Talk:Paiute

Opening comments

The article conforms to a time when anthropologists still believed their own ethnocentric descriptions of the Northern Paiute (Numu). The name for the people is Numu. The Northern Paiute extend into Northern Utah. Also, the Numu are part of an interrelated people called the Punown. The Punown include: Northern and Southern Paiute, Northern and Southern Ute, Commanche, Gosiute, Southern Paiute, Northern, Western, and Eastern Shoshone amongst other peoples such as Hopi. The Numu langauge is part of the Great Northern-Uto-Aztecan langauges termed Numic. Although there were perfectly timed movements (would not call this migratory because it was within their own CONSCRIPTED territory) upon the landscape, these movements (seasonal rounds) were not done as simple wanderings but as eclectic foragers whom were biologists. The sociological organization of the Numu was (is) broad. The Numu lived in small villages in general of upward of 20-200 people. Although in some instances the village was composed of small family groups, larger villages did develop along the Sierra Nevada range. In areas such as Pyramid Lake, Walker Lake, the Humboldt Sink, Smith Valley and Owens Valley, California, and locations in Northern and Southern Oregon the Numu were known to live in semi-sedentary villages. Indigenous farming was also present at Walker, Smith, and Owens Valleys. Terming this pattern a "migaratory" lifestyle appears to be an artifact of early ethnocentric anthropology. It appears to relate to original Western encroachment on the lands of the Numu who wanted to justify their own intrusion into another peoples conscipted territory.

Please, feel free to edit the article to get rid of inaccuracies. --- hike395 00:19, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Removed content copied from http://www.nativeamericans.com/Paiute.htm. --- Toiyabe 23:32, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Split Northern Paiute and Southern Paiute?

Anybody else for spliting this page into a Northern Paiute and Southern Paiute page, while leaving Paiute as a disambig page? These two peoples spoke different languages, their territories did not border each other and they had fairly different lifeways. Seems like the fact that they're both known as Paiute is an accident of history. Toiyabe 23:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Pah Ute War

Merged about one sentance from Pah Ute War. Could be a pretty interesting section with some more work.--Banana04131 18:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

External Links Of Interest

Hetchy Hetchy Indians and their history

Yosemite Indian chiefs

The Indians of Yosemite - Yosemite Native American history

Yosemite Indian Discussion Messageboard

Hamblin information

Recent contribution on Jacob Hamblin moved here for discussion. WBardwin 03:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The main point of contact between the Paiutes and the Mormons was the indominatable Jacob Hamblin who had been called on a mission to the Southern Paiutes by Brigham Young. Hamblin cared deeply about the Native Americans, and was able to maintain essentially friendly relations between the two peoples. In fact, the Paiutes held Hamblin in such respect that they guided him to Jacob Lake on the Kaibab Plateau which still bears his name. This permanent source of water became incredibly important to travel between Mormon settlements in southern Utah and Arizona. Often the Paiutes would serve as guides and act as translators as the Latter-day Saints encountered new tribes, such as the Navajo to the east of the Colorado River. However, it is also clear that the introduction of European ways of life and agriculture greatly altered the Southern Paiutes' traditional lifestyles.

Help with Pah-vant

I am working on the Mountain Meadows massacre article and have run across a reference to a tribal (or band) name of Pah-vant in the southern Utah area. It appears several times in Senate Executive Document 42 of the 36th United States Congress in response to Senate requests for all the official documents relating to the Mountain Meadows massacre. Specifically on page 76 where Jacob Forney (Superintendent for Indian Affairs in Utah Territory in 1859) says:

And after strict inquiry I cannot learn that even one Pah-vant Indian was present at the massacre.

Is anyone familiar with this name and what it corresponds to as far as tribal affiliations? Is it a band of Paiute? Thanks for any help. --Robbie Giles 03:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Pah Vant were a subgroup of the Uinta (Muhgruhtahveeach, auch Nuchu or Noochoo, often called Uta Utes, Unita), a tribe of the Ute, who lived in the Uintah Basin including the Great Salt Lake Basin. Further subgroups of the Uinta are:

• Cumumba (originally a band of Shoshone)
• Yoovwetuh
• Tumpanawach (Toompanawach or Tumpanuwac)
• San Pitch (Sanpeech)
• Sheberetch (Sahyehpeech)

The Uinta Utes belonged to the Northern Utes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.50.56.7 (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Pauites in Fish Lake Valley, Nevada-California

Southeast of the Benton reservation, in Fish Lake Valley there is a significant Paiute population not yet mentioned in this article. Is this only a satellite of the Benton reservation, or a different group? LADave (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Si-Te-Cah & red-haired giants

This article about Paiute stories about red-haired giants is a mess, see Talk:Si-Te-Cah where I've provided a number of sources to help fix it. Help wanted! Dougweller (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Genetic history

Just spotted "D-1 Haplogroup has also been found among people of Hokkaido, Japan, a northern region inhabited by ancient indigenous people known as the Ainu." The Ainu are a pretty modern ethnic group, first mentioned in the 13th century CE. The abstract (not a reliable source at times) itself says "However, probably due to the small sample size or close consanguinity among the members of the site, the frequencies of the haplogroups in Funadomari skeletons were quite different from any modern populations, including Hokkaido Ainu, who have been regarded as the direct descendant of the Hokkaido Jomon people." In any case, the second and third paragraph sources do not seem to mention the Paiute so should be removed. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, actually at this point, perhaps the whole section should be chucked from this article. The criticism is more relevant to Paiutes (since it was issued by a Paiute person belonging to a group located on a Paiute rez) than the genetic project which only remotely mentions Paiutes. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

A Native Hawaiian joined the Paiute person in criticizing the Natl Geogr. Genographic Project, according to the source here (now moved to that other page). I think this criticism belongs in the article on the Project, not here, even though one spokesperson is Paiute. Have just finished reading Kemp, which was mostly about Aztec ancestry and relations, and issues related to theses about migration and the development of maize. Did not see anything about D1, nor much mention of Paiutes and others, except to say D haplotype was more common among them and some Nahua, but not the peoples in between in the SW. Am not sure where the other content came from. Will read the other sources and try to understand their points.Parkwells (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Cool, let's pull for now and if anything pertinent to Paiute people comes up, folks can add that. Here's the section, just in case you want to use it elsewhere or build upon it. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Genetic history

Further information: Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas

National Geographic’s Genographic Project, which has the goal of analyzing indigenous populations around the world, found that the D-1 haplogroup, a particular mtDNA genetic marker, was identified among some Nahua peoples of Mexico and El Salvador, as well as among the Paiute, Zuni, and Shoshone peoples of the northwestern United States. (There is a very high percentage D-1 haplogroup mtDNA match among the Paiute and Shoshone.) As noted in the previous section, these peoples were already recognized to be connected by linguistic evidence, as they speak languages of the Uto-Aztecan language family.

Other genetic studies have been done to analyze patterns of migration of ancient populations. In the Americas, researchers have been interested in tracing the development of maize agriculture, at one time thought to have been brought to the Southwest by migrants from Mesoamerica. A 2005 Washington State University genetic study found, consistent with other genetic studies, "populations from Mesoamerica had little maternal influence on the genetic structure of groups residing in the American Southwest", in contrast to some theories that people had migrated from Mesoamerica to the latter territory in sufficient number to influence development of its culture. Researchers now believe that peoples in North America developed maize culture independently of Mesoamerica.

The Genographic Project has found that the D-1 haplogroup is also present in the mtDNA of populations in Mongolia and Siberia, suggesting common ancient origins of the peoples before migration of Paleo-Indians over the Bering land bridge. The D-1 Haplogroup has also been found among people of Hokkaido, Japan, a northern region inhabited by ancient indigenous people known as the Ainu.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chipewyan people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Paiute people → Paiute – target is redirect to current title created/redirected by Kwami on June 8 2010 in violation of WP:UNDAB and WP:CONCISENESS Skookum1 (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose until the issue is addressed properly. These should be discussed at a centralized location.

There was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't. That could be revisited. But it really should be one discussion on the principle, not thousands of separate discussions at every ethnicity in the world over whether it should be at "X", "Xs", or "X people". — kwami (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. An identified people should be the primary topic of a term absent something remarkable standing in the way. bd2412 T 02:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support as per the policy Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names and the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). The section Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision also applies given that Paiute redirects here. There is no need to redo any guideline as it already supports the un-disabiguated title. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support per CambridgeBayWeather. In cases where the requested move simply eliminates the word "people", and the destination title is already a simple redirect to the current title, it is clear that guidelines favoring both precision and conciseness support the move. Xoloz (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Richard Henry Pratt reference

I can't figure out the citation to ""The Piutes and the Legacy of Richard Henry Pratt," where it is supposed to go and where it is linked (if at all), so I marked it "Clarification needed." Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Paiute/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs checking/formatting, maybe a map. Separate language articles needed. --Skookum1 (8 May 06) Also needs citations/sources and expanding --Miskwito 19:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 02:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paiute. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140520001435/http://library.dixie.edu/special_collections/Juanita%20Brooks%20lectures/lecture_images/2007%20-%20map.png to http://library.dixie.edu/special_collections/Juanita%20Brooks%20lectures/lecture_images/2007%20-%20map.png

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) 13:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paiute. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301140827/http://www.summitlaketribe.org/About_Us.html to http://www.summitlaketribe.org/About_Us.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ailla.utexas.org/search/collection.html?c_id=28

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) 04:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The article has no point to exist

This article should not exist. "Paiute" is a generic term that refers to a variety of different tribes that have different languages, different and non-contiguous geographic ranges, and different lifestyles in many respects. It should be nothing more than a signpost to direct readers to Northern Paiute people and Southern Paiute people, nothing more. --Taivo (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Removal of all content

I think it's not reasonable to remove all the well-sourced content from this article. The editor who did it hasn't given any support for their claims other than their putative status as an academic expert who's inordinately subject to the RfB effect. It looks like original research to me. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

See [4]. All content was moved to Northern Paiute, Southern Paiute, and Mono people because there is no such thing as "Paiute" without referencing one of these groups. --Taivo (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

So you say, but if it's true there should be a source besides you that says so. Please don't edit war over the templates, and please look at the template documentation for when it's appropriate to remove them. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, you know nothing whatsoever about the topic, but just to satisfy you, I've added appropriate references (of the hundreds that might be adduced since this information is completely uncontroversial within the field). --Taivo (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't think of it as satisfying me, think of it as complying with WP policies rather than making unverifiable claims about your superior god-like knowledge and whining about the RfB effect. Not only will you be a better editor if you learn to cite your claims to reliable sources, but WP will be better off as well. I assume that that's why you're here. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a disambiguation page. --Taivo (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Is it your contention that WP policies don't apply on DAB pages? Anyway, if it's a disambiguation page, you ought to delete all the rest of your content per WP:DABNOT. I just don't understand what you're trying to do here. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read a word of [5], which this is a direct response to. The result was "turn this into a disambiguation page with a bit of explanation included". That was editor input. Perhaps you get so busy with your wikilawyering that you become inflexible in your editing. --Taivo (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read a word of it. The result was Keep and it was a non-admin closure. It means nothing other than that the article doesn't get deleted. It doesn't reflect any kind of consensus for anything else, let alone nuking the article down to a DAB page. Here's the short version: DAB pages don't have discussion on them. Pages with discussion on them need sources. You can't avoid sourcing claims by stating it's a DAB page. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I read the whole thing and followed the only bit of actual advice on the page. But one "Keep" and one "Keep but turn it into a DAB page" isn't a consensus. It was a close because I requested a close after reviewing the two or three comments there. The page hasn't been deleted, it was turned into a DAB page. And the content of the article was moved, not "nuked". But I added two pointless references for you anyway. --Taivo (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

So why did you accuse me of not reading the deletion discussion? According to your present account, one person there said to turn it into a DAB page and then you yourself closed it after you got the advice you wanted. That means absolutely nothing except that the page doesn't get deleted. The decision to nuke it and turn it into a DAB page is a matter for ordinary editing, which is what we're engaged in now. Any argument that has as a premise the claim that I didn't read the AfD discussion is fallacious. The references aren't pointless because it isn't a DAB page per WP:DABNOT and non-DAB pages need sources to justify their claims. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: convert to an SIA

This topic is poorly suited to a disambiguation page because, per WP:DABCONCEPT, it is possible to broadly use the term to refer to all meanings on the page (unlike truly ambiguous terms like "Mercury", which can refer to a planet, an element, a Roman mythological figure, an automobile, etc.). The page would therefore be more useful to the reader if converted to a set index article. bd2412 T 11:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support. The U.S. Census (large PDF, see p.607) uses the term Paiute, which it divides into subgroups such as Northern Paiute. Although most of the remaining incoming links probably refer to a more specific topic, the exact subgroup may never have been recorded, so we have the best available target. Certes (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The term "Paiute" is meaningless. It has no meaning whatsoever in any specific sense and is not an identifiable node in any classification in any anthropological, ethnographic, linguistic, or even historical sense. It is nothing more than an inaccurate label for "Indians that we don't have any other name for in the Great Basin". And that note that "exact subgroup may never have been recorded" is lazy editing. It is unequivocally possible to identify any historical event or anthropological artifact as to whether it is Northern or Southern Paiute by where it occurred. Since there is absolutely no point on the planet where the two groups even border one another, there are no ambiguous cases. If it happened in or near Northern Paiute country, it's Northern Paiute. Likewise for Southern Paiute. Just look at what the article was before: nothing but three separate sections describing Northern Paiute, Southern Paiute, and a recent smaller addition of Owens Valley Paiute (although there was already an article on Mono where the material should have been). There was no common thread--it was two different articles artificially linked. And that census comment is not a sufficient justification. The census is devised by non-specialists and is more confusing than enlightening. Linking Northern and Southern Paiute in a single article is borderline racist since it applies a meaningless generic label to historically, linguistically, and ethnographically distinct peoples who were never uniquely linked to one another. --Taivo (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Why is any of that relevant to whether this is a disambiguation page or a set index article? We are not proposing to return this to being a regular article. Per Wikipedia:Set index articles, a set index article is "about a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name". All of the terms listed on this page are the same type of thing - they are all Indian tribes. Is this not correct? bd2412 T 13:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
    • If this article follows the guidelines of set index articles, that is, there is no extended text with any member of the list as a substitute for an actual article, and if the continuing effort to properly change links in articles that link here to where they should actually go, then I will withdraw my opposition. What we cannot do honestly is go back to what this was before. --Taivo (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
      • @TaivoLinguist: Several of us have looked through the incoming wikilinks, replaced most of them by more specific links, and marked those we couldn't resolve with {{dn}}. As you clearly know more about the topic than we do, I hope you have time to look at the remaining cases. Links which appear in lists of peoples should probably be expanded into multiple entries, but some of us lack the subject knowledge to do that. Certes (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Taivo, this is indeed the proposal to have the page follow the guidelines of set index articles. bd2412 T 15:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • As for "lazy editing", I have cleaned up as much as I can of a mess which I did not create. However, I cannot tell from the location which Paiute people was supported on The Dick Cavett Show in New York City, or what type of Paiute trader assisted with Sudden's Eastern education, and I am reluctant to just guess. Perhaps some broken links are best fixed by the subject expert. Certes (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
    • My apologies for the use of the word "lazy". I will certainly make it an editing priority of mine to work my way through the problematic links and apply my expertise. --Taivo (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The term is in use, even if in technical literature such use is deemed inaccurate. However, the term is difficult if not impossible for non-experts to disambiguate. The additional context and even as appropriate references that can be provided in a set index article will help far more than a basic disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 13:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support per proposal. Nick Number (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support. After having looked at 40 or 50 {{dn}} tags where it seemed clear that the author, usually C19, just meant "them lot". The only alternative would be, to add footnotes along the lines of: "the source says Paiute, but the author may not have understood the distinctions – and, nor may any other writer in English at the time". Narky Blert (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Footnotes such as this are overwhelmingly unnecessary since simple geography will distinguish the vast majority of cases between Northern, Southern, and Owens Valley Paiute. The "Paiutes" simply didn't mix with each other except to a very limited amount in northern Owens Valley where the Northern Paiute and Mono (Owens Valley Paiute) abutted each other. Even then, knowing the band name or nearby town is often all that is needed to distinguish them. There is no place where the Southern Paiute adjoined either of the other two. The closest that the Southern Paiute came to the two Western Numic tribes was about 100 miles, with the Timbisha in the Death Valley region separating them. The truly problematic cases, where a footnote is appropriate, are very limited. --Taivo (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist: "The truly problematic cases, where a footnote is appropriate, are very limited." Your move, I think. Narky Blert (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Correct all those links in, and then we can talk about whether this page should be a DAB or an SIA, Narky Blert (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm working on them as I get a chance. It's the end of the semester, so my time right now is limited. And I think the DAB/SIA discussion has been decided. --Taivo (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we get a map?

I think it would be helpful, if possible, to have a map showing the regions in which each group is found. bd2412 T 14:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Since this is now a set index article, adding a map sounds a lot like creeping toward article status. Any map would have to be an ad hoc creation since "Paiute" isn't a topic in anthropology or linguistics. I have never seen such a map in any text that isn't also a map of the Numic languages as a whole. --Taivo (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Even if it doesn't go onto the page, a map just for use in disambiguation would be useful. The best I can find on Wikipedia is File:Northern-UA-languages.png, which isn't exactly specific. There are more detailed maps on pp. 61–62 of [6] but sadly they don't show Southern Pauite. (I hoped that the broken line separating Nixon from Fallon might divide Northern from Southern, but the area south of there is marked Northern on p. 62.) These are maps of languages rather than peoples. Is the correspondence close enough for our purposes? Certes (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Another map which actually shows the Southern Paiute: [7]. It seems that they're too far east to appear on the Numic map above. Of course, this map is unsuitable for inclusion for copyright reasons, but it can still inform our disambiguation efforts if it's accurate. Certes (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that Northern Uto-Aztecan map, but it totally mislocates Southern Paiute (which should be exactly between Chemehuevi and Ute). (I have deleted it from the Uto-Aztecan languages article.) The second map is accurate (Colorado River Numic includes the Southern Paiute area). It's a good map because it clearly shows that NP and SP are not contiguous in any way. There is no place where Southern Paiute shares a boundary with Northern Paiute. There is about 100 miles of separation between them at their closest point. The third map is problematic in that it only shows areas where the contemporary languages are spoken and not the historical ranges. It's accurate in the fact that it shows the separation between NP and SP. In the case of these groups, linguistic boundaries are also broad ethnographic boundaries. --Taivo (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the best map is from a copyright-covered source. It would be better, of course, to have no map at all than to have an inaccurate map. At some point we will probably make our own. I would add that it would also be useful to have maps for this purpose in the individual articles, Northern Paiute, Southern Paiute, and Mono people. We don't even have a map of the Mono Basin. bd2412 T 16:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)