Who are and who are not

​the original people of San Francisco

and of the San Francisco Peninsula?

by Jonathn Cordero, Ph.D. and Chairperson of the Association of Ramyatush Ohlone

Embrace the Truth
and
​Honor Our Ohlone Ancestors
​As Ohlone, we believe that honesty and respect should guide our claims to identity and territory. Our ancestors valued honesty in all aspects of life and demanded that others respect known territorial boundaries. In many cases, deliberate deceit and the violation of territorial boundaries were severely punished, sometimes by death. In addition, we should be vigilant about the veracity of the information we share because the dissemination of inaccurate information inevitably creates tension in the Ohlone community and leads to misinformation in the broader public.
So in the end it does matter that we tell the truth, that we make claims based on what we do know rather than on what we would like to be true. Our interests should be guided by Ohlone principles and goals, such as honoring all of our Ohlone ancestors, preserving Ohlone culture, and sharing an accurate account of our history. When we make false claims in order to garner attention, to acquire financial resources, or to assert one Ohlone group’s interests above others, then we serve our interests not the truth, not the public good, and not the greater Ohlone community. So with truth and honor as guiding principles, and in order to be clear about the relationship between identity and territory, I present a short list of questions and answers, and the now infamous "dishonor roll"--a hopefully instructive short list of false claims that dishonor the Ramyatush Ohlone.

Who were the original people of what is now San Francisco County?

The original people of what is now San Francisco County were called the Yelamu, which is a local tribe within Ramaytush Ohlone territory. The southern boundary of their tribal territory was fairly consistent with the current San Francisco/San Mateo county line. There are no known living descendants of the Yelamu. Only descendants of the Ramaytush Ohlone have ancestors who were born in what is now San Francisco County; however, our ancestral village of origin was located in Pacifica, in what is now San Mateo County. 

Who were the original peoples of the San Francisco Peninsula?

The original peoples of the San Francisco Peninsula were and are referred to as Ramaytush, which is the Chochenyo word meaning "people of the west." The Ramaytush spoke a dialect of San Francisco Bay Costanoan language, which was one of three dialects, including Chochenyo and Tamyen. There were six Costanoan languages in total: Karkin, San Francisco Bay, Awaswas, Mutsun, Rumsen, and Chalon.
Of the original, approximately 1500 people who inhabited the San Francisco Peninsula prior to the Portola Expedition in 1769, only one lineage is known to have survived. Their descendants comprise the four branches of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples today.

Who are not​ the original people of San Francisco and of the San Francisco Peninsula?

1. The Muwekma Ohlone

The Muwekma Ohlone are neither the original people of San Francisco nor the original peoples of the San Francisco Peninsula. As their own map of aboriginal villages shows, all of their Ohlone ancestral villages of origin were located exclusively in the East Bay in Chochenyo territory; therefore, their members are Chochenyo not Ramaytush.
Contrary to protocol regarding respect for territorial boundaries and for honoring the ancestors of other indigenous peoples, the Muwekma Ohlone falsely claim Ramaytush territory as their own and disrespectfully refer to all Ohlone peoples from the San Francisco Bay area as Muwekma Ohlone. The phrase, "Muwekma Ohlone" refers to a tribe and should not be used to refer to all of the Ohlones peoples of the San Francisco Bay Area, past or present. Such usage offends other Bay Area Ohlone peoples who are not members of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe.
​Above
Map of the aboriginal villages of the members of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, adapted from the tribe's petition for Federal Recognition.
Left
Map of the tribal territory claimed by the Muwekma Ohlone today.
While the northern and eastern boundaries of the so-called Muwekma Ohlone tribal territory conform to known linguistic/ethnic boundaries, the southern boundary does not; it crosscuts Tamyen and Awaswas territorial boundaries. Why? Because at one point in recent history the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe and the Amah Mutsun Tribe divided up their neighboring territories without consideration of other Ohlone peoples. The line of division, it seems, was derived from the 1851-52 unratified treaty map area boundaries, which were obviously based on non-native standards.

2. The Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe (CRCT)

​For well over a decade, Chairman Tony Cerda and other related members of the Costanoan Carmel Rumsen Tribe (CRCT) have falsely claimed to be descendants of the original people of San Francisco. For example, in a recent online interview for the Presidio Trust, Chairman Cerda’s adult granddaughter, Desiree Munoz, stated, “I'm the first in my 2,000 member tribe to return to live in part of our ancestral homeland. I also live in the Presidio where my ancestors lived seasonally, so it’s amazing to think that I live where my ancestors once lived. I love to feel the spiritual vibes that are all around the park. My ancestors are here all around us–I can feel them.”
Such false claims contradict the efforts that we native peoples make to honor our ancestors. As CRCT Chairman Tony Cerda himself asserts in an interview, "We want to be shown the respect we deserve as the original people of that land." Chairman Cerda’s claim is, however, rife with contradiction—the CRCT are neither the original people of San Francisco nor do they honor its original peoples by making such patently false statements. As is self-evident from numerous maps, the entire San Francisco Peninsula is Ramaytush Ohlone territory—not Patwin, not Bay Miwok, not Rumsen.
The CRCT claims that Chairman Cerda’s ancestor, Tiburcio, was the same as Tiburcio Sumu who was baptized at Mission Dolores in 1816; however, no evidence supports the claim that Tiburcio Sumu was Tony Cerda's ancestor. Even if Tiburcio Sumu was Charman Cerda's ancestor, he was not Ohlone--he was Patwin and likely Bay Miwok. Based on the information presented on the CRCT's own website, Chairman Tony Cerda has no Ohlone ancestry from the San Francisco Bay Area.
Chairman Tony Cerda was deservedly honored by the City and County of San Francisco for his efforts to sustain Ohlone culture, although the award letter indicates that he is purportedly "one of the few living descendants of the original, native people of this area" who is "bringing Ohlone cultural traditions back to San Francisco"; however, Rumsen Ohlone traditions never originated in San Francisco.
Notes
​​[i] https://www.presidio.gov/blog/placemaker-national-park-service-ranger-desiree-munoz-talks-about-her-ohlone-heritage
[ii] https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Ohlones-want-a-voice-on-Hunters-Point-project-3256436.php

THE DISHONOR ROLL

​1. From the Presidio of San Francisco . . . purportedly made a Muwekma Ohlone consultant.

STATEMENT: ​“The Muwekma built Petlenuc along the bay shore near the marshland where they lived for more than a thousand years.” 
EXPLANATION: Petlenuc is a village of the Yelamu, an ancestral tribe within Ramaytush Ohlone territory. Muwekma (which means “people” in Chochenyo Ohlone) is obviously not the name of the ancestral tribe; nor is it the name of the territory within which Petlenuc is located; nor is it the word that the Yelamu, who spoke the Ramaytush dialect of Costanoan language, would have used for “people.” In this instance, the Ohlone consultant not only misinformed the public but dishonored the ancestors of the Ramaytush Ohlone.

2. ​From Francisco da Costa, Director of Environmental Justice Advocacy.
(See “Shellmounds” by Francisco da Costa at http://www.franciscodacosta.com/articles/shellmounds.html.)

STATEMENT: “The National Park Service, which is in the business of Preservation and Protection, has not been following its Mission Objective by doing justice to the First People of San Francisco - the Muwekma Ohlone.”
EXPLANATION: The first people of San Francisco are the Ramaytush Ohlone not the Muwekma Ohlone. 

3. From David Lafaille in Columbus and Broadway (2015, page 9).

STATEMENT: “San Francisco, its hills and hidden hollows, had been in flux since the white man had encroached on the Muwekma Ohlone, the aboriginal people.”
EXPLANATION: Again, the aboriginal people of San Francisco were the Ramaytush Ohlone not the Muwekma Ohlone.  

4. From "Those Who Came Before" by Theresa Johnson at Stanford University. 

STATEMENT: "Leland Stanford Jr., took a special interest in collecting arrowheads, mortars and pestles from the property around the Stanford home on San Francisquito Creek.
​. . .
"Barnes was the first of a number of Stanford archeologists who unearthed a detailed picture of the Muwekma-Ohlones and their culture. They discovered the remains of two year-round Muwekma-Ohlone villages on the newly established Stanford campus. One, in the Jasper Ridge area, dates back 2,000 years. Another, on the banks of San Francisquito Creek near the present-day shopping center, originated some 5,000 years ago. Both were continuously inhabited until the early 1800s."
EXPLANATION:  San Francisquito Creek was located in the area of transition between the Ramaytush Ohlone and the Tamyen Ohlone. The ancestral tribe was called Puichon. The aboriginal people were therefore not the Muwekma Ohlone, which is the name of a tribal organization; the original people should be referred to as the Puichon, or Ramaytush Ohlone or Tamyen Ohlone.

5. From John Wildremuth in "Ohlones Want a Voice on Hunters Point Project." (2010)

STATEMENT: "We want to be shown the respect we deserve as the original people of that land," Tony Cerda, chairman of the Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe, said."
EXPLANATION: No member of the Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe descends from ancestors who were aboriginal to San Francisco. Their closest ancestor is Patwin. 

6. Letter written by Rosemary Cambra to the Honorable Kevin Washburn. (2013)

STATEMENT: "The members of the [Muwekma Ohlone] Tribe are the descendants of the native peoples who occupied the southern, eastern, and western regions of the San Francisco Bay area from time immemorial, including all of the present day counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, Santa Clara and Contra Costa."
EXPLANATION: According to documents provided by the Muwekam Ohlone Tribe, their ancestral tribes of origin are located exclusively in the East Bay in Alameda, Contra Costa, and eastern Santa Clara County. None of their ancestors originated from ancestral villages in either San Francisco or San Mateo counties, both of which constitutes the majority of the western region of the San Francisco Bay Area.

7. From the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco. (2016)

STATEMENT: ​“The City and County of San Francisco honors the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe which is comprised of all of the known surviving lineages of the American Indians aboriginal to the San Francisco Bay Region.” 
EXPLANATION: The following is a copy of a letter sent 29 June 2016 to the Board of Supervisors in response to the content of the award letter.

Dear Supervisor David Campos,
 
Earlier this year the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco honored the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe for their years of service to the community. I am certain that the honor was well deserved; however, the description of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe in the Certificate of Honor was both inaccurate and exclusivist.
 
The certificate describes the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe as “comprised of all of the known surviving lineages of the American Indians aboriginal to the San Francisco Bay Region.” This claim is far from accurate. For example, members of our group, the Association of Ramaytush Ohlone, descend from the only known surviving lineage of the San Francisco Peninsula, and we are not members of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe. Surprisingly, information about our lineage is even posted on the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe’s website. Further, not all descendants of the East Bay Ohlone lineages that comprise the Muwekma-Ohlone Tribe are also members of the tribe nor do these descendants accept Muwekma-Ohlone as a collective identifier.
 
In a city and county that values diversity and inclusivity, such a claim excludes other descendants of the original peoples of the San Francisco Bay Area, many of whom have made equally valuable contributions to various communities in San Francisco Bay Area. In addition, by acknowledging the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe in an exclusivist manner the government of the City and County of San Francisco inadvertently lends official support to the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe’s false claims and disrespects other Bay Area Ohlone. In other words, in honoring the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe the Board of Supervisors has dishonored many other Ohlone people. I am confident that exclusion and dishonor are contrary to the intentions of the Board of Supervisors.
 
So please honor the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe for their service but refrain from lending official support to exclusivist claims that dishonor other San Francisco Bay Area Ohlone.
 
Sincerely,
 
Jonathan Cordero
Chairperson, Association of Ramaytush Ohlone
8. "Before Stanford: The Muwekma Ohlone people" by Fangzhou Liu, Managing Editor of News, The Stanford Daily, 2017 ​(click on the title to view the article)
STATEMENT: "Before Stanford: The Muwekma Ohlone people"
EXPLANATION: This article is essentially a reprint of a previous article (see number 4 above), so there's no need to analyze it in detail. The title is sufficient. The Muwekma Ohlone were not the original people of the land upon which now stands Stanford University.  The tribal groups of origin of the Muwekma Ohlone people were exclusively in the East Bay as their own petition for federal recognition shows.

9. ​"PlaceMaker: National Park Service Ranger Desiree Munoz Talks About Her Ohlone Heritage." The Presidio Trust, San Francisco, 2017.

​How does it feel to be working in your ancestor’s home?
This is a really big deal for me and my tribe. I'm the first in my 2,000 member tribe to return to live in part of our ancestral homeland. I also live in the Presidio where my ancestors lived seasonally, so it’s amazing to think that I live where my ancestors once lived. I love to feel the spiritual vibes that are all around the park. My ancestors are here all around us – I can feel them. Being here also allows me to interact with other Ohlone tribes and with the visiting public. We’re still active through our gatherings, songs, dances, and practices. It’s often a surprise for visitors to hear this because people have been taught we no longer exist.
Desiree Munoz is not indigenous to San Francisco. She claims Ohlone ancestry through her grandfather, Chairman Tony Cerda of the Costanoan Carmel Rumsen Tribe.  His Ohlone roots derive from Monterey not San Francisco. His own genealogy makes that clear (see http://www.costanoanrumsen.org/genealogy.html). Chairman Cerda claims Ohlone ancestry through a person named Tiburcio who was baptized 29 May 1810 at Mission Dolores (SFD-B:3996). Tiburcio had a Patwin mother (SFD-B:4099) and a likely Bay Miwok father, and a known Bay Miwok step-father (SFD-B:4098). As is clearly evident from his own documented history, Tony Cerda has no Ohlone roots that originate from San Francisco, and,therefore, neither does Desiree Munoz.

Further, as a representative of the National Park Service Park ranger Desiree Munoz should not be allegedly misrepresenting herself to the public not disseminating false information as a federal employee. And neither the National Park Service nor  Presidio Trust should be in the business of supporting persons or groups whose publicly shared information violate indigenous protocol, offends the actual indigenous peoples of San Francisco, and affirms historically inaccurate information.