Jump to content

Talk:Bay Miwok

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

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. Levy, Richard. 1978. Eastern Miwok. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California. 398-413.

--Anonymous, 9/20/06

Karkin has moved to "Ohlone" as a tribe I am glad sources exist to clarify their cultural backgroud. No need to be anonymous these look like good sources thanks for the help. Goldenrowley 16:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The correct publication date for Kroeber's Handbook is 1925. A "References" entry should cite a book or article, not a specific page. On the other hand, in the Notes entry, a direct quotation requires specification of the page it comes from. RhymeNotStutter 22:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC) -->It appears you are very right on the year of publication and the online link is probably just labelled the year incorrectly. I'll fix all refs. Kroeber, Alfred Louis. - Handbook of the Indians of California / by A.L. Kroeber. - Washington: Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology, 1925. - XVIII, 995 p.: ill.; 24 cm. - (Bulletin / Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology; 78) Goldenrowley 00:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency in myth and folklore section?

[edit]

We allege presently there is hardly any myths from this group surviving. However we link to this article which says the opposite: Eastern Miwok traditional narratives says "The record of Eastern Miwok oral literature is one of the most extensive in the state." This should be made consistent. Goldenrowley (talk) 06:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My take on this is that there is a problem using the term "Eastern Miwok" as an organizing principle. The mythic narratives of the Bay and Plains Miwok are almost non-existent. It is the Sierra Miwok narratives that are richly documented. I have an idea that the "Eastern Miwok" chapter by Levy in the 1978 Handbook lumps together the very different Bay, Plains, and Sierra Miwok cultures only because there was not enough material on Bay Miwok and Plains Miwok to justify a separate chapter or two. "Eastern Miwok" is a legitimate abstract concept, because it is a level of linguistic differentiation, in opposition to the Western group, including Coast and Lake Miwok. But even that is shaky, since aspects of Lake are "intermediate" between Coast and Plains. I will read the article on Eastern Miwok traditional narratives, then get back to you with some suggestions for repairs.Middle Fork (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please review and edit the changes I just made on the Eastern Miwok traditional narratives page. I want to justify the first paragraph by citing Levy (1978), but I do not know where to put the reference. Middle Fork (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This brings up a related problem. The Wikipedia structure now discusses Plains Miwok under "Valley and Sierra Miwok." I have never heard of "Valley" Miwok in any scholarly work. And Plains Miwok really deserves a separate entry from Sierra Miwok, due to the amazingly different environiments, nineteenth century history, and documentation levels that distinguish the two. Yet I fear to mess with it due to "Politically Correctness" bear traps surrounding the issue (read some of the "discussion" section, where you have conversed with some pretty passionate people about Sierra Miwok in the past). Middle Fork (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a thoughtful reply. About the term Plains and Valley, I have seen the terms Plains Miwok and Valley Miwok used interchangeably (for the Miwok in Sacramento Valley)..since this article doesn't cover them I'll be brief about that here and get to the narrative section and see how you've resolved what I perceived an inconsistency. I agree facts will show the Sierra Miwok are well documented, while our knowledge of Plains Miwok and Bay Miwok are slender. Your user page discusses treasure troves of info available to you. I know some troves exist in Spanish around the bay area but I can't speak Spanish. I keep hoping new publications will bring them to light... Goldenrowley (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished checking and the narrative page looks resolved, indeed. Thank you, Middle Fork. Goldenrowley (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Goldenrowley

[edit]

Goldenrowley, Thanks for editing my bad typing. Even when I do good, I need that kind of help. Middle Fork (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

To Interested Editors. I have had my doubts about the quality of a couple of references currently in this article, but did not have access to them, as they are the kind of thing that would be in the Contra Costa County library in Pleasant Hill, far from my home in Davis. I asked a friend, who is a Bay Area ethnohistorian, to find a way to check them out. Here is is response:

Anderson: "Mini-History meets none of the [Wikipedia] criteria. No sources are given, except for Bennyhoff's map and Handbook of N. American Indians, vol 8. Almost entirely obsolete ... I noted multiple quotes to illustrate misinformation, if you need them."

Tullis: "Diablo's Children is surprisingly good, considering its 1978 vintage. She did quite a thorough survey of sources available to that time, per her bibliography. Not Scholarly. It is well written and edited and would make an excellent 4th grade resource for teachers......if it were up-dated to reflect the last 30 years of research."

Here is what I propose, given that neither of the two references supports a "note." Lets completely strike Anderson. Then, lets move Tullis out of references and into a "Further Reading" segment. If I do not hear back in a couple of days, I will carry out these two recommendations.Middle Fork (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today I moved Anderson and Tullis to "Further Reading" but am going to completely remove Anderson next. Also, I removed "Native American istory, East Contra Costa Historical Society & Museum Web site. Retrieved on 16 Sept 2006." from the references because it does not even mention Bay Miwok and its discussion of skeletons at the Hotchkiss Mound is not factual and not handled in the most sensitive fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Middle Fork (talk • contribs) 19:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Sorry I forgot to sign this entry above. Kinda tired today.Middle Fork (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bay Miwok people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bay Miwok. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bay_Miwok&oldid=1199672699"