DOCSLIB.ORG

2010 Census CPH-T-6. American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes in the United States and Puerto Rico: 2010

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2010 Census CPH-T-6. American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes in the United States and Puerto Rico: 2010 2010 Census CPH-T-6. American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes in the United States and Puerto Rico: 2010 Description of Table 66. This table shows data for American Indian and Alaska Native tribes alone and alone or in combination for Puerto Rico. Those respondents who reported as American Indian or Alaska Native only and one tribe are shown in Column 1. Respondents who reported two or more American Indian or Alaska Native tribes, but no other race, are shown in Column 2. Those respondents who reported as American Indian or Alaska Native and at least one other race and one tribe are shown in Column 3. Respondents who reported as American Indian or Alaska Native and at least one other race and two or more tribes are shown in Column 4. Those respondents who reported as American Indian or Alaska Native in any combination of race(s) or tribe(s) are shown in Column 5, and is the sum of the numbers in Columns 1 through 4. For a detailed explanation of the alone and alone or in combination concepts used in this table, see the 2010 Census Brief, “The American Indian and Alaska Native Population: 2010” at <www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-10.pdf>. Table 66. American Indian and Alaska Native Population by Tribe1 for Puerto Rico: 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, special tabulation. Internet release date: December 2013 Note: Respondents who identified themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native were asked to report their enrolled or principal tribe. Therefore, tribal data in this data product reflect the written tribal entries reported on the questionnaire. Some of the entries (for example, Iroquois, Sioux, Colorado River, and Flathead) represent nations or reservations. The information on tribe is based on self-identification and includes federally- or state-recognized tribes, as well as bands and clans. (For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/pl94-171.pdf) American Indian and Alaska Native in combination American Indian and Alaska Native alone with one or more other races American Indian and American Indian and Alaska Native Tribe/Tribal grouping Alaska Native alone or in any combination1 One tribe/tribal grouping Two or more tribes/tribal One tribe/tribal grouping Two or more tribes/tribal reported groupings reported1 reported groupings reported1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) American Indian and Alaska Native (300, A01-Z99) Tallied1 19,787 104 15,865 100 35,856 American Indian and Alaska Native (300, A01-Z99) Total population 19,787 52 15,865 49 35,753 Abenaki tribal grouping (A01-A04) 2 - 1 - 3 Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi (A01) 2 - 1 - 3 Koasek (Cowasuck) Traditional Band of the Sovereign Abenaki Nation (A02) - - - - - Algonquian tribal grouping (A05-A08) - - - - - Apache tribal grouping (A09-A23) 24 - 7 1 32 Apache (A09) 16 - 2 - 18 Fort Sill Apache (Chiricahua) (A11) - - - - - Jicarilla Apache Nation (A12) - - - - - Lipan Apache (A13) - - - - - Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico (A14) 8 - 4 1 13 Apache Tribe of Oklahoma (A15) - - - - - Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona (A16) - - - - - San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation (A17) - - 1 - 1 White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona (A18) - - - - - Arapaho tribal grouping (A24-A33) 2 - 1 - 3 Arapaho (A24) 2 - 1 - 3 Northern Arapaho (A25) - - - - - Southern Arapaho (A26) - - - - - Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming (A27) - - - - - Assiniboine tribal grouping (A34-A37) - - - - - Assiniboine Sioux tribal grouping (A38-A44) - - - - - Assiniboine Sioux (A38) - - - - - Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation (A39) - - - - - Fort Peck Assiniboine (A40) - - - - - Fort Peck Sioux (A41) - - - - - Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana (A45-A50) - - 1 3 4 Brotherton tribal grouping (A51-A52) - - - - - Burt Lake tribal grouping (A53-A55) - - - - - Burt Lake Chippewa (A53) - - - - - Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians (A54) - - - - - Burt Lake Ottawa (A55) - - - - - Caddo tribal grouping (A56-A60) - - - - - Caddo (A56) - - - - - Caddo Nation of Oklahoma (A57) - - - - - Caddo Adais Indians (A58) - - - - - Cahuilla tribal grouping (A61-A74) - - - - - Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (A61) - - - - - Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians (A62) - - - - - Cabazon Band of Mission Indians (A63) - - - - - Cahuilla (A64) - - - - - Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians (A65) - - - - - Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (A66) - - - - - Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians (A67) - - - - - Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians (A68) - - - - - Ramona Band or Village of Cahuilla (A69) - - - - - California Tribes tribal grouping (A75-A90, A92-B03) 2 - - - 2 Cahto Indian Tribe of the Laytonville Rancheria (A75) - - - - - Chimariko (A76) - - - - - Kawaiisu (A79) - - - - - Kern River Paiute Council (A80) - - - - - Mattole (A81) - - - - - Red Wood (A82) - - - - - Santa Rosa Indian Community (A83) - - - - - Takelma (A84) - - - - - Wappo (A85) - - - - - Yana (A86) - - - - - Yuki (A87) 2 - - - 2 Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria (A88) - - - - - California Valley Miwok Tribe (A89) - - - - - Redding Rancheria, California (A90) - - - - - Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria (A92) - - - - - Canadian and French American Indian tribal grouping (T01-V23) 5 - 5 - 10 Canadian Indian (T01) - - - - - French Canadian/French American Indian (T02) - - - - - Abenaki Canadian (T03) - - - - - American Indian and Alaska Native in combination American Indian and Alaska Native alone with one or more other races American Indian and American Indian and Alaska Native Tribe/Tribal grouping Alaska Native alone or in any combination1 One tribe/tribal grouping Two or more tribes/tribal One tribe/tribal grouping Two or more tribes/tribal reported groupings reported1 reported groupings reported1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Acadia Band (T04) - - 1 - 1 Ache Dene Koe (T05) - - - - - Ahousaht (T06) - - - - - Alderville First Nation (T07) - - - - - Alexandria Band (T08) - - - - - Algonquins of Barriere Lake (T09) - - - - - Batchewana First Nation (T10) - - - - - Beardys and Okemasis Band (T11) - - - - - Beausoleil (T12) - - - - - Beecher Bay (T13) - - - - - Beothuk (T14) - - - - - Bella Coola (Nuxalk Nation) (T15) - - - - - Big Cove (T16) - - - - - Big Grassy (T17) - - - - - Bigstone Cree Nation (T18) - - - - - Bonaparte Band (T19) - - - - - Boston Bar First Nation (T20) - - - - - Bridge River (T21) - - - - - Brokenhead Ojibway Nation (T22) - - - - - Buffalo Point Band (T23) - - - - - Caldwell (T24) - - - - - Campbell River Band (T25) - - - - - Cape Mudge Band (T26) - - - - - Carcross/Tagish First Nation (T27) - - - - - Caribou (T28) 1 - - - 1 Carrier Nation (T29) - - - - - Carry the Kettle Band (T30) - - - - - Cheam Band (T31) - - - - - Chemainus First Nation (T32) - - - - - Chilcotin Nation (T33) - - - - - Chippewa/Ojibwe Canadian (T34) - - - - - Chippewa of Sarnia (T35) - - - - - Chippewa of the Thames (T36) - - - - - Clayoquot (T37) - - - - - Cold Lake First Nations (T38) - - - - - Coldwater Band (T39) - - - - - Comox Band (T40) - - - - - Coquitlam Band (T41) - - - - - Cote First Nation (T42) - - - - - Couchiching First Nation (T43) - - - - - Cowessess Band (T44) - - - - - Cowichan (T45) - - - - - Cree Canadian (T46) - - - - - Cross Lake First Nation (T47) - - - - - Curve Lake Band (T48) - - - - - Dene Canadian (T49) - - - - - Dene Band Nwt (Nw Terr.) (T50) - - - - - Ditidaht Band (T51) - - - - - Dogrib (T52) - - - - - Eagle Lake Band (T53) - - - - - Eastern Cree (T54) - - - - - Ebb and Flow Band (T55) - - - - - English River First Nation (T56) - - - - - Eskasoni (T57) - - - - - Esquimalt (T58) - - - - - Fisher River (T59) - - - - - Five Nations (T60) - - - - - Fort Alexander Band (T61) - - - - - Garden River Nation (T62) - - - - - Gibson Band (T63) - - - - - Gitksan (T64) - - - - - Gitlakdamix Band (T65) - - - - - Grassy Narrows First Nation (T66) - - - - - Gull Bay Band (T67) - - - - - Gwichya Gwich'in (T68) - - - - - Heiltsuk Band (T69) - - - - - Hesquiaht Band (T70) - - - - - Hiawatha First Nation (T71) - - - - - Hope Band (Chawathill Nation) (T72) - - - - - Huron (T73) - - - - - Huron of Lorretteville (T74) - - - - - Innu (Montagnais) (T75) - - - - - Interior Salish (T76) - - - - - James Bay Cree (T77) - - - - - James Smith Cree Nation (T78) - - - - - Kahkewistahaw First Nation (T79) - - - - - Kamloops Band (T80) 1 - - - 1 Kanaka Bar (T81) - - - - - Kanesatake Band (T82) - - - - - Kaska Dena (T83) - - - - - Keeseekoose Band (T84) - - - - - Kincolith Band (T85) 3 - - - 3 Kingsclear Band (T86) - - - - - Kitamaat (T87) - - - - - Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg (T88) - - - - - Klahoose First Nation (T89) - - - - - Kwakiutl (T90) - - - - - Kyuquot Band (T91) - - - - - Lakahahmen Band (T92) - - - - - Lake Manitoba Band (T93) - - - - - Lake St. Martin Band (T94) - - - - - Lennox Island Band (T95) - - - - - Liard River First Nation (T96) - - - - - American Indian and Alaska Native in combination American Indian and Alaska Native alone with one or more other races American Indian and American Indian and Alaska Native Tribe/Tribal grouping Alaska Native alone or in any combination1 One tribe/tribal grouping Two or more tribes/tribal One tribe/tribal grouping Two or more tribes/tribal reported groupings reported1 reported groupings reported1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Lillooet (T97) - - - - - Little Shuswap Band (T98) - - - - - Long Plain First Nation (T99) - - - - - Lower Nicola
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mattole River Cumulative Effects
    Mattole River Watershed Analysis Cumulative Watershed Effects Public Review Draft September 2011 Cumulative Watershed Effects TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS ........................................................................................................ vi LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................ vii LIST OF MAPS ........................................................................................................................ viii LIST OF ATTACHMENTS .......................................................................................................... x LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................... xi 1.0 ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 OVERVIEW OF WATERSHED ANALYSIS PROCESS .................................................................. 6 2.2 PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF REPORT .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rio Grande National Forest – Assessment 12 Areas of Tribal Importance
    Rio Grande National Forest – Assessment 12 Areas of Tribal Importance Rio Grande National Forest – Assessment 12 Areas of Tribal Importance Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 2 Information Sources and Gaps.................................................................................................................. 2 Existing Forest Plan Direction for Tribal Resources ................................................................................ 3 Scale of Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 3 Intertribal and Interagency Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Memorandum of Understanding ................................................................................................................................... 4 Existing Tribal Rights ............................................................................................................................... 4 Previous Treaties with Ute Bands ......................................................................................................... 4 Hunting Rights: The Brunot Treaty ...................................................................................................... 5 Spiritual Rights ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 4.3 Cultural Resources
    4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES INTRODUCTION W & S Consultants, (W&S) conducted an archaeological survey of the project site that included an archival record search conducted at the local California Historic Resource Information System (CHRIS) repository at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located on the campus of California State University, Fullerton. In July 2010, a field survey of the 1.2-mile proposed project site was conducted. The archaeological survey report can be found in Appendix 4.3. Mitigation measures are recommended which would reduce potential impacts to unknown archeological resources within the project site, potential impacts to paleontological resources, and the discovery of human remains during construction to less than significant. PROJECT BACKGROUND Ethnographic Setting Tataviam The upper Santa Clara Valley region, including the study area, was inhabited during the ethnographic past by an ethnolinguistic group known as the Tataviam.1 Their language represents a member of the Takic branch of the Uto-Aztecan linguistic family.2 In this sense, it was related to other Takic languages in the Los Angeles County region, such as Gabrielino/Fernandeño (Tongva) of the Los Angeles Basin proper, and Kitanemuk of the Antelope Valley. The Tataviam are thought to have inhabited the upper Santa Clara River drainage from about Piru eastwards to just beyond the Vasquez Rocks/Agua Dulce area; southwards as far as Newhall and the crests of the San Gabriel and Santa Susana Mountains; and northwards to include the middle reaches of Piru Creek, the Liebre Mountains, and the southwesternmost fringe of Antelope Valley.3 Their northern boundary most likely ran along the northern foothills of the Liebre Mountains (i.e., the edge of Antelope Valley), and then crossed to the southern slopes of the Sawmill Mountains and Sierra Pelona, extending 1 NEA, and King, Chester.
    [Show full text]
  • Antelope Valley Indian Museum State Historic Park 15701 East Avenue M Lancaster, CA 93535 (661) 946-3055
    Our Mission “ Antelope Valley The mission of California State Parks is to provide for the health, inspiration and Nestled in the rocks and education of the people of California by helping buttes of the Mojave Indian Museum to preserve the state’s extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most valued natural and Desert on Piute Butte State Historic Park cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation. is a precious gem that contributes immeasurably to the mosaic beauty of the desert, the Antelope California State Parks supports equal access. Valley Indian Museum.” Prior to arrival, visitors with disabilities who need assistance should contact the park at – Shirley Harriman (661) 946-3055. If you need this publication in an Antelope Valley Woman Magazine alternate format, contact [email protected]. CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS P.O. Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 For information call: (800) 777-0369 (916) 653-6995, outside the U.S. 711, TTY relay service www.parks.ca.gov Antelope Valley Indian Museum State Historic Park 15701 East Avenue M Lancaster, CA 93535 (661) 946-3055 www.avim.parks.ca.gov © 2005 California State Parks (Rev. 2018) Standing snugly among the Perhaps as many as 2,000 his Antelope Valley Indian Research Museum majestic granite outcroppings of years ago, speakers of the to display his large collection of prehistoric Piute Butte, the Antelope Valley Shoshonean language and ethnographic American Indian artifacts. Indian Museum incorporates group—the Kitanemuk, In 1939 Grace Wilcox Oliver, a student of the bedrock into its interior Tataviam, Kawaiisu, and anthropology, bought the Edwards home.
    [Show full text]
  • Drought and Equity in California
    Drought and Equity in California Laura Feinstein, Rapichan Phurisamban, Amanda Ford, Christine Tyler, Ayana Crawford January 2017 Drought and Equity in California January 2017 Lead Authors Laura Feinstein, Senior Research Associate, Pacific Institute Rapichan Phurisamban, Research Associate, Pacific Institute Amanda Ford, Coalition Coordinator, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water Christine Tyler, Water Policy Leadership Intern, Pacific Institute Ayana Crawford, Water Policy Leadership Intern, Pacific Institute Drought and Equity Advisory Committee and Contributing Authors The Drought and Equity Advisory Committee members acted as contributing authors, but all final editorial decisions were made by lead authors. Sara Aminzadeh, Executive Director, California Coastkeeper Alliance Colin Bailey, Executive Director, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water Carolina Balazs, Visiting Scholar, University of California, Berkeley Wendy Broley, Staff Engineer, California Urban Water Agencies Amanda Fencl, PhD Student, University of California, Davis Center for Environmental Policy and Behavior Kelsey Hinton, Program Associate, Community Water Center Gita Kapahi, Director, Office of Public Participation, State Water Resources Control Board Brittani Orona, Environmental Justice and Tribal Affairs Specialist and Native American Studies Doctoral Student, University of California, Davis Brian Pompeii, Lecturer, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Tim Sloane, Executive Director, Institute for Fisheries Resources ISBN-978-1-893790-76-6 © 2017 Pacific Institute. All rights reserved. Pacific Institute 654 13th Street, Preservation Park Oakland, California 94612 Phone: 510.251.1600 | Facsimile: 510.251.2203 www.pacinst.org Cover Photos: Clockwise from top left: NNehring, Debargh, Yykkaa, Marilyn Nieves Designer: Bryan Kring, Kring Design Studio Drought and Equity in California I ABOUT THE PACIFIC INSTITUTE The Pacific Institute envisions a world in which society, the economy, and the environment have the water they need to thrive now and in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Ritual Management of Salmonid Fish Resources in California
    UC Merced The Journal of California Anthropology Title Ritual Management of Salmonid Fish Resources in California Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0rg7c5vf Journal The Journal of California Anthropology, 4(1) Authors Swezey, Sean L Heizer, Robert F Publication Date 1977-07-01 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Scaffold for A-frame net fbhing. Karok man pladn( net Into water. Ca. 1900. After Krocber and Barrett (1962:Plate 2). Courtesy of the Lowie Museum of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley. Ritual Management of Salmonid Fish Resources in California SEAN L. SWEZEY ROBERT F. HEIZER THNOGRAPHERS at times are more nets, toggle harpoons, and application of bo­ Econcerned with reporting data than tanical fish poisons. interpreting them. As a result, ethnographies Whereas the material aspects of fishery often have the appearance of being little more technology form a basic and informative part than collections of facts organized by a gener­ of the ethnographic record, the potential im­ ally standardized topical outline. Synoptic portance of specialized ritual procedures surveys may result from an effort to synthesize undertaken at the inception of anadromous a particular trait, custom, or complex, and fish runs has generally been overlooked. from these there often results a deeper insight Through much of Northern California, ritual into the function and purpose of what, in injunctions and social control mechanisms unanalyzed form, seem to be cultural prac­ were instituted by specific "ritual specialists" tices which are illogical or meaningless. We (formulists, shamans, and moiety chiefs) at the attempt here to review native ritual, belief, and outset of the first major seasonal migrations of ceremony connected with anadromous fish in salmon.
    [Show full text]
  • Plants Used in Basketry by the California Indians
    PLANTS USED IN BASKETRY BY THE CALIFORNIA INDIANS BY RUTH EARL MERRILL PLANTS USED IN BASKETRY BY THE CALIFORNIA INDIANS RUTH EARL MERRILL INTRODUCTION In undertaking, as a study in economic botany, a tabulation of all the plants used by the California Indians, I found it advisable to limit myself, for the time being, to a particular form of use of plants. Basketry was chosen on account of the availability of material in the University's Anthropological Museum. Appreciation is due the mem- bers of the departments of Botany and Anthropology for criticism and suggestions, especially to Drs. H. M. Hall and A. L. Kroeber, under whose direction the study was carried out; to Miss Harriet A. Walker of the University Herbarium, and Mr. E. W. Gifford, Asso- ciate Curator of the Museum of Anthropology, without whose interest and cooperation the identification of baskets and basketry materials would have been impossible; and to Dr. H. I. Priestley, of the Ban- croft Library, whose translation of Pedro Fages' Voyages greatly facilitated literary research. Purpose of the sttudy.-There is perhaps no phase of American Indian culture which is better known, at least outside strictly anthro- pological circles, than basketry. Indian baskets are not only concrete, durable, and easily handled, but also beautiful, and may serve a variety of purposes beyond mere ornament in the civilized household. Hence they are to be found in. our homes as well as our museums, and much has been written about the art from both the scientific and the popular standpoints. To these statements, California, where American basketry.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2. Native Languages of West-Central California
    Chapter 2. Native Languages of West-Central California This chapter discusses the native language spoken at Spanish contact by people who eventually moved to missions within Costanoan language family territories. No area in North America was more crowded with distinct languages and language families than central California at the time of Spanish contact. In the chapter we will examine the information that leads scholars to conclude the following key points: The local tribes of the San Francisco Peninsula spoke San Francisco Bay Costanoan, the native language of the central and southern San Francisco Bay Area and adjacent coastal and mountain areas. San Francisco Bay Costanoan is one of six languages of the Costanoan language family, along with Karkin, Awaswas, Mutsun, Rumsen, and Chalon. The Costanoan language family is itself a branch of the Utian language family, of which Miwokan is the only other branch. The Miwokan languages are Coast Miwok, Lake Miwok, Bay Miwok, Plains Miwok, Northern Sierra Miwok, Central Sierra Miwok, and Southern Sierra Miwok. Other languages spoken by native people who moved to Franciscan missions within Costanoan language family territories were Patwin (a Wintuan Family language), Delta and Northern Valley Yokuts (Yokutsan family languages), Esselen (a language isolate) and Wappo (a Yukian family language). Below, we will first present a history of the study of the native languages within our maximal study area, with emphasis on the Costanoan languages. In succeeding sections, we will talk about the degree to which Costanoan language variation is clinal or abrupt, the amount of difference among dialects necessary to call them different languages, and the relationship of the Costanoan languages to the Miwokan languages within the Utian Family.
    [Show full text]
  • Edible Seeds and Grains of California Tribes
    National Plant Data Team August 2012 Edible Seeds and Grains of California Tribes and the Klamath Tribe of Oregon in the Phoebe Apperson Hearst Museum of Anthropology Collections, University of California, Berkeley August 2012 Cover photos: Left: Maidu woman harvesting tarweed seeds. Courtesy, The Field Museum, CSA1835 Right: Thick patch of elegant madia (Madia elegans) in a blue oak woodland in the Sierra foothills The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its pro- grams and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sex- ual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Acknowledgments This report was authored by M. Kat Anderson, ethnoecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Jim Effenberger, Don Joley, and Deborah J. Lionakis Meyer, senior seed bota- nists, California Department of Food and Agriculture Plant Pest Diagnostics Center. Special thanks to the Phoebe Apperson Hearst Museum staff, especially Joan Knudsen, Natasha Johnson, Ira Jacknis, and Thusa Chu for approving the project, helping to locate catalogue cards, and lending us seed samples from their collections.
    [Show full text]
  • Native American Protocols, Archdiocese of Los Angeles
    NATIVE AMERICAN PROTOCOLS, ARCHDIOCESE OF LOS ANGELES INTRODUCTION The Archdiocese of Los Angeles acknowledges that the Native Americans of California are the First People of the Land and that the boundaries of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles are established on the traditional indigenous lands sacred to the people of four Native American Nations. These people were the builders of the historic missions that are today under the care of the church in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. The Archdiocese recognizes that these tribes hold a special relationship with these missions built by their ancestors – Mission San Gabriel, Mission San Buenaventura, Mission Santa Barbara, Mission San Fernando, and Mission Santa Ines, Mission San Juan Capistrano (now under the care of the Diocese of Orange), as well as with the sub-station mission church of Our Lady Queen of the Angels, Nuestra Señora La Reina de Los Angeles (La Placita). For these reasons the Archdiocese honors a special relationship with the people of the Chumash, Tongva, Tataviam, and Acjachemen Nations. In addition, the Archdiocese recognizes that over 150,000 self-identified urban Native Americans representing over fifty American tribes live in the county of Los Angeles, the largest assemblage of urban Native Americans in the United States, and that these urban Native Americans are deserving of special recognition and pastoral concern. (The actual Native American population in the County of Los Angeles is probably between 200,000 and 250,000). The Archdiocese, in consultation with representatives of the indigenous Native American people who have a traditional presence in the Archdiocese, wishes to set forth common understandings and a participatory framework for the Church of Los Angeles, its institutions and faith communities to respect and honor within its structure, regulations, practices and liturgies the sacred traditions and practices of the Native American peoples.
    [Show full text]
  • Uto-Aztecan Maize Agriculture: a Linguistic Puzzle from Southern California
    Uto-Aztecan Maize Agriculture: A Linguistic Puzzle from Southern California Jane H. Hill, William L. Merrill Anthropological Linguistics, Volume 59, Number 1, Spring 2017, pp. 1-23 (Article) Published by University of Nebraska Press DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/anl.2017.0000 For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/683122 Access provided by Smithsonian Institution (9 Nov 2018 13:38 GMT) Uto-Aztecan Maize Agriculture: A Linguistic Puzzle from Southern California JANE H. HILL University of Arizona WILLIAM L. MERRILL Smithsonian Institution Abstract. The hypothesis that the members of the Proto—Uto-Aztecan speech community were maize farmers is premised in part on the assumption that a Proto—Uto-Aztecan etymon for ‘maize’ can be reconstructed; this implies that cognates with maize-related meanings should be attested in languages in both the Northern and Southern branches of the language family. A Proto—Southern Uto-Aztecan etymon for ‘maize’ is reconstructible, but the only potential cog- nate for these terms documented in a Northern Uto-Aztecan language is a single Gabrielino word. However, this word cannot be identified definitively as cognate with the Southern Uto-Aztecan terms for ‘maize’; consequently, the existence of a Proto—Uto-Aztecan word for ‘maize’ cannot be postulated. 1. Introduction. Speakers of Uto-Aztecan languages lived across much of western North America at the time of their earliest encounters with Europeans or Euro-Americans. Their communities were distributed from the Columbia River drainage in the north through the Great Basin, southern California, the American Southwest, and most of Mexico, with outliers as far south as Panama (Miller 1983; Campbell 1997:133—38; Caballero 2011; Shaul 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX G AB 52 Notification Letter and Tribal Consultation Findings
    APPENDIX G AB 52 Notification Letter and Tribal Consultation Findings DEPARTMENT OF EXECUTIVE OFFICES CITY PLANNING City of Los Angeles 200 N. SPRING STREET, ROOM 525 LOS ANGELES, CA 90012-4801 - CALIFORNIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION VINCENT P. BERTONI, AICP SAMANTHA MILLMAN DIRECTOR PRESIDENT (213) 978-1271 VAHID KHORSAND VICE-PRESIDENT KEVIN J. KELLER, AICP EXECUTIVE OFFICER DAVID H. J. AMBROZ (213) 978-1272 CAROLINE CHOE RENEE DAKE WILSON LISA M. WEBBER, AICP KAREN MACK DEPUTY DIRECTOR MARC MITCHELL (213) 978-1274 VERONICA PADILLA-CAMPOS ERIC GARCETTI MAYOR DANA M. PERLMAN http://planning.lacity.org ROCKY WILES COMMISSION OFFICE MANAGER (213) 978-1300 January 4, 2019 Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians Gabrielino/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Kimia Fatehi, Director, Public Relations Mission Indians 1019 2nd Street, Ste. 1 Anthony Morales, Chairperson San Fernando, CA 91340 P.O. Box 693 San Gabriel, CA 91778 Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe Andrew Salas, Chairman Linda Candelaria, Co-Chairperson P.O. Box 393 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100 Covina, CA 91723 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal San Fernando Band of Mission Indians Council John Valenzuela, Chairperson Robert F. Dorame, Tribal Chair/Cultural P.O. Box 221838 Resources Newhall, CA 91322 P.O. Box 490 Bellflower, CA 90707 Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Resource Director Gabrielino/Tongva Nation P.O. Box 487 Sam Dunlap, Cultural Resources Director San Jacinto, CA 92581 P.O. Box 86908 Los Angeles, CA 90086 Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Michael Mirelez, Gabrielino/Tongva Nation Cultural Resources Coordinator Sandonne Goad, Chairperson PO Box 1160 106 ½ Judge John Aiso St, #231 Thermal, CA 92274 Los Angeles, CA 90012 RE: 10810 West Vanowen Street North Hollywood – Valley Village Community Plan CASE NO.: ENV-2018-6903-EAF Dear Tribal Representative: AB 52 TRIBAL CONSULTATION COMPLIANCE FORM This form, completed and signed by appropriate planning staff, must accompany the case file.
    [Show full text]