Talk:Ohlone/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Map

I was driving to work and had an idea, should we put the 7 missions on the map? As little buildings with crosses. Just an idea. Goldenrowley 18:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
A cross? How may pixels? BruceHallman 18:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
In the case or Pruristac, the village was located 100 feet from the mission outpost, so the 'cross' would obscure the four pixels that is Pruristac. BruceHallman 18:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Similar, I think in San Francisco, though I am not sure which village was located next to the mission, was it Sitlintac or Chutchui? BruceHallman 18:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
It would be hard to do, but the map is a bad scale, with 4 pixels per village dot. If it were a larger scale, the name of known village locations could be written. BruceHallman 18:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I see a dot next to Lake Merced in San Francisco, and I believe it to be a village site, but no name of that site is apparent to me at least. BruceHallman 18:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Mission were frequently built within walking distance from villages. SF and SC were 1000 ft. and 2000 ft, respectively. I'm not sure of SJ. The ones on the Monterey bay were built close to the rivers, therefore close to communal (shared) grounds, like salmon runs. So perhaps a larger map would work best. --meatclerk 19:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

-->missions shouldnt be very big on the village map, maybe village map should be marked year 1770. Perhaps we could merely point/link to a separate missions map, helping to orient where the people migrated? Is there one. Goldenrowley 19:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't personally know of any maps that show migration from villages to missions. But would assume there is one, if unpublished. --meatclerk 19:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay the Spanish Missions in California Page has a missions map but its very hard to read, I still do not get for example where the missions are in relation to the Rumsien people. This Ohlone village map could be used as the starting template, just take out the village dots and put in missions and call it a new map like "Ohlone mission era map" (after they all moved to missions). But I do not have the expertise to make one, you guys seem to really know this map better than I do....they are already on California maps. I went to the Salinas mission based on the AAA road map once. Goldenrowley 16:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


We need some interative mapping software. I started an Ohlone Village and Mission sites map at http://quikmaps.com/edit/16238, though it crashed in Firefox, and worked in IE, though I got a error reloading it. :( BruceHallman 18:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


That software is buggy, perhaps wikimapia could be used, but I don't quite understand the interface. Hopefully we can filter the 'places' to show just villages and missions. BruceHallman 19:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Cool! I forgot about map software. Good thinking. Goldenrowley 19:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
here is the location of Pruristac, and Mission Outpost San Pedro Y San Pablo. Hopefully that link works. There is some trouble, because most of the villages we cannot pin point exactly and meet WP:V. Though we can make educated guesses for most or many. BruceHallman 19:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I tried to see the map you began at quick maps but it says access denied? I found the map in the Milliken book is a good reference for the mission sites and presidios. It has all of the area missions except for Salinas. Goldenrowley 16:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is another map from this book. My stuff almost organize.. maybe done next week. --meatclerk 10:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I bet Bruce will like this one. ! San Fran Peninsula in detail!
Ok admittedly I am having computer problems and can't see all the maps here. Is anyone taking map-making on as a project? If not, I'll do a rudimentary map of the missions, based on MIlliken, some time in the future. Goldenrowley 21:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


OK, here is a third attempt to find some collaborative way to make a map of Ohlone villages, using flagr. Maybe this will work.BruceHallman 20:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
http://www.flagr.com/maps/1054
Third time is a charm... it works! Goldenrowley 04:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
It works however (unfortunately) my computer is a dial up modem too slow for the Map. I can only do the Map when I go to the library or use my computer during work breaks. Goldenrowley 19:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Useful for the Map: County of San Benito Longitude and Latitude given here for: Chalon, Indian Valley, probably other Ohlone sites as well:

http://www.calsign.com/mining/countydata/sanbenito1.htm

Sherburne F. Cook

New article. Review, if you have time. --meatclerk 09:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice ! Goldenrowley 21:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

News

A new page was born on the Ohlone this weekend called 'Ohlone traditional narratives' that organizes the topic on all California Narratives. This explains why I am organizing that area of this page. Goldenrowley 21:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The "narratives" pages looks visually good. --meatclerk 08:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok what is left to construct, should we remove the notice or are you still working on things? It looks nice on my browser. I don't know what else is needed right now. Hollar if you need me to look up something in Teixeria or Milliken while I have the books checked out.. Goldenrowley 02:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are asking me about 'Ohlone, then I need to fix the Intro. I think I have that down to six words. Other than that, seafood, native foods, and footnote cleanup - about a month. That's all I have planned. Pre-1769 contact will wait till the after the first of the year; too backed up. --meatclerk 08:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you I am also following up on the references. Goldenrowley 19:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
In my Firefox 1.0.7 browser, the wide tables in the Population section cause some 'overwriting' of text on widest table. BruceHallman 18:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
On my IE I am getting the same problem, is it because there are 2 tables in a row? what can we do. Goldenrowley 19:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC) -- OK I think I fixed it by separating them a little.
Fixed in Firefox too, thanks. BruceHallman 17:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Meatcleark thanks for the list of what's next. I myself plan going to the library tomorrow to confirm the mythology sources and read the recommended Bean. I came across something in prehistoric Oceania, just like Ohlone's method of Harvesting. It is called Fire-stick farming over there. Probably too original an idea to include but worth knowing that key word. I also keep running across Salmon in mythology... did you start a salmon talk area where you can receive info? Goldenrowley 06:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
On fire-stick farming, that's great. I'm glad to see hard work did not go to a waste.
On salmon myths, do you want to use my website? If so, I am planning to have anything written in a special hidden editing section able to add to the main website. Or you better, you could just add links to those myths to the Talk:Salmon page. Just start a new section. I plan to leave detail notes on the Salmon talkpage, just like here in Ohlone. For now the article (Salmon) has enough content for general use. --meatclerk 08:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Population

The way that the population mixes a discussion of Native American population in the Bay Area with a discussion of the history of the population of the Ohlone people appears needlessly confusing. I suggest we limit the discussion to the Ohlone, and relocate, or edit out the discussion of Native American population in general. Also, I suggest using a line graph, instead of a table to better communicate the dramatic nature of the decline in Ohlone population. BruceHallman 21:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree the discussion of non-Ohlone population table should probably move out, it's off topic. However I think the Ohlone table should stay that's reported data with reported figures for reported years *people want numbers*. The line diagram does not work *for me* it implies that there we exactly so many people on any given year (and fills in all the unknown years), I'd suggest change to a Bar Chart on only known years, and do it in addition to the table.Goldenrowley 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The line chart makes reasonable interpolation between known data points. I deliberately choose a 'smooth line' to imply the interpolation. Also, I deliberatly limited the scale points coarsely, 0, 5000, 10000, etc. to also convey the uncertainly of the numbers. I have a problem with showing only the fixed datapoints, because the undeniable reality is that people lived in the years in between the datapoints too. The specifics of the quality of the datapoints could be sufficiently covered in a detailed footnote to satify the people that want to know the numbers. Though I disagree that many people want hard numbers. I argue that the typical reader wants information. From the broad perspective, the most important information here is that the population underwent a dramatic decline, and that is better conveyed to the reader with the line graph than with the table. If precedence is needed, consider the chart in this article which is where I got the idea to use a graph here. I started out with a bar chart, but the data proved to be too spotty, so I settled on a line chart. Also, I argue that a chart like this is similar to a chart you might expect to find in a grade school level textbook on this subject (if there was one!). I see this article serving the purpose of grade school education material on this topic. BruceHallman 22:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I like a chart idea, and kids, but I am also trying to please a college age audience. Since it is supposed to be the most fantastic encyclopedia in the world I tink we should do both a table and a graph! Unless you have more sources than I located, I just feel we do not have enough for a true line curve. I like the chart with the bars you are pointing to it does show a line, and so it might here especially if you start with 26,000. How about a high and a low estimate for 1770. The massive decline will be obvious that way. Note will be difacult for people to edit as facts arrive, unless there is a wikipedia macro for charts? Note I think epidemics will cause a stair step sort of decline -- stairstep 1795 was a very bad year, and big stair step on the 25 percent who died in the measles epidemic. Check this diagram out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_Native_California Goldenrowley 03:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I like all of the charts. They suit me fine. I think, numbers and a chart might work best. That is, have chart with numbers at key points. For instance, in 1795 epidemic an arrow pointing to a point on the line chart might say "epidemic of 1795"; thereby lending more information and not looking too simplistic.
On some of the other numbers, it's important to point out that now after about 200+ years any "pure blood" Ohlone is extremely remote. Therefore, the remaing natives, Miwok, Essian, etc. must represent the Ohlone, if not by default, as "Coastanoans". Further many must have intermarried with Anglo and European stock. Should they be discounted? If so, then the group making claim in Woodside has no claim. As such, I strongly urge some numbers far greater than zero to represent Ohlone. We don't have the tools or writings to distinguish non-Ohlone, so the remaining Native population should default to the representation.
Respectfully --meatclerk 05:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
There are also whats known as combination bar-line charts where the line joins the bars. I wonder where the Native Database came up with the 250 number for modern day, honestly that seems unbeliaveably slow growth since year 1900. If each of the current tribe web sites give a count, we can just add the counts together. Or Maybe National Geographic already did a full feature article with something like a chart. Goldenrowley 07:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


I agree that the 250 number is suspect, so are the other numbers. Though, we can reasonable interpolate. That is the reason I incremented the Y axis scale so coarsely. If we suspect the accuracy of the numbers, we can accomodate and communicate our uncertainty by using coarse numbers on each axis. I chose the starting number as between 15,000 and 20,000 as it is an average of 10,000 and 26,000 but I am open to suggestions if you think the 26,000 number is better. BruceHallman 16:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


This version with 500 year increments on the X-axis probably is better to convey the uncertainty of the data. BruceHallman 16:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As an idea, how about charting 2 lines, the max and the minimums, can you do that? So it shows the whole range from 10000 to 26000, and shade in between? I'd also like to do more research on the matter. Goldenrowley 16:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
One idea is that if 90% of the people died by 1850, that would leave about 1000-2600, as the lowest figure, then extrapolate they started to grow after 1920 in a normal rate we might get roughly 3000-6000 people today. The other thing we do not have yet is census figures. Where do you get those? Goldenrowley 16:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The 250 in year 2000 number comes from the NAHBD chart presently in the article. A growth rate of 500% in a century doesn't seem far out of line, but I am just guessing. BruceHallman 17:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


Well, like this, but I don't really like it. I believe we have the responsiblity to simplify the complexity of the data. I favor chart 2 (above) plus a detailed footnote explaining the uncertainty in the data. BruceHallman 17:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I am OK with the above idea tp do an average (1 line) if titled an average, and if you note to "just based on sources listed and pending further data." Goldenrowley 19:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC) ---

as a note I don't want to discourage you I just put my cautionary advice hat on. The esselen tribe claims 500 members and I see other sites claiming 1500-2000 total today. This link -- the Muwekma application for regonition -- page 5 shows Muwekma membership of 397 in year 2000 (see page 5) : [1] Goldenrowley 01:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
On final diagram you inserted today -- I admire the way you graphically handled the "uncertain" element. good job. I put the population tables below -- I need this data somewhere safe for reference. Goldenrowley 19:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ohlone Population statistics

These are popluation statistics from noted sources, tables developed but there is some discussion of accuracy.

I think population for years 1900 and 2000 seem too low in the NABD datase. I have established 397 minimum in yr 2000. Goldenrowley 22:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Total Costanoan estimated by NAHBD[1]
Year 1800 1848 1852 1880 1900 2000
Population 3000 1000 900 300 50 250


Total Native Americans in County Group VI estimated by Cook[2]
Year 1880 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970
Population 459 131 134 286 587 646 1,452 4,588 17,017

Disputed

Please stop putting inaccurate material that you haven't checked into these articles!

You cite Cook 1976 as a source for an estimate of 26,000 Ohlone in the San Francisco Bay area alone. The scholarly citation is inadequate; you don't specify which of the two Cook 1976 references you're citing, and you don't give a page number. However, it's evident that you mean The Population of the California Indians, 1769-1970. If you had actually consulted this source (pp. 20, 42), you would have seen that Cook's figure of 26,000 referred to ALL of the Costanoan/Ohlone, plus all of the Esselen, plus all of the Salinan, plus the northern (Obispeño) Chumash.

By sticking in phoney "references" without checking them, you create an unfair burden for editors who are trying to build a factual encyclopedia. RhymeNotStutter 20:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


Fellow Editor, thank you for your comments. As you have noted, the footnotes are of an inadequate nature. In addition, I note that the Reference "Cook/1976" is in conflict with our notes. We beg your indulgence. Unfortunately, our fast paced additions have lead to this rather unfortunate oversight. We thank you for your patience and kindness in pointing to this. We will endeavor to correct this, and any other possible oversights. In the mean time, feel free to make notes on any other observed errors, as we all would like a work to be proud of.
On the 26,000 number you have noted, the error is mine. As Cook defines the "Northern Mission Area" it is difficult to distingish boundaries. We have recently discussed this(Goldenrowley and myself - just days ago). The decision was to add further notes. You may read the discussion #Archive_and_Population_revisited. --meatclerk 21:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The additions I make were not exactly fast paced. I took hours researching this stuff, and when I add things, I have my sources in one hand, and I am not burdening anyone but myself. I'd really look forward to meatclerk help to review the population (one more time) and any other things Meatclerk says, because 9 times out of 10 he's been right, it just takes time to understand eachother in writing. Goldenrowley 09:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

BREAKING News

"In a September 21, 2006, Memorandum Opinion, a United States District Judge has ruled favorably in our action against the U.S. Department of the Interior seeking review of the "Final Determination Against Federal Acknowledgment of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe." The District Court has rejected the Department of the Interior's rationale for requiring the Muwekma Ohlone to proceed through tribal acknowledgment procedures that other tribes have been allowed to bypass. The Memorandum Opinion requires the Department of the Interior to complete an evaluation and submit a formal explanation of its rationale by November 27, 2006-- currently posted AT mUWEKMA site tribe. Goldenrowley 03:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Reopen intro

I'm not sure how to say this other than this. It's not done Goldenrowley. On my last communications on this matter, I clear state

If you are asking me about Ohlone, then I need to fix the Intro. I think I have that down to six words.

It's that simple, but I have not added one word to the intro. If you want the six words, you'll have to wait. --meatclerk 06:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay with me. I just thought we were working on the main page rather than side bars, which is why I moved the Intro "conversation sidebar" to the "archive" section...I did not mean to imply we're done. Gee I did not say we were done I thought we all agreed it was hard to keep too many sidebars open. Goldenrowley 19:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
You are correct on the "sidebar". In that Bruce sees it easier to work off the main page. Even so, other editors are jumping in, as happened today. They may need to communicate with us, as we with them, as we do with each other. On that, you'll note we have agreed (I think) on general references and their status. The point is to give people (that come after us) a point of reference. It also give new comers a place to start. They may have different ideas, but at least they know where to start as to how we think.
On the Intro, it is by no means finished, nor do I see it as being the final version. To add, or make changes, to it, would be distracting. The last time I made a small change, yourself and Bruce followed with several changes. As such, I fully expect than when my six (or so) words get added, there will be several more rounds of changes. Then the final points that should be on the Intro will be added to the sidebar, and incoming editors will see it as finalized(in a vague sense at least). Respectfully --meatclerk 08:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Tribelet Concern

I just read that according to the Muwekma Ohlone tribe, the word tribelet that was coined is "considered demeaning" to the people (for example, feels like a diminutive form of tribe)-- Bean p 300, article written by members of the Ohlone tribe, makes a whole case against the word Tribelet. I am concerned, I do not want to demean anyone. Goldenrowley 19:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have several other concerns less urgent with properly dealing with Kroeber and historian's coined labelisms this article has to translate to modern readers:

  1. We call it Northern California, but on his maps and many references Linguists/ethnohistorians put this region in Central California. However, ask anyone in the Bay Are and they say they live in Northern California. I beleive Spanish called it Northern as well.
  2. Kuksu -- Kroeber called it the Kuksu Cult. If you really review the religion, it is not a cult in the modern sense, the word cult denotes it was wrong/bad and not mainstream to the society. In actuality Kuksu was mainstream and not wrong or bad. I've downplayed the word cult. My obervation is that Kuksu was a religion or communal beleif system --- not a cult.
  3. Also...one thing I am still working on is that there were many religions before and in tandem with Kuksu. I've located a Bear shaman and clues of a winter solstice ceremony. "Early witnesses" noticed the people having some sort of sun ceremony or ritual without being able to evaluate its importance. Goldenrowley 19:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Bruce has concerns I'm sure. I'm not positive on how to handle tribelet. The first is we cannot make things up, including a definitive term that already has a meaning. If we can find another term, in another reference we could use that. Or we could be more descriptive. In any case, perhaps Bruce has some ideas. I'm not that attached to the term. --meatclerk 08:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
How about just keeping the tribelet definition of several households, without the word? I'll put the word in notes as a an "coined word". Goldenrowley 00:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Tribelet, the word, seems demeaning to my ear. My vote is to use the words, 'tribe' or 'village' or 'band' or 'group' instead, and they effectively the same thing. BruceHallman 06:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you're right, especially if the Ohlone think so. I've already adjusted a bit I took it out of the main article as a word, its only in the footnotes right now. Goldenrowley 20:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive and Population revisited

I've archived some old stuff. I appoligize, if I've mistakenly archive something needed. If you need it, let know know I will restore that item. Else, look Talk:Ohlone/Archive 003.

As you already know, the geographical boundary for the Ohlone (Costanoan) is a language boundary, and somewhat artifical. Even so, this does not fit well with what the missionaries did. However, the problem we have may be simpiler.

As it turns out I am reading Cook one last time to get my notes, when from the Index I go to page 8 and read about "Southern Patwin". They were sweep into the Missions around 1810. He says "(this) element almost nullified by the efforts of ethnographers". By this I think he means, they are almost forgotten by ethnographers. So I'm pretty sure he means the population count was "almost (...) nullified." His count for "Southern Patwin" is 5000.

The question is how much is Patwin, how much is Miwok, how much Ohlone? Please see the map on my website, here. It connects to my population page, but does not effect the numbers I need.

I think we can safely ignore the issue in our population count, but we should make a footnote on this. Something like, "Cook's boundaries don't match current known linguistic boundaries for Ohlone. Hence, there may be minor errors, which we cannot account for."

Specifically, this number raises the total for Coastal Miwok, Patwin and Ohlone, of course.

Your comments? --meatclerk 10:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If I recall Cook was using modern county boundary lines, and not tracking each village within the counties, so yes, his population stats are not soley speaking about Ohlone. Statistically, it also means farthest he gets from precontact year of 1770, the more his numbers will include the migrants into the region, and less accurate about the original people. The Patwin did not live in Ohlone places in 1769 (at all). Nor the Coast Miwok. However, I think in the east bay assume there are some Bay Miwok mixed sharing the Contra Costa/Alameda/Livermore region, and in the Monterey bay area, definitely assume some Esselen and Yokuts were mixed into the county counts. Goldenrowley 02:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess I should reiterate this directly.
1) Cook uses mission records for counts, not tribe counts. So even though for my purpose (Menlo Park and Redwood City) this not an issue, for tribe count (Ohlone/Costanoan) it is. It is becuase not all people in the mission were Ohlone/Costanoan, some especially in San Francisco were east bay and north, then later the valley - respectively this means Berkeley & Oakland, Marin County(Miwok) and eastward, then Sacramento Vally(Miwok). The broader point is the population was mixed in the Missions.
2) At the boundary conditions for Cook, more error creep (sp?) in. So if we follow the linguistic maps as ethnographers are doing now, then how many Costanoan, or Utian, speaking people are from Napa and Solano Counties?
To reiterate, No. 1 says we count too many becuase of the Mission count. No. 2 says we missed some because they are on the other side of the border.
So, I know we argree now that count is off somewhat. So, we have a range, that covers much discrepency. So my question is, Is the range enough for both of you?, or do we want to leave more notes?
--meatclerk 05:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes I agree we should have a note when we speak of Cook's numbers to say exactly what he counted. I did not think there are any Costanoans in Napa or Solano counties I thought they stop at the southern side of the Carquinez straight. Perhaps they moved across the straight for fishing and/or those who intermarried? I think North of that body of water is all Suisunes (Patwin) region. See my attempts to write a Suisunes page. Goldenrowley 18:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I come back to eat some of my own words, having noticed "Karkin (also spelled Carquin) - on both sides of Carquinez Straight, present-day Port Costa, Martinez and Benicia" -- Benicia would be tip of North Bay, that they must have shared with Suisunes, who also had villages in the Benicia area. Goldenrowley 04:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Proposed change after going back to the library for the book again:

"...However, Cook did more scientific research and revised his figures later in life to project 26,000 in his idea of the "Northern Mission Area" (which was about 50% larger than Ohlone-Costanoan territory). Per Cook, "Northern Mission Area" means "the region inhabited by the Costanoans and Salinans between San Francisco Bay and the headwaters of the Salinas River. To this may be added for convenience the local area of the San Luis Obispo even though there is an infringement of the Chumash"; page 40: "The Northern Mission Area...26,000".</ref>. The native Ohlone-Costanoan people, residing in 50% of the "Northern Mission Area", were projected at higher population densities than the southern areas <ref>Cook, 1976, "Population, page __?</ref>, so roughly are estimated to be about 70%(?) percent, or 18,200(?) plus or minus a few thousand in this model.

Goldenrowley 01:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

(1) It's not legitimate to change the wording inside a direct quotation. Cook didn't write "Ohlone", he wrote "Costanoan".

(2) If you multiply 70% times 26,000, you'll get 18,200, not 20,000.

(3) If you check a map (such as the one in the Handbook of North American Indians vol. 8 or Kroeber 1925) you'll see that the southern areas (Esselen, Salinan, Obispeño Chumash) amount to far more than 30% of the total area of those groups plus the Ohlone; more like 50%. (However, if you read Cook, you'll see that he also very reasonably projected lower population densities for the southern areas than for the northern ones.)

(4) In writing an article like this, it's legitimate to report what authorities on the subject have actually said. It's also legitimate to rework the presentation of their data IF you take the time to carefully check the original sources, do the math, etc. RhymeNotStutter 02:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Alrighy then the thing is, my library only gives me 1 hour at a time to work then it unceremoniously dismisses me, so I had I wasnt done yet and had to leave and have dinner. I made some relevant changes, but still consider it a work in progress at the moment. Goldenrowley 03:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC). I've changed it to 18200 plus or minus a few thousand. Goldenrowley 05:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
OK here we go, I've had time to check things over again and not longer rushed. Note I can't find a reference to southern territory being less dense, someone please provide it if known. Goldenrowley 07:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"...However, Cook did more scientific research and revised his figures later in life to project an estimated 26,000 people resided in the "Northern Mission Area".<ref>Cook, 1976, ''Population'', page 42-43: "The Northern Mission Area...26,000."</ref>. Per Cook, the "Northern Mission Area" means "the region inhabited by the Costanoans and Salinans between San Francisco Bay and the headwaters of the Salinas River. To this may be added for convenience the local area under the jurisdiction of the San Luis Obispo even though there is an infringement of the Chumash".<ref>Cook, 1976, ''Population'', page 20<ref>. The native Ohlone-Costanoan people's territory was one half of the "Northern Mission Area", but probably more densely populated than the southern areas.<ref>Cook, 1976,''Population'', page ___ </ref>, so a reasonable estimate is 70 percent of the "Northern Mission Area" were Ohlone people, or 18,200 people, plus or minus a few thousand, using this model.

Goldenrowley 07:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Cook's estimates for lower population density among the Esselen and Salinan is in his older work (Conflict, 1976a:187).

For balance, you might want to include the fact that subsequent to Cook's revisions, Richard Levy (p.485) again arrived at a lower population total of 9,800 (Levy, Richard. 1978. "Costanoan". In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 485-495. Handbook of North American Indians, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, vol. 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.).

A suggestion: if your library's hours are inconvenient, you might want to look into using interlibrary loan. Cook's two books aren't rare, so there should be no problem in getting hold of them. The drawback is that the process is slow, so you would have to plan ahead on what you're going to need. RhymeNotStutter 14:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It would not hurt to add Levy into the paragraph as another opinion, if you have it. Meatclerk, Cook in his opening paragraphs said he substracted the Miwok, Patwin and others who would have inflated the mission records, when he estimated "Northern Mission Area" and was estimating the region before contact. I feel fairly confident in the above research having confirmed the Salinan sparsity question in Kroeber as well. Goldenrowley 19:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Bottom Menu

Goldenrowley is trying to make the bottom menu small and flat like most other bottom menus. What do you guys think? LAST ONE removed, template renamed "Ohlone2":

Ohlone-Costanoan People of California
Linguistic Divisions
• Karkin South edge of Carquinez Strait
• Chochenyo East side of San Francisco Bay
• Ramaytush San Mateo & San Francisco Counties
• Tamyen Southwest side San Francisco Bay & Santa Clara Valley    
• Awaswas From Davenport to Aptos in Santa Cruz County
• Mutsun Pajaro River, San Benito River & San Felipe Creek
• Rumsen Salinas, Lower Carmel & Sur Rivers
• Chalon Salinas Valley, Salinas River

NEW ONE used instead, template named "Ohlone" :

Ohlone/Costanoan Indigenous People of California
Sub-Groups:
      Karkin • Chochenyo • Ramaytush • Tamyen • Awaswas • Mutsun • Rumsen • Chalon • List of Tribes & Villages      
Culture:
Mythology • Traditional Narratives • Utian languages • Hunting & Gathering • Native American

Comments/feedback please? Goldenrowley 00:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


Ok, *I think* the new one is the normal shape and size for bottom navigational menus, so I am going to switch over to it barring any objections... Goldenrowley 20:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


Looks good to me. --meatclerk 22:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
DONE.

revamp tag

The major revamp tag probably can come off, the article is pretty stable. No? BruceHallman 20:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I might add a few sentences but I trying to wrap up. I just got Kroeber's massive tome last night I need tiny bit more time to read it. Goldenrowley 20:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I need about a week to finish any major changes. --meatclerk 22:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Bruce on Population graph, can you change "present day" to 1500-2000 people roughly before we finish? That's a closer estimate if you all agree Goldenrowley 00:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Coming back to Thank Bruce for the population graph update. Goldenrowley 04:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Population continued

In review of my numbers and the article Population_of_Native_California, it would be advised to make a general disclaimer with the current numbers. Cook's book is confusing at best. Of one page I scanned (pg. 28), the terminology and "word exchange" are prime examples. For instance, in one section he says "West Bay" and "West Costanoans", my notes say I am assuming they are "one and the same". However, it's not clear, if that's what he meant. We could make a logical deduction, but that can be hazardous.

Further, just using the numbers for the missions (SF, SC and SJ), I get 12,220 Baptisms, or 18,330 derived using a multipler of 1.5 (as Cook does pg.24-25).

In summation, deriving a number plus or minus some specific number is hazardous. Cook even says he is guessing on which people are from where. True he is using good tools, but we don't have the benefit of those tools. For instance, seperating Northern Chumash from Ohlone is difficult unless we look at the raw data. The same is true for Coastal Miwok, versus East Bay natives (Berkeley/Oakland). Even later San Juaquin becomes an issue.

The point is if we want to write a PHD paper on this we could, but even Cook states the boundaries are fuzzy, at best. A general number followed with a strong disclaimer; such as,

While scholars continue to study the issue regarding the Population of Native California, even a general number is difficult. While some documentation exist, sophisticated methods and techniques continue to be applied, along with the careful review of given material.

Respectfully --meatclerk 09:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I did not see your thoughts today Meatclerk, before fixing the page on Cook. To put your mind a little more at ease, did you see that Cook follows his population projections immediately with a plus or minus error rate of 10 percent(page 43). Also, did you see that he said he substracted the Miwok, Patwin and others who would have inflated the mission records, when he estimated "Northern Mission Area" and SAID he was estimating only Costanoan and Salinan. All we'd really have to do is subtract Salinan and keep a 10 percent error on his numbers. To me that's vague, about 20 percent vague, but not rocket science....and its better to have a maximum number with a 20 percent error rate, than to estimate nothing... don't you think? On the suggested disclaimer, I don't know... don't people already get that this is a difacult number to ascertain because we had to quote about 5 experts ? Goldenrowley 21:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
HI again, I think this might be to your liking, a strong disclaimer right after the numbers in the opening paragraph: " The Ohlone's population in 1770, around the time of missionary settlements, has been estimated between 10,000 and 20,000, noting that there is uncertainty of the Population of Native California, and ethnohistorians differ widely on this population estimate." Goldenrowley 00:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
On pg. 43, I should have scanned that page but neglected. However, it does not effect my numbers for Menlo Park and Redwood City.
On the "disclaiming statements", they seem adequate, but long. I note the first sentence is 37 words. Second sentence 21 words. It's a bit wordy. However, I don't recommend fixing it yet. Give it a few days. It's easier to edit. --meatclerk 06:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, adequate is good! fixing wordiness is the easy part. Goldenrowley 16:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/h/l/Talk%7EOhlone_Archive_4_da2d.html"