Jump to content

Talk:Ohlone/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Pov?

I think that there is a little pov in this part of the article. "When the Spanish missionaries arrived, they herded the Ohlones into missions, where they were decimated by European disease and overwork." I know this was what happend, I just dont think the word "herded" is the best word. I would like to say Sory for not posting in the talk page the first time. I was Sleep Deprived. -- Quinwound 17:53, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

I find this hard to believe

Their principal food was acorns, which they collected from the oak trees. (User:LegCircus; sig added by Jmabel)

No idea. Not unimaginable, but I agree it seems unusual. The article was originally contributed anonymously and gives no citations. Does anyone want to suggest some possible references about the Ohlone? Probably can be settled with some research.
Unusual? It's absolutely typical for California Indians. - Mustafaa 19:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I too have read that this is very common. (By the way, Apaches also eat acorns. And piñon nuts. I think that there are some acorn stew recipes on the Internet somewhere. May be some for Miwok-Costanoan peoples too...) — ishwar  (SPEAK) 23:49, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
finally looked up a recipe although one is Miwokan & another is just about California peoples in general eating acorns:
maybe someone can let me know how they taste (if you cook it before me). peace — ishwar  (SPEAK) 23:23, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

To be clear on this oak trees are native to the SF Peninsula. Most were cut down for tannic acid. RWC was a big tannery center until the 1930s. There are a few old maps (Spanish/Pre-Mexican Rule) that showed the large acreage of oaks. Menlo Park was mostly oak at one time, but now the have to fight for every tree. It's also on the town logo. meatclerk 04:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

nice map

Very nice map. My applause! — ishwar  (SPEAK) 23:51, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Thanks! It's available in Arabic too :). I'm not 100% confident of the Karkin and Chochenyo boundaries, which sources seem to disagree on, so tell me if you spot anything fishy. Saclan was once thought to be Costanoan, but turned out to be Miwok. - Mustafaa 09:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Name issue

The Costanoans do not all identify with the name "Ohlone", which actually designated a specific tribe or triblet that occupied land on the Pacific Coast west of the southern end of San Francisco Bay (see A Time of Little Choice by R. Milliken). I have had discussions with Costanoan people from the Monterey Bay area and from the north bay who are irritated by the lack of geographical and cultural discrimination reflected by the use of "Ohlone" as a comprehensive name for the entire language and its speakers. They are generally content with "Costanoan" which is a broad term that does not single out a specific smaller political unit at the expense of others.

Sounds sensible to me. What would you say the balance is - 50/50 for each? Or more preferring one to the other? - Mustafaa 22:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On this issue, the correction is:
I am currently reviewing a statement by Alan Hynding in his book, From Frontier to Suburb: The Story of The San Mateo Peninsula, pg. 9. He writes:

The careless use of words like Oholone and Costano reveals the general confusion and ignorance surrounding the history and culture of San Mateo (County) Indians, (...)

Just before that he writes:

South of Half Moon Bay, (...) Father Juan Crespi (...) describes the local Olxan (Ohlone) villages ...

Please see my discussion on this on Talk:Castro_Valley,_California#External_Links:_Commerical_or_Not and Talk:Castro_Valley,_California#Continue Ohlone meatclerk 07:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


Going to label unreliable

I'm ready to label this unreliable. In addition, the reference "The Ohlone Way" is also unreliable. There is plenty of good information to show the errors on this article, but I don't have the time to fix it. Hence, the label. Anyone else? meatclerk 04:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

On what basis do you label "The Ohlone Way" unreliable? This is a book that has been endorsed by:
  • The Pacific Sun
  • The San Francisco Chronicle
  • American Anthropologist
Let me start off by saying that I am no expert, but to make a blanket statement, disparaging another's work, without evidence is not OK. Maybe Margolin is right, maybe he is wrong. I don't know that and cannot judge him. Perhaps you have another source that disagrees with Margolin, but until there is a consensus, both views should have equal weight.--imars 07:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I note there is a revised edition of the book, "The Ohlone Way". I withdraw that remark until I have had time to review the new book. Thanks meatclerk 08:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting References

Sorry Guys, the nature of what we know about Ohlone/Costanos is conflicting. Hence, the newest addition from User:Goldenrowley is conflicting at best. He uses Cook's numbers (1976), which if memory serves are conflicting from Kroeber (around 1911). In any case, the numbers Golderowley are incorrect. They should be about 18,000.

Pulled section:

"Population: In 1770, there were about 7000 to 1,100 Costanoans. In 1832 their population was estimated at 1942. In 1852 estimated at 864-1000. In 1880 estimated at 281. In 1920 estimate at 56. [1]
  1. ^ cook, pages 183, 236-245.

"

My notes on population, includes book reference:

The Population of the California Indians, 1769-1970

If anyone wants to fix the numbers with my notes, feel free. meatclerk 07:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Cook seemed to take a very reasoned scientific approach, and had footnotes for each number. he worked with Koebler's data but also other sources and came to a conclusion. I will review it and post it here for discussion Goldenrowley 15:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC) ps I have Cook's book on loan from the library it's easy enough until it is due back, I see one typo should be 11000 where marked.Goldenrowley 15:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think we are both using the same resource. However, I get 18,000 for San Mateo County and about 26,000 for Norther Mission Area, as Cook defines it(but 26k seems small). My numbers have footnotes and paraphrases, as well as page numbers. meatclerk 17:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Verification of Population - 3 books

Sorry we must be using different books (meatcleark?) I can't find those passages in the book I have on those pages and they are different ISBN's. But since 1 and 2 are from the same author, I can only assume your Notes from book 1 were for another year and another area of research. here is a not-so-quick verification:

SOURCE 1 COOK "NOTES" on "ISBN 0-520-02923-2"

I am not following the notes. In what year were there a "maximum" of 18,000 people? It seems possibly only in respects to San Mateo County? I suspect 18,000 is a much later count than the basis year I gave of 1770. I can assume this as follows: the notes given here say 18,330 is a "maximum derived" by baptisms. baptisms only took place after the missions were built but before they folded, so lets say Cook did a count somewhere between 1790 and 1840. Plus is this a count of all baptisms at the Mission, which also housed Pomo, MIwok, etc who were relocated and living there? did one remember divide out and just count the Costanoans for this article?

ID: The Population of the California Indians, 1769-1970, by Sherburne Friend Cook Hardcover: 239 pages Publisher: Univ of California Pr (June 1976).Goldenrowley 03:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

SOURCE 2 COOK "tHE CONFLICT" ISBN 0-520-03143-1 (from me Goldenrowley)

  • The book I used is: Cook, Sherburne. The Conflict Between the California Indian and White Civilization. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1976. ISBN 0-520-03143-1, is a DIFFERENT title and ISBN. I have it in hand not referrting to any notes. SOURCE 2 has sources and footnotes for each figure given. Here are quotes and passages on population specifically for the Costanaons:
  • page 183 "The Costanoans ...At first approximation, Kroeber's estimate of 1000 per group or a total of 7,000 may be cited. Also a rough area computation, based on the the Pomo and Coast Miwok number 2,0, would give 11,000. This is undoubtely too high..." [then for several pages he does population counts and recounts them with different methods, noting Kroeber's data is for 1770].
  • page 185-186 "Three sources of data, therefor - area comparison, and two sets of mission records, give for Costanoan population 11,0000, 10,000, 11,000. The lower value 10,000 may be accepted for present purposes."
  • page 236 = "Table 1. Indian Population from the end of the mission period to Modern Times" is where I got all my data in the addition I made to the article. From table I. It gives the original "aboriginal population" of 1770 for "Costanoans" as 11,0000.
  • Conclusion Shelburne Cook only wavers between 10,000 and 11,000 pre-white man in 1770. I see 7000-11000 as the highest and lowest values (the min and maximums given for 1770).

SOURCE 3 CARTIER

  • Source 3 agrees with Source 2 squarly on about 10,000.
  • "estimated 10,000" AS currently used in the Wikepedia article. I checked and the Wikipedia article is using a direct quote from the reference by Cartier, Robert, et al. An Overview of Ohlone Culture; 1991; De Anza College, Cupertino, California according to the link provided on the page. In fact I think the quote is a little too literal now that I see it, I might think a minor copyright infringement to be reworded.

I have never helped verify records before for Wiki, my suggestion is that in the document we qualify the word "estimated 10,000" with the words "in 1770" and in the Population table, simply add that "these figures estimated by Shelburne Cook, 1976."

Goldenrowley 03:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Goldenrowley, thanks for your reply. I appoligize for the state of the information. My plan was to wikize it. I just have not got to it yet.
Sorry Kroeber is just a poor source. I've read his entry in Handbook of Indians of California. He is plainly lazy and presumptuous. True the information about the population is difficult make an estimate about, but he just waves his hands and says "their respective absolute numbers ... remain quite conjectural" pg. (464) He could have said something like, "our best guess is ...", but instead he derides any previous numbers.
The number, from my notes, is 26,000 (pg. 42) of which 17,487 Baptisms (pg. 33). I should also mention the book is posthumous, meaning he died then it was published. None the less, the information is a collection of published and unpublished essays. In the book, he states clearly that his previous estimates were too low. The book should be in your library, if not they should update. meatclerk 07:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I agree that Kroeber's estimate can be tossed out entirely since estimating 1000 per tribal entity seems like lazy science indeed. So were talking about in general the sources vary from 10,000 to 26,000 thats still large but I imagine its true everyone underestimated the native american people. I am going to go ahead and edit the article putting a verifaction flag on the number 10,000 as well as the other corrections I saw yesterday noted as small problem like the direct quoting copyright violation. I am going to add your reference (#1). My population stats are on this page if wanted/needed. Not including year 1770, is COOK'S population table for other years valid?? I wS TRYING to show was a massive decline in population and yet learned it might be an undercount so I am sort of disappointed not to show that. Anyhoo. Goldenrowley 03:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The massive decline in population is there. More than one author has made that point. The most current books on the subject are the three (3) I've mentioned. There are others, like The Mission of California: A Legecy of Genocide ISBN 0-913436-026 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum. (This one is extremely hard to read, becuase of bias - written by the indians themselves.) I have all, except one, and Cook's book on population (which I borrow from the library.) The Cook's book is too specialized for me to justify buying. The classics (Bancroft, Kroeger, Englhart, Levy, etc.) are all available either in RWC Archive room, MP Archive room or USGS in MP. So I have no real problem, except reading time. :( meatclerk 08:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


The Millekin book, [ISBN 0879191317] is particularly useful, drawing upon baptismal and death records of the Bay Area Missions. BruceHallman 15:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Verify Tribal entities please

Can someon verify the tribal entities please? The fact that Karkin were at first counted as Ohlone, according to this article, but are really Miwok, as admitted later on in the article, although just 200 people, makes me wonder if the tribal info is trustworthy. I think the tribal entities could thefore use a footnote source. In this case I can not help Shelburne Cook says nothing on the matter. By the way, I would also like to know because it will help the Miwok page out.... Goldenrowley 03:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Goldenrowley, there are three (3) references published around 1995. They are the other books they had at my library. There is also A Time of Little Choice by Randall Milliken ISBN 0-87919-131-7. I'm read that book now.
To answer your question: Karkin should be Carquin, as in the Carquinez Straits. Getting a tribal count is difficult. If you get the later book I referenced, you might get an answer. I have returned that book. 07:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


Goldenrowley, Good news. I am at the library and am checking out Cook/1976. The number he gives for Carquin is 3000-3250 or more. I am bringing the book home, will scan it and make the page available for you. If you have any other questions, perhaps I could find an answer for you. I plan to keep the book a week or so. meatclerk 21:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The Karkin absolutely spoke an Ohlonean language, not a Miwok language. Arroyo de la Cuesta got a vocabulary in the late 1700's.

See the following:

Beeler, M., 1961, Northern Costanoan, International Journal of American Linguistics, 27: 191-197. Callaghan, Catherine, 1988. Karkin Revisited. IJAL 54: 436-452. Levy, Richard. 1978. Costanoan. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California. 485-495.

You might be thinking of Saclan, which did turn out to be a Miwokan language.

--Anonymous, 9/20/06

No need to be anonoymous, thanks for verifying the Karkin at my request, I was unsure their identity, it was the awkward way the previous article was written it had me sure they were Miwok so, thanks for providing these good looking sources. Jeremy I checked out some of your recommended books. Goldenrowley 16:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Verification complete

I verified and corrected and copy edited tonight. What it seemed to need the most was softening its position and not sound so absolute if it did not know something for a fact (plus all the added sources). I think it's much better. I took the initiative to remove the verify flag. I suggest if there are elements that need further verification to enter {{fact}} on the statements to check, just as I have left one on population. Goldenrowley 09:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


Did not act jointly?

After just reading the Milliken book I have a hard time reconcilling 'did not act jointly' sentence, especially considering the documented evidence of inter-village marriage. Also, to say 'unlike other tribes in North America' seems far far too broad. BruceHallman 16:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I was reading the Ohlone Way and I tend to agree with you Bruce, good call. If living in relative peace with their neighbors and as they were intermarried (the fact that they are separate tribal units unlike the Navajo was simply miscommunicated). Goldenrowley 16:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I've read several sources. Cook, Brown, Kroeger, Millikin (reading now), Costo (Indian side, difficult to read), Land of Promise and Despair (long, subtitle: Chronicles of Early California 1535-1846) as well as the local history news letter SMCHA La Peninsula, and many article on archaelogical finds and shell mounds. I've also skimmed through Bancroft and Englehart. The article is still broadly incorrect, I've relabeled it as such.
Bruce, there is some truth to what you are saying. As a whole it appears they never acted like other "nation" groups. However, there is enough evidence to show they acted in concert for many social or seasonal events. The first group to join at Monterey (or Santa Cruz) was there for a several day festival, possibly a salmon run (the area I am studing). After the festival a handful joined, meanwhile the fry and soliders just looked on.
On the inaccurate part:
  • If the names Ohlone/Costanoan are to continue, it is vaguely a language group. There is no reason I have found yet to show it is ethnic (although it could be).
  • There should be some reference to the historical errors made in using both names. Also, it should, at least, mention how the term Ohlone is now the "popular" or conventional form we use to refer to them. It should plainly state, this is not their (native/aboriginal) choice.
  • BTW, Milliken spells it Oljin for the tribelette name, and it is the Pescadero/San Gregorio area most historian that identify them agree on this location.
  • We should decide on a spelling convention, then have a list to other spellings (ie Bancroft, Kroeger, Englehart, Cook, etc.) I prefer Milliken. Whatever convention we decide we need to mention the author's name in the article.
  • We should also mention the error prone and scant data we have, and how somtime historian are creativy in finding answers (like Cook, Kroeger, Levy and Milliken).

That's just the first paragraph. Some quick notes on the rest.

  • Several hundred camps/village/ranchos, why should we name a handful.
  • Possible a hundred or more tribes, again the same.
  • Mythology is extremely large, and an area of study on its own. It should be a seperate article.
  • The history notes are pathetic.
  • I'm not sure of the Division, they don't seem relatent. It might be an invention by Cook to solve a problem and may not be valid.

Any comments? meatclerk 18:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You have raised too many points to quickly respond to each. Quickly, the word mythology seems needlessly paternalistic to my ear. The Catholic Church can be said to have mythology, but that word is not often used in description of Western world views, though commonly used to describe New World world views. Instead of 'mythology' I would favor 'world view' or some other descriptive and neutral term. BruceHallman 20:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, I used the word "World Order" on the 'Pomo mythology' page but only after discussing mythology. Wiki is using mythology globally for a category name and myth stubs. There is a Wikipedia definition of myth. The wiki definition is respectful I think of Mythology. Native American mythology from California is not well represented, yet. Goldenrowley 04:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
You mention scant data, but I was impressed at the quantity and quality of the data gathered by the Mission system. Not only were the native people counted, but in many cases their names and family relationships were recorded. BruceHallman 20:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Ohlone seems to be the well accepted descriptor, Google finds 550,000 hits for Ohlone. Costanoan, 60,000 hits and Oljin very few. There is no reason to call it anything other than a linquistic group. If we don't know that it is 'ethnic', we shouldn't call it such. BruceHallman 20:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
With a neutral tone keep it that they have been called several names by incoming settlers, we don't have to pick the winner just report. Goldenrowley 04:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the need to use the words tribe, tribes, triblette which carry perhaps inappropriate organizational connotations. Village or village group is neutral and accurate. BruceHallman 20:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the word tribelet is too cute, it comes from one of the sources and perhaps "triblet" be removed. However I don't see much wrong with calling them tribes as defined by Wikipedia. A village implies permanence and may not be accurate for evry single tribe it looks like they could be highly mobile. The women were tatooed by their tribe/village/clan this seems pretty organized to me. Goldenrowley 04:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed the cutesy "tribelet" word this morning. Goldenrowley 19:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
As long as you do not require original research it would be encouraged if you start to include a full list of tribe names, a more comprehensive history, a full explanation of what the tribes want to be called, and start a Mythology or a World View page. Especially encouraged if you are subject matter experts. Goldenrowley 00:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Round Up of Issues

Sorry all, I think I did get carried away with the points, but this is my vacation and I have more time to think and write. Also I wrote Kroeger, when I meant Kroeber.

Anyhow, I've re-read parts of "Handbook of ..." Kroeber/1925, "The Population ..." Cook/1976, "A Time of Little Choice" Milliken/1995, "Lands of Promise..." Ed. Beebe /2001, all the La Peninsula (San Mateo County Historical Association) articles about Costanoan (1968/1970/1973/1979), and tons more... I'm in the middle of organizing the material into folders and notes. All this before I go and look for a reference on village names. Milliken says "Merriam, C. Hart" has village and rancheria names from Mission records, 1968 and 1970 (pg. 343). In any case, if I don't find it I am going to Berkeley on Thursday. I plan to look at the diseños for "Las Pulgas" and "Rancho Raymundo". The last is for my work on Redwood City and Menlo Park Indians.

With that, I note (at this time) my folder names include:

  • salmon
  • aquaculture and fisheres, San Mateo County
  • Redwood City and Menlo Park Indians
  • Creek and Streams of RWC/San Mateo County
  • Port or Redwood City

The real difficulty is that most historian are clumping together all regional indians into one class and one culture.

Diverging from that, my main topic of research is salmon. I'm trying to find out if salmon ever ran on the bay side of the peninsula. I plenty of evidence for the coastside, North of SF (San Pablo Bay ), the Carquinez straits, the eastbay (Oakland, hayward, fremont), even San Jose, but the bayside is going to be difficult. Part of the problems is pre-gold rush the missionaries built aquaducts, then post-gold rush includes sawmills, then local gentry estates that included damming local streams, then dairy farms damming, then finally the SF Water hoarding, from 1870 to post-1906 earthquake.

To finish off, I think I want to start putting in tribe names from Milliken, then later village names from Merriam. Then perhaps move on to terms? What do you think? meatclerk 08:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be very good Jeremy, if you know more history and more resources, go for it. I wasnt intending to get too involved on this one page. I just grew up in the Santa Clara Valley and could put it into sections and in order. I'll loko forward to seeing if you guys can expand it.Goldenrowley 03:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand. I believe you said "you did *not* intend to get too involved". If so, that is fine. A reader/reviewer would be awsome as well. Certainly, I get my share of missssplellingsss and auful grammer. On to other things. meatclerk 04:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay. By the way, the Miwok and the Ohlone share the following language page: Utian languages. Is that page ok with the Costanoan/Ohlone language experts? if so do we mention Miwok on this page? Goldenrowley 18:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

New material

Later tonight or tommorrow, I plan to scan and post for review from two (2) books.

  1. Mines and Quarries of the Indians of California by Robert F. Heizer - 1972 Ballena Press reprint of State of California, Division of Mines, Vol. 40 No.3 (includes maps, mineral by mineral with tribes that used them, quarry locations and Abstract with Introduction.
  2. Indian Names for Plants & Animals amoung California and other north west tribes by C. H. Merriam ISBN 0-87919-085-X

Addressing Discrepencies

Later tonight I plan to scan many pages and put them up for you to read, including a section on minerals and myths. As per your last question on language, I am reading that Kroeber, who wrote the widely quoted, "Handbook on California Indians", was more than a bit lazy.

In the book Handbook on California Indians, Kroeber writes, that except for a handful of tribes, most of the work was a summary of other works - Bancroft, Powell and others.

In the book Indian Names for Plants & Animals amoung California and other north west tribes, the editor describes an ongoing silent fued between - J. P. Harrington & C. H. Merriam <-and-> Kroeber. The former two (2) disliked Kroeber so much, they would often follow him around to verify his work - checking on errors. The two (2) were "loaner"s, neither were "ethnologist" or "linguists". Their work was frequently chided as "amatureish", but Merriam was studying as a naturalist, so his work seem difficent to them, but I see issues with Merriam's work too.

Nonetheless, Robert F. Heizer seems to have been caretaker of his remaining, and unfinished work. Hence, much of his work follows Merriam. As such, I'm not sure where Levy, Englhart, Cook and Milliken fit in.

To answer your original question: Milliken says Utian, via Handbook of North American Indians Shipley/1978; editor R. F. Heizer... See the connection now? meatclerk 05:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Scanning Status

Okay, these are the totals:

  • Total pages to scan: 50 (43 language costanoan coastalmiwok), (7 mines costanoan myths)
  1. Language organized with group maps by Kroeber and Merriam, seperately.
  2. Mines organized with group maps by Heizer & Treganza.
  • Language: 400 plant and animal words, 122 schedules of words 122 schedules of annotated words, schedule means 1 or more interviews
  • Minerals: 6 groups, 30 minerals
  • costanoan - 2 schedules, I was looking for 4 words (salmon, redwood, oak, tule) -> got 7 of 8
  • coast miwak - 1 schedule for coast miwok, 4 interviews over 24 years

By the numbers you can see this will take a while, which I noted to myself earlier today. To get you started I have scanned in the page on myths. After that, if you don't feel like doing anything else, just say so.

myths, see The Indian As A Geologist pagescan

Jeremey, your thoroughness is great. I will help this page a little at a time, why did not they just list the tribes rather than lump them together 100 years ago. My top priority this week is sorting the decorative arts out. I put a lot of my thoughts above, right after Bruce's. Goldenrowley 17:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sometime before 1769 (I forget exactly when), the King of Spain had the Jesuits thrown out of all the Missions in New Spain (now Mexico). They were highly educated. The very modest, and less educated Franciscan order was put in charge. The Franciscans were the ones put in charge of building the California Missions. The bigger problem was there were only two or three friars per Mission. They had to educate, direct and administer the Indians. They did the minimum. In some places, like SF it was great, but in others like Santa Clara it was a disaster. (This included indians wars over cinnabar, now "New Almaden Mine"). In the late 1800s, the historians used the Mission records to construct the population ideas we have now. The issues then crop up when Ishi was found. Kroeber got money from Hearst (a female one) to help support his investigations. From there the rivalry between Merriam and Kroeber starts.
This last part might be incorrect. I am just piecing things together while reading... I'm still on vacation. Time for dinner. meatclerk 02:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I have a problem when you write: "In some places, like SF it was great...". Measured by one set of criteria, life and death, it was not so good. If I am not mistaken, the people living in close proximity to that Mission quickly became extinct. BruceHallman 15:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand there might be a misunderstanding on this point. So, I'll explain more below. -- meatclerk 19:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
book review moved to top Goldenrowley 06:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Review of Population

To date, without exception all population estimates (pre-1849) are based on existing Mission records, birth, baptism, marriage and death. The state and completeness of such records vary. In the last section I stated, "In some places, like SF it was great..". Of this, I was speaking about Mission record collection in general.

I should make clear that these statements are based on incomplete readings of Milliken and others. None the less, it is quite clear that early on when Fages and Fonts were at Mission Dolores records were kept quite clear, but as time passed other missionaries were not as careful. They kept detail information, including the village of origin (my interest). However, as time passed other missionaries were not as clear, not as complete. Different factors may have influenced this, including epidemics.

Other Mission, like Santa Clara, only listed regions of origin. For instance, San Bernadino was the area North of the mission, upto San Fransquito Creek and to the ridges of Santa Cruz Mountains, even though groups like the Olpen crossed over. Again this is all in the area of my interest. Other records from other missions vary, but it is said similar problems occur.

Of course, I did not mention simple clerical errors, like spelling. A large problem for ethnohistorians and linguist has been the varied spelling on different name. Personally I have seen about 6-8 different spelling for the now conventinal Ohlone. Does this help? --meatclerk 20:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree getting the real facts in one article and spelling of names is always going to be an issue. However, a footnote may easily make note of these two identified issues. Goldenrowley 20:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Ohlone Way Book report and response moved to top by Goldenrowley 06:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Calif Indian Mines and Quarries for "mythology" is general to all Northern California Indians and cuts off right when starting to speak of Bay Area. I'd be looking for a again for more local research. Goldenrowley 19:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert of History section on Oct. 2, 2006

The information is essentially correct. It was one of many reasons I labeled the article as unreliable. At best, the new entry might be labeled citation needed. --meatclerk 01:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

October 3

  • Ok looking for Milliken's 1995 book and more ground breaking and scientific research. In addition it would be nice to include archealogy and scientific journals. I do not have access to any yet though. Goldenrowley 03:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Bruce was absolutely right on the groups being villages more than "tribes" I will make that change before I forget. Honestly I think this article wants a "expert" flag rather than "unreliable" flag. The Ohlone Way is not unreliable its just more for children. I remember my teacher reading it to us in class. Goldenrowley 03:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the template to reflect the work we are doing. I'm not completely satisfied with what is there but I agree that we are heading in the right direction. An "expert" flag may not get us an 'expert', but if you feel it would help by all means go ahead. In the meantime, the Wikipedia:Template_messages/Maintenance are available for the periodic updates. The page has various types of templates that would help.
A rewrite of this article, or new material for it, will require an outline; I have done this before. Take a look at Astaxanthin (I rewrote from scratch) and Talk:Astaxanthin. The later has a section Talk:Astaxanthin#New_Information_to_Merge, the outline for new or expanded sections. You'll also see notes on Talk:Salmon#Current_Work. Also, note at the top of the Talk:Salmon page there is a section for archives. So far, this page does not have one, but one is coming soon.
About The Ohlone Way, I thumbed through the reprint. There are no significant changes. In review, my comments were hasty about the book. That said, I note it is plainly out of date. Using it as a basis will require a later rewrite. The book was published in 1978. The author states (somewhere) that it took three years to write. So, his most recent resource material might be 1977, but possible 1975. Of the books I have for reference: 'Mines and Quarries...'(Heizer/1972 - a very esotric book), 'Indian Names for...'(Merriam/1979), 'The population ...' (Cook/1976), 'A time of little choice' (Millikan/1995), 'The Costanoan/Ohlone.... A Research Guide)' (Teixeira/1997), 'Lands of Promise...' (SCU/2001), 'The Anza Trail' (Guerrero/2006). That is the ones I can see, and are not in a storage box. The point I am making is that Margolin's book is just out of date. There is just too much research and new material in the 25 years since he wrote his books. Mind you I have some esoteric books and references, like A Chronicle of Pre-1848 California Gold Discoveries, California Geology, 1996, Vol. 49 No. 1.
I do not disagree with out of date. The internet has revolotionized research, I hardly use books any more because the internet is more current. Goldenrowley 06:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not trying to discourage you, it is just that I have spent my vacation (all last week) getting organized. The previous vacation I wrote the outline for Monterey clipper, before that Astaxanthin. I was manic one night and I wrote Insectary plants. To be plain, I get episodes of manic behaviour. My best course is to research and write.
I also want to say I greatly appreciate your help. It keeps my work focused. Lastly, if you want to borrow a book, like Milliken you are welcome to. I have Thursday and Friday off and I can travel those days, I expect you still live in the bay area, if not I can mail it. I travel by bicycle. --meatclerk 07:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I am laughing aloud your willingness to deliver books with a biycle for this article. I have one more book waiting for me at the library. I can't remember which one I am picking it up tonight. I won't flag the article needs expert I like the new flag you chose under construction and inviting people to read this page then help to edit. Progress. By outline do you mean outline of your concerns, or of the rewritten article? Because the article already has an outline:
  • 1 Description
  • 2 Mythology
  • 3 History
  • 4 Divisions
  • 5 See also
  • 6 Notes
  • 7 References
  • 8 External links

....I am afraid our discussion is getting long for people just joining so I'd like to put my book reports at the very top this page as a useful review for others, rather than last year stuff, ok? I know it's not my finer writing, but it's neutral. Goldenrowley 02:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I Moved my book reports *(and responses) to the top and added Teixaria. I JUST GOT the Teixeira guide on loan TODAY, but I RECOMMEND it FIRST ! Wow. Finally, Teixeria indicated the core books we should be using are his own, Milliken and Bean. "The three core books" Are we allowed to archive or clean and simplify this page ? Goldenrowley 06:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible Outline

First, yes the page is getting too long, even for me. So I suggest, except for the first section - your booknotes, everything above this should be archived. I think we discussed two or three topics to dead, and at best some notes on the concencess (sp?). Does this sound good?

On the outline, today I went to the library looking for a good source for an outline. The California Historical Society Quarterly (articles from 1922-1961) seems to have a good breakdown, but we might merge a few. The heading relate to all California indians. Here are the section (alphabeticly):

  1. appearance and dress
  2. attacks and uprisings
  3. basket made by
  4. battles with
  5. beleifs of
  6. boats
  7. burial, cremations, etc.
  8. dances
  9. dwellings
  10. employment of
  11. expeditions against
  12. foods
  13. horse and cattle thieves
  14. legislation concerning
  15. medicines and medicine men
  16. in the mines
  17. mistreatment of
  18. mounds made by
  19. pictures of
  20. rancherias or villages
  21. reservations
  22. salt journey
  23. sickness amoung
  24. slaves and servants
  25. surround hunt
  26. temescales (says: see Sweat houses)
  27. trails
  28. treaties
  29. weapons
  30. as witnesses
  31. women

Also worth noting

  1. tribes and groups
  2. ceremony, myths and religion
  3. minerals (the book I have now)
  4. language of (the other book I have now)
  5. as guides (not directly mentioned by name)

Now, I should say this as an outline would take about 2 years or more, but the benefit is that much of it is already written. True much of it is old, but some (like treaties) we (we being me and the rat in my pocket) may just never get to it. In any case, it's just an idea. Your thoughts?

Lastly, I have no real problem traveling with my bike. The train will get me along the peninsula, then most places have regular bus service, even Half Moon Bay. BART I can catch in Fremont or the SF Airport, if need be. --meatclerk 07:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's archive settled conversation this has reached 11 pages. I am just not sure how thats done. Maybe I need to go find out. I have Milliken on order now that I know his importance. This list of topics are idea/starting points (but there may already be a list of priorities set by the Native American Wikiproject page for example). Alphabetical won't work for me. I also suggest a "Notable Ohlone people" section at end the main article is called for. If you feel motivated all the power to you. Goldenrowley 19:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ohlone/Archive_1&oldid=789545791"