What should the Sutter Buttes be called? A new name has surfaced for the mountains
Last year someone proposed a new name for the Sutter Buttes, raising quite the response from those who live in the foreground of “the world’s smallest mountain range.”
The outcome of that effort to dub the towering Sutter County landmark “Sacred Buttes” remains undecided amid the lengthy process of renaming natural markers. Now another proposed name has entered the fold.
For the second time in about a year, the U.S. Board on Geographic Names received a proposal to change the name of Sutter County’s most prominent natural feature. This time a spokesperson for the Nevada City Rancheria Nisenan Tribe asked to change the name to Middle Mountain, which translates from the original Nisenan name for the volcanic hills, according to the proposal.
“This place is the center of all life for the Nisenan people and where we go when we die,” wrote spokesperson Shelly Covert. “Our spirit travels to the mountain and has its first spirit food before going off to the Milky Way. This place was central to our Ancestors and played a critical role in Nisenan Culture for millenia.”
The tribe would also support the names Spirit Mountain (which translates from another indigenous name for the buttes), Marysville Buttes, Sacred Mountain or Sacred Buttes, the latter of which was proposed last year, although the national board does not choose from multiple names proposed by the same applicant.
Both applications to change the landmark’s name cite the controversial history of John Sutter, whose namesake is ubiquitous throughout the area, including in the county containing the buttes and the unincorporated town located near the formation’s base. Additionally, the applicants aim to honor the sacred and historical significance of the buttes to Native American history and mythology.
“The goal is to remove the current name, which creates false heroism around a man undeserving of such status,” the tribe spokesperson wrote.
Which history to acknowledge?
The landmark’s name officially changed from Marysville Buttes to Sutter Buttes in 1949, recognizing its location in Sutter County, as opposed to its relation to Marysville in neighboring Yuba County.
John Sutter was formative to the settlement of Sacramento and the broader region, including Hock Farm, his farmland and estate located in current-day Sutter County. But the Swiss immigrant’s treatment of indigenous peoples, which included forced labor, beatings and killings, has been widely scrutinized.
“It feels especially harmful for a landmass that is sacred to multiple Native American tribes to retain the name of someone who is infamous for his horrific treatment of Native Americans,” reads the first name change proposal, submitted by Rachel Rein, a Nevada County resident and then a board member of the Sutter Buttes Regional Land Trust.
The land trust was not involved in Rein’s application and took a neutral position on the proposal, according to a statement on its website at the time.
But local officials and petition-signers have supported keeping the current name.
Or, the name remains the same
Sutter County supervisors last fall approved a letter in favor of keeping the name Sutter Buttes. Included with their letter were more than 1,500 signatures collected on sheets labeled “Keep the name Sutter Buttes.”
The first name change was proposed last March and released by the federal board last April. But many learned about the potential change last summer when the notice first came before county supervisors. Supervisors at the time were in favor of keeping the name while largely acknowledging the troubling history of the county namesake.
“I just think it’s important that people remember history. I’m not a history revisionist, I’m not a history rewriter,” Mat Conant, a supervisor at the time, said in October. “I think that history speaks for itself and I think it’s important that people learn the good, the bad and the ugly, but to say to throw it all out is kind of ridiculous.”
The original proposal remains pending, as the state committee awaits feedback from stakeholders before making a recommendation to the national board, which will ultimately decide on the landmark’s name. In addition to county supervisors, Assemblymember James Gallagher, R-Yuba City, has also opposed the name change.
The first application was among 19 suggested changes the California board has postponed as it awaits more feedback, leaving the matter for its next quarterly meeting May 30 at the soonest, with a potentially longer wait ahead.
This story was originally published April 24, 2025 at 5:00 AM.
