1795, and then what happened afterward. To answer one of the earliest questions I can agree, as has been suggested in archoves 001 to standarize the spelling in the article by Milliken with a footnote. If all agree it can be one of the things we can do. Goldenrowley 20:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Oct 13-15

J, Nice harvestor research ..and source gathering. Well my feeling is its published so its not breaking the original research rule. I'd link to go back to having the link to hunter-gatherer and add the additional research right after. I think it would be very interesting to place 1-2 sentence quote in the article from one of these sources. I think the article on hunter-gatherer page is a good one, it says that it is not exclusive. I also read the women planted or kept fields of grass seeds, had a run in with the settlers over whose grass it was... Goldenrowley 03:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say that the Costanoan languages were all just dialects of one 'Costanoan language'. While the different Costanoan languages were similar, they were in fact different languages. Chocheño, Mutsun, and Rumsen are the best-documented Costanoan languages, and it's clear they were quite distinct. Karkin, Santa Cruz and Soledad are much more poorly documented, but they look quite distinct as well. The only cluster of dialects one could posit are Chocheño and the dialects of Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco Counties, which might have been dialects of one language. The various articles of Catherine Callaghan in the International Journal of American Linguistics over the past 20 years are a good source for this. -Anon., Oct. 14 2006

Anon, you might be right, I am not at all qualified on linguistics, I just quoted Milliken otherwise don't feel educated enough to help with that section. I am now hestitant to make sweeping changes to spelling in this article to match Milliken. Even he didn't say it was definite! Maybe we should just put his spellings in parenthesis. Goldenrowley 21:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

hmm, can't find my Teixeira book. In any case, the (anno.) person making the claim may be correct. However, to make the change as suggested the person would need to make an citation. As we are citing all our sources then there is no doubt about their origins. This is not about right or wrong, unfortunately. Per the concensus by which wikipedia runs, the person making the claim may either make the correction with citation, or wait for us to get to it. I've already tagged the article as inaccurate and the noted suggestion is one of many items to be looked at. --meatclerk 05:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Alternate spellings

Unless anyone disagrees, I will proceed to add Milliken spellings as alternative spellings for tribelets, and a parenthesis that spellings are given to the best of our ability (I can quote Milliken exactly on that and cite him) Goldenrowley 16:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Goldenrowley, I've been giving this some thought. It would seem that we may have many alternate spellings for any given word. My thought would be to create a seperate article, or list, for these words. The header might look like this:

word as listed in articles	Milliken	Merriam	Mission spellings
Ohlone	Ojlon	Ahlone	Alonee, Ojlone, etc.

The above table is just and idea. The listing is possibly inaccurate. Nonetheless, this was a point I was trying to make earlier, about concensus on spelling. (See Talk:Ohlone/Archive_001#Did_not_act_jointly.3F bullet #4) Anyhow, a single alternate spelling, I believe, would be misleading.

To fix this and other issues I am rewriting the first paragraph - now. -- meatclerk 18:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I have just the right Milliken quote to make the spelling is hard to know point without it sounding like "we could not figure it out". Perhaps at the end of the Intro, but it's at home, will add it tonight. I was also thinking similarly on the list of tribes to turn each into a bullet point, we're on the same page there. This was my idea before I saw your table idea:

• Ohlone (also spelled Ahlone, Ojlone)
• Bohlone (also spelled Balone...)

I am not sure if I like a table better its certainly clearer but may be a full page or more... Goldenrowley 20:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

One way to deal with it is to write a seperate article, as a list. Here is an example. I just added List of California rivers to [[1]]. --meatclerk 21:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, Take a look at all the tribes I added tonight with Locations. I used the phrase "Please note these are standand modernized spellings of tribal names, other spellings exist". I LIKE your table idea on a new page idea as a "supplementary" page it would be "nice to have" but not "necessary" in my opinion. It would be highly detailed information to the average reader. 03:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wave in 1795

Bruce, a really big migration wave was in 1795 (1 year), and it caused a big repurcussion that year... since I researched it, I'll try to get the exact citation tonight. Goldenrowley 21:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

New Intro

The intro does not make sense with today's revision, all of a sudden says that Costenos is English misspelling for Ohlone. I liked the old intro much better? Goldenrowley 23:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to double check all my references. Unfortunately, I can't find my Teixeira. -- meatclerk 01:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Costanos is the mis-spelling of Costeños. The correct spanish spelling is Conseños. My reference(Brown/1973-74) says as much. In addition, I checked with my mother. She is a certified Spanish to English interpreter. It has an e in it, not the american a.

Bruce, 1300 years is an interesting number. Today is the first time I've seen that. Do you have a citation? --meatclerk 01:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't question the spelling it's the grammar. I'll fix it. what did you need me to loook up in Teix, I've got it right here. Goldenrowley 03:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

On Teix, you fixed it already. Thanks --meatclerk 06:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I put the Intro in historical order it was kind of jumpy after the technical edits. I also added a huge list of tribal names and locations. I ran out of time to add a harvester quote tonight but left a placeholder for it. I plan to double check 1795 was the big year tomorrow, as well as add the measles epidemic. Goldenrowley 06:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

-Is the language called Costanoan or Ohlonean ? Or both. Goldenrowley 16:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Niether. Costanoan is the english for the spanish Costeños (coastal people). Ohlonean is something Merriam made up, as you noted.

Note, if you are from America, then you are an AmericAN. If from Texas, Texan. Get it?

Linguist use the term Utian. Note the an and the end of the word. Does this help? --meatclerk 05:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

-FYI, Lamchin page linked to this page has been marked needs "cleanup" for the past year... if anyone is so inclined to help it. Goldenrowley 20:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll take Lamchin. I think Bruce will take the Northern Peninsula. --meatclerk 05:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Language section

I flagged the Merriam Ohlonean sentence - page 40 of Teixeiria On the same page says Merriam made up the word Ohlonean for the language, it also says he had not training in Linguistics and seems to suggest it is a code name for "Costanoan/Ohlone". O think everyone else is using Costanoan.

....Guess what I got a Robot message tonight that the page is "longer than suggested" and suggesting that we break it down....would we care to move something to a subpage ? If so, what? I'd think move the Language discussions because its standard for language to have its own page and also you could use that neat language table idea. Goldenrowley 05:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggest we break out, History, Language and Villages. I have two history sections to add, pre-history (covers back to last ice-age) and Early Contact (before 1769 Missionary arrivals).

On language, I would like to add more stuff. Like the fact that they could communicate with other indians. It seems two (or three) Baja California Indians came with the Missionaries. There is also lots of references to hand signals to communicate. For instance, many times a missionary will say, "We were made to understand by signals that (such and such) was (ahead, or going on.., etc)."

On Villages, Brown has a larger list than Milliken. And more precise locations. Note that Brown did Name Places of San Mateo County, so he has a direct relationship. Whereas, Milliken must work without that knowledge - or local history information. My guess is that on the East, South and North Bay local historians have done the same. As such, we need to leave room for them to expand.

--meatclerk 05:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Tonight's work

I rewrote Lamchin and tagged it stub. It should be enough for now.

On village names, I'll wait until I re-read the entire article. Possibly Thurs. --meatclerk 08:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A quick read finds numerous errors. I can state plainly you are using much uncited material from the original article. While it looks attractive, it's in accurate. One of many examples is "these people had over 40 different tribal names". You might note the as you are adding village names, you are "well over 40". You might also look at Milliken pg. 228-229, a count there seems to be "well over 40"

I am repeating this to note you are quoting from the original article, again it was inaccurate. --meatclerk 08:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean 'I am using much uncited materals' all the tribe names I added came from Millikan (cited), the illness and harvesting material from sources (cited). The only thing I added back from the article was over 40 tribes because I've seen several of our sources say over 40 tribes, but we've also got one footnote of someone who said over 50. We can also count the ones found so far, I don't mind doing a higher count.

I like breaking out the Costanoan Language idea very much. It just will need a little careful wording so not overlap the Utian Language page, which I have been in my mind brainstorming how to do it. Utian page will be like the language Index.... Goldenrowley 15:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Durning my eulogy, if they have one, I would like them to say on my behalf, "Be kind, fix my errors." I say this becuase I note the many errors that historians have made. I believe they all worked in good faith, to do the best work they could. I have even changed my mind about A. L. Kroeber.

To assist us, I have added numbers to the village list. --meatclerk 17:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Note I could not verify all the villages on the list -- the ones without a location or <!> on the locations are the ones that were there already, but I could not find them in Milliken. Note in the intro, an "over XXX number" statement keeps us from having to count every time more tribes are proved.Goldenrowley 17:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In keeping with, general to specific it should be remove, and the count not made. --meatclerk 20:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I have to say in this case, I disagree. Saying over 50 tribal names is very general, but also gives the Intro a little more interest and meat to people, an idea of what sort of size/complexity they are dealing with that their history teachers once glossed over (as mine did). Journalistic writing guides me to say who, what, where, why and HOW MANY in the introduction. I think spelling and Anglicization is not intro material, UNLESS we explain it Because there are OVER 50 names. Goldenrowley 02:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I was thinking the same thing today on my way to the library. I agree that the "glossed-over portion", all too common, should be avoided. On that note, I also agree that the over-emphasis on "spelling and Anglicization" is not intro. I think this is the reason, I did not like my original re-write.

Before we re-write it again, let's do it on a scratchpad. You'll note that the link on the left is the same as the one at the top of the page. We'll use your idea, unless Bruce has a different take on this. In any case, I think we all can agree my re-write is not "good enough". --meatclerk 07:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned before I liked the previous intro which already had the finished links, we did not have to recreate it just fix whatever was wrong. Maybe I'll copy the one I liked the best to the scratchpad as one of the options (later, I am at work). Goldenrowley 16:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Tribelet/Village Filling

I've decide to create a general stub for all the Triblet and Villages, south of San Mateo to south the county line (San Franquito Creek). I'm not really happy with what I did for Lamchin. As such, today I'll make some time to do something. Likely about 4-6 sentences, whatever I can get from Brown and Milliken.

Comments please. --meatclerk 21:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This web presence may be of use as a resource. BruceHallman 21:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think some of the villages were 100 people or less, might not be important enough for an article apiece will be "notability" flagged. But we could creating a bunch of redirects to our page so people looking up a tribe will be directed to the page magically. And/Or I can see a page with a table listing all the villages and locations starting with the list we began. Is that what you're thinking? That's what I am thinkng. Goldenrowley 22:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for touching Lamchin I've tweaked a few of the other links. As soon as I know the final direction for languages we're going, I'll volunteer to tweak Utian as the language index. Its the one page shared with the Miwok. I am moving Sierra Miwok language to its own page soon. Goldenrowley 23:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

On my own page I was brainstorming a village table idea instead of a bullet list, here's the example:

Tribes and Villages according to Milliken unless noted*

Tribes according to Milliken	Also known as...	Original Location	Known subgroups
Achista	-	Santa Cruz Mountains, Present-day Boulder Creek and Riverside Grove	tentatively includes Acsaggis
Alson	-	low marshlands at sourthern end of San Francisco Bay	-
Altahmo, Altagmu	-	* see Ssalson	-
Aleitac	-	* see Ssalson	-

Do you guys prefer villages the bullet list or in "more graphic designed" table ? Let me know, I am just tossing out some formatting ideas. Goldenrowley 03:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok to get the conversation going: The benefit of a table is how easy to read. The downfall is its hard to edit and change. Because we will be changing for a while, I'd like to stick with the bullet list. I like Bruce's ideas of doing sub bullets but everything else should be alphabetical to be neutral. Goldenrowley 16:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetical is too abstract considering that the goal should be to bring a better understanding for the typical reader. Instead, I suggest that we first sort by major dialect, that is top level sorting by: Karkin, Chocheño, Ramaytush, Tamyen, Awaswas, Mutsun, Rumsen and Chalon with a sub-bullet for each village within the dialect (being then sorted alphabetically within the dialect). BruceHallman 16:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this makes more sense for what I imagine to be the most common reader, that is: a child doing a research paper about the Indians indigineous to their city or locality. A child from San Jose, CA would want to know about Tamyen villages more than about Ramaytush villages. BruceHallman 16:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This same thought could also work with the tables. My main thought is that top level grouping by dialectic group makes sense. BruceHallman 16:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bruce! I was almost afraid someone was going to say that... its a GREAT idea if someone has a source for the language of each tribe, which I do not. If so, we can do 3 levels of bullets: Level 1 The language divisions, Level 2 tribe& village (alphabetical), Level 3 several villages of each tribe (if applicable).

Sometimes I wish I could read Spanish and work from the source Mission records. Milliken is probably the best source. Unfortunately, some villiges in the list will be of unknown dialect, and probably should be labeled 'unknown' or <!--hidden--> . BruceHallman 17:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I started this list a week or so ago, but quickly got stuck because I too lacked a 'source for the language of each tribe'. BruceHallman 18:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I like Bruce's idea on the breakdown, but note that we may have some issue. (More on that in a bit) Following Bruce's idea, I think we do need to make it more attractive and relateable(sp?) to readers. For instance, village and city should next to each other - alternate spelling could be on a seperate table, or even a different page(article). I have plenty of Place Name books so that we could get a direct relation. For instance, I think kids could relate to something like what I put in Lamchin (main village directly south of Downtown, but could be about 100 yards for high school - need check.) In Redwood City, the Puichon, as decribed by Brown would be between Woodside Road an Jefferson Ave, but I could add to that somewhere near the present Wendy's Resturant, or across from the McDonald's on Main St. Both are correct with current locations.

I should note I speak Spanish and read it, but can't write (pity).

On layout, I agree the table will be cumbersome until we are done, and perhaps we take into account maintaince.

Thank all for your input I will try to take all into consideration as I work on village lists. Milliken says he can't say exactly where the tribes come from I've tried to quote any location markers he mentioned. He indicates poor record keeping about the first converts. I will be able to improve the list, but not to the level of detail wished. Goldenrowley 02:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ohlone Arrival in Bay Area

On the number I removed "1300 years since ohlone arrived in the Bay Area". I see the number now in Teixeira (she gets from Levy), but it is way off. The shell mounds date back 3-4k years. But I must say, she is a librarian and not a historian, so likely she is not looking for that numbers, as I am. The number I have comes from carbon dating. Then again the number could be in dispute.

--meatclerk 18:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought the Ohlone moved here circa 500 AD, displacing an earlier Hokan people. 1800-500 = 1,300 years. The shell mounds date from the pre-Ohlone period. BruceHallman 20:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry help me out here isn't it year 2006. So 2006-500 = 1506 years. Isn't that how you do it? Ok if true, What about saying circa 500 AD with a link to 500 AD. I could not figure out how to make the Village table in two columns without restarting numbering the way it does. Goldenrowley 20:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The math is arbitrary, but the Ohlone period started and ended at some date. I rounded off to 1800, but perhaps 1850 is better? I argue that 2006 is too late to be considered the Ohlone period. I think it accurate and helpful to say that the Ohlone lived in this region for X number of years. X = 1,300 or x = 1,350 BruceHallman 21:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

My thought would be the numbers are something we could present in the context, as perhaps:

• The ancestors of the Costanoan/Ohlone people originally (...) <ref>Teixeira</ref>
• Shell mounds date back about 3000-4000 years (...) <ref>La Peninsula</ref>
• Carbon-14 has dated some material back 10,000 years (...) <ref>USGS Report</ref>

--meatclerk 21:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well not wanting to redo the wheel, the history section already presents most of this as follows, as well as links to the Emeryville Mound page already: "Some archeologists suggest that these people migrated from the San Joaquin-Sacramento River system and arrived into the San Francisco and Monterey Bay Area about 500 A.D., displacing or assimilating earlier Hokan-speaking populations of which the Esselen in the south represent a survival.[1] Recent carbon datings of shell mounds in Newark and Emeryville suggest the villages on these locations were established three to four thousand years ago." Goldenrowley 22:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Bruce, OH I get it, you were suggesting labelling an OHLONE ERA. I just was reading your idea wrong....if anything their lives changed in 1769 with the introduction of the Mission Era, or in 1794/1795 when most moved into the Missions, essentially when turning over their land to the Spanish, it was not their land or Era anymore. I would not say they stopped living here. They still live in this region I'd count the past 200 years as barely hanging on but still here. ! Goldenrowley 22:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I note the History section has the needed material. I was just stating that the citations on some of that information is available. Seperately, I have material on pre-mission contact with the natives, but that will wait until I have it completed. We have enough irons in the fire. --meatclerk 22:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok phew I thought for a moment we were talking about a rewrite. Bruce how about a sentence that says something like: the region was predominately occupied by Ohlones for 1300 years from 500 AD to 1800. Goldenrowley 23:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Breakthrough Idea ! I can't sort the villages by the language .... but I can sort by regions! and then let others identify the languages (somehow). I think this will at least do what Bruce suggested for the school children. I had also imagined school children, its one of the reasons I am here by the way.Goldenrowley 02:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Table of the Main Divisions

I took this table out of Population, why use it "it is not supported by others"? However I am imagining using the table design (without the population column) in anothr way, namely as the start of a "template" or Index at the bottom of all Ohlone pages Goldenrowley 06:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

Note: Cartier does not agree with Cook's calculations in Book 2... not even close

Ohlone Subgroups in 1770 estimated by Cartier.

Subgroups	Location	Est.Population
Karkin	South edge of Carquinez Strait	200
Chocheño	East side of San Francisco Bay	2,000
Ramaytush	San Mateo and San Francisco Counties	1,400
Tamyen	Southwest side San Francisco Bay and Santa Clara Valley	1,200
Awaswas	From Davenport to Aptos in Santa Cruz Co.	600
Mutsun	Pajaro River, San Benito River and San Felipe Creek	2,700
Rumsen	Salinas, Lower Carmel and Sur Rivers	800
Chalon	Upper Salinas drainage	900

Note: These population counts by Cartier are not supported by other anthropologists (are not confirmed facts).

You imagine using this how?

BTW, here is the new stub --meatclerk 08:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Its time to roll the index idea out (give me an hour).

OK Here. I am trying to change the stupid Pink to a nice earthY colors at the moment but its ready:

• How to use: type {{Ohlone}} at the bottom of each Ohlone page.

Is triblet a word?? (missing e, right?) Goldenrowley 18:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

On the index box {{Ohlone}}, I'm not sure that it deserves a box, or article. I do see the lanuage divisions now (Teixiera, Milliken, etc.) and how they relate, but I still have not read the article, fully. I'm just cleaning up my stuff. However, I do see it is redundant. One in Division one at the bottom. Division is the artifical boundary, why is it important? Perhaps for some paper, but not to the average reader. Again, I have not read the entire article.

On that, for the final article (or as close as we will get to it), as examples look at Boston, Massachusetts, San Jose, California and Pakistan. They were all featured pages and you can see the bronze star on the upper right-hand side. We are describing a culture, a country, cities, etc. Therefore, the main article, Ohlone, should be the country, so to speak, then the villages, history and culture seperately, with summary in the main, as most have them.

Its an index navigation table, like other navigation tables we do need one naviagational menu with the multipage index like that. I chose a table developed in the article and added standard index things. If the myth page ever gets written I'll change the link to Coyote to link to Ohlone mythology. By the way I am seeing that these language divisions or dialects sort of overlap modern county boundaries, but are a little more natural/organic than straight lines. On the right side I used an "Info Ethnic Box" because that is what the Native American Project page recommends to use in place of a "Geographic" or "County" box. Goldenrowley 19:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Triblet, we just add it to wikitionary.org, like any other word. It has a meaning and definition, as Cook gave it to us. We could footnote it, but that would mean repeating the footnote dozens of times. It certainly does not have enough material to be an article. Any suggestion on this?

I never did that before, it would be a great idea... but are you sure it is not spelled tribelet with an "e"? Per the footnote and the books I see an "e". Goldenrowley 19:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What is a Costanoan/Ohlone?

It occured to me that the map we have been using is incorrect. I note that many references say "Costanoan/Ohlone, a linguist group ...", but the term has wider meaning now. As such, here is a partial redefinition.

• The Ohlone (also known as the Costanoan) refers to a group of Native Americans who have resided in what is now southern Marin County, the San Francisco Bay Area and Monterey Bay areas of California.

I say this because a few references used to have Coastal Miwok as Costanoan, but Milliken does not. Meaning that the linguistics reference has changed. However, the issue of the Mission Indians gets muddy now, because about 1810 Mission Dolores was sending their natives to Marin to recover from diseases. Likely, any surviving peninsula and east bay natives went there.

Now add to that the confusion of the 1840s. If any survived on the peninsula, of which evidence there is (Brown,1974 says 37 in 1822), and then the government calling calling them Costanoan until 1930s(Teixeira,1997 pg. 4), then their might be an issue. However, we could resolve this issue many ways. I.E. the latest Bureau of Entomology definition, or agree on a standard text, or make a reference to it in the article.. AnyHOW......

In any case, I would like to put this under the heading of "unresolved issues" and get back to it next month. The "history tab" says I have been at this since Oct 5, so I need to get back to the other articles. This means I need to finish everything started and put all new issues under the heading "unresolved issues". If you guys are good with that, then I will put this and several other issues in that file/subpage. Comments? --meatclerk 08:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok of course you may step away as needed. Personally I will try to put this and the subpages into a finished template format before stopping. On redefining this page to cover all the Indians in the Bay Area, including North Bay Miwok, sorry but I do not agree, stick with the definition we have researched and found, the article is based on the Costanoan region and language group with 8 divisions, and they are not the only Bay Area language group, have to share the Bay with Miwok and Patwin people. Ohlone seems to be more of a current "renaming" process, etc, but some of the the Muwekma want to be called Muwekma instewad, etc. Not mentioned but one of our link says the Native Muwekma are looking for tribal recognition. Goldenrowley 18:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think there is reason for this. But let's just put it on the "unresolved issues" and get to it next year, maybe. --meatclerk 05:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok I hope you guys like the page design and colors selected, I tried to stay with earth and golden colors. Goldenrowley 03:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Colors are fine. --meatclerk 05:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Language Taxobox

Truthfully, I did not get it. So, from Utian I followed the first external link. The language thing makes sense now. It looks like this:

• Penutian
  • Yok-utian
    • Utian
      • Costanoan
        • Southern
        • North Bay
        • Karkin
      • Miwok
        • Eastern
        • Western
        • Sierra

Apparently, to confuse us, they are using tribe/tribelet names as language names. Maybe we should use this, on the main page; or language section at least.

On that, we should explain, there may be confusion: Some tribelets have been lumped into language groups, but they seem to share not political affiliation. In example, Karkin was a tribelet and a language group. Rumsen was also. Lumchin was a triblet in the sub-dialect Ramaytush.

All previous were of language group Penutian and subgroup Utian.

It's messy and uglier becuase the language is extincted.

Who is they? I've been using Utian_languages strictly by the book and linking each "language" to it. List of Ohlone villages is now "designed" and sorted into regions, what a difference. Karkin are special from everything that I read it did everything. I have yet to find a Rumsen village, took it off the village list. Goldenrowley 09:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"They" is the linguists. It is not clear in the section "Division", nor is it clear in anything I read about the "Divisions". All that is said is "there are divisions". The fact that some divisions are tribe names, and some are (perhaps) made up confuses things. Sure, for a linguists trying to get a sense of origin, then it makes senses. But unless that is said, it makes no sense.

On Rumsen, they are possibly Esselan area, but I can't say for sure. Rumsen is in Teixiera and Milliken. Apparently descendents still alive. --meatclerk 04:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Village Stub

On the stub, I changed and added a few things. 1) fake entry example for wikitionary.org 2) Split long sentence. 3) French and Russians brought diseases too, likely. But they really don't know. Most guess it was the soilders. 4) Hence, syphilis

--meatclerk 06:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)