VOLUME 1 - Revision history

Shannon: /* Moving Forward with the CDM */

2010-07-27T22:01:57Z

‎Moving Forward with the CDM

Shannon: /* Moving Forward with the CDM */

2010-07-27T21:58:54Z

‎Moving Forward with the CDM

Shannon at 21:55, 27 July 2010

2010-07-27T21:55:27Z

Shannon: /* Additional Files */

2010-07-27T21:48:45Z

‎Additional Files

Shannon at 21:42, 27 July 2010

2010-07-27T21:42:37Z

Shannon: /* Additional Files */

2010-07-27T21:39:09Z

‎Additional Files

Shannon at 21:38, 27 July 2010

2010-07-27T21:38:10Z

Shannon at 21:26, 27 July 2010

2010-07-27T21:26:55Z

WikiSysop at 18:00, 21 June 2010

2010-06-21T18:00:12Z

WikiSysop: /* Volume 1: Introduction to the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model */

2010-06-21T17:55:01Z

‎Volume 1: Introduction to the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model

@@ Line 279: / Line 279: @@
 |-
-|align = "center"|2
+|align = "center"|[[VOLUME_2|2]]
 |align = "center"|Northwest
 |align = "center"|Wiyot/Yurok<br>Athabascan<br>Karok<br>Takelman
@@ Line 285: / Line 285: @@
 |-
-|align = "center"|3
+|align = "center"|[[VOLUME_3|3]]
 |align = "center"|North
 |align = "center"|Shastan, Chimariko<br>Wintu and Nomlaki<br>Yana
@@ Line 291: / Line 291: @@
 |-
-|align = "center"|4
+|align = "center"|[[VOLUME_4|4]]
 |align = "center"|Northeast
 |align = "center"|Modoc<br>Mountain Maidu<br>Numic<br>Pit River<br>Washoe
@@ Line 297: / Line 297: @@
 |-
-|align = "center"|5
+|align = "center"|[[VOLUME_5|5]]
 |align = "center"|North Coast Ranges
 |align = "center"|Lake Miwok<br>Pomo<br>Wappo<br>Yuki
@@ Line 303: / Line 303: @@
 |-
-|align = "center"|6
+|align = "center"|[[VOLUME_6|6]]
 |align = "center"|Middle Sacramento Valley
 |align = "center"|Northwest Maidu and Nisenan Maidu<br>Patwin Wintuan<br>Bay Miwok, Coast Miwok<br>Northern Ohlone
@@ Line 309: / Line 309: @@
 |-
-|align = "center"|4
+|align = "center"|[[VOLUME_7|7]]
 |align = "center"|Bay Area
 |align = "center"|Patwin Wintuan<br>Bay Miwok, Coast Miwok<br>Northern Ohlone
@@ Line 315: / Line 315: @@
 |-
-|align = "center"|8
+|align = "center"|[[VOLUME_8|8]]
 |align = "center"|Delta-North San Joaquin
 |align = "center"|Plains Miwok and Sierra Miwok<br>Delta Yokuts<br>
@@ Line 321: / Line 321: @@
 |-
-|align = "center"|9
+|align = "center"|[[VOLUME_9|9]]
 |align = "center"|South San Joaquin
 |align = "center"|Mono Numic<br>Tubatulabal<br>Yokuts
@@ Line 327: / Line 327: @@
 |-
-|align = "center"|10
+|align = "center"|[[VOLUME_10|10]]
 |align = "center"|South Coast Ranges
 |align = "center"|Northern Chumash<br>Esselen<br>Ohlone<br>Salinan
@@ Line 333: / Line 333: @@
 |-
-|align = "center"|11
+|align = "center"|[[VOLUME_11|11]]
 |align = "center"|Santa Barbara Channel
 |align = "center"|Chumash<br>
@@ Line 339: / Line 339: @@
 |-
-|align = "center"|12
+|align = "center"|[[VOLUME_12|12]]
 |align = "center"|Los Angeles Vicinity
 |align = "center"|Takic
@@ Line 345: / Line 345: @@
 |-
-|align = "center"|13
+|align = "center"|[[VOLUME_13|13]]
 |align = "center"|Southeast
 |align = "center"|Numic<br>Takic
@@ Line 351: / Line 351: @@
 |-
-|align = "center"|14
+|align = "center"|[[VOLUME_14|14]]
 |align = "center"|South
 |align = "center"|Yuman
@@ Line 357: / Line 357: @@
 |-
-|align = "center"|15
+|align = "center"|[[VOLUME_15|15]]
 |align = "center"|Colorado River
 |align = "center"|Yuman

@@ Line 307: / Line 307: @@
 |align = "center"|Northwest Maidu and Nisenan Maidu<br>Patwin Wintuan<br>Bay Miwok, Coast Miwok<br>Northern Ohlone
 |align = "center"|66
 |-

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 ===Project Purpose===
-[[File:Vol1-fig1.png|200px|thumb|right|Figure 1. Creating the Community Distribution Model.]]California Indians at the time of Euro-American contact lived out their lives in local communities of a few score to a few hundred individuals. They interacted with their immediate neighbors on all sides, regardless of language differences, through reciprocal trading, participation in ceremonial events, and occasional hostilities. Early twentieth-century ethnographers documented such groups with some precision in areas of California that had avoided most of the initial negative impact of western expansion. A.L. Kroeber coined the term "tribelet" to characterize those groups that consisted of inter-married families that defended fixed territorial boundaries. However, the term "tribelet" pertained only to some regional groups (e.g., Pomo, Yokuts, Modoc, and Pit River), but not to more loosely organized ceremonial regions (e.g., Yurok). Nor is it clear that the term "tribelet" can be used for the mountains and deserts east and south of Los Angeles, where early twentieth-century field studies suggest that small villages formed around specific patrilocal lineages that intermarried in complex patterns on the land that precluded formation of multi-village socio-political identity.
+[[Image:Vol1-fig1.png|200px|thumb|right|Figure 1. Creating the Community Distribution Model.]]California Indians at the time of Euro-American contact lived out their lives in local communities of a few score to a few hundred individuals. They interacted with their immediate neighbors on all sides, regardless of language differences, through reciprocal trading, participation in ceremonial events, and occasional hostilities. Early twentieth-century ethnographers documented such groups with some precision in areas of California that had avoided most of the initial negative impact of western expansion. A.L. Kroeber coined the term "tribelet" to characterize those groups that consisted of inter-married families that defended fixed territorial boundaries. However, the term "tribelet" pertained only to some regional groups (e.g., Pomo, Yokuts, Modoc, and Pit River), but not to more loosely organized ceremonial regions (e.g., Yurok). Nor is it clear that the term "tribelet" can be used for the mountains and deserts east and south of Los Angeles, where early twentieth-century field studies suggest that small villages formed around specific patrilocal lineages that intermarried in complex patterns on the land that precluded formation of multi-village socio-political identity.
 No statewide "tribelet" map has ever been constructed for contact-period ethnographic California. Robert Heizer commented on that fact in his 1966 mapping project entitled ''Languages, Territories, and Names of California Indian Tribes'', a study that introduced the only composite statewide map of local groups based upon C. Hart Merriam<nowiki>’</nowiki>s many field notes, and compared against A.L. Kroeber<nowiki>’</nowiki>s 1925 map of the language groups of California. At the time, Heizer (1966:9) wrote:
@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 ===Assessing the Regional Model===
-[[File:Vol1-fig2.png|200px|thumb|right|Figure 2. Community Distribution Model Analytical Zones within California.]]The specific regions draw attention to the local nature of everyday life in pre-European times and allow us a comparative perspective on the level of ethnographic knowledge. Many of the regions do approximate the year-round use-areas of tribelets or loose regional communities. In other cases a model region may inadvertently split the territory of some "real" past groups, or present the areas of separate groups as though they were one. There is no doubt, however, that pre-European California people lived out most of their lives within regions of the size presented by the CDM model, and that they interacted with neighbors in contiguous regions and knew much less about more distant groups.
+[[Image:Vol1-fig2.png|200px|thumb|right|Figure 2. Community Distribution Model Analytical Zones within California.]]The specific regions draw attention to the local nature of everyday life in pre-European times and allow us a comparative perspective on the level of ethnographic knowledge. Many of the regions do approximate the year-round use-areas of tribelets or loose regional communities. In other cases a model region may inadvertently split the territory of some "real" past groups, or present the areas of separate groups as though they were one. There is no doubt, however, that pre-European California people lived out most of their lives within regions of the size presented by the CDM model, and that they interacted with neighbors in contiguous regions and knew much less about more distant groups.
 It is a down side of this "cubby hole" approach that some readers will fail to read caveats presented here and believe that the regional boundaries are all precisely documented local group borders. But that problem is less serious than the tyranny of "language group as tribe" that informs the understanding of the public and some scholars today. The upside of the model presented here lies in its exposure of the variation in quality of ethnographic information from one region to the next and in its flexibility for adding new information about regions and their possible boundaries through in-depth local studies. In the future, thorough studies of one region, or a group of contiguous regions, might be the subject of entire academic symposia or doctoral dissertations.
@@ Line 111: / Line 111: @@
 ===Rancherias in the Mission Register===
-[[File:Vol1-fig4.png|thumb|200|right|Figure 3. Father Serra<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Leather-bound, Mission Carmel Libro de Confirmaciones. Diocese of Monterey Chancery Archives, Monterey.
+[[Image:Vol1-fig4.png|thumb|200|right|Figure 3. Father Serra<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Leather-bound, Mission Carmel Libro de Confirmaciones. Diocese of Monterey Chancery Archives, Monterey.
-]][[File:Vol1-fig5.png|thumb|200|right|Figure 4. Record of the First Baptism Performed by Father Serra, listed in Mission San Carlos Borromeo<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Libro de Bautismos. Bernardino de Jesus of the Rumsen Tribe, Born in the Achista Rancheria.]]When the Spanish missionaries arrived in California, they brought with them leather-bound books within which they were enjoined by church and state to record key information about each of their Indian converts (Figure 3). At baptism, each individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s native name, newly bestowed Spanish name, and inferred age was transcribed in a dated entry next to a unique sequential baptismal identification number (Figure 4). Beyond basic date, name, age, and "serial number," individual missionaries varied in what they wrote about baptized individuals. The vast majority of missionaries provided names of the baptized person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s home community. Confirmations, marriages, and deaths were also recorded, each in their own dedicated books. Stella Clemence, one of C. Hart Merriam<nowiki>’</nowiki>s assistants, extracted lists of the named rancherias for most missions just prior to 1920, published under the editorship of Robert Heizer (Merriam 1955, 1968, 1970).
+]][[Image:Vol1-fig5.png|thumb|200|right|Figure 4. Record of the First Baptism Performed by Father Serra, listed in Mission San Carlos Borromeo<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Libro de Bautismos. Bernardino de Jesus of the Rumsen Tribe, Born in the Achista Rancheria.]]When the Spanish missionaries arrived in California, they brought with them leather-bound books within which they were enjoined by church and state to record key information about each of their Indian converts (Figure 3). At baptism, each individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s native name, newly bestowed Spanish name, and inferred age was transcribed in a dated entry next to a unique sequential baptismal identification number (Figure 4). Beyond basic date, name, age, and "serial number," individual missionaries varied in what they wrote about baptized individuals. The vast majority of missionaries provided names of the baptized person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s home community. Confirmations, marriages, and deaths were also recorded, each in their own dedicated books. Stella Clemence, one of C. Hart Merriam<nowiki>’</nowiki>s assistants, extracted lists of the named rancherias for most missions just prior to 1920, published under the editorship of Robert Heizer (Merriam 1955, 1968, 1970).
 Alternate spellings of rancheria names by different priests are a major problem as they can be quite extreme. This issue can be aided by bringing together the mission register information for nuclear and extended families so that names spelled out by different priests over many years can be seen at one time. In central California, for example, approximately 4,000 distinctly spelled rancheria names are listed in the registers of baptism, burial, and marriage of the 11 Franciscan missions (San Francisco Solano south to San Miguel). These can be reduced to 1,300 names when alternative spellings of specific rancheria names are recognized. The processes of re-sorting mission register information by family group and of tracking "standardized" rancheria names in specific mission register entries will be documented in subsequent sections of this chapter.
@@ Line 123: / Line 123: @@
 ===Pioneering Mission Register Studies===
-[[File:Vol1-fig6.png|thumb|200|right|
+[[Image:Vol1-fig6.png|thumb|200|right|
-Figure 5. Map showing the Progressive Collapse of Autonomous Tribal Areas during the Years 1790 to 1806.]][[File:Vol1-fig7.png|thumb|200|right|
+Figure 5. Map showing the Progressive Collapse of Autonomous Tribal Areas during the Years 1790 to 1806.]][[Image:Vol1-fig7.png|thumb|200|right|
 Figure 6. Marriage Ties Between the Chupcan and Their Nearest Neighbors Based on Baptisms of Married Couples at Mission San Francisco and Mission San Jose, 1795-1811.
 ]]Ethnogeographies in the mission outreach areas of California now universally rely on mission register data. In this section we review the development of those kinds of studies from the 1850s forward. Beginning with Alexander Taylor in the 1860s, scholars interested in California ethnogeography have mined the mission records in search group names, then mapped ostensible home locations on the ground. Egbert Schenack referred to mission records in his 1926 study of the groups of the California Delta. Historical demographer Sherburne F. Cook produced studies that combined counts of group populations from the mission registers with other historical clues to improve understanding of many homeland areas (Cook 1955).
@@ Line 142: / Line 142: @@
 ===Family Reconstitution to Solve Rancheria Riddles===
-[[File:Vol1-fig8.png|200|right|thumb|Figure 7. Family Reconstitution Chart: Onesimo and Maria de Los Angeles Baylon.]]One common flaw in early ethnogeographic studies that used mission register data was the failure to overcome "scale" and "synonymy" problems. Schenck (1926) failed to recognize that the "Tarquines" of one source were a conflation of the Karkins and Tauquimnes of the mission records. Kroeber (1963) made the same mistake, conflating the Chilamne and Cholvon of the mission records into the non-existent "Chulamni." Bennyhoff (1977) gave some very small "hamlet" groups equal space on the land with very large multi-village regional groups.
+[[Image:Vol1-fig8.png|200|right|thumb|Figure 7. Family Reconstitution Chart: Onesimo and Maria de Los Angeles Baylon.]]One common flaw in early ethnogeographic studies that used mission register data was the failure to overcome "scale" and "synonymy" problems. Schenck (1926) failed to recognize that the "Tarquines" of one source were a conflation of the Karkins and Tauquimnes of the mission records. Kroeber (1963) made the same mistake, conflating the Chilamne and Cholvon of the mission records into the non-existent "Chulamni." Bennyhoff (1977) gave some very small "hamlet" groups equal space on the land with very large multi-village regional groups.
 The backbone technique for identification and resolution of such problems is the family reconstitution method. Family reconstitution, first introduced for social geography studies in Europe (Henry 1976; Wrigley 1966), is the process of amalgamating dispersed bits of information about individuals, married couples, and extended families into composite information sets (Figure 7). In mission register studies, family kinship charts are reconstituted from various register entries, resulting in composite data sets that illuminate: (1) synonymous terms for rancherias; (2) relationships of rancherias that are villages to rancherias that are regional names; (3) patterns of intermarriage among communities; (4) timing of family and community movements to missions; and (5) numerous demographic processes that do not emerge from aggregative mission register studies.
@@ Line 212: / Line 212: @@
 ====Mission-Impacted Areas that were Bounded Territories====
-[[File:Vol1-fig9.png|thumb|200|right|
+[[Image:Vol1-fig9.png|thumb|200|right|
 Figure 8. Ethnographic Regions by Major Language Group.
-]][[File:Vol1-fig10.png|200|thumb|right|Figure 9. Variation in Mission-Induced Depopulation across California.]][[File:Vol1-fig11.png|200|thumb|right|
+]][[Image:Vol1-fig10.png|200|thumb|right|Figure 9. Variation in Mission-Induced Depopulation across California.]][[Image:Vol1-fig11.png|200|thumb|right|
 Figure 10. Ethnographic Regions by Tentative Population Density.]]In some of the areas of California hard-hit by mission proselytization, mission record sources clearly identify multi-village regional groups. However, they seldom provide much indication of their core areas or the boundary locations. The areas include:

@@ Line 757: / Line 757: @@
 *[[Volume 1 Appendix C|Appendix C]]: Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model Zones and Regions
-[[Category:Volume]]
+[[Category:Volume|V01]]
-[[Category:Volume 1|01]]
+[[Category:Volume 1]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:42, 27 July 2010
Line 758:		Line 758:

	[[Category:Volume]]		[[Category:Volume]]
−	[[Category:Volume 1\|1]]	+	[[Category:Volume 1\|01]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:39, 27 July 2010
Line 758:		Line 758:

	[[Category:Volume]]		[[Category:Volume]]
−	[[Category:Volume 1\|1 ~~- Introduction to the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model~~]]	+	[[Category:Volume 1\|1]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:38, 27 July 2010
Line 758:		Line 758:

	[[Category:Volume]]		[[Category:Volume]]
−	[[Category:Volume 1]]	+	[[Category:Volume 1\|1 - Introduction to the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ='''Volume 1: Introduction to the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model=
-[[Image:Vol1-cover.png|right|300px]]June 2010 DRAFT
+[[Image:Vol1-cover.png|right|250px]]June 2010 DRAFT
 ''By:''