Talk:Miwok/Archive 1

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.

There was no proof that the Southern Sierra Miwoks were the first Indian people in Yosemite. In the unrevised verision of Lafayette Bunnell's first encounter of Chief Tenaya he wrote "Tenaya was the founder of the Pah-Ute colony of Awahnee". He also wrote that Chief Tenaya spoke a "Piute Jargon". Major Savage spoke Yokut and other tribal languages, but took a Monoache Indian to speak to Chief Tenaya. Here is the text from the first book written by those who first encountered Chief Tenaya.[1]"Ten-ie-ya was recognized, by the Mono tribe, as one of their number, as he was born and lived among them until his ambition made him a leader and founder of the Pai-Ute colony in Ah-wah-ne. His history and warlike exploits formed a part of the traditionary lore of the Monos. They were proud of his successes and boasted of his descent from their tribe, although Ten-ie-ya himself claimed that his father was the chief of an independent people, whose ancestors were of a different race." Which meant that the Ahwahnechees were from a totally seperate tribe. Not related to the Maidus, Yokuts, Washoes, and Miwoks.

Chief Tenaya was born at Mono Lake from a Paiute woman and lived there til he was an adult before returning to Yosemite. He returned to Yosemite with a couple of hundred people, including his Paiute wife and children. He did not return to Yosemite with a couple of hundred Miwoks. They were Paiutes.

If you read the Southern Sierra Miwok dictionary linked to the main page you will find the name "Yosemite". In their dictionary "Yosemite" means "They are Killers". That would indicate that the Miwoks were not on friendly terms with the Awahnees.[2]

When Tenaya was taken to the Fresno Reservation he told Savage "Why are you bringing me amongst my enemies". Those people were the Yokuts and Miwoks.

When Tenaya escaped the Fresno Reservation he did not escape to the Central Miwok area, but instead went back into Paiute area. If he was Miwok he would have went to his peoples homeland instead of those that the Miwoks had several battles with, the Paiutes.

History has been modified to change the real Native peoples of Yosemite into Miwoks when they were Paiutes.[3]

Concerning Sylvia Broadbent's Southern Sierra Miwok informants.

5 out of the 10 informants that Ms. Broadbent had as Southern Sierra Miwok informants stated that they were Miwoks, but when doing their family tree they were really Cassons Yokut.

Lafayette H. Bunnell's Discovery of the Yosemites, 1851, an the war that led to the event on pdf.

I have been expanding the sub-sections for each group and am starting to feel that with any future expansion, it will be trying to cover too much on one page. I am considering copying and pasting the following sub-articles onto separate pages: 1. Valley & Sierra Miwok, 2. Coast Miwok and 3. Lake Miwok. The branch will start after the introduction which mentions them already, and can link to each of them. Reasoning: besides multiple subsections each, the Sierra and the coast in particular are separate climate zone and this effects how they might live, their food, housing, etc., and w already have enough for 3 articles. I'll make sure each page keeps the right external links and references. Is everyone okay with this? Goldenrowley 21:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly ok with that, actually a fan of it as long as all of these articles remain linked together, through a template at the bottom of the page, or something with a similar effect. I'll even whip one up once the articles are created. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 06:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That template idea sounds wonderful. I finished the pages as follows

Valley and Sierra Miwok, Coast Miwok and Lake Miwok. Thank you for volunteering to 'whip up' a nice template that lists this little group ! I look forward to see it. Goldenrowley 05:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC) -- propose include Miwok mythology in the template as well Goldenrowley

17:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you the new template at bottom looks nice. I added Bay Miwok (Karkin) to this set and template, after further studying led me to see them as separate level.Goldenrowley 02:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

1770 isn't a possible date, considering it was over a century before Kroeber was even born...where did it come from? --Miskwito 19:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Kroeber thought that in the 1770 there was that many peoplke... not that in his own life time. I'll reword it to be clear. Goldenrowley 19:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Sorry about the confusion --Miskwito 20:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a possible link that the Miwoks are either Walla Walla Natives from Oregon or mixed with Walla Walla Indians. This is from early historical accounts.[4] -- Yosemite Indian 05:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting arguement. It is very believable, but do I want to believe it? I'm not sure yet. Are you also "Numa" who places comments on articles from the Sac Bee? Ceqa (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that this is like when the Hawaiians that came with Sutter intermarried into various Maidu tribes in the Valley. Do you know if the Miwok tribes, where the Walla Wallas may have intermarried, refute this history? Going off what you have written, there is no real answer to where the Walla Wallas went. Should we assume they eventually assimilated, went home, or intermarried with neighboring tribes? I think it would be interesting to see what census records say.Ceqa (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No I am not that person. Why do you ask? Also why would I want to "refute this history"? I have heard the stories of Hawaiians intermarrying with the Maidu. There are many early references concerning Walla Indians in the area. Many tribes in the San Joaquin Valley died of dieases early on and whites needed a work force. The Walla of Oregon were friendly towards whites and Sutter made agreements to have them work for him. Many writers of the time documented the early Miwok as Walla, after the popular series by Stephen Powers in the Overland Monthly, the name Powers wrote was Miwok. Powers still wrote about the word "Wallie, Wallie", but didn't understand where that came from. There is also one problem with the general population census rolls, many of the Maidu and Yokuts today would be Miwoks, if we followed what the census taker wrote. Yosemite Indian 02:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I was just curious. Your writtings are similar.Ceqa (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The article has a photo of a supposed reproducation of a Miwok bark house taken in Yosemite National Park. There were no recorded photos of Miwoks living in bark houses. The majority of photos taken of Indians living in bark houses in the area were of Paiutes,[5] not Miwoks. So this is false. Where are the photos of Miwoks living in bark houses? --Yosemite Indian (talk) 11:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It was I that originally founds that photo and frankly you may be right I dont want to see a reproduction I want to see a "real" house, however, I could not locate a better photo that was free, ifyou have some feel free to upload, make sure they are public domain "free license" so we can use them. Goldenrowley (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if Mr. Lucas named his "Ewoks" after California's Miwoks. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This article has been revised as part of

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Miwok/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following