diff options
| author | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-14 20:11:05 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-14 20:11:05 -0700 |
| commit | 41e9df34cb11bd2f0b30a193ba08169bf64c3bde (patch) | |
| tree | accf09142e0e3b8346f244247a32415767b4c941 /38770.txt | |
Diffstat (limited to '38770.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 38770.txt | 5513 |
1 files changed, 5513 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/38770.txt b/38770.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2d87207 --- /dev/null +++ b/38770.txt @@ -0,0 +1,5513 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Aboriginal Population of the San +Joaquin Valley, California, by Sherburne F. Cook + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: The Aboriginal Population of the San Joaquin Valley, California + +Author: Sherburne F. Cook + +Editor: R. L. Olson + R. F. Heizer + T. D. McCown + J. H. Rowe + +Release Date: February 5, 2012 [EBook #38770] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ABORIGINAL POP.--SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY *** + + + + +Produced by Colin Bell, Joseph Cooper, Diane Monico, and +the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at +https://www.pgdp.net + + + + + + + + + + + +THE ABORIGINAL POPULATION +OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, +CALIFORNIA + + +BY +S. F. COOK + + +ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS + +Vol. 16, No. 2 + + + + +UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA +ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS + +Editors (Berkeley): R. L. Olson, R. F. Heizer, T. D. McCown, J. H. Rowe +Volume 16, No. 2, pp. 31-80 +6 maps + +Submitted by editors October 8, 1954 +Issued July 11, 1955 +Price, 75 cents + + +University of California Press +Berkeley and Los Angeles +California + +Cambridge University Press +London, England + + +Manufactured in the United States of America + + + + +CONTENTS + + Page + +Introduction 31 + +The population of the San Joaquin Valley in approximately 1850 33 + Contemporary estimates and counts for the entire region 33 + Analysis based upon restricted areas 34 + Stanislaus and Tuolumne rivers 34 + Merced River, Mariposa Creek, and Chowchilla River 35 + The Cosumnes, Mokelumne, and Calaveras rivers 36 + The Fresno and the upper San Joaquin rivers 36 + The Kings and Kaweah rivers 38 + The Tulare Lake basin 40 + The Tule River, the Kern River, and the Buenavista Basin 40 + +The aboriginal population 42 + The Tulare Lake basin 42 + The Kaweah River 45 + The Merced River 48 + The Kings River 49 + The Upper San Joaquin, Fresno, and Chowchilla rivers and + Mariposa Creek 50 + The Southern San Joaquin Valley 54 + The Northern San Joaquin Valley 56 + The Miwok Foothill Area 68 + +Summary and conclusions 70 + +Appendix 71 + +Bibliography 72 + + +MAPS + +1. The San Joaquin Valley from the Cosumnes River + to the Tehachapi facing page 74 + +2. Habitat areas 1A-2: the southern Yokuts and + peripheral tribes 75 + +3. Habitat areas 3A-4C: the basins of the Kaweah + and Kings rivers 76 + +4. Habitat areas 5A-6B: the Yokuts, a part of the + Mono, and the southern Miwok 76 + +5. Habitat areas 7A-14: the northern Yokuts, central + and northern Miwok 77 + +6. The Lower San Joaquin River and Delta areas 78 + + + + +THE ABORIGINAL POPULATION OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA + +BY + +S. F. COOK + + + + +INTRODUCTION + + +Ecologically the great central valley of California forms a single +unit. Nevertheless it is convenient for the purposes of this paper to +divide the entire area into two portions, north and south. The vast +expanse from Red Bluff to the Tehachapi is too extensive to cover +demographically in a single exposition. Moreover, the northern tribes, +the Wintun and Maidu, are physiographically clearly segregated from the +southern by the northern extension of San Francisco Bay and the delta +of the rivers. Hence we shall consider here only those peoples south of +the Sacramento and American River watersheds. + +The area possesses definite natural limits but its exact boundaries +must be to some extent arbitrary. On the north the line has already +been indicated: the south bank of the upper Bay and the Sacramento +River as far upstream as a point five miles below the city of +Sacramento and thence easterly along the El Dorado--Amador County line +into the high mountains. This follows Kroeber's tribal boundary between +the Maidu and the Sierra Miwok. On the west the line starts northeast +of Mt. Diablo and follows the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley to +the Tehachapi Mountains. On the east we include the Sierra Nevada as +far as was reached by permanent habitation on the west slope. The +southern extremity is represented by the crest of the Tehachapi. + +The region designated embraces the territory of the Plains and Sierra +Miwok, the Yokuts, the Western Mono, the Tubatulabal, and the Kawaiisu. +From the standpoint of habitat the area is diversified since it extends +from the swampy valley floor through the oak country of the lower +foothills into the transition life-zone of the middle altitudes. +Perhaps an ecological segregation would be desirable. Such a procedure, +however, would cut across tribal boundaries and make an accurate +evaluation of population difficult. On the accompanying maps, areas are +delineated, and numbered, primarily for convenience of reference. At +the same time they conform as closely as is feasible with the natural +subdivisions of the territory marked out by river valleys, lakes, +plains, and mountains. It should be stressed that they do not +necessarily coincide precisely with the areas occupied by specific +tribes or groups of tribes. + +The demography of the central valley is rendered still more complex by +the fact that the contact with the white race took place in a series of +steps rather than by a single overwhelming invasion. In central Mexico, +or to a somewhat lesser degree in northwestern California, aboriginal +life continued relatively untouched until there occurred a rapid and +catastrophic occupation of the entire territory. As a result, the +population was affected in a uniform manner throughout and a +sufficiently clear line can be drawn between aboriginal and postcontact +conditions. In the central valley the white influence was very gradual, +beginning at or near the year 1770 with the entrance of the Spanish +missionaries along the coast and the infiltration of a very few +foreigners into the valley. The volume of invasion increased slowly +over the next three decades, but the effect was intensified by the +escape of numerous mission neophytes into the valley. The years after +1800 saw repeated incursions by the coastal whites who overran the +floor of the valley from the Sacramento River to Buena Vista Lake. +Meanwhile the foothill and mountain tribes were permitted to remain +fairly intact. With discovery of gold, however, these groups lost their +immunity and were rapidly destroyed. Therefore, even though we +oversimplify, we may say that the aboriginal population persisted in +the valley proper up to 1770, in the lower foothills up to roughly +1810, and in the higher foothills and more remote canyons of the Sierra +Nevada up to 1850. + +Our sources of information cover only the period during which the +demographic status of the natives was undergoing change. No written +record exists that describes conditions as they might have been found +prior to 1770. The only possible substitute would be an examination of +the habitation sites left from prehistoric times, but archaeological +research in the area has not yet progressed to the point where an +adequate quantitative estimate of population is available. There are +three primary bodies of data to which we have access, all falling +within the historical period between 1770 and 1860. + +The first of these derives from the serious effort on the part of the +Americans, who between 1848 and 1852 were entering the region in large +numbers, to determine the quantity of natives surviving in the central +valley. This task was performed by such men as Sutter, Bidwell, and +Savage, together with several Indian commissioners, and army officers +sent out by the government. To their reports may be added the +statements contained in the local county histories published in the era +of 1880 to 1890, as well as in many pioneer reminiscences. + +A second major source of information consists of the ethnographic +studies made within the past fifty years, among which should be +mentioned the works of Kroeber, Merriam, Schenck, Gayton, and Gifford. +These investigators depended principally upon informants who were +elderly people in the decades from 1900 to 1940. Their memories, +together with their recollection of what had been told them by their +parents, carry back, on the average, to the period of the American +invasion or just before it. Hence their knowledge of truly aboriginal +population would be valid for the hill tribes only; yet data derived +from them for that region is probably more accurate than can be +obtained from the general estimates made by contemporary white men. +These two types of information, contemporary American accounts and +modern ethnographic material, can thus be used to supplement and check +each other for the era of 1850. + +For conditions in the valley before 1840 we have to depend almost +exclusively upon the historical records left by the Spanish and +Mexicans. These consist of a series of diaries, reports, and letters, +by both laymen and ecclesiastics, together with baptism lists and +censuses from the coastal missions. This array of documents is to be +found in the manuscript collections of the Bancroft Library of the +University of California at Berkeley. + +It will be clear from these considerations that the population of the +San Joaquin Valley can be determined with some degree of accuracy at +two stages in the history of the region. The later period is at the +point of intense occupancy by the Americans, at or near the year 1850, +for here may be brought to a focus the data from both contemporary +counts and the research of modern ethnographers. The earlier is for the +epoch just preceding the entrance of the Spanish into California, or +just before 1770. To assess the population at this period it is +necessary to bring to bear information from all sources, American and +Spanish, and to utilize all indirect methods of computation which may +be appropriate. As a matter of historical interest, as well as to +provide a background for the estimate of aboriginal population, the +state of the natives in the period of the Gold Rush will be first +examined. + + + + +THE POPULATION OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY IN APPROXIMATELY 1850 + +CONTEMPORARY ESTIMATES AND COUNTS FOR THE ENTIRE REGION + + +General estimates for the population of the San Joaquin Valley during +the period 1848 to 1855 were made by several individuals. James D. +Savage, one of the earliest settlers in the Fresno region, stated in +1851 that the population from the Tuolumne River to the Kern River was +from 50,000 to 55,000. Elsewhere he modified these figures considerably +(Dixon, MS, 1875) and reported the total from the Cosumnes to the Kern +as 18,100, of which 14,000 were from south of the Stanislaus River. +James H. Carson, another pioneer, said in 1852 that "the Indians of the +Tulare Valley number nearly 6,000. About half this number inhabit the +mountains.... The other portion inhabit the plains along the rivers and +lakes." + +In 1852 the Indian commissioner, O. M. Wozencraft, estimated for the +area lying between the Yuba and the Mokelumne rivers a total of 40,000 +inhabitants. He quotes old residents as saying that four years +previously (i.e., in 1848) the population for the same area had been +80,000. At about the same time another agent, Adam Johnston (1853), +estimated all the Sierra and valley tribes as being 80,000 strong +(including both Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys). In general +magnitude these figures correspond to those given by Sutter for the +region bounded by the Yuba, the Stanislaus, the Sacramento, the San +Joaquin, and the line of the foothills: 21,873 (Sutter, 1850). Sutter's +value definitely represents conditions prior to 1847. Meanwhile H. W. +Wessels reported in 1853 that from the Stanislaus south there were +7,500 to 8,000 persons. In the same year G. W. Barbour, another +commissioner, referred to the reservation Indians as "seven or eight +thousand hungry souls." In 1856, agent T. J. Henly put the aggregate +population of the Fresno and Kings River reservations plus Tulare, +Mariposa, Tuolumne, Calaveras, and San Joaquin counties as 5,150 +(Henley, 1857). + +It is evident that the foregoing data represent two distinctly +different types of estimate: broad generalization based largely upon +subjective impression and applying to the years preceding 1847, and +more narrow semi-estimate derived during the years subsequent to 1849 +from some attempt to make an actual count. The figures obtained from +the first method are certainly too high, particularly for the period +centering around 1850. On the other hand, it may be possible that the +other method yielded figures which were too low. + +Some check on the reliability of the estimates supplied by the various +commissioners and agents may be obtained from two sources, neither of +which constituted a direct attempt to assess population. These comprise +reports submitted concerning (1) vaccinations and (2) distribution of +blankets. + +During the summer of 1851 Dr. W. M. Ryer was employed to vaccinate +those Indians in the San Joaquin Valley who could be persuaded to +undergo the operation. Each month Dr. Ryer submitted a voucher +specifying the number of Indians vaccinated during the preceding thirty +days and also mentioning the tribes and areas covered. These vouchers +are included with other documents in Senate Executive Document No. 61, +32nd Congress, first session, 1852 (pp. 20 to 23). Some question might +be raised concerning the accuracy of the figures, but there is no +indication in the correspondence of the period of irregularity or +dishonesty. Dr. Ryer claimed that he had vaccinated, from the +Stanislaus to the south shore of Lake Tulare, 6,154 persons. + +A somewhat smaller area was covered by four of the eighteen treaties +concluded by commissioners McKee, Barbour, and Wozencraft[1] with the +California tribes in 1851. These four treaties may be designated A, B, +C, and N, following the order in which they are presented in the Senate +Report. Under the agreements, one of the commodities which were to be +furnished to the Indians by the government was blankets. The tribes +included under treaties A, B, and C were to receive a total of 3,000. +In treaty N (as also in several other treaties not concerned with this +area) it was stated that the Indians were to receive one blanket apiece +for every person over fifteen years of age, and presumably this ratio +was employed universally in the issue of blankets. Under the conditions +existing at that time it may safely be assumed that the persons over +fifteen years of age constituted at least 80 per cent of the total +population. Therefore the three treaties first mentioned (A, B, and C) +must have covered 3,750 individuals. Regarding the group embraced by +treaty N it is explicitly stated that "they may number ... some 2,000 +to 3,000." If we take the mean, or 2,500, then the total for the area +is 6,250. + +The area included under the four treaties extended actually only from +the Chowchilla River to the south shore of Lake Tulare and the Kern +River, whereas the territory covered by Ryer during his vaccination +tour began with the Stanislaus. Within the treaty limits he vaccinated +4,449 persons. The discrepancy between his total and that of the +treaties poses no difficulty since it is apparent that, as would be +expected with any primitive group, fewer individuals consented to be +vaccinated than made known their desire to receive gifts of blankets. +Hence the figure derived from potential blanket distribution is +probably closer to the actuality than the vaccination figure. If, +accordingly, we correct Ryer's report of 1,705 persons vaccinated +_north_ of the Chowchilla River to conform to the ratio found south of +that stream, we get 2,398. If we add this to 6,250 the total is 8,648 +for the entire strip from the Stanislaus to the southern end of the San +Joaquin Valley. + +In summarizing general estimates and counts we may discard the very +high values submitted by Wozencraft, Johnston, and Sutter on the +grounds that they were either mere guesses or applied to an earlier +period than that which we are considering. There are left the +following figures, which seem essentially valid. + + Ryer and the treaties (1851) 8,648 + Wessels (1853) 7,500-8,000 + Barbour (1853) 7,500-8,000 + Henley (1856) 5,150 + +Since the wastage of native population in the valley was exceedingly +rapid during the decade of the 'fifties, these figures are remarkably +consistent. As a preliminary value, therefore, based upon the best +general estimates, we may set the population in 1851 at 8,600. + + +ANALYSIS BASED UPON RESTRICTED AREAS + +Further examination and correction are now in order. It will be noted +that the estimates above do not include the area traversed by the +Cosumnes, Mokelumne, and Calaveras rivers. Moreover, the federal agents +confined their calculations to those natives who voluntarily or +otherwise were incorporated in the local reservation system. That many +Indians were overlooked, not only in the more remote foothills, but +also in the valley itself cannot be doubted. In order to assess the +population in greater detail as well as to introduce new sources of +information it will be advantageous to break up the entire region into +smaller units and consider these units one by one. + + +STANISLAUS AND TUOLUMNE RIVERS + +We may begin with the watersheds of the Stanislaus and Tuolumne rivers, +since for this area reasonably complete information is available (see +maps 1, 5, and 6, areas 7 and 9.) On May 31, 1851, the Daily Alta +California reported the treaty made with tribes of this region and +stated that they were 1,000 strong. This treaty (treaty E in the +California Treaties) covered the courses of the two streams as far as +their junction with the San Joaquin, on the one hand, and an +indeterminate distance into the hills, on the other. Ryer vaccinated in +the area during June of the same year and submitted a bill for 1,010 +operations. He specifies 6 bands, rancherias, or tribes which were +predominantly Siakumne and Taulamni, a fact which implies that he +confined his attention principally to the inhabitants of the valley and +the lower foothills. In the preceding discussion it was pointed out +that Ryer's figures are probably too low and that a correction should +be introduced. If the same ratio is used as before, the value becomes +1,420. + +Adam Johnston, in a statement published in 1853 includes a map +(Johnston, 1853, p. 242). Along the rivers shown on this map he has +placed figures for population. According to him there were 900 Indians +on the Stanislaus and 450 on the Tuolumne, or a total of 1,350. These +are distinctly noted as reservation Indians and hence would not have +included the entire population. Four years later, H. W. Wessels +reported for the same area only 500-700 persons (Wessels, 1857). These +were the Indians left on the reservations. + +At about the same period, James D. Savage gave as his opinion that +there were 2,500 people on the Stanislaus and 2,100 on the Tuolumne +(Dixon, MS, 1875). In their report in 1853 Barbour, McKee, and +Wozencraft refer to a statement by a chief named Kossus that under his +jurisdiction were 4,000 persons and 30 rancherias from the Calaveras to +the Stanislaus. Although these two estimates are widely at variance +with those submitted by the officials, it must be remembered that both +Savage and Chief Kossus may have been referring to a somewhat earlier +date and that both included bands and settlements higher up the rivers +than was actually reached by the commissioners. Hence, although the +figure of over 4,000 is likely too high, 1,000 to 1,500 may have been +too low. + +With respect to the strictly lowland tribes there is but little doubt +that by the year 1852 the northern Yokuts lying between Stockton and +Modesto had practically disappeared. Thus the first state census, taken +in 1852, showed only 275 Indians remaining on the lower Stanislaus. +George H. Tinkham states that in the same year there were only 10 +families (perhaps 50 persons) left from the tribe which formerly had +inhabited the region between the Calaveras and the Stanislaus and had +extended eastward along the latter stream as far as Knights Ferry +(Tinkham, 1923). The valley plains can consequently account for no more +than approximately 350 persons and it must be assumed that almost all +the remaining natives were living along the border of the foothills and +higher up in the mountains. + +One item of some significance is the discussion of the Tuolumne River +tribes by Adam Johnston, written in the year 1860, definitely after the +Gold Rush period. He says there were six chiefs in command of six +rancherias, the names of which he gives. These rancherias "contain from +fifty to two hundred Indians, men, women and children." One of these +bands, the Aplache, "resided further in the mountains," from which one +may infer that the other five were also in the mountains. At an average +of 125 per band, or rancheria, this means 900 people whose existence +was known to Johnston as late as 1860. An equivalent number can be +assumed for the Stanislaus, or 1,800 in all. + +The ethnographers have given us an imposing list of villages for the +area under consideration, derived entirely from modern informants. +There are three of these lists, those of Kroeber (1925), Merriam[2], +and Gifford,[3] which merit careful scrutiny. Kroeber's (p. 445 of the +Handbook) includes 49 names, which he says are of villages "that can be +both named and approximately located." Merriam's "Mewuk List" has 28 +names of places located on the Stanislaus and Tuolumne. Gifford shows +49 villages which he says are "permanent," in addition to perhaps twice +that number of "temporary" villages and camps. Gifford's list is +probably the most carefully compiled of the three. The geographical +location is indicated by counties but since his field of observation +embraces Calaveras and Tuolumne counties, it coincides territorially +quite exactly with the other two lists. + +Certain villages are recorded by all three investigators, others by two +of them, and some by only one. Concerning the existence of the first +two groups there can be little, if any, doubt. Of those appearing on +only one list some question might be raised. On the other hand, the +care and conservatism exhibited by all three ethnographers makes it +very difficult to doubt the essential validity of their data. The +discrepancies are clearly due to the differences between informants and +the high probability that no single informant could recall all the +inhabited places over so large an area. + +I have tabulated below the number of villages according to river system +and according to occurrence in the lists mentioned. + + Stanislaus Tuolumne + __________ ________ + + Kroeber, Merriam, and Gifford 8 13 + Kroeber and Merriam 2 3 + Kroeber and Gifford 6 5 + Kroeber only 6 8 + Gifford only 5 12 + Merriam only 1 1 + ____ ____ + + Total 28 42 + +We have therefore 70 reasonably well authenticated villages in the hill +area traversed by the two rivers. With regard to the number of +inhabitants, further data are provided by Gifford. His informant gave +for each permanent place an estimate of the number of persons present +in the year 1840. Gifford secured his material in approximately the +year 1915 from a man very old at the time. If the informant was then +seventy-five years of age, he must have been born in 1840. Hence he +could scarcely be expected to remember population figures from a date +much earlier than his childhood. The names and location of the villages +themselves were at least semipermanent and could have been derived from +the informant's parents even if not from his own memory. Hence it is +probable that the figure furnished to Gifford more nearly represents +the number of inhabitants in 1850 than in 1840. The average value for +all 49 villages is 20.8 persons. Yet 7 villages are stated to have held +15 persons, 11 villages 10 persons, and 3 villages 5 or less persons. +Such a condition argues a rapidly declining population, for no normal +aboriginal settlement is likely to have contained less than 20 +inhabitants. Gifford's average of 21 persons per village must, however, +be accepted as representing the closest we can get to the value for the +period of 1850. This means a population of 588 for the Stanislaus and +882 for the Tuolumne. The total is 1,470 for the foothill region. +Between 300 and 400 may be added to account for scattered remnants +along the lower courses of these rivers and on the San Joaquin itself, +or 1,800 for the entire area under consideration. + +To summarize, we have the following estimates for the +Stanislaus-Tuolumne watershed at or about the year 1851: + + Savage (perhaps before 1851) 4,600 + Chief Kossus 4,000 + Daily Alta California, 1851 1,000 + Vaccinations by Ryer 1,420 + Adam Johnston's estimate, 1853 1,350 + Adam Johnston's estimate, 1860 1,800 + H. W. Wessels, 1853 600 + Village lists 1,800 + +The crude numerical average is about 2,070 but since the best of the +above estimates, the village lists, shows no more than 1,800, it will +be preferable to set 2,000 as a fair approximation. + + STANISLAUS-TUOLUMNE ... 2,000 + _____________________________ + + +MERCED RIVER, MARIPOSA CREEK, AND CHOWCHILLA RIVER + +South of the Tuolumne are the Merced River, Mariposa Creek, and the +Chowchilla River, all within the territory of the southern Miwok (see +maps 1 and 4, areas 5E, 5F, 6). The earliest of the midcentury counts +pertaining to the region is probably that of Savage (Dixon, MS, 1875) +who put 2,100 persons on the Merced but omitted reference to any other +stream between the Tuolumne and the upper San Joaquin. Ryer, in a bill +submitted July 31, 1851, claimed to have vaccinated 695 persons along +the Merced, principally on the lower course of that river. The value, +corrected according to the system adopted previously, is 977. McKee, +Barbour, and Wozencraft in a report on May 15, 1851 (Wozencraft, 1851) +described the proposed reservation No. 1 between the Tuolumne and the +Merced and estimated the total number of Indians on both rivers as +2,000 to 3,000, or let us say 1,250 on the Merced alone. The map of +Adam Johnston, dated in early 1852, shows 500 persons on the Merced, +but these were reservation Indians. The state census of 1852, as cited +by the Sacramento Union for November 17, 1852, gave 4,533 persons for +Mariposa County, a figure which no doubt included all the natives from +the Tuolumne to the Fresno River. H. W. Wessels on August 21, 1853, +wrote that there were 500 to 700 Indians on the Stanislaus and +Tuolumne, 500 to 600 on the upper San Joaquin and that the entire area +contained 2,500 to 3,000 (Wessels, 1857). The Merced-Fresno region +therefore accounted for somewhere between 1,000 and 1,700. A rough +average for all these rather haphazard estimates would be 1,000 natives +on the Merced watershed and another 1,000 on the Mariposa and the +Chowchilla, or 2,000 in all. + +We may now turn to the village lists. Unfortunately, Gifford did not +work south of the Tuolumne but we have the list given by Kroeber in the +Handbook (1925) for the southern Miwok and two manuscript lists of +Merriam (entitled "Mewuk Village List" and "Indian Village and Camp +Sites in Yosemite Valley and Merced Canyon"). For the middle Merced +Valley, from a point some ten miles below El Portal to the base of the +foothills, Kroeber and Merriam both list 14 villages, to which Merriam +alone adds another 10. From El Portal to a point six or seven miles +downstream Merriam has found no less than 15 villages. In Yosemite +Valley itself he has located 33 villages, of which 12 are qualified as +either camps or summer villages, leaving 20 which he presumes are +permanent. On the upper Merced, above Yosemite, and the headwaters of +the Chowchilla, Kroeber has found the name of one village and Merriam +one. Clearly this area has never been investigated exhaustively. For +the well-known portion of the river, therefore, there are 59 located +villages. + +Of the 35 village sites in Yosemite and below El Portal, Merriam says +10 were large and 6 small. The rest are not qualified but were +presumably medium to small. Gifford's average for the central Miwok of +21 persons per village in 1850-1852 may be applied directly, giving a +population for the Merced Valley in the hills of 1,239. To this may be +added, according to Ryer and to Johnston, 50 to 600 for the lower +river, making a total of 1,800. + +Mariposa Creek and the Chowchilla River have never been as thoroughly +investigated as the Merced. Merriam's "Mewuk List" mentions 13 sites on +each of the two streams, including the 6 given by Kroeber in the +Handbook. At 21 persons per village this would mean a population of 273 +for each or 546 for both, a value which appears rather low. + +Another approach to the problem is by way of territorial comparisons. +There are under consideration, including those previously discussed, +five small river systems, those of the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Merced, +Mariposa, and Chowchilla. Physiographically and ecologically they are +very similar since the rivers all descend the foothills of the Sierra +Nevada and traverse the plain to the San Joaquin through the same life +zones and at nearly the same latitude. There are, to be sure, some +local differences between them with respect to how much of their course +is favorable for village sites, but in the aggregate the similarities +outweigh the differences. It is of interest, therefore, to estimate the +village density along each watercourse. This value can be computed with +a fair degree of accuracy by measuring on a large-scale map the length +of each river and its principal affluents from the edge of the plain to +the upper limit of known permanent habitation. The village numbers can +be derived from the lists of Kroeber, Gifford, and Merriam. + + Estimated Villages per + River Length (mi.) Villages river mi. + _____ ____________ ________ ____________ + + Stanislaus 85 28 0.33 + Tuolumne 105 42 0.40 + Merced 125 59 0.47 + Mariposa 40 13 0.32 + Chowchilla 65 13 0.20 + ______ + + Mean 0.34 + +The figures, considering physiographic differences and varying coverage +by ethnographers, are quite consistent. Only that for the Chowchilla +appears unduly low and this in turn may be referable to an incomplete +count by Merriam. It is reasonable to concede this possibility and +assume an actual count of 0.30 village for each mile of this stream. On +65 miles of river front there would thus have been 19.5 villages. This +consequently means, using Gifford's population average of 21 per +village, 273 inhabitants on the Mariposa and 410 on the Chowchilla. +These may be added to the 1,800 calculated for the Merced, making a +total of 2,483. + +The very approximate value derived from general estimates was 2,000 +persons. The village data are probably more accurate and may be rounded +off to an even 2,500. + + MERCED-MARIPOSA-CHOWCHILLA ... 2,500 + ____________________________________ + + +THE COSUMNES, MOKELUMNE, AND CALAVERAS RIVERS + +The northern Miwok held the upper reaches of the Mokelumne plus most of +the Cosumnes and Calaveras (see maps 1, 5, and 6, areas 10, 11, 12). +The population must have been very small in the period of the early +1850's owing to extreme attrition suffered from the Spanish and +particularly from the gold miners. Kroeber gives only 20 villages on +all three streams, most of them on the Mokelumne. Merriam adds another +3, making 23 in all. At Gifford's population value this means 480 +persons. The official sources are of little help since none of the +agents or commissioners reported specifically on the area. Evidently +there were too few survivors among the natives to warrant the trouble +of placing them under the reservation system. + +Savage assessed the population on the Cosumnes, Mokelumne, and +Calaveras at 1,000 each (Dixon, MS, 1875) but it is likely that he was +thinking in terms of the days before the Gold Rush. F. T. Gilbert +(1879, p. 113) says that the Mokelkos, by which he means all the +Indians between the Mokelumne and the Cosumnes in the hills and as far +as Stockton on the plain, had 12 rancherias of 200 to 300 each and +numbered about 3,000 in all. He, however, was referring specifically to +the period "before the advent of Sutter." Likewise J. D. Mason (1881, +p. 256) ascribed to the same tribe "nearly a score of towns, with a +total of 3,000 to 4,000." In amplification Gilbert says that in 1850 +rancherias lined both banks of the Mokelumne from Ahearn's (near Lodi) +to Campo Seco (near the present Pardee Reservoir), and that they +numbered then about 2,000. In 1852, however, there were only 4 +rancherias left, with 390 inhabitants. + +Gilbert was referring explicitly to the lower course of the rivers, +whereas the villages cited by Kroeber were definitely above this region +in the foothills. We may accept Gilbert's figure of 390 on the lower +Mokelumne, to which may be added 110 for the lower Cosumnes and +Calaveras and 480 for the upper villages, making a total of 980 or, let +us say, 1,000. + + COSUMNES-MOKELUMNE-CALAVERAS ... 1,000 + ______________________________________ + + +THE FRESNO AND THE UPPER SAN JOAQUIN RIVERS + +We next turn south and consider the valleys of the Fresno and upper San +Joaquin rivers (see maps 1 and 4, areas 5B, 5C, 5D.) There are three +counts or estimates pertaining to this area specifically. The first is +that of Savage, who does not mention the Fresno but puts 2,700 persons +on the upper San Joaquin. The second source is the May 29, 1851, issue +of the Daily Alta California, which carried a letter written by an +unidentified officer who was with the Indian commissioners and in fact +may have been G. W. Barbour. This officer refers to the treaty made +with the natives between the Chowchilla and the Kings rivers and says +that "the total is probably 3,000 Indians." The third is Adam Johnston, +who on his map ascribed 1,200 people to the Fresno and 1,000 to the San +Joaquin (Johnston, 1853). The average of the three estimates is 2,633. + +W. M. Ryer submitted three reports for the territory below the Merced +and north of the Tehachapi Mountains. In each he mentions the tribes +vaccinated (Ryer, 1852). There are 45 in all, but 8 tribal or rancheria +names are indeterminate and there are many duplicate names among the +rest. Putting all three lists together we can get 27 recognizable +tribal names, of which one is southern Miwok, four are Mono, and the +others Yokuts. The total vaccinations performed numbered 4,451, or, +correcting to conform to the figures based on blanket distribution, +6,255, an average of 232 per tribe. To allow for the nontribal and +unrecognizable names on Ryer's lists this value may be arbitrarily +reduced to 200. Ryer mentions in the Fresno-San Joaquin area the +following: Chowchilla, Chukchansi, Heuchi, Pitkachi, Goshowu, Dumna, +Dalinchi, Pohinichi (Miwok), and Posgisa (Mono). The Pohinichi should +be excluded since they have already been considered in connection with +the southern Miwok. The other nine, reckoned at 200 persons per tribe, +would represent an aggregate of 1,800. However, Kroeber (1925, p. 481, +and map, p. 526) shows four other Yokuts subdivisions within the same +territory: Hoyima, Wakichi, Kechayi, and Tolichi. Although Ryer may +have included these under other tribal names they perhaps ought to be +included here, thus making the total 2,600. + +For villages there are two sets of sources. The first pertains +primarily to the Yokuts, covers a territory substantially coterminous +with that seen by the contemporary observers mentioned above, and is +found in the work of Kroeber (1925), Gayton (1948), and Latta (1949). +The second set of villages is confined to the Mono and is derived from +Gifford (1932) and Merriam. + +The first group of authors list villages for the 13 tribes mentioned in +the preceding discussion, 49 in all or an average of 3.77 per tribe. +With respect to size there is reason to believe that the settlements in +this area, even in the early 1850's, were considerably larger than +those described by Gifford for the central Miwok. The estimate of Adam +Johnston of an average of 125 per rancheria on the lower Tuolumne has +already been mentioned. H. W. Wessels in 1853 wrote that the Pitkachi +plus the Noo-to-ah, a Mono group, had 500 to 600 souls (Wessels, 1857). +Half of these, or 300, may have been Pitkachi, a tribe for which +Kroeber lists 3 villages. This would have meant 100 per village. +Merriam credits Savage with the statement that in 1851 the Kechayi had +1,000 people. Kroeber, Gayton, and Latta list 6 different villages for +this tribe or, according to Savage's figures, 167 persons per village. +Ryer's total of 2,600 prorated among 49 villages, would yield 53 +persons each. Although it is probable that the values computed from the +statements of Johnston, Wessels, and Savage are too high, that derived +from Ryer may be somewhat too low. An intermediate figure of 70 +inhabitants per village for the valley and lower foothills would +perhaps come as close as we can get to the truth. This, with 49 +villages, gives 3,430, somewhat more than the 2,633 cited as the +average of the general estimates. + +Inhabiting the higher foothills and extending to the upper limit of +habitation from the San Joaquin to the Kaweah rivers were the Western +Mono. This tribe lived just above the Yokuts and at points was in very +close association with them. As a whole the Western Mono constitute a +racial and ecological unit and as such it is probably preferable to +consider them as a single population entity than to segregate them by +rivers, as has been done for the Miwok and the Yokuts. It will be +necessary, therefore, to digress for this purpose and subsequently +return to the discussion. + +The classic ethnographic work on the tribe, and the only work which +contains any numerical data, is that of Gifford (1932) on the North +Fork division of the Mono. This is supplemented by Merriam's manuscript +entitled "Monache Tribes, Bands, and Villages." Gifford gives the names +(text and map) of 67 North Fork villages, or, as he prefers to call +them, hamlets. These were quite unlike either those of the Miwok or of +the valley Yokuts, being very much smaller and subject to an +extraordinary turnover in inhabitants. Gifford makes it very clear +that each family was accustomed to move every few years from one +settlement to another and that sites were being continually occupied +and deserted. The 67 names are therefore no criterion for population. +For the time of the American occupation Gifford estimates the number of +persons in the group or subtribe as approximately 300, which, divided +directly by 67, would give the absurd average of 4 persons per hamlet. +However, a more detailed analysis is possible. + +Of Gifford's 67 names, 2 may be deducted as being only camps, leaving +65 which at some period were permanently occupied. In his Appendix A +(pp. 57-61) he lists the sites, together with the number of houses in +each and the number of males and females inhabiting them. From these +data may be computed the total number of families and the mean number +of persons per family. There were 227 families in all. However, 36 of +these are listed two or more times by virtue of moves made from one +hamlet to another, which were remembered by Gifford's informants. This +would leave 191 families for the subtribe, provided Gifford recorded +all the moves. But Gifford clearly implies that he did not, since his +informants could not remember them all. Hence the number of families +must be further corrected. In Appendix A, 15 out of a total of 65 +hamlets were concerned in the moves recorded. These 15 hamlets were +inhabited at different times by 61 families but many of these, owing to +frequent change of residence, are repetitions. Actually there was a +total of 24 _different_ families rotating among the 15 villages. Now if +in the other 50 hamlets the same process was going on, although Gifford +was not able to record the moves, it is legitimate to apply the same +ratio as is in fact found for the 15 hamlets. The crude total of 227 +families must therefore be reduced to 89. From Gifford's complete list +it can be determined that there were on the average 4.93 persons per +family. This gives a population of 439 for the period remembered by the +informants. + +On general grounds it is to be expected that the conditions reported by +Gifford's informants were not entirely aboriginal. This is also +indicated by the value of 4.93 persons per family, which is somewhat +too low for a stable prehistoric population. Moreover, Gifford himself +states that there were formerly 44 more houses than there were in the +time referred to by the informants (figures given individually for the +hamlets in App. A). About 1850 there were 227 houses, and if 44 are +added, the aboriginal number would have been 271. Each house may be +assumed to have held one family but the houses were probably occupied +in rotation. The crude estimate of 271 houses or families, each +containing (according to aboriginal standards) a possible 6 persons, +would mean a total of 1,626 for the subtribe. If, however, we apply the +correction factor for family moves we must reduce this estimate to 640, +a far more reasonable figure. For the North Fork Mono, therefore, we +may accept as the best estimate obtainable a population of 440 for the +period near 1850 and of 640 for precontact time. + +The other subtribes of the Mono provide no data comparable with those +available for the North Fork group. Some method of extrapolation is +thus called for. + +The village method is very unsatisfactory. Kroeber says substantially +nothing on this score and Merriam, although he lists 19 villages for +the North Fork Mono, gives no more than one or two or, at the most, +half-a-dozen names for each of the other groups. Tribal distinctions +are also very confusing. Kroeber in the Handbook mentions 6 Mono +subtribes: North Fork group, Posgisa, Holkoma, Wobonuch, Waksachi, and +Balwisha. Merriam subdivides to a much greater extent. His grouping may +be expressed essentially as follows: + + 1. Pogesas equivalent to Kroeber's Posgisa + 2. Nim synonymous with the North Fork subtribe + 3. Kwetah included in Kroeber's Holkoma + 4. Kokoheba included in Kroeber's Holkoma + 5. Holkoma included in Kroeber's Holkoma + 6. Towincheba included in Kroeber's Holkoma + 7. Toinetche included in Kroeber's Holkoma + 8. Tsooeawatah included in Kroeber's Holkoma + 9. Emtimbitch classed by Kroeber as a Yokuts tribe + 10. Woponuch equivalent to Kroeber's Wobonuch + 11. Wuksatche equivalent to Kroeber's Waksachi + 12. Padoosha equivalent to Kroeber's Balwisha + + Nos. 5 to 8 inclusive are consolidated by Merriam as smaller + groups within a main group or subtribe called the + Toohookmutch. Concerning these Merriam says: "Large tribe on + King's River. On both sides but largest area on north side. + Contains many rancheria bands." + +Using Merriam's nomenclature, the Nim are generally conceded to have +been the largest single subtribe. For this we may take as a working +base line the previous estimate of 440 persons and Merriam's list of 19 +villages. Elsewhere Merriam mentions the names of the following: +Toinetche 3 villages, Holkoma 4, Woponuch 9, Emtimbitch 2, Waksache 1, +Kokoheba 1, and Toohookmutch 10. The total is 30. By direct proportion +the inhabitants should have numbered 695 but this would leave five of +Merriam's groups with no population at all. If we consider that the +Toohookmutch complex plus the Kokoheba and Kwetah are the equivalent of +Kroeber's Holkoma we find 18 villages, which implies 416 people. +Merriam cites 9 villages or, at the same ratio, 208 persons for the +Wobonuch. The total for these three of Kroeber's subtribes would then +be 1,064. If we guess that the remaining groups contained 500 persons, +the figure for the Mono in 1850 would reach the vicinity of 1,600. + +In view of the paucity of the village data for all subtribes except the +North Fork group it is proper to fall back on area-density comparisons. +The territory actually inhabited by the Mono is vague, particularly on +the eastern border approaching the high mountains. Nevertheless +Merriam's villages furnish a fair guide in outline, since his findings, +while very incomplete, can be regarded as a reasonably well distributed +sample. Moreover, his descriptions of tribal boundaries and village +locations appear to be very accurate. When we plot the latter on a +large scale map, therefore, the outlines of the Western Mono area +become sufficiently distinct. + +There are two possible variants of the method, one by computing stream +distances and the other by measuring areas. Both must of course rest +for their basis on the data for the North Fork subtribe. This in turn +may entail some error, since the North Fork group may have been not +only the most populous but also the densest. + +For the North Fork territory the distribution shown by Gifford on his +map (1932, p. 18) is used plus the area of Bass Lake, since Merriam has +found that there were once villages there. The southern and eastern +boundary is taken as the San Joaquin River, because the North Fork Mono +apparently did not cross to the left bank of the river. Several miles +on Little Fine Gold Creek must also be included, according to +Gifford's map. + +In this region there were approximately 60 miles of streams, including +the San Joaquin River itself. With a population of 440 this means 7.33 +persons per stream mile. The stream mileage for the San Joaquin system +as a whole within the Mono boundaries amounted to 100 miles. Hence the +population in the same ratio would be 733. The analogous values for the +Kings River system are 150 miles and 1,100 persons and for the Kaweah +drainage 75 miles and 550 persons. The total population would then be +2,383. + +If areas are calculated from the township lines on the map, that +covered by the North Fork Mono is approximately 150 square miles and +that of the Mono collectively is 1,090 square miles. Equating the North +Fork population to the entire area gives for the Mono as a whole 3,195. + +We may now return to the consideration of the Fresno-San Joaquin +region. For the lower courses of these rivers, mainly in Yokuts +territory, three values were derived, 2,633 from general estimates, +2,600 from Ryer's vaccinations, and 3,430 from village lists. We may +accept the average, 2,890. For the Mono of the upper San Joaquin the +best estimate, as given above, is 733. The total is 3,623 or, rounded +off to the nearest hundred, 3,600. + + FRESNO-SAN JOAQUIN ... 3,600 + ____________________________ + + +THE KINGS AND THE KAWEAH RIVERS + +The Kings and Kaweah watersheds may be considered at this point in +their entirety (see maps 1 and 3, areas 3 and 4). If we deduct 730 +persons for the San Joaquin basin, the estimates for the Mono on the +two former streams was estimated by the village method as 870, by the +stream mileage method as 1,653, and by the area method as 2,465. If one +regards some of these figures as too high, he should bear in mind that +the natives on the Kings and Kaweah rivers were exposed to more intense +contact with the white race for a longer period before 1850 than those +on the relatively sheltered North Fork, and that their extermination +proceeded with tremendous velocity after that date. This fact may well +account for the inability of either Kroeber or Merriam to find more +than a few villages on the Kings and Kaweah, as compared with the +success of Gifford on the North Fork. The more exposed villages may +simply have disappeared before the era reached by the memory of modern +informants. If this is so, the stream mileage and area comparisons may +be more accurate than otherwise might be supposed. + +Considerable evidence for a rather high population in this region at +the midpoint of the nineteenth century is to be derived from +contemporary accounts and from statements obtained by Merriam. Among +the papers in his collection is a clipping from the Stockton Record of +February 21, 1925, containing an article by Walter Fry of the United +States Park Service. Included is an account of early days on the Kaweah +by Hale D. Thorpe, obtained by Mr. Fry in 1910. Mr. Thorpe says: + + When I first came to the Three Rivers country in 1856, there + were over 2,000 Indians living along the Kaweah River above + Lemon Cove. Their headquarters camp was at Hospital Rock.... + There were over 600 Indians then living at the camp. + +The Indians were mostly Mono, of the Patwisha tribe. Dr. Merriam +evidently consulted Mr. George W. Stewart concerning this matter, since +the file also contains a letter from Mr. Stewart written to Dr. Merriam +on March 29, 1926, stating that this camp was occupied only during the +summer and that there were several permanent rancherias along the +stream. Mr. Thorpe's figure of 2,000 probably refers to Indians of all +tribes, since by 1856 all the natives from the delta region had been +driven up the river. The 600 at or near Hospital Rock were undoubtedly +Mono. + +In his manuscript entitled "Ho-lo-ko-ma, Cole Spring, Pine Ridge," +Merriam has the following to say: + + Ben Hancock, who has lived in this country about 40 years + [in 1903] tells me that when he came here there were about + 500 Indians (Ko-ko-he-ba) living in Burr Valley, a few on + Sycamore Creek, 600 or 700 at Cole Spring (Hol-ko-mahs) and + about the same number (also Hol-ko-mahs) in Fandango Ground + and in Haslet Basin.... He says a very large village was + stretched along the south side of King's River two or four + miles below the mouth of Mill Creek and for half a mile the + dome grass-covered houses nearly touched. There were also + large villages on Dry Creek and one above the forks of + King's River some miles above Dry Creek. The tribe at the + forks is now extinct." + +(There is only one survivor of the Burr Valley tribe.) + +Although the numbers may be somewhat exaggerated, there is no reason +why the essential correctness of this account should be questioned. +This is particularly true in view of the circumstantial detail with +which it is recorded. The Kokoheba must be regarded as having a +population of at least 500 and the Holkoma of 1,200, making 1,700 +for the Kings River Mono. If there were 730 on the upper San +Joaquin and 600 on the upper Kaweah and if 500 are added for the +Emtimbitch-Wobonuch group, the total is 3,530, not much more than +was calculated by means of area comparisons. + +For the Kings River as a whole the estimates of 1850 to 1853 indicate a +substantial Indian population. Savage (Dixon, MS, 1875) sets the number +as 2,000, a remarkably low figure for him. G. W. Barbour and Adam +Johnston (Sen. Ex. Doc. 4, 1853, pp. 253-256) both state that for the +purpose of consummating treaties 4,000 Indians came to Camp Belt on the +Kings River in 1851. Lt. George H. Derby in his careful account of the +southern part of the central valley in 1851 says that there were 17 +rancherias on Kings River, "numbering in all about three thousand +including those situated among the hills in the vicinity" (Derby, +1852). Many of these were Choinimni, but at least half must have been +Mono. + +If we accept Derby's count of 17 villages for 3,000 persons, the +average number of inhabitants per rancheria would be 177. For the area +farther north the equivalent number was taken as 70. There is reason to +believe that for the basins of the Kings and Kaweah Derby's figure of +177 is a closer approximation. Ben Hancock's description of the village +on the Kings below Mill Creek is very graphic and explicit (see +citation above.) If the "dome-grass covered houses nearly touched" and +stretched along the river in only a single row, and if each occupied 50 +linear feet, then there must have been 52 houses in half a mile. +Allowing 5 persons per house, in accordance with Gifford's data for +the North Fork Mono, the inhabitants must have numbered 260. One of the +rancherias seen by Derby was Cho-e-mime which had 70 "warriors." +Reckoning the "warriors" as half the males the population would have +been 280. Derby says the village of Notonto (of the tribe Nutunutu on +the south bank of the lower Kings) had 300 inhabitants. These places +were of course relatively large and important and do not represent the +general average. However, the village of Notonto must have reached +fully 150 persons. + +Apart from the Mono, the tribes located on the Kings River were all +Yokuts, as follows: Aiticha, Apiachi, Wimilchi, Nutunutu, Wechihit, +Toihichi, Chukomina, and Choinimni. For these the modern ethnographers +Kroeber, Gayton, Latta, and Stewart have been able to locate and +identify 25 villages inhabited during the youth of informants. Since +this covers a somewhat larger territory than was seen by Derby, the +correspondence in number of rancherias is reasonably close. At 150 +persons per village the population would be 3,750. If we add 1,700 for +the Kings River Mono, the total is 5,450. However, there may have been +some overlap, so this figure may be reduced to 5,000. It should be +noted that the area embraced within this estimate includes the Kings +River basin as a whole, together with that of all its affluents. + +The Kaweah River from Lemon Cove to the town of Tulare diverges to form +a delta, which originally contained a very large native population. At +the time of the American occupation there had occurred a material +reduction, which was accelerated by the fact that the region provided +excellent farming land for the entering Americans. Hence the value for +the population in 1850-1853 must be relatively low in comparison with +preceding decades. In May, 1851, according to G. W. Barbour (1853, pp. +253-255) there were 7 tribes on the Kaweah, and 1,200 people came to +treat with the commissioners. These tribes included the following: +Chunut, Choinok, Wolasi, Telamni, Gawia, Yokod, and Wukchamni. Of +these, the first, the Chunut, inhabited the shore of Lake Tulare and +should not be included as a Kaweah River tribe. The estimated +population of the remainder would, therefore, be approximately 1,000, +if the figure of the commissioners is to be taken without +qualification. + +With respect to the individual tribes there are a few scattered bits of +information. Derby (1852) mentions three rancherias or bands in the +area: Cowees (Gawia) with 200 people, Thulime (Telamni) with 65 men, or +roughly 200 people, and Heame-a-tahs (Telamni) with 200 people. Merriam +in his "Yokuts List" cites an informant who said that the Wukchumne +"used to number" 5,000 and occupied the valley now called Lemon Cove +and up and down the Kaweah River. Clearly this is an extreme +overestimate, unless the informant was referring to the period prior to +1800. Finally Merriam cites a letter by Lt. N. H. McLean, which states +that the "Four Creeks Country" included the "Cahwiahs, Okuls, Choinux, +Wicktrumnees, Talumnies" and in 1853 had not over 1,200 souls.[4] + +It thus appears quite evident that the six Yokuts tribes, except +perhaps the Wukchumni, had no more than 200 persons apiece during the +era under consideration. From modern informants Kroeber, Gayton, and +Latta have obtained for the Choinok, Gawia, Telamni, Yokod, and Wolasi +collectively the names of only 8 villages. Assuming the Kings River +value of 150 persons per village, which seems to be confirmed by Derby +for the Kaweah River also, this means 1,200 persons for the five +tribes. Gayton and Latta, however, find 15 names for the Wukchumni, +which would indicate a population of 2,250. Such a figure is highly +unlikely. It is probable that earlier times are referred to by the +informants or that there is confusion among tribal affinities. +Alternatively, the Wukchumni villages may have followed the style of +the hill-dwelling Mono and have been very much smaller than has been +indicated by Derby for the valley-inhabiting Yokuts. Since we cannot +resolve the difficulty with the data at hand, it is better to accept +the practically unanimous opinion of contemporary white observers that +the population below Lemon Cove did not exceed 1,200 in 1851. To these +must be added the 600 Mono previously discussed, making a total for the +Kaweah River as a whole of 1,800 persons. + +If the two river basins are considered jointly, the method of area +comparisons as applied to the Mono, estimates by government officials, +accounts by early pioneers, and the village lists secured from modern +informants all apparently agree that the population of the region +reached several thousand as late as 1850 and 1851. We may therefore +accept the total of 6,800, or 5,000 on the Kings and 1,800 on the +Kaweah. + + KINGS-KAWEAH ... 6,800 + ______________________ + + +THE TULARE LAKE BASIN + +The shores of Tulare Lake (see maps 1 and 2, area 2) were aboriginally +inhabited by three tribes, the Tachi, Wowol, and Chunut. In close +proximity on the northeast were the Nutunutu, but since the latter have +been included with the Kaweah River tribal group, they must be omitted +from consideration here. Savage allocated 1,000 Indians to Tulare Lake +(Dixon, MS, 1875). McLean said there were 1,000 Indians "on the lakes" +in 1853, 500 of which were "Notontos," leaving 500 for the "Taches" and +"Tontaches" (Merriam collection). The most reliable account is that of +Derby (1852). However, Derby in his terminology confused the Tachi with +the Chunut, in which mistake he has been followed by Merriam (under +title "Indians of the Tache Lake Region in 1850," MS). Derby makes it +clear in his account that he found the village of Sintache (population +100) at the northern side of the then nearly dry Lake Tontache, that is +to say on the southern shore of the big Lake Tache (Tulare). These were +probably Chunut. There was also a small rancheria which he called +Tinte-Tache at the south side of the same lake, i.e., Tontache +(population 50). These are likely to have been Wowol. The tribe known +to ethnographers as the Tachi were north of the big lake (i.e., Lake +Tache or Tulare). Their chief told Derby that they had 800 people and +that their principal rancheria was northwest of the lake (population +300). Since Derby also applies the name of Tinte-Tache to the northwest +village, it is clear that there were two rancherias of this name +included in his account. + +Kroeber and Gayton mention a total of 8 villages for the Tachi. If one +of these had 300 people, as Derby states, then the average population +of the other seven was approximately 70. This agrees with Derby's two +southern rancherias of 50 and 100 persons respectively. For the Chunut +Kroeber, Gayton, and Latta all mention the village of Chuntau. Kroeber +mentions one other, Miketsiu. This would indicate a population of +nearly 150. For the Wowol the ethnographers give three villages, or an +implied population of, say, 220. The total for the lakes would then +reach 1,170, or very close to the general contemporary estimate of +1,000. The figure 1,100 may be accepted as a compromise. + + TULARE LAKE BASIN ... 1,100 + ___________________________ + + +TULE RIVER, KERN RIVER, AND THE BUENAVISTA BASIN + +The remaining Yokuts territory is large in area but relatively small in +population. It includes the watersheds of the Tule and Kern rivers +together with those of the small creeks between (Deer, White, and Poso +creeks) and Buenavista Basin south of Bakersfield (see maps 1 and 2, +areas 1F and 1G). The tribes placed by Kroeber in the region are the +Koyeti, Yaudanchi, Bokninuwad, Kumachisi, Bankalachi (Shoshonean), +Paleuyami, Yauelmani, Hometwoli, Tuhohi, and Tulamni. + +G. W. Barbour (1852), in a letter dated July 28, 1851, said that the +area bounded by Buenavista Lake, Tule River, and Paint Creek contained +a population of about 2,000. Savage (Dixon, MS, 1875) said there were +1,700 on the Kern River and Barbour (1853) stated that, for +treaty-making purposes in 1851, 1,700 congregated at Paint Creek below +Tule River. The villages listed by Kroeber, Gayton, and Latta for the +various tribes are as follows: Bokninuwad 2, Hometwoli 3, Koyeti 8, +Kumachisi 6, Paleuyami 7, Tuhohi 1, Tulamni 3, Yaudanchi 8, and +Yauelmani 7. The total is 45. The village size indicated by Derby for +the Tulare Lake Basin and adjacent valley territory is 60 or 70; that +for the hill regions is undoubtedly smaller. If we take 40 persons as +the average village population, the aggregate for the region would be +1,800 and if we take 50 persons, it is 2,250. We cannot be far in error +in setting the population at Barbour's value, 2,000. + + + TULE-KERN-BUENAVISTA ... 2,000 + ______________________________ + +On the basis of gross estimates and semicomprehensive counts for the +entire region the population for the San Joaquin Valley and neighboring +foothills in 1851 was tentatively set at 8,600 (p. 34). The detailed +consideration of the seven subdivisions of the entire region, as above, +leads to an estimate of 19,000, as set forth in the following +recapitulation. + + + Stanislaus-Tuolumne 2,000 + Merced-Mariposa-Chowchilla 2,500 + Cosumnes-Mokelumne-Calaveras 1,000 + Fresno-San Joaquin 3,600 + Kings-Kaweah 6,800 + Tulare Lake Basin 1,100 + Tule-Kern-Buenavista 2,000 + ________ + Total 19,000 + +It is believed that this total is more reliable than that previously +given for several reasons. In the first place, it is derived from a +careful consideration of all available sources in detail. In the second +place, the preliminary estimate was weighted heavily by the reports of +government officials, who saw principally those Indians with whom they +were able to make treaties or whom they were able to collect on +reservations. That this seems to represent less than one-half the +natives in the territory is not surprising. In the third place, recent +investigations by ethnographers have brought to light many local groups +which were overlooked by contemporary observers, official and civilian +alike. We may therefore accept the figure 19,000 as the population of +the San Joaquin Valley surviving in 1852. + + +FOOTNOTES: + +[Footnote 1: These treaties seem to have been concluded without proper +authorization from the Federal government and were never ratified by +the Senate. They were incorporated in Senate Confidential Documents, +June, 1852, and remained unpublished for half a century. Finally they +were ordered printed in 1905 as a Senate Reprint and are now available +under the title of "18 California Treaties."] + +[Footnote 2: This village list and all others herein referred to under +the name of Merriam are part of the extensive file of personal +manuscript material collected by the late C. Hart Merriam and +deposited, through the kindness of his heirs, with the Department of +Anthropology of the University of California, Berkeley. Merriam's +village lists were very carefully compiled and for many regions of the +state cannot be duplicated in any publications which have hitherto +appeared.] + +[Footnote 3: I am indebted to Professor Edward W. Gifford, of the +Department of Anthropology of the University of California, Berkeley, +for the privilege of examining his list of Central Miwok villages, +which was obtained some years ago through an informant and has remained +unpublished.] + +[Footnote 4: Merriam's manuscript entitled "Yokuts List" mentions a +report from Lt. N. H. McLean, dated July 12, 1853, to H. J. Wessels, on +file in "Old Files Division," Adjutant General's Office, Washington, +no. H369. As far as I am aware, this letter has never been quoted +elsewhere.] + + + + +THE ABORIGINAL POPULATION + + +In order to estimate the aboriginal population of the San Joaquin +Valley it is necessary to rely very heavily on the accounts furnished +by the colonial Spanish and Mexicans. These were primarily +ecclesiastics and military men who entered the territory for purposes +of exploration, to seek new converts to the missions, or to chastise +stock raiders. The more responsible of these left circumstantial and, +as a rule, fairly accurate narratives and diaries. Unless there is in a +particular case some reason for doubt, their statements may be accorded +considerable confidence. + +At the same time two circumstances often render the interpretation of +the data derived from these documents difficult. The first is the lack +of consistent designations for places. During the process of opening up +the area it was inevitable that rivers and villages should be assigned +different names by one explorer after another and that the same name +should be applied to more than one locality. The second is that during +the early phases of exploration some localities were visited +repeatedly, whereas others were overlooked perhaps entirely. Hence the +information available to us is very uneven; it permits us to achieve a +reasonably clear idea of the population of one region but leaves +another almost completely blank. As a result extrapolation by area is +almost unavoidable. + +It must also be constantly borne in mind that the Spanish records +themselves do not give us an absolutely undistorted picture of +aboriginal conditions. It is very evident from the reports of the +earliest official pioneers, like Garces in 1776 and Martin in 1804, +that from 1770 onward and perhaps even before white men had straggled +into the valley and had consorted with the natives. There is reason to +believe that these unknown interlopers may have introduced diseases +which adversely affected the population and may have initiated a +process of general social disruption. The best we can do is get as +close to the prehistoric condition as the records allow. + +Two other demographic consequences arise from this very early white +contact. In the first place, the documentary record, if we ignore +Garces for the moment, runs nearly continuously from 1804 to +approximately 1840. During this long period an uninterrupted change was +going on among the native population: the population was _continually +decreasing_. Hence later reports tend to deviate from earlier ones, and +indeed may show an entirely new state of affairs arising within a very +few years. In the second place, the deterioration in certain areas took +place so rapidly in the first part of the nineteenth century that any +information secured from informants alive since 1900 is completely +useless. Unless very good documentary evidence is available for such +areas, there is no recourse but to fall back on the method of +extrapolation and area comparisons. + +The principal Spanish accounts upon which we must rely include a few +which have been published. Most of them, however, are to be found in +manuscript form in the Bancroft Library, University of California, +Berkeley. Some of them were translated for an unpublished manuscript by +the Late Professor Herbert I. Priestley and several were translated for +Dr. C. H. Merriam. Merriam's translations are on file in his manuscript +collection. The citations to these accounts, published and unpublished, +are given in the manuscript section of the Bibliography. In this text +they are referred to, without further citation, by the author's name +and date. + + +THE TULARE LAKE BASIN + +We may commence detailed consideration of the aboriginal population +with the Tulare Lake Basin, which was inhabited in 1800 by three Yokuts +tribes, the Wowol, Tachi, and Chunut (see maps 1 and 2, area 2). The +first official visitor to the area was Father Juan Martin who entered +the valley in 1804 in search of new mission sites. He found the +principal village of the Wowol, which he called Bubal. This rancheria, +he said, contained not less than 200 children. It was visited again in +1806 by Moraga, who found 400 inhabitants. Eight years later Father +Cabot passed the site and found 700 people. Subsequently, it was +visited by Ortega in 1815 and Estudillo in 1819 but these writers gave +no population figures. Since no other village was ever recorded by name +in the territory of the tribe, it is safe to assume that there was no +other, at least of permanence and reasonably large size. + +Gifford and Schenck (1926), in their discussion of the history of the +southern valley, conclude that because the village was reported as +having 400 persons in 1806 and 700 in 1814 there was a real increase in +population during the intervening eight years. This they ascribe to +fugitives from the coastal missions who entered the valley as refugees. +The opinion expressed by these authors may serve as the starting point +for discussion of certain general problems which are encountered in +attempting to estimate the aboriginal population of the valley. + +In 1804 Martin saw 200 children. If we knew the ratio of children to +adults, we could easily compute the total number of inhabitants. The +age of "children" was variously estimated in colonial New Spain, indeed +all the way from seven to fifteen years. The early California +missionaries used approximately fourteen years for males and twelve for +females. In 1793, however, the system was standardized for doctrinal +purposes. Indians, both gentile and converted, were designated as +children if they were under ten years, i.e., in the age bracket from 0 +to 9 inclusive. Hence all the clergy conformed to the method in so far +as they were able and unless they specified otherwise. + +There are certain data available which permit us to estimate rather +closely what proportion of the population in California should be +regarded as falling within the category of children. Within the +missions the annual censuses enable us to compute with accuracy that +the individuals under the age of ten years, between the dates 1782 and +1832 averaged 21.4 per cent of the total population (Cook, 1940). This +value is relatively high and may not conform to gentile, or aboriginal, +conditions. With regard to these we have information from +archaeological sources. In the Museum of Anthropology at Berkeley +there are several hundred skeletons excavated from habitation sites in +central and northern California, the ages of which have been determined +and which constitute a fair cross section of the native population +during the centuries immediately preceding invasion by the white man. +Of these skeletons 22.6 per cent represent persons dying under the age +of twenty years, and perhaps 10 or 15 per cent persons dying under the +age of ten. + +Further light is shed by the baptism records of the missions San Jose +and Santa Clara (these are discussed in greater detail in a later +paragraph) which list gentile baptisms according to village and +distinguish between men, women, and children. In the two missions, from +approximately 1805 to 1833 there were baptized a total of 5,217 persons +from villages in the valley region. Of these 930, or 17.8 per cent were +children and 1,939, or 37.1 per cent were listed as men. The sex ratio +is 0.826. Evidently the natives captured and brought to the missions do +not give us a completely true picture of the composition of the +aboriginal population, despite the large sample at our disposal. It is +highly probable that (1) the natural sex ratio was nearly unity and (2) +many of the men were killed in warfare or escaped the clutches of the +convert hunters. Therefore we are justified in setting the number of +men equal to that of the women. If we do this, the population +represented by the 5,217 conversions was actually 5,626, of which men +and women each constituted 41.8 per cent and children 16.4 per cent. + +Finally, we have figures from Zalvidea (MS, 1806) with respect to +villages at the extreme southern end of the San Joaquin Valley. (These +are discussed subsequently in connection with the population of that +area.) At two of these, after adjusting for disturbed sex ratio, he +found respectively 13.5 and 9.6 per cent children. However, Zalvidea's +account states specifically that in these villages he carries the age +of childhood only through the seventh year. If he had counted as +children those under ten years of age, the percentages would naturally +have been higher. + +The data just set forth render it abundantly clear that the children +constituted between 10 and 20 per cent of the aboriginal population. +Since the exact value can never be ascertained, it is wholly reasonable +to establish the arbitrary figure of 15 per cent. If we apply this +factor to Bubal the result is not less than an aggregate of 1,333 +persons, much greater than the value set by Moraga in 1806. + +With respect to the suggestion of Gifford and Schenck that the number +of inhabitants of Bubal had been augmented between 1806 and 1814 by +refugees from the missions the following points may be noted. In the +first place, it has been possible to show (Cook, 1940) by means of the +mission censuses that in 1815 the cumulative total of fugitives +reported by all the missions in the colony amounted to 1,927 persons. +Of these a great many who ran away in the earlier years were deceased. +Many never went to the valley at all and the remainder were distributed +from Sacramento to Bakersfield. It is highly unlikely that as many as +300 would be concentrated at one village such as Bubal. In the second +place, the majority of the fugitives who did reach the village or its +vicinity were former inhabitants of the locality who were merely +returning to their old homes rather than coastal Indians, who would +have constituted real refugees. On the whole, therefore, and this +conclusion applies throughout the valley, true increase of population +by immigration of foreign fugitives was negligible. + +A further problem of importance illustrated by our data for Bubal is +the extent to which population estimates for villages were affected by +local fugitivism or temporary scattering of the natives at the advent +of the Spaniards. Very frequently the explorers left notations that the +inhabitants of a certain rancheria had fled, or that many were absent. +It seems clear that even by the year 1800 the natives were all too well +aware of the purpose of the missionaries and soldiers and took measures +to defeat that purpose. For this reason, remarkable as it may appear, +the largest estimates are likely to have been the most accurate. + +Returning now to the population of Bubal we find Martin counting "no +less" than 200 children in 1804, indicating a total number somewhere in +the vicinity of 1,300, although most of the adults apparently had +absconded. In 1806 the same situation arose and Moraga found only 400 +left in the village. In 1814 Cabot estimated that the village contained +700 people, despite the fact that some may have been missing. The +apparent increase in 1814 can be very simply explained by the +assumption that fewer natives had fled the village than had done so +when Moraga arrived. Cabot's figure may be quite near the truth for the +year 1814 since we must concede a drastic overall reduction of +population in the area between 1804 and 1814. Certainly the population +can never have been _less_ than 700. The weight of the evidence at hand +thus indicates that the estimate based upon Martin's account, i.e., +1,300 persons, is essentially sound. + +Further evidence of collateral importance is derived from consideration +of the location of the village of Bubal. Gifford and Schenck (1926, p. +27) place Bubal on Atwell's Island, near Alpaugh, in T23S, R23E, that +is, on the east side of Lake Tulare. Neither Martin (in 1804) nor +Moraga (Munoz diary of 1806) locates the rancheria with any precision +but Cabot (1815) left San Miguel on October 2, 1814, and on October 3 +traveled over an immense plain, arriving late in the day at Bubal, on +the shore of a big lake. This can have been only Lake Tulare and the +west shore thereof. The next year Ortega (1815), approaching from the +north or northwest, passed through Sumtache (i.e., Chunut) and went on +to Bubal, where he arrived late at night, not having been able to find +the village "... por haverse mudado de su sitio propio ..." Estudillo +was the next visitor who has left us a detailed account of this area. +On October 22, 1819, he went from near Cholam to a place called Los +Alisos near the edge of the foothills of the coast range. On October 23 +he went across the plain and on October 24 arrived at Bubal, obviously +from the west, and found it deserted, adding the comment that the +village "... manifesto aver ya dias q. se fueron a otra parte." The +following day he pushed five leagues south through tule swamp and found +the settlement on the bank of the lake although his soldiers had to +wade waist deep for two leagues farther in order to catch most of the +inhabitants. Apropos of this incident he says regarding Bubal: "Esta es +la rancheria de gentiles mas immediata a las misiones, y la q. con +mayor frecuencia se hacen cristianos en la de San Miguel." + +From these accounts it is very clear that the original site of Bubal +was on the west, not the east, shore of the lake and that because of +the depredations of the Spaniards the inhabitants fled into the lake +itself, where they made at least temporary settlements. That these +became their permanent home is attested by the fact that no later than +1826 Pico stated that Bubal was situated on an island in the lake. +Subsequently contemporary writers as well as the modern ethnographers +agree that the principal village of the Wowol was on Atwell's Island. + +From the demographic point of view the chief justification for tracing +the migration of Bubal in the first two decades of the nineteenth +century is to indicate how the constant pressure of the Spaniards, +through incessant military expeditions, could affect the population. +Through a series of years, their native village site having become +untenable, the people of Bubal were forced to seek precarious and +inadequate shelter where-ever they might find it in the depths of the +tule swamps until ultimately they could establish themselves in a new +home, an island fortress where they might remain relatively +undisturbed. Starvation, casual massacre, and disease coupled with +exposure must have strongly reduced the total number. Hence a 50 per +cent decrease in ten or fifteen years--from Martin to Cabot and +Estudillo--is not at all surprising. + +The Chunut were first visited by Martin in 1804, who designated their +principal rancheria Chuntache but gave no population figures. Two years +later, in 1806, it was seen by Moraga, who called it Tunctache and said +it had 250 people. Cabot in 1814 said there were 700 persons and Ortega +in 1815 found 20 males. Estudillo in 1819 found 103 young braves +("indios gallardos mozos") and 200 women, old men, and children. +However, he also states that the captain and "la mayor parte de la +gente" were away on a visit toward Lake Buenavista. + +The estimates of Cabot and Estudillo appear to be quite reliable. Cabot +describes Bubal and then passes on to Suntache. The latter place he +says had a population "about the same as the preceding," or 700 +persons. Since Estudillo took the pains to count the young men +precisely, his remaining estimate must be fairly correct. The total +thus is 303 persons present plus more than the same number of +absentees, or approximately 700. + +Since the location and history of Tuntache was very similar to that of +Bubal and since in the period 1815-1819 the population was nearly the +same, it is very probable that there was a reduction in population at +the former village analogous to that seen at the latter. Although we +have no concrete data, such as Martin's report for Bubal in 1804, which +may be applied to Tuntache, it may be assumed with safety that the +aboriginal inhabitants of this rancheria numbered at least 1,200. + +The third lake tribe was the Tachi. This tribe, or its principal +village, was first recorded by Martin in 1804. He gives no direct +figures but implies that there were 4,000 inhabitants, although he may +have been referring to the entire lake area. The next visitor of +consequence was Cabot in 1814 who stated that Tache "... segun presenta +y por la caseria que la compone ..." had 1,000 souls. At a distance of +two leagues he found another rancheria, Guchame, which may have +belonged to the same tribe, which "... segun presenta y informes +tomados no pasara de 200 almas ..." The next year Ortega attacked the +rancheria but the people had been warned and had all fled when he +entered. They had not returned, moreover, in 1819, when they were seen +by Estudillo. They must have been in bad straits, because Estudillo +found them living deep in the swamp, in a "gran Bolson de Tule, sin +poder tener lumbre." Estudillo gives no figures but he makes the +interesting comment that the Tachi had four chiefs and that the +rancheria (or tribe) had several "parts," each at some distance from +the others. This raises the question whether Cabot saw the only +rancheria of the tribe or one of a number. The village he saw he +examined sufficiently carefully to enable him to count the houses. Such +an arrangement is incompatible with rancherias "each at some distance +from the others." Furthermore four chiefs would imply four more or less +equal subdivisions, or four rancherias and possibly 4,000 inhabitants. +At first sight this appears preposterous. However, the following facts +should be noted. + +1. The area held by the tribe extended across the north and west shores +of Lake Tulare from the present town of Lemoore to Coalinga close to +the western foothills. This comprises a greater area than the Wowol and +Chunut together. + +2. Modern informants have been able to give the ethnographers Kroeber, +Gayton, and Latta the names of 3 villages for the Wowol, 2 for the +Chunut, and 8 for the Tachi. Although the number of villages has no +strict quantitative significance, it does indicate the greater size of +the Tachi. + +3. As mentioned previously, Derby in 1850 found the Tachi tribe to +contain about 8000 individuals, of whom 300 lived in the principal +rancheria. In view of the very great attrition to which all the open +valley tribes had been subjected between Estudillo's visit in 1819 and +that of Derby in 1850 it is almost incredible that the Tachi should +have diminished only from 1,000 to 800 during that period. It is much +more reasonable that the principal village should have declined from +1,000 to 300 as would be indicated by the figures of Cabot and Derby. +If so, then the tribe as a whole must have once contained much more +than 1,000 people. + +4. Father Martin in the description of his trip implies that there were +4,000 people living in the vicinity of Tache. It has generally been +assumed, and is so stated by Gifford and Schenck (1926, p. 22), that +Martin was referring not only to the borders of Lake Tulare but also to +the lower reaches of the Kaweah and Kings rivers. This is simply an +assumption and rests upon no unequivocal evidence. + +5. Cabot's quite careful estimate for the principal rancheria shows +that it was larger than Bubal or Tuntache in 1814. Martin's data for +Bubal showed that this town must have contained fully 1,330 persons in +1804. If we disregard any shrinkage prior to that year, the +contemporary population of Tache would have reached at least 1,600 if +Cabot's estimates for the two villages in 1814 are to be credited. + +On the basis of all these facts the author believes that the Tachi +aboriginally possessed one village with at least 1,600 inhabitants and +that Cabot's figure for this village was reasonably accurate. In +addition, the statements of Estudillo in 1819 and Derby in 1850--and +both of these observers were trustworthy persons--point definitely to +the existence of at least three other villages. These were undoubtedly +smaller than the principal rancheria. In default of any concrete data +each may be estimated as half the size of Tache, or 800 persons apiece. +The total for the tribe would then be 4,000 or nearly twice as much as +for the Wowol and Chunut combined. + +An aggregate of 6,500 natives for precontact times seems to be +indicated in the Tulare Lake basin. The figure 1,100 was obtained for +the period of approximately 1850-1852. The reduction would then have +been to a value of 16.9 per cent of the aboriginal level. If this seems +excessive, it should be borne in mind that the area was subjected to +the ravages of disease, both epidemic and venereal, from 1770 forward, +as is attested or implied by both Garces in 1776 and Martin in 1804. +It was overrun by clerical and military expeditions in 1804, 1812, +1814, 1815, and 1819, not to mention an indefinite number of private +raiding parties which have left no trace in the documents. From 1820 to +1850 it was entered repeatedly by ranchers from the coast, American +trappers of the Jedediah Smith variety from the southwest or north, and +by New Mexican bandits. All these took a toll in the form of mission +converts, battle casualties, burnt food stores, and disrupted village +life. Finally, it should be remembered that the dry and arid plains of +modern Kings, Tulare, and Kern counties bear no resemblance to the +former region of rivers, sloughs, swamps, and lakes which once +supported uncounted millions of game birds and animals, together with a +luxurious vegetation capable of supporting a very dense human +population. + + TULARE LAKE BASIN ... 6,500 + ___________________________ + + +THE KAWEAH RIVER + +Together with the Tulare Lake Basin the lower Kaweah River and its +delta from Lemon Cove to below the town of Tulare was probably one of +the most densely populated spots in California, or possibly even north +of the Valley of Mexico (see maps 1 and 3, area 3). The repeated +comment of the missionaries with respect to the "infinidad de gentiles" +to be found there creates a subjective impression which is borne out by +the numerical data we possess. + +There seem to have been two rather indistinctly separated divisions of +the region. One, centering around Visalia and occupying the delta and +sloughs, contained three tribes, the Telamni, Wolasi, and Choinok, of +which the Telamni were the most important and numerous. The other, +centering around Lemon Cove and probably extending some distance into +the lower foothills, included the Wukchamni, Gawia, and Yokod, the +largest group being the Wukchamni. + +Martin entered the delta in 1804 and called the people Telame. Moraga +in 1806 explored it more thoroughly. According to the Munoz diary (Oct. +19-20), the party noted Telame with 600 souls, together with a "big +rancheria" one league east and the rancheria Cohochs two and one-half +leagues east. In addition there were "otras varias rancherias" in the +vicinity. The village list appended to the diary gives Telami I +("tendra segun corto computo 600 almas"), Telame II with 200 souls, +Uholasi with 100, Eaguea with 300, and Cohochs with 100. Uholasi is no +doubt Wolasi, and Eaguea and Cohochs are probably respectively Gawia +and Yokod. If the last two are omitted, it is evident that Moraga saw +or knew about four rancherias, Telame I and II, Uholasi, and the +unnamed big rancheria. To these must be added the "otras varias +rancherias," which may have amounted to another four, or eight in all. +A population of 2,000 to 4,000 is certainly indicated. + +Cabot in 1814 was the next visitor who left a record. He referred to +the "Roblar de Telame Rio," which included Telame, the largest +rancheria in the Tulares. Cabot's Telame may well have included both +the villages to which this name was ascribed by Morgan. If so, on +Moraga's figures it must have contained a minimum of 800 persons. A +higher number is more probable, however, in view of the fact that it +was the largest in the area. + +In 1816 Father Luis Antonio Martinez passed through the region and +left a circumstantial account of his visit. Starting from Bubal, he +approached the Telame area, reaching first the village of Gelecto, +where "... encontraron no mas el cementerio: se habia destruido por las +guerras ..." These wars apparently were raids and skirmishes in which +refugees from the missions and other Indian villages participated. From +Gelecto the party went to Telamni "... al llegar alli los divisaron de +Lihuauhilame el grande ... done al dia anterior habian tenido una gran +refriega cuyo resultado fue dar muerte a unos 8 hombres ..." The +captain of the latter rancheria sent a messenger to Martinez with the +report the place contained "como de 300 casados." Gelecto was one +league from Lihuauhilame and since the latter village could be seen +from Telame the distance between the two could not have been more than +a league. Martinez then went six leagues south to Quihuama, before +proceeding westward on the way home. + +Lihuauhilame contained 300 married men, or heads of families. The +aboriginal social family consisted of at least five persons, and even +after the disruption suffered from 1804 to 1816 must have amounted to +four. The total population, according to this assumption, must have +reached fully 1,200, with a probable pre-invasion value of at least +1,500. Martinez therefore gives us four sizable places: Gelecto +(depopulated), Telame (minimum 800 according to Moraga and Cabot), +Lihuauhilame (1,200), and Quihuama. + +Subsequent visitors (e.g., Estudillo, 1819, and Rodriguez, 1828) +mention Telame but give no data with respect to size nor do they +specify any other rancherias in the immediate vicinity. For basic +population data we are consequently forced to depend upon Cabot, +Moraga, and Martinez. + +In the discussion of Bubal mention was made of the attrition of +population due to war and disease during the period following the first +entry of the Spaniards in or about the year 1800. That these factors +were very serious becomes even more evident from the accounts of the +Telame region. Martinez describes the total obliteration of Gelecto, +which he ascribes to the "wars." Elsewhere in his report he refers to +much internecine fighting among villages and between natives and +fugitives from the missions. Moreover, the Spanish accounts repeat ad +nauseam the statement that this or that village was attacked or +destroyed in the course of various expeditions, or that village after +village was deserted by its inhabitants because of fear of the +soldiers. It is highly probable that there is a great deal of lost +history pertaining to the central valley during this period and that +tremendous destruction was inflicted upon the native villages which was +never recorded in the official documents. + +Hunger and disease were likewise rampant. Clear indication of this +condition is contained in the sentence of Ortega, in 1815, with respect +to Telame: "... encontrando esta grande rancheria toda desparramada por +la mucha mortandad que havian tenido, y la much hambre que padecian +..." With regard to the cause of the "mortality" it is clear that a +part was due to the killing by the Spaniards and other Indians during +the "wars," a part was due to famine, and very likely the remainder was +due to disease. Although this factor is not specifically mentioned, the +word "mortandad" was widely employed by the Spaniards and Mexicans to +connote the effects of an epidemic. Furthermore, the absence of disease +would be more difficult to explain than its presence in view of the +wide intercourse between the peoples of the southern valley and those +of the coast at a time when the Indians of the missions were dying by +thousands from measles, dysentery, and other contagious maladies +introduced by the whites. The whole picture is one of ruinous +devastation in the Kaweah delta just prior to 1816, with accompanying +disorganization of the local economy and reduction of population. + +The effect of war, disease, and starvation cannot be emphasized too +strongly, nor can mention be made of them too often. On account of +their debilitating influence the populations seen in the Kaweah delta +and reported in the documents cannot possibly be overestimates of the +aboriginal number. On the contrary, they undoubtedly represent too low, +rather than too high, a figure. + +Reverting now to the villages reported, Moraga mentions eight places, +four of them by name or other specific reference. Martinez mentions +four, all by name. Cabot refers to Telame as the largest village in the +Tulares. Elsewhere (MS, 1818) he states that before reaching Telame +there are five rancherias, including Quiuamine and Yulumne. Quiuamine +is no doubt the Quihuama of Martinez. + +Telame was one village, according to all observers except Moraga +(actually Munoz, who wrote the diary). Moraga ascribes 600 people to +the first Telame and 200 to the second. The first estimate, be it +noted, was "segun corto computo," or according to a short count. The +estimate must therefore on Moraga's own admission be increased, +certainly to 1,000 and perhaps more. In view of the size of the well +known rancheria Bubal, fully 1,300, Telame must have contained 1,200 +persons. + +In addition to the two Telames Moraga mentions a "big rancheria" one +league to the east. Hence there were three villages which comprised +what may be termed the Telame complex. No figures were given by Moraga +for the unnamed rancheria, since it was entirely deserted. However, +since it was regarded as "big," there must have been several hundred +inhabitants, say 500. The total for the triad then would have reached +nearly 2,000. + +The Martinez description is apparently somewhat at variance with that +of his predecessor. Martinez saw, cites distances for, and mentions by +name three rancherias: Telame, Lihuauhilame, and Gelecto. They were +located within a radius of one league of each other and must correspond +to the three seen by Moraga. Gelecto was in ruins, with only the +cemetery still in evidence. Hence Gelecto may very well have been the +big, deserted rancheria of Moraga. Martinez gives no population data +for Telame but says there were 300 heads of families in Lihuauhilame, +which was, therefore, without much doubt the largest of the three. +According to Moraga's figures, Telame I was the largest. Hence the +concordance seems to be that Telame, Lihuauhilame, and Gelecto of +Martinez correspond respectively to Telame II, Telame I and the "big" +rancheria of Moraga. As pointed out previously, the total inhabitants +to be deduced from 300 heads of families, under the conditions existing +in 1816 was 1,200. This is twice the estimate of Moraga. + +An important point arises here with respect to Moraga's estimates. At +Bubal, it will be remembered, Martin found evidence of 1,300 people in +1804 whereas Moraga reported only 400 in 1806. At Lihuauhilame Martinez +found according to the statement of the village chief 1,200, although +Moraga had reported ten years previously only 600. Furthermore Cabot, +at Bubal eight years after Moraga, found 700 persons. For these two +important villages therefore Moraga differs flatly with three other +competent authorities by a factor of two or three. Similar instances +may be found elsewhere in which Moraga's population figures are far +too low. It seems difficult to escape the conclusion, consequently, +that Moraga (or Munoz) consistently underestimated the native +population. The reason is not immediately apparent, although several +possible suggestions may be offered. Moraga personally had little +interest in such matters. Although he himself did not write the account +of the expedition to the Tulares in 1806, he did write that of his +expedition to the Sacramento Valley in 1808. The latter diary shows +very clearly, through the extreme paucity of its population data, that +Moraga either made no direct counts or estimates, or considered them +too unimportant to mention in his manuscript. For the 1806 trip the +estimates were all supplied, obviously, by Munoz. There is no reason to +impugn either the judgment or veracity of this missionary. However, if +one examines his account, it becomes evident that Munoz based his +figures either (1) on statements of gentiles or (2) on the number of +natives seen by him. The former source might or might not be accurate. +The latter was almost certain to yield too low values because the +Moraga expedition was notoriously hostile to the natives and at nearly +every village approached the inhabitants fled if they could possibly do +so. Munoz therefore consistently saw only the residue, a fraction of +the actual number. + +For the above reasons the writer believes that a correction factor +should be applied to the Moraga-Munoz data, and unless there is +specific reason to believe otherwise, the figures should be regarded as +indicating only about 50 per cent of the true population. Such a +correction should not be applied to the figures of other explorers, +like Cabot or Estudillo, who were far more careful in their methods of +estimate. + +If, now, we apply a correction factor of 2, Moraga's estimate for +Telame I becomes 1,200, or the same as that found by Martinez for the +same village (Lihuauhilame). On the same basis Telame II (Telame of +Martinez) would have had 400 persons. Gelecto (unnamed by Moraga) was +"big" but probably not as big as Telame I. Hence we may assume an +intermediate value, say 800. The total for the Telame complex, or the +triad of villages, would have been 2,400. + +In addition to the triad we have Uholasi and the "otras varias +rancherias" of Moraga. Since Moraga gives 100 for Uholasi we may +increase that number to 200. Among the other rancherias we have +Quihuame (or Quiuamine) and Yulumne, which were noted by later +visitors. Moraga, however, in saying "otras varias" clearly means more +than two, probably at least four. It is pertinent to note in this +connection that some of these may have disappeared during the turmoil +of 1806 to 1816 and that their surviving inhabitants may have been +absorbed by other, larger villages. Such an explanation would account +for the failure of Cabot and Martinez to refer to them. If we assume +four villages at the time of Moraga's expedition (and of course the +aboriginal number would have been no less), it is safe to consider them +as having been relatively small. According to the size scale of the +Kaweah villages as a whole 200 inhabitants could reasonably be ascribed +to each of them, or 800 for the group. + +The aboriginal population of the Telamni and the Wolasi may therefore +be set as closely as we can get at 3,200. The Choinok appear to have +had only one rancheria. At least there is one and one only which recurs +repeatedly in the Spanish documents. This is Choynoque (Moraga, 1806), +Choynoct (Ortega, 1816), Choinoc (Cabot, 1818) or Choijnocko +(Estudillo, 1819). Moraga gave 300 as the population, as did also +Estudillo. The two values are comparable, if we remember the attrition +occurring between the years 1806 and 1816. We may then apply the +correction factor of 2 and get 600 as the most probable number in 1806. +Such a value is also consistent with the status of the Choinok as an +independent tribal entity of the Kaweah basin, although it does not +take into account any reduction in population prior to the expedition +of Moraga. There was doubtless such a reduction, but since we have no +direct evidence bearing upon the matter it will be better to let the +figure 600 stand. + +The total for the Kaweah delta group (Telamni, Wolasi, Choinok) is +3,800. This is indeed surprising but the figure perhaps is corroborated +by the statement of the Franciscan President for the California +missions, Father Payeras--made in support of the establishment of new +missions in the valley--that the Telame district alone contained 4,000 +unconverted heathen. + +The middle Kaweah above Visalia was inhabited by the Gawia, Yokod, and +Wukchamni. The Gawia are represented in Moraga's account by Eaguea (300 +inhabitants) and the Yokod by Cohochs (100 inhabitants). The Wukchamni +were by far the most numerous and for an excellent account of them we +are indebted to Estudillo. This officer, in addition to being a +competent field commander, appears to have been a scholar and a +gentleman. His report on the Wukchamni village of Chischa is +unquestionably the most complete and accurate left us by any of the +Spanish explorers and as such is worth discussing in detail. + +Estudillo was the first white man to see Chischa. On this point he is +very explicit: + + ... su capitan joasps, ni su gente jamas havian visto tropa, + siendo esta la primera vez q. havilan llegado alli, pues + hace mucho tiempo paso por abajo (este fue D. Gabriel Moraga + en el reconocimiento q. hizo en 1806) y solo noticia tubo + por sus amigos de Telame ... + +Consequently, allowing for possible communicable disease, Chischa was +in its aboriginal state when Estudillo saw it. + +Chischa was 5 leagues east of Telame and 3 leagues from Choinocko. This +places the village, according to the maps of Kroeber and of Gayton, at +or just above Lemon Cove in the territory ascribed by these +ethnographers to the Wukchamni. Estudillo measured off the dimensions +of the village by pacing. The shape was semilunar, crescentic or +approximately that of the sector of a circle. The short side ("por su +frente") was 624 varas long and the long side ("por la espalda") was +756 varas. A figure plotted on coordinate paper to scale shows that the +area was 80,000 square varas. On the assumption that the Spanish vara +equaled a yard, and that an average city block measures 300 feet on a +side, the village of Chischa would have covered eight city blocks. + +Estudillo caused the Indians living in the village to form a line +before the town, with the men in a single file and the women and +children massed in front of them. He counted the men and found that +there were exactly 437 warriors ("jovenes de arma") and "como 600 +mugeres y ninos." According to the translation made for Merriam (MS in +his collection): + + Then I went opposite where the invited guests were lodged, + and as they all, men and women and boys and girls were + presented to me in a confused mass, I could not count them + as I did those of Chischa but there were perhaps 600 men." + +He specifies the 600 men as "jovenes" and adds that there were 200 +"mugeres jovenes." He then describes going behind the village to the +arroyo, where he saw more than 100 "mugeres de mayor edad," washing +seeds for atoles for the celebrants of the fiesta, and an even greater +number of "jovenes moliendo en piedras dhas semillas." + +The extraordinary care with which Estudillo conducted his investigation +can leave little doubt of the accuracy of his figures. He saw 437 +"jovenes de arma" in front of the village together with 600 women and +children, plus 100 "mugeres de mayor edad" and more than 100 "jovenes" +behind the village preparing the meal. Even allowing for some +duplication of individuals the population must have reached at least +1,250. The solidity of this evidence for Chischa renders even more +probable comparable figures for Bubal and the other large villages of +the general area. + +Estudillo saw 600 young men and 200 young women who were visitors. If +we use the same ratio of young men ("jovenes de arma") to total +population for these groups as for Chischa, then the 600 young men +represented a total of 1,700 persons. These were all, says Estudillo, +from the "roblar," or the Kaweah basin. When he arrived at the village, +he was met by seven chiefs (who were already on the scene), two from +Telame, one from Choynoco, and four from other rancherias of the +"roblar" near the sierra. We may assume that the seven visiting chiefs +were accompanied by approximately equal retinues, or 114 persons each. +If two of the chiefs and 228 persons came from the Telame district and +one chief with 114 persons from Choynoco (i.e., Choinok), then the +remainder, 458, were from other tribes. By the same proportionality +factor these represented a total of 980, or let us say 1,000, Indians. +The Wukchamni and their satellites must therefore have numbered 2,250 +individuals in the year 1819. Estudillo himself says that the +population of Chischa and its neighbors was 2,400, but he may have +included some Telamni among this number. On the other hand, the +visitors to Chischa on the occasion of the fiesta could scarcely have +included all the inhabitants of the villages whence they came. Some, +for one reason or another, must have remained at home. Hence the +estimate of 1,000 is probably under the true value. + +Now it is important that Estudillo was in the "roblar" in 1819. In view +of the severe disorganization, "mortality," and "famine" of 1814 to +1816, the population of the Wukchamni must have undergone a serious +decline before Estudillo saw the tribe. Despite the absence of any +specific figures the documents give the impression that the reduction +of population around Tulare Lake was almost complete by 1819 and that +the valley tribes along the margin of the foothills had lost fully half +their number. It will be proper therefore to ascribe a one-quarter +reduction to the Wuchamni, Gawia, and Yokod. If we accept Estudillo's +estimate of 2,400 for the year 1819, the aboriginal population for +these groups would have been 3,200. + +In the meantime the Mono of the upper river had scarcely been touched, +save possibly by epidemics of which we have no record. It is +significant that at the great gathering at Chischa there appeared, near +the middle of the day, a chief with 69 men and 42 women from a +rancheria called Apalame in the interior of the Sierra Nevada. These +natives, probably Balwisha or Waksache, had never seen troops. To +arrive at the population of the entire Kaweah basin in aboriginal or +proto-aboriginal times these tribes must be included. Their strength, +as previously estimated, was of the order of 600 persons. + +Computing now the total for the Kaweah river and delta as first +described by white men, we find an aggregate of 7,600 inhabitants. As +set forth previously, the survivors in 1850 numbered about 1,800 or +23.7 per cent of the aboriginal (or early historical) value. Excluding +the relatively undisturbed Mono the comparable value for the lower +river and delta is 17.2 per cent. These percentages are in close +agreement with those found for the ecologically similar area bordering +Lake Tulare. + + KAWEAH RIVER ... 7,600 + ______________________ + + +THE MERCED RIVER + +It will be convenient at the present juncture to consider the watershed +of the Merced River, although this area lies at a considerable distance +from that just examined (see maps 1 and 4, area 6). + +In the preceding section it was concluded that only 500 to 600 natives +still remained in 1850 on the lower portion of the river below the +foothills, whereas the population of the southern Miwok in the +foothills and higher ranges amounted to approximately 1,250. The latter +figure was based principally on Merriam's village lists and the +population counts obtained from informants by Gifford for the Miwok +farther north. The question must now be propounded whether these data, +which appear to be fairly accurate for the year 1850 or even 1840, can +be taken as showing the population under substantially aboriginal +conditions, let us say those obtaining prior to the intense Spanish +invasion of the valley in the decade 1800 to 1810. + +1. As a matter of generalization it can be stated that the environment +as remembered by the oldest informant or even his parents can scarcely +reach into pre-Spanish times. Hence the village populations and +distributions as reported in good faith to Gifford or Merriam must have +been subjected in some measure to the disruptive effect of the white +man. The great disturbance in the valley itself, which was manifested +by the entire extinction of whole Yokuts and Plains Miwok tribes, must +have had repercussions in the near-by hills through disease, kidnaping, +and minor dislocation of food supply, even though the actual territory +of the natives was not physically invaded by the newcomers. Hence, a +priori, one might anticipate that the populations as derived from +ethnographic sources would be somewhat less than truly aboriginal. + +2. In the discussion of Gifford's data on the North Fork Mono it was +shown, on the basis of persons per family and houses per village, that +the population in the memory time of the informants was about 440 +whereas the precontact value must have been nearer 640. The population +residue in 1840-1850 would then have been 68.8 per cent of the +aboriginal level. + +3. For the upper Tuolumne and Stanislaus Gifford's population figures +were based upon the values given by his informants for 49 villages. The +average was 20.8 persons per village, a number which was accepted as +valid for the period of 1850. The distribution of population for the +villages is as follows: + + Inhabitants Number of Number of + per Village Villages Persons + ___________ _________ _________ + + 60 1 60 + 55 1 55 + 35 3 105 + 30 6 180 + 25 8 200 + 20 9 180 + 15 6 90 + 10 12 120 + 5 1 5 + 0 2 0 + ____ ____ ____ + Total 49 995 + +Now it may be assumed that under normal conditions few if any villages +would contain less than 20 persons and that those listed by Gifford +with 15 or less were the victims of a general decline in numbers. Hence +to the latter may be ascribed a minimum of 20 persons. At the same time +the other villages must have suffered some reduction. Although there is +no positive evidence bearing on the matter, it would not be excessive +to add five persons to each of the others. Making these corrections the +total becomes 1,340 instead of 995. The residue in 1850 would then be +74.2 per cent of the aboriginal level. Incidentally, the inhabitants +per village would then be only 27.35, a value by no means excessive for +prehistoric times. + +Some confirmation for these assumptions can be obtained by further +consideration of Gifford's study of the North Fork Mono. As previously +mentioned, Gifford shows the number of houses and hence the number of +families living in the hamlets of this tribe. For many hamlets two or +more sets of houses are given, implying consecutive, not simultaneous, +occupancy. The average number of houses per hamlet occupied at one time +is 2.7. However, informants were able to recollect an additional 44 +houses, which had been formerly used. Including these, the average +number per occupied hamlet is 3.21. Gifford's family number is 4.89, a +value which may be increased to 6.0 to cover aboriginal conditions. +Thus the mean size of an active prehistoric Mono hamlet may be taken as +19.25, or let us say 20 persons. Since the Mono villages were +intermittently inhabited whereas those of the Miwok were permanent and +probably somewhat larger, the average value of 27.35 for the latter +seems in no way excessive. + +From the above considerations the conclusion is warranted that for the +northern Mono and the Miwok the population as derived from good modern +ethnographic data is about 70 per cent of the precontact value. The +estimate for the upper Merced, derived from Merriam's village lists was +1,239. If the factor of 70 per cent is applied, the aboriginal +population becomes 1,770. + +For the lower Merced Valley we are dependent entirely upon the account +of Moraga's visit in 1806. Coming from the west, he crossed the San +Joaquin River on September 27 and moved three leagues north to camp on +or near Bear Creek in T8S, R10E. The following day, September 28, +Moraga divided his expedition and sent one group north and another +northeast to explore. Both groups found a great river, with many +natives, all of whom fled on seeing the white men. At least one +rancheria was found, because Moraga "adquirio la noticia de otras 5 +rancherias sitas en el rio fuera de aquella en que se hallaba del parte +de 250 almas, segun el informe de los gentiles." On the 29th the camp +was moved three leagues ENE (more probably NNE) to the river, the +Merced. There were two rancherias on the river bank, the people of +which had fled through fear of the white men. On the 30th a party went +up the Merced and found many natives "sin duda de sus 5 rancherias." + +Moraga then went north and returned to the Merced on October 7. The +Spaniards saw many natives and were visited by 79 warriors from the +rancheria "del otro lado del rio," i.e., on the south bank. The 8th of +October the expedition visited the rancheria just mentioned; to judge +by the number of men (the women having fled) the rancheria had 200 +souls. This place was called Latelate, and there was another village +near by, called Lachuo, with the same number of inhabitants. The next +day the expedition moved on southeast. + +Moraga evidently saw two villages and heard of about five others. The +two which he saw, Latelate and Lachuo, are said, on the basis of the +warriors seen, to have contained 200 persons each. Since warriors of +one village, Latelate, numbered 79, the estimate of 200 total +inhabitants, or a ratio of 2.5 to 1, is entirely reasonable. If the +other five villages had the same number, the aggregate for the river +would have been 1,400. However, some of the others may have been +larger. In the list of rancherias appended by Munoz, the approximate +sequence of the journey is followed. Five rancherias can be ascribed +logically to the Merced: Chineguis, Yunate, Chamuasi, Latelate, and +Lachuo. Chineguis follows Nupchenche in the list, Nupchenche having 250 +souls and Chineguis the same population. Likewise, Yunate and Chamuasi +have the same "segun compute regular." Latelate and Lachuo are given +200 each, thus corresponding to the text of the diary. The other two +villages are not mentioned by name in the list but it may be presumed +that they were of approximately the same size, let us say one of 250 +souls and the other of 200. Thus the Munoz-Moraga count gives us 1,600 +inhabitants. + +It will be remembered that the figures cited by Moraga for the +population of villages in the Kaweah-Tulare region were uniformly at +variance with those of other observers and were always too low. Hence a +question may be raised with respect to his data for the Merced valley. +The villages in this area, by all subsequent accounts, were smaller +than in the heavily populated territory farther south. Furthermore, +Moraga's was the first expedition of which we have record which +explored the Merced Basin. These facts would tend to indicate that +Moraga's figures may be reasonably accurate. On the other hand, the +repeated statements that the Indians fled on the approach of the white +men and the fact that estimates had to be made from the number of +warriors seen leave the possibility open that there actually were more +people than Moraga thought. Hence it will be reasonable to ascribe an +aboriginal population of 250 to each of the seven rancherias, giving as +a total 1,750 for the lower Merced River. + +The population of the entire valley then would have been 3,520, or, +rounding off to the nearest hundred, 3,500. The survivors along the +lower river amounted to approximately 550 in the year 1852. If the +population in Moraga's time was 1,750, then the reduction from 1806 to +1852 was to 31.4 per cent of the original level. In view of the +somewhat more remote position of the Merced, this figure checks quite +well with the values found on the Kaweah River and Lake Tulare. + + MERCED RIVER ... 3,500 + ______________________ + + +THE KINGS RIVER + +The next region to be considered is the basin of the Kings River. Like +the Kaweah, this stream may be divided into three sectors. The first +comprises the delta and slough area southwest of Kingsburg and was the +home of the Yokuts tribes, Apiachi, Wimilchi, and Nutunutu (area 4A). +The second includes the valley margin and foothills, with the tribes +Wechihit, Aiticha, Choinimni, Chukamina, Michahai, and Emtimbich (area +4B). The third is in the higher foothills and embraces the territory of +the Mono groups, Wobunuch and Holkoma (area 4C). + +The Kings River sloughs were first described in 1804 by Martin, who +mentions the tribe, or rancheria, of Notonto (Nutunutu) but gives no +population data. The next visitor was Moraga in 1806. In the diary of +the expedition, written by Father Munoz, no mention is made of Notonto +but in the appended "List of rancherias visited in this trip and the +one in April" are included Notonto I with 300 persons and Notonto II +with 100. Estudillo saw the region in 1819 and said that Notonto (only +one village of this name is mentioned) had 303 men "todos gente robusta +y de armas." He also saw a few old women and children. Since the men +are of the same type ("robust warriors") and were carefully counted in +the same way as at Chischa, the same ratio of warriors to total +inhabitants may be used. A population of 866 is thus indicated or, in +round numbers, 850. Estudillo also says there were four chiefs, one +each of the "Notontos," Gumilche, Guchetema, and Tateguy. The Nutunutu +are thus clearly segregated from the Wimilchi (Gumilche). The other two +names cannot be traced and may indeed have been those of individuals. +The "guimilchis," in the meantime, had been seen in 1815 by Pico, who +says that they had at least two rancherias. + +From the ethnographers we get indication of six villages: of the +Apiachi, the village of Wohui (Kroeber, Gayton, Latta); of the +Nutunutu, the villages of Chiau (Kroeber, Gayton, Latta), Hibekia +(Kroeber), Honotau (Gayton), and Kadestiu (Latta); of the Wimilchi, the +village of Ugona (Kroeber, Gayton, Latta). If these villages actually +existed in the early years of the nineteenth century, they can scarcely +have held less than 250 persons apiece and the population would have +been in the vicinity of 1,500. + +From the Spanish accounts we find evidence of at least four villages: +originally two (perhaps later one) of the Nutunutu and two of the +Wimilchi. One of the latter may have been in fact the principal village +of the Apiachi. The Nutunutu, whether as a single village or as a +tribe, seem to have amounted to fully 850 persons at the time of +Estudillo. Since these groups had been exposed to expeditions beginning +in 1804, it is very probable that they had undergone considerable +attrition before they were observed by Estudillo. This point of view is +supported by Estudillo's remark that he requested the warriors of +Notonto to meet him _without their weapons_ because this rancheria "es +la mas velicosa y terrible de los Tulares." Hence it is quite probable +that the aboriginal population reached 1,200. A value of 500 may be +assigned arbitrarily to the other villages or tribes, for Estudillo +mentions three chiefs apart from the Notontos and Pico says that the +Wimilchi had at least two rancherias. The probable aboriginal +population for the entire area is therefore 1,700. + +By the year 1850 the tribes of the Kings River delta were represented, +according to the account of G. H. Derby, only by the rancheria of +Notonto which then had 300 inhabitants. The population had thus fallen +to 17.6 per cent of its former value. A footnote to the decline of the +native inhabitants in this region is the fact that within a year or two +after Derby's visit the village of Notonto was attacked by American +cattlemen and farmers. The rancheria was devastated and 200 of the 300 +people present were massacred in cold blood. + +For the second sector of the Kings River we are dependent primarily +upon the record of the Moraga expedition. Moraga and Munoz evidently +covered the river from the vicinity of Reedley to, or nearly to, the +junction of the main stream and Mill Creek. The villages mentioned by +them belonged principally to the Aiticha and the Choinimni. The +Wechihit and the Toihicha may have been included but the Chukamina, +Michahai, and Emtimbich seem to have been overlooked. Hence the figures +given by Moraga are undoubtedly incomplete. + +On October 16, 1806, having arrived from the San Joaquin River two days +previously, Moraga sent out two scouting parties. One went upstream and +found a rancheria of "como de 60 almas," called Ayquiche (or Aycayche). +They were no doubt among the Aiticha, above Sanger. Here they heard +about, but did not see, six other rancherias "sitas a la orillas del +rio por la parte de la sierra." The other party went downstream and +found three villages close together on a spacious plain along the banks +of the river. They had a total of 400 inhabitants, but most of the +people had fled. The "List of rancherias visited in this trip and the +one in April" gives the names of these villages: Aycayche, which +"according to the Indians" had 200 people, Ecsaa with 100, Chiaja with +100, and Xayuase with 100. In addition there was Capitau, which was +very small and a "sugeto" of Xayuase. It had about 10 people. +Apparently in October Munoz and Moraga found only 60 Indians left in +Aycayche, whereas in April they learned that it really contained 200. +The difference must be ascribed to fugitivism. + +The three downstream villages are credited by the "List" with 100 +inhabitants apiece, but the diary states that there was a total of 400. +The latter figure is more likely to be correct. Thus, with Aycayche, +Moraga saw in this sector four villages and 600 persons. The other +group of villages, six in number, was farther toward the mountains and +no particular information concerning them is given in the diary. The +"List," however, is more explicit. Under Aycayche it is stated: + + Aqui hay otras 6 rancherias que no se pudieron reconocer y + son todos, segun la noticia de los indios de esta rancheria + como del porte de almas de Pizcache. + +Pizcache is said to contain 200 souls. An aggregate of 1,200 persons is +therefore indicated or, for the entire region seen by Moraga, 1,800. + +The middle course of the Kings River has been discussed in the +preceding section and it has been pointed out that in the middle of the +nineteenth century this region was relatively heavily populated. The +accounts of several contemporary observers indicate that in 1850 or +thereabouts somewhere between 2,000 and 4,000 natives were still to be +found between the remnants of the Nutunutu on the west and the +foothills Mono on the east. The ethnographic data supplied by Kroeber, +Gayton, Latta, and Stewart show approximately 25 villages remembered by +informants. If we use the fairly conservative average of 150 persons +per village, the total is 3,750. To assume 3,500 is merely to stay +within the bounds of the existing evidence. + +If we accept tentatively 3,500 as the number of Indians on the middle +Kings River in midcentury, then we are confronted with the problem of +backward extrapolation. For the Tulare-Kaweah region the probable +decline from 1800 to 1850 was probably to the level of approximately 20 +per cent of the original value. Direct application of this factor to +the Kings River gives a value for 1800 of 17,500. This is manifestly +far too high. For the Mono and the Miwok in the upper foothills many +facts point to a population decline to approximately 70 per cent of the +prehistoric value. Application of this factor gives 5,000 for the Kings +River, a high but not impossible figure. + +Other considerations are worth mention at this point. In his diary of +1826 Jose Dolores Pico describes his adventures on the Kings River in +January of that year. He was chasing stock thieves and trying to +recover stolen animals. From January 10 to January 14 he beat back and +forth along the Kings River, from the sloughs to the foothills, +attacking every Indian in sight. The results were discouraging. He +captured no animals, killed not over a score of natives, and was +completely outmanoeuvered by the combined forces of the Wimilchi, the +Notontos, and Chukamina. The entire tenor of the document suggests an +active, competent, and quite powerful local confederacy of tribes. This +diary of Pico describes the only expedition to the Kings River of which +we have documentary knowledge between 1806 and the coming of the +Americans. + +These facts suggest, first, that there was a sizable population which +managed to maintain itself reasonably well for several decades along +the Kings River. Secondly, they suggest that there may perhaps have +been a slow migration of the more exposed valley people, like the +Nutunutu, higher up the river. Both these factors would tend to keep +the population decline to a minimum. + +In view of the confusion surrounding the evidence in this area and in +view of the apparent inadequacy of the Moraga figures the aboriginal +population of the middle Kings River may be set at 5,000, with the full +realization that this value represents the best guess under the +circumstances. + +The upper river was inhabited by the Mono groups, Holkoma and Wobonuch, +for which an 1850 population of 1,700 was computed. The decline to 70 +per cent may be accepted here without serious reservation; hence the +original number would have been 2,340. Adding the values for the three +sectors of the river we get 9,130 or, estimating to the nearest +hundred, 9,100. + + KINGS RIVER ... 9,100 + _____________________ + + +UPPER SAN JOAQUIN, FRESNO, AND +CHOWCHILLA RIVERS AND MARIPOSA CREEK + +The area between the Merced and the Kings rivers (see maps 1 and 4, +area 5), which includes the courses of the upper San Joaquin, the +Fresno, and the Chowchilla rivers, together with Mariposa Creek, is +very poorly represented in the early documentary sources. The central +valley itself, as far as the foothills, was apparently traversed by +numerous expeditions and raids, and the population was largely +missionized, killed, or dispersed. The written record is, however, +quite inadequate. It is therefore not feasible to consider each of +these river systems separately, as was done in the discussion of the +population about 1850. It is preferable to discuss the entire region as +a unit and, when necessary, pass to indirect methods of estimate. + +The Pitkachi on the San Joaquin are mentioned in 1806 by Moraga, who +allows 200 persons to their rancheria. The tribe appears again in the +baptism record of Soledad Mission (MS in the Bancroft Library, +Berkeley) according to which 205 Indians from "Picatche" were baptized +from 1821 to 1824 and another 18 in 1831. An additional 23 came from +rancherias in the vicinity, a total of 246. Another rancheria, Capicha, +is referred to by Pico in 1815, who said it was uninhabited at that +time, the inhabitants having fled to the mountains. As late as 1853 +Wessels said that the Pitcache, together with the Noo-to-ah, a Mono +group, numbered 500 to 600 souls. Kroeber mentions three villages +remembered by modern informants. + +If 246 Indians were baptized in one mission, the tribe as a whole must +have numbered at least four times as many, or 1,000. If two fair-sized +rancherias are mentioned by the Spanish observers, the entire tribe may +well have possessed four or five, which again implies a population of +1,000. If there were approximately 300 survivors in 1853, by comparison +with other open valley areas the original population must have been +fully three or four times as great, or perhaps 1,200. If three +rancherias were known to modern informants, they must formerly have +been important places with anywhere from 200 to 400 people, again +indicating a total of 1,000 for the tribe. + +Concerning the Hoyima there are two references, one by Pico in 1826 and +one by Rodriguez in 1828. Pico states merely that he attacked the +rancheria and captured 40 gentiles and 1 Christian, a fact which in +itself would not furnish a very significant clue to population. He also +noted "mucha guesamenta y cueros casi frescos de caballada que habian +matado." + +The account by Rodriguez is more circumstantial. This soldier went +along the San Joaquin River in late April of 1828. On the 24th he sent +a group of men to scout the "rancheria de los Joyimas, que es adonde an +comido la caballada." At dawn the next day they attacked the village, +"que estaba en medio de los dos brazos del rio" (the San Joaquin west +or northwest of Fresno). He captured 26 Indians and 27 animals +(horses). Another 60 or 80 horses escaped "en el monte." At about this +time a gentile captain came from a rancheria designated Guche or +Getche, depending upon how one deciphers the handwriting of the +manuscript. He "vino a los Joyimas a comer caballo." The rancheria +named here is probably that of the Heuchi on the Fresno River. This +gentile said there was another rancheria "mas arriba" at which there +were horses. Rodriguez sent Simeon Castro to investigate. He found no +one at the rancheria mentioned but went on 2 leagues to another +rancheria, likewise deserted but containing the carcasses of 100 dead +horses, which had been slaughtered and were about to be eaten. It was +noted by Rodriguez that: "Estas 3 rancherias son una misma que es la de +los Jaimes." It was also remarked that the rancheria was divided when +the horses arrived in order to eat with less fear of detection. From +this account it is clear that the Joyimas had at least three villages. +Allowing somewhat over 300 persons each, the population of the group +would reach 1,000. + +The slaughtered horses open up an interesting field of speculation. It +is clear that by 1828 large segments of the aboriginal population had +entirely given up the sedentary ancestral mode of life in favor of an +existence based upon stock raiding. To do this it was necessary to +recast village life completely--as is suggested by the fact that the +rancheria was "divided" when the horses arrived. In order to catch the +horses for food other horses were essential for rapid transportation to +and from the coastal settlements. New arts and skills had to be +learned, and new categories of labor had to be evolved. + +Rodriguez found among the Hoyima as a whole 87 to 107 live horses (27 +captured, 60-80 in the wilderness), which were presumably about to be +killed and eaten, together with 100 animals already slaughtered. The +total thus reached approximately 200. The question now is pertinent: +how much food can be obtained from 200 horses? If we assume that each +of these relatively light range animals weighed 800 pounds, we may +deduct about 25 per cent to account for bones, hide, certain of the +viscera, and other inedible parts, leaving 600 pounds which the Indians +could and did consume. The aggregate is 120,000 pounds of meat. If this +meat was dried and preserved, according to general practice, it was +sufficient to supply 329 persons the equivalent of one pound of fresh +meat per day for one calendar year. If it had to be consumed +immediately or within a few days, and if every man, woman, and child +ate 20 pounds apiece, it was adequate for 6,000 people. If the entire +tribe, not merely one rancheria, divided the meat into equal shares, +and if the tribe numbered 1,000 persons, then the share of each +individual amounted to 120 pounds. Whether these figures are strictly +accurate is irrelevant. They merely emphasize that a quite sizable +group must have been concerned. We may therefore regard the Hoyima as +being as large a tribe as the Pitcache, and estimate that the +population was at least 1,000. + +The remaining two tribes in the valley proper, as listed by Kroeber and +others, were the Heuchi and the Chauchila. They occupied the north bank +of the Fresno River and the distributaries of the Chowchilla River. The +ethnographic data include no more than one or two villages for each +tribe. The Heuchi are referred to by Rodriguez, who says that the +rancheria of the "Jeuche" was completely deserted. However, since it +was the principal tribal village, it must have contained at least 200 +persons. The Chauchila were also noticed by Rodriguez, who says that at +"Chausila" he "captured" 142 people and "killed many." If we concede +that as many escaped as were captured or killed, there must have been +fully 400 in all. + +The Nupchenches, although they are merely mentioned as a possible tribe +by Kroeber (Handbook, p. 485) and are doubtfully recorded by Schenck +(1926), occupied an important position in the early nineteenth century. +Indeed, the failure of Kroeber and Schenck to consider them seriously +makes it necessary to set forth in some detail the information about +them contained in the Spanish reports. + +These natives were distributed along the San Joaquin River from its big +bend near Mendota to approximately the mouth of the Merced (see map 4, +area 5A). The first mention of them is by Moraga in the diary of 1806. +He found two rancherias, Nupchenche with 250 people and Cutucho with +400 souls which was "junto a la primera llamada Nupchenche." This means +that Cutucho was close to but at that time not necessarily part of +Nupchenche. From the description in the diary Nupchenche was situated +at or near the mouth of Santa Rita Slough in T9S, R12E, and this is +almost exactly where Schenck places it on his map (Schenck, 1926, p. +133). The next visitor who left a record was Jose Dolores Pico in 1815. +On November 7 he left San Luis Gonzaga in western Merced County (in +approximately T10S, R8E) and went east to the Tulares at "Arroyo +nombrado San Jose," which was close to the rancheria of the Cheneches. +At dawn of the 8th he attacked the village and captured 66 persons, but +"... la mayor parte de esta gente se fue p^{r} estar dha rancheria en mal +parage." The gentiles said that 4 leagues up the San Joaquin River was +Nupchenche, thus placing Cheneches on the river in the southern part of +T8 S, R11E. This location checks well with the statement made elsewhere +in the diary by Pico that Cheneches was near the junction of the San +Joaquin and "Las Mariposas," or Mariposa Creek. If Pico captured 66 +persons but "the majority" escaped, the total number must have reached +from 200 to 400, if not more. + +Pico then scouted Nupchenche and learned that all the inhabitants had +fled. He therefore by-passed the village and went 8 leagues southeast +up the San Joaquin to the rancheria Copicha. This rancheria, which by +the way must not be confused with the Cutucho of Moraga, was thus +located on the river several miles north of Firebaugh, probably near or +in T11S, R13E. As a check on this location is Pico's further statement +that Copicha was in the valley of the San Joaquin "junto del Tecolote," +or the Chowchilla. On November 10 he moved 8 leagues southeast from +Copicha and saw horses from the rancheria Tape, which, from the +distances, was near Mendota. This view is supported by Estudillo, who +saw the region in 1819 and says that the spot "... donde Tape tenia su +rancheria" was 24 leagues south of Cheneches and 25 leagues north of +Notonto. Actually, Mendota appears to be approximately halfway between +these two points. + +Pico mentions one other village, Malim, which he places near Cheneches. +Confirmation is found in a letter of Fr. Marcelino Marquinez (MS) on +May 25, 1816, stating that the Cheneches recently have killed two +Christians from Malim. The latter rancheria thereupon allied itself +with Notoalh and Luchamme. No other trace of the two last-named +villages is found. + +Other writers who mention the Nupchenches group include Fr. Antonio +Jaime, who mentions Cutuchu (MS, 1816) as a rancheria from which Soto +brought back gentiles, and Ortega, who, in his 1815 diary, mentions +Cupicha as having been attacked by Pico. Finally Inocente Garcia in his +manuscript of 1878 records an expedition against the Nupuchineches +under Ignacio Vallejo. The rancheria, even in the 1830's was "muy +Populosa." The expedition captured 100 warriors and 300 of all ages and +sexes, arguing a population of over the 300 claimed as captives. + +From these accounts emerge six rancherias, each of which is mentioned +independently by at least two writers. From north to south they were: +Cheneches and Malim, Nupchenches and Cutucho, Copicha, Tape. Moraga +says Nupchenches had 250 people and Cutucho had 400. From Pico's +statement concerning captives we may ascribe a minimum of 300 to +Cheneches, and Copicha, Malim, and Tape can scarcely have been much +smaller. Hence the entire group can have numbered no less than 1,800 in +1816. + +At Tape on November 23 Pico found 16 live horses and mules recently +killed together with "mucha carne enterciada." If we neglect the meat, +254 whole animals, dead or alive, were actually counted. From November +25 to 28 the party traveled steadily from Tape to Cheneches. From Tape +to Cheneches inclusive they saw 500 dead horses. It is not clear +whether the 238 animals seen at Tape were included in this figure. If, +however, assuming that they were, we use the same ratio of dead horses +to inhabitants as was discussed with respect to the Hoyima, these +villages should have contained 2,500 persons. This figure is quite +reasonable if we grant that the horses were to be consumed by the +entire group of villages, rather than only one or two of them, and may +be provisionally accepted. + +On the basis of the records presented, a probable population value for +the valley floor between the Merced and the Kings rivers in the decade +1810-1820 was 5,100. But this may well be an underestimate and be +representative of the aboriginal population. Evidence pointing in this +direction is the almost complete obliteration of these tribes before +1850. That very serious attrition was going on among these exposed +people is evident from the records of all the explorers. The massacre +and kidnaping described by Pico is itself significant. In addition, we +have the discussion by Estudillo in 1819, who found almost the entire +surviving population of Tape sick and dying. He also points out that at +the moment there were no less than four expeditions, including his own, +ranging up and down the open valley, bent upon destruction. To explore +the problem further indirect methods must be employed. We may therefore +turn to estimates based upon stream distances. + +If minor local variation is disregarded, the habitat provided by the +Merced and the Kings rivers from the lower foothills out to the center +of the valley is in no essential respect different from that +characterizing the Mariposa, the Chowchilla, the Fresno, and the San +Joaquin throughout its length below the foothills. The native villages +were spaced more or less uniformly along the larger rivers. Hence an +approximate proportionality should have existed between riverbank +distance and the number of inhabitants. No high degree of precision can +be expected from calculations based upon these premises but the method +yielded rational results for the period centering around 1850 and from +it the correct order of magnitude should be obtainable. + +Airline distances are used for the rivers. The general course of all +the streams is substantially straight and the numerous small meanders +are uniform in size and occurrence throughout the area. Three river +sectors are used as a basis: the lower Merced River, the middle Kings +River from and including Mill Creek to Kingsburg plus the principal +tributaries, and the lower Kings from Kingsburg to Lemoore. The data +are compiled briefly as follows in tabular form. + + River Miles Persons per + Sector in Length Population River Mile + ______ _________ __________ ___________ + + Lower Merced 32 1,750 55 + Middle Kings 75 5,000 67 + Lower Kings 20 1,500 75 + +Despite the uneven nature of the basic information these figures show +considerable internal consistency. The mileage of the San Joaquin, +Fresno, Chowchilla, and Mariposa amounts collectively to approximately +190 miles (the four streams west of Kroeber's line of the valley Yokuts +and down the San Joaquin as far as the mouth of Bear Creek). At 65 +persons per mile (the approximate mean of the three values cited above) +the population would be 12,350, or, let us say an even 12,000. This is +more than double the number indicated directly by the Spanish accounts. +It has been pointed out, however, that these accounts are incomplete +with respect to the villages seen and recorded. Furthermore the records +demonstrate a condition of severe disorganization on the part of the +native society. Hence the indirectly computed figure may reflect more +closely the aboriginal population level. + +The population in 1850 for the part of the Yokuts territory here being +discussed was considered in a previous section. The best estimates were +found to be 1,000 for the Mariposa and Chowchilla and 2,900 for the +Fresno and San Joaquin. The total, 3,900 is 32.5 per cent of the +estimated aboriginal population and represents, therefore, a reduction +of the same general extent as was demonstrated for the Kaweah-Tulare +Lake region. + +The foothill region drained by the four rivers being discussed includes +the extreme northern Yokuts tribes, the North Fork Mono, and some of +the southern Miwok. In the consideration of the 1852 population it was +not advantageous to segregate river sectors as has been done for the +earlier data. This is because, with certain exceptions, the data +pertaining to the later period cover as a rule the entire stretch of +each river, rather than the central valley plain as distinct from the +foothills. Nevertheless it is possible to arrive at the result desired +indirectly. + +For the Yokuts on the middle Fresno River it was concluded that the +average number of inhabitants per village was 60. This value was based +on village numbers and general estimates for the period of 1850 and +included also the assumption that the villages had been much reduced in +size by that year. For precontact times it is quite justifiable to +maintain that the average size was of the order of that demonstrated +for the Kings and the Merced, or let us say 150. The tribes on the +Fresno and San Joaquin not seen or at least not reported by the Spanish +writers are the Gashowu, Wakichi, Kechayi, Dumna, Toltichi, Dalinchi, +and Chukchansi. The total number of villages recognized for these seven +tribes by Kroeber, Gayton, and Latta is 36. This total of course rests +on the memory of informants and pertains to conditions in the period +1840 to 1850 or perhaps 1860. There is no proof whatever that the +village number in 1800 was the same, yet the whole history of +Indian-white contact in the valley region leads one to believe that it +can hardly have been smaller. Since there is no evidence to the +contrary and since the hypothesis is inherently reasonable, we may +concede 36 villages of 150 persons each or 5,400 in all. + +For the southern Miwok on the upper Mariposa and Chowchilla, calculated +by means of village counts and Gifford's average of 21 Indians per +village, the values of 273 and 410 respectively were obtained. The +factor of a reduction to 70 per cent of the aboriginal population may +be here applied, yielding a total of 975 for the two streams. The +figure for the North Fork Mono in prehistoric times has already been +placed at 640. + +If we now add 12,000 for the valley and marginal Yokuts, 5,400 for the +foothill Yokuts between the Miwok border and the Kings River, 975 for +the southern Miwok on the Mariposa and Chowchilla and 640 for the North +Fork Mono the total becomes 19,015. + +The validity of this figure can be subjected to a check through +comparison by area. This method cannot be expected to show up minor or +secondary errors but it will bring to light any fundamental or serious +discrepancies. We may block out four major regions: the Kaweah-Tulare +Lake, the Kings River, the Merced River, and the segment between the +Merced and the Kings. Each of these represents fundamentally the same +type of environment, i.e., a rough strip extending southwest to +northeast, beginning with the lakes and sloughs of the central valley +axis, passing across the valley floor to the foothills, and reaching +ultimately the middle altitudes of the Sierra Nevada. Four cross +sections are thus obtained, differing in width but fairly uniformly +including the habitats represented. It should be noted that the water +surface of Lake Tulare as it existed in 1860 has been deducted from the +area of the Kaweah-Tulare region; also that the two northern regions +include a relatively greater expanse of uninhabitable mountain +territory than do the two southern regions. The western boundary has +been drawn along a line approximately five miles west of the San +Joaquin River and the prolongation of its axis toward the lake. The +westward extension of the Tachi toward Coalinga had to be neglected +since there are no clear tribal boundaries in this area. The number of +square miles was computed by township lines and the error of estimate +must be considered at least plus or minus 20 per cent. The results +follow: + + Population + Area density + Region (sq. mi.) Population per sq. mi. + ______ _________ __________ ___________ + + Kaweah-Tulare 1,880 14,100 7.12 + Kings 1,530 9,100 5.85 + Merced 1,400 3,500 2.50 + Mariposa-San Joaquin 3,760 19,000 5.05 + +The density of the Mariposa-San Joaquin area is quite close to that of +the Kings River Basin. The Kaweah-Tulare territory has a somewhat +higher density, but this finding is compatible with the known enormous +concentration of population around Tulare Lake and in the Kaweah delta. +The value for the Merced strip is unduly low. The discrepancy can be +accounted for on two grounds. The first, already mentioned, is that +this river, throughout its length, passes through a greater area of +uninhabitable mountains than do many of the other streams. The second +is that our estimates for the lower Merced are insufficient. They rest +in essence on the single report by Moraga, who, as has been shown, +tended to underestimate and who did not see, or at least did not report +upon, the entire course of the lower river. Moreover there is no report +at all from Spanish sources with respect to the San Joaquin between the +mouth of the Chowchilla (Nupchenche group) and the mouth of the +Tuolumne. That villages did exist throughout this region is attested by +the illuminating account of J. J. Warner, who was a member of Ewing +Young's expedition to the great valley in 1832 and 1833. (I use the +text as quoted in Warner, 1890.) He says (p. 28): + + In the fall of 1832 there were a number of Indian villages + on King's River, between its mouth and the mountains: also + on the San Joaquin River from the base of the mountains down + to and some distance below the great slough. On the Merced + River from the mountains to its junction with the San + Joaquin there were no Indian villages; but from about this + point on the San Joaquin, as well as on all of its principal + tributaries, the Indian villages were numerous; and many of + these villages contained from fifty to 100 dwellings. + +It is noteworthy that Warner saw no villages on the lower Merced, +precisely at the spot where Moraga in 1806 had recorded no less than +seven. All of these must have been obliterated during the intervening +twenty-six years, striking testimony to the devastation being wrought +among the open valley peoples. But from the junction of the Merced and +the San Joaquin rivers, along the main axis of the valley the villages +were numerous, some of them containing 50 to 100 houses or at least 250 +to 500 people. + +What happened to these villages is graphically told in Warner's own +words. + + On our return, late in the summer of 1833, we found the + valleys depopulated. From the head of the Sacramento to the + great bend and slough of the San Joaquin, we did not see + more than six or eight Indians; while large numbers of their + skulls and dead bodies were to be seen under almost every + shade-tree near water, where the uninhabited and deserted + villages had been converted into graveyards; and on the San + Joaquin River, in the immediate neighborhood of the larger + class of villages, which, in the preceding year, were the + abodes of a large number of those Indians, we found not only + graves, but the vestiges of a funeral pyre. At the mouth of + King's river we encountered the first and only village of + the stricken race that we had seen after entering the great + valley. + +This was the pandemic of 1833, concerning which, in comparison with +some accounts, Warner's description is a model of conservatism. + +It is evident that a combination of circumstances prevents us from +making an adequate assessment of the aboriginal population of the lower +Merced River and adjacent segments of the San Joaquin. Our density +figure is about half the expected value. If we had the full facts, we +could perhaps double the estimated population. Under existing +conditions we can feel reasonably sure of the value given for the area +between the Mariposa and the San Joaquin rivers. + + MARIPOSA-SAN JOAQUIN ... 19,000 + _______________________________ + + +THE SOUTHERN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY + +The southern end of the valley, beyond Tulare Lake and the Kaweah +River, can best be considered in three parts. The first is the foothill +strip from the Kaweah to the Tejon Pass, which was inhabited by the +Yokuts tribes Koyeti, Yaudanchi, Bokninuwad, Kumachisi, Paleuyami, and +Yauelmani (maps 1 and 2, area 1G). The second comprises the lower Kern +River together with the former Buenavista Lake basin. This area was +held by the Yokuts tribes Hometowoli, Tuhohi, and Tulamni. The third +includes the peripheral fringe of relatively high foothill and mountain +country of the southern Sierra Nevada and Tehachapi and was inhabited +by non-Yokuts people: Tubatulabal, Kawaiisu, Kitanemuk, and the Tokya +branch of the Chumash (maps 1 and 2, areas 1A to 1E). + +Only the Koyeti are described by the Spanish authorities hitherto +consulted. Moraga mentions the rancheria Coyahete with a population of +400 in 1806. Estudillo in 1819 found a rancheria, which he called +Arroyo de Copaipich, with 200 and one called Canyon Agspa with 400 +people. The latter may perhaps be Moraga's Coyahete. If so, the tribe +had a population of at least 600 in 1819, but it must have suffered +some decline prior to that year. Latta's informants were able to +remember 8 villages. Moreover, the tribe was oriented ecologically +toward the Kaweah delta and oak forest, although it was actually +situated on the lower Tule River. Thus an estimate of 800 persons would +not be too much for the precontact period. The Yaudanchi on the upper +Tule River also, according to Kroeber and to Latta, had 8 villages and +covered considerably more territory than the Koyeti. Hence the same +population may be ascribed to them. The Bokninuwad were evidently a +smaller group, since Kroeber reports for them only two villages and +Latta none. It would not be safe to allow them more than 200 persons. +If we do so, then the tentative estimate for the three tribes must be +put at a total of 1,800. + +For the remainder of the territory held by the Yokuts there are only +two documentary references, the diaries of Garces in 1776 and Zalvidea +in 1806. Both these writers give population data which have been +subject to considerable controversy. + +For the Buenavista region the four pertinent villages are mentioned by +Zalvidea and are as follows: + + Village + and Tribe Houses Men Women Children Total + _________ ______ _____ _____ ________ _____ + + Malapoa + (Tulamni) ... 29 22 8 59 + + Buenavista + (Tulamni) ... 36 144 38 218 + + Sisipistu + (Hometwoli) 28 50-60 ... ... ... + + Yaguelame + (Yauelmani) ... 92 ... ... 300 + +From even casual inspection it is apparent that Zalvidea did not see +the complete population of any one of these villages and that many of +the inhabitants had been removed by previous expeditions or were in +hiding. The village of Malapoa is small but presents no serious +demographic discrepancies. The number of children was low, but as has +been pointed out in a previous discussion Zalvidea was counting as men +or women everyone over the age of seven years. The children, calculated +according to his method, amounted to 13.5 per cent of the total. + +At Buenavista he found only 36 men to 144 women, an incredible +situation unless most of the men had fled or had been killed. Under +normal conditions the number of men should at least approximately equal +that of the women. Therefore in order to reconstruct the probable +population we are forced to assume the presence of at least 144 men. +This gives a total of 326 persons of which 8.6 per cent would have been +children. For the other two villages only the number of men is given, +no doubt the men actually seen. Indeed at Yaguelmane Zalvidea "counted" +the 92 men he specifies. Significantly, however, he counted men "from 7 +to 40 years" and infers that the village had a population of 300. If +for Yaguelmane we allow 10 per cent of children seven years old or +younger the adults would number 270. If the sex ratio were near unity, +then, with 92 men 40 years or younger, there must have been 47 men over +that age and 135 women of all ages. If the same ratios are applied to +Sisipistu with 55 men from 7 to 40 years of age, the population would +be 180. This figure is quite consistent with the number of houses, 28, +for the number of persons per house would then be 6.43. The four +villages (Malapoa, Buenavista, Yaguelame, and Sisipistu) consequently +must have had populations of 59, 326, 300, and 180 respectively. The +average of the four is 191 persons. + +Since there are no other historical data pertaining to the lake region, +it is necessary to utilize the village lists of Kroeber (1925) and +Latta (1949). These investigators, through their informants, have +located 3 villages for the Hometowoli, 1 for the Tuhohi, 3 for the +Tulamni, and 2 for the Yauelmani of the lower Kern River, making 9 in +all. As suggested with respect to other areas the number of villages +was undoubtedly as great in 1806 as in 1840 or 1850. Hence we can be +assured of at least 9 in 1806. For size it is proper to use Zalvidea's +average of 191 inhabitants, thus giving as the population of the +Buenavista basin 1,720. + +For the southern foothills we must rely upon the diary of Garces. +Gifford and Schenck (1926) discuss this document at length, concluding +(p. 21) that the population actually seen by Garces north of the slopes +of the Tehachapi was 750 and that the total population "south of the +Tule River" was 1,000 to 1,500. Since the present writer must differ +from these authors, it is worth while to review once more the evidence +furnished by the Garces account. In so doing the exact route of the +explorer must be made plain. + +On May 1, 1776, having previously descended the southern mountains to +the valley floor, Garces broke camp: + + Having gone one league northwest I came upon a large river + which made much noise, at the outlet (al salir) of the + Sierra de San Marcos and whose waters ... flowed on a course + from the east through a straitened channel. + +(Coues, ed., 1900, pp. 280-281). The river of course was the Kern and +the spot was without question the point at which the river suddenly +breaks out onto the plain from its canyon. The water was here swift +("made much noise"). It literally "sallied forth" from the mountains, +and its course from the east was through a narrow channel. This place +is about 14 miles east-northeast of Bakersfield on California State +Highway 178. + +Garces then went downstream "a little way" and found a rancheria (no. +1) on the right bank. After going a little way farther he saw a +rancheria (no. 2) on the left bank and another (no. 3) "to the west." +He went downstream no more than 2 or 3 miles, otherwise, as was his +invariable custom, he would have specified his distances in leagues. +Three rancherias can therefore be located on the Kern between the last +abrupt slope of the eastward hills and just below the mouth of +Cottonwood Creek. These correspond on the map to Kroeber's villages +Altau and Shoko of the Paleuyami and Konoilkin of the Yauelmani, +although the actual identity is by no means assured. + +After crossing the river with difficulty Garces struck northwest "and a +little north" for 3 leagues. This brought him to a stream where there +was a rancheria (no. 4). From a point 3 or 4 miles below the entrance +of the Kern River canyon a line running northwest by north extends +diagonally about 7 miles across T28S, R29E to reach Poso Creek near the +northern boundary of the township. + +After passing the night at the rancheria mentioned (no. 4), Garces went +straight north for 4-1/2 leagues. On the way he went by some deserted +rancherias. These villages were not temporarily deserted, with the +inhabitants in hiding. They were "rancherias despobladas," that is, +permanently depopulated or abandoned. It is interesting to speculate on +the cause of this phenomenon, for the depopulation can have been due +only to intertribal warfare or disease. We know nothing of any native +wars of sufficient magnitude to have destroyed several whole villages. +On the other hand, as Garces himself later points out, Spaniards had +already penetrated the region. Pedro Fages was in the southern valley +in 1772 on his way to the Colorado and Garces found at least one +deserting soldier living with the Indians. It is quite possible that +decline of population had already begun as early as 1776. + +After traveling 4-1/2 leagues Garces found another rancheria (no. 5), +at which he spent the night of May 2-3. This must have been somewhere +near the hamlet of Woody at the southern boundary of T25S, R29E. On May +3 he moved another 2-1/2 leagues, still north, to reach the White River +near or slightly to the west of the village of White River in T24S, +R29E. Here he camped at a rancheria (no. 6) of 150 souls. On May 4, +having reached his farthest point north, he visited another rancheria +(no. 7) half a league east. At rancheria no. 6 he found an Indian who +was a fugitive from the coast and also heard that two Spanish soldiers +had been killed for molesting Indian women. The contact with the whites +was therefore clearly established. Stephen Powers (1877), who was in +the San Joaquin Valley in the decade of 1850 says that "on White River +there are no Indians, neither have there been any for many years." Here +again is an indication of depopulation at a very early date. + +On May 5 Garces started to retrace his steps southward, reaching at +2-1/2 leagues the previous rancheria (i.e., no. 5). From here he must +have diverged somewhat eastward of his northbound trail for at 2 +leagues he saw another rancheria (no. 8) "to the east" which he had not +seen on the way up. This probably was toward the eastern side of T26S, +R20E. Then, he says, he went southeast 3 leagues to Poso Creek. This +would put him on Poso Creek near the center of township T27S, R30E, a +point about 9 miles airline above his place of crossing on May 2. Here +he found a rancheria (no. 9), the chief of which told him about another +rancheria (no. 10) to the east where a Spanish renegade lived with an +Indian wife. The following day, May 6, he started out again south or +southwest and got lost in the hills of upper Poso Creek. In these hills +between Poso Creek and the Kern River he found another rancheria (no. +11) of "more than 100 souls." This was probably in the northern part of +township T28S, R30E. Finally on May 7 he reached the Kern 1 league +above his first crossing. His first crossing had been accomplished 2 or +3 miles below the mouth of the canyon hence he must have come out very +close to the mouth. He then went downstream to the rancheria where he +had crossed (no. 1) but he did not stop here. He continued down the +river for 2 leagues to a rancheria he had not seen before (no. 12) and +which had "some 150 souls." + +Two leagues downstream from rancheria no. 1, or about 3 leagues below +the mouth of the canyon would have put him at a point roughly 5 to 6 +miles east-northeast of Bakersfield, not at the site of the city, as is +supposed by Coues (1900, p. 299). On May 8 he went 3 leagues +south-southwest, then turned and traveled 6 leagues southeast and east +to the Tehachapi. These distances and directions plotted on the map +place him just at the mouth of Tejon Creek. + +To summarize the rancherias mentioned: Garces saw four villages on the +Kern in territory of the Paleuyami or Yauelmani (nos. 1, 2, 3, 12), six +on Poso Creek or minor watercourses to the north thereof (nos. 4, 5, 8, +9, 10, 11), all Paleuyami, and two on White River (nos. 6, 7) in the +territory of the Kumachisi. + +The size of these villages has been subject to some debate. Garces +cites two with 150 persons and one with 100, but Gifford and Schenck +think that he specifies population only for the largest places. The +other nine would therefore be smaller. These authors, however, put the +average village size at about 60 (750 people in 12 villages). +Deducting 400 for the three rancherias specified, the average of the +other nine would be 39 which seems much too low. If Zalvidea's figures +are any criterion, the villages on the Kern should have averaged at +least 100 inhabitants, and it must be noted that Garces found two +rancherias in the hills with 150 and 100 persons respectively. Thus it +seems reasonable to allow an average of 100 rather than 60. If so, the +population seen by Garces was in the vicinity of 1,200. + +Now it is evident that Garces did not see all the villages in the +region. He covered about 10 or 12 miles of the Kern below the canyon, a +good deal of upper Poso Creek, and perhaps 5 miles of White River. He +never reached the lower stretches of the rivers at all. It is fair to +assume that there were as many rancherias which he did not see as there +were seen by him. If so the estimate of the population should be +doubled, making 2,400. + +One secondary piece of evidence is at hand. Garces saw 8 villages of +the Paleuyami (6 in the hills, perhaps 2 on the Kern). Now Zalvidea in +1806 says that the Pelones (Paleuyami) had at that time 13 rancherias. +Allowing for shrinkage in the intervening thirty years, this is twice +the number seen by Garces. + +We may at this juncture have recourse to river mileage estimates. It +was found previously (p. 36) that for the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Merced, +Mariposa, and Chowchilla there was in 1850 0.34 village per mile of +stream, with the Chowchilla having the lowest value, 0.20 village. For +the Merced and the Kings rivers below the foothills in the first years +of the nineteenth century it was calculated that there were on the +average 65 persons per river mile. Assuming that the average village +size was 150 inhabitants, there would have been 0.44 village per river +mile. The southern streams were probably more sparsely inhabited than +those just mentioned. Hence it is reasonable to apply the factor found +for the Chowchilla, 0.20 village per mile, to the White River, Poso +Creek, and the Kern River. There are about 150 miles of stream in these +systems east of a line running from Porterville to Bakersfield, a line +which Kroeber takes as the approximate westward limit of the foothill +tribes. This means a probable 30 villages. If the average of 100 +persons per village is used, as suggested above, this means a +population of 3,000. The direct documentary approach thus gives 2,400 +and the indirect method 3,000. A fair figure would be the mean of the +two, or 2,700. + +The peripheral hills on the southeast and south were held by several +tribes. The entire upper Kern River, above the present village of +Bodfish, belonged to the Shoshonean group, the Tubatulabal (area 1E). +Kroeber thinks they may have reached a population of 1,000, which seems +a reasonable figure. From the Kern and Walker's Pass south to Sycamore +Creek (area 1D) were the Kawaiisu, a tribe, according to Kroeber, of +500 persons. In the southeastern corner from Sycamore Creek to Poso +Creek were a few Yauelmani and the Kitanemuk. Pastoria Creek and Alisos +Creek were occupied by a northward extension of the Alliklik, and from +Alisos Creek westward to Bitter Water Creek were found the Tokya group +of the Chumash. + +For the groups beyond the Kawaiisu there are no population data of any +kind. Even Kroeber fails to make an estimate. If we say 1,000 for them +all in aboriginal times it will be a pure guess, but one which may be +somewhere near the truth in view of the extent and character of the +terrain involved. The total for the peripheral region would then be +approximately 2,500 and that for the southern end of the valley as a +whole 6,920, or in round numbers 6,900. + + SOUTHERN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY ... 6,900 + _____________________________________ + + +THE NORTHERN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY + +The remaining portion of the Yokuts-Miwok territory lay in the valley +and foothills north of the Merced River. This area (see maps 1 and 5, +areas 8-13 inclusive), particularly the delta of the San Joaquin and +Sacramento rivers, was entered relatively early by the Spaniards and by +the year 1820 had been almost completely swept of its native +population. The names of many whole tribes have been lost and the exact +locations of many others are now almost impossible to ascertain. Of +village names only those few are known to us which were preserved, +often by chance, in the mission records and accounts of expeditions. +Several attempts have been made to reconstruct the aboriginal human +geography but none has been entirely successful. Kroeber's account, +which accompanies his discussion of the Plains Miwok and northern +Yokuts in the Handbook of California Indians, is manifestly incomplete. +Merriam's paper on the Mewan Stock of California (1907) is helpful, but +probably the best work of the modern investigators is that of Schenck +(1926). The early nineteenth-century accounts for this region are also +less satisfactory than for the central and southern parts of the San +Joaquin Valley. Moraga's record is useful only for the Tuolumne River, +and the delta is covered only by Abella and Duran. It is true that both +Sutter and Gatten give figures for villages south of Sacramento but +their information pertains only to the badly depleted natives of the +'forties. Hence their censuses are of little value for assessing the +aboriginal condition. + +One source not available for other areas is the mission records. The +converts from the delta and lower San Joaquin Valley were brought +almost exclusively into the San Francisco, San Jose, and Santa Clara +missions. The baptism books of these missions have been preserved, and +two copies have been made. The first, of the San Francisco Mission, was +made by A. Pinart in 1878 and is at present in the Bancroft Library in +Berkeley. The other records, copied by S. R. Clemence in 1919, include +the records of all three missions and are now to be found, in typed +form, among the manuscripts in the file of C. H. Merriam. The baptism +books set forth the name and village of origin of every native in the +mission, as well as the date of baptism. Newly converted gentiles are +readily distinguished from infants born in the mission itself, since +the origin of the latter is ascribed to the mission and not to a +village. In addition to the names of villages, not all of which can be +located with certainty, the dates of baptism constitute almost +conclusive evidence. If the baptisms from San Francisco and Santa Clara +are tabulated by village and date, it is very clear that the villages +of local tribes were cleaned out before the year 1805. At this point an +entirely new set of names appears, most of which are undoubtedly in the +Tulares. Hence, if the name of a village does not correspond to any now +known to ethnographers and no baptisms are reported from it prior to +1805, the conclusion is warranted that the village was actually +situated in the central valley. The same assumption may be made with +somewhat less certainty concerning the San Jose records. This mission +was founded in 1797 and its earliest converts were drawn from the +Costanoan tribes on the east shore of San Francisco Bay. The reduction +of this region may not have been complete by 1805 and Tulare Indians +were coming in by that year. Hence there is a chance of overlap. This +source of error, however, may be excluded for all practical purposes if +no doubtful village which continued to furnish converts after 1810 is +included in the list, for the reduction of the Costanoans was certainly +complete by that time. + +Concerning village size various items of information are available. In +the diary of Ramon Abella in 1811 he mentions that the Cholbones had +three rancherias with a population of 900, or 300 per rancheria. That +of the Coyboses had 180 and that of the Tauquimenes 200 men and 60 +houses. The population of the latter tribe, if we apply the ratio found +by Zalvidea at the southern end of the valley, should be 650. This +ratio, it will be remembered, is based on Zalvidea's statement that he +counted as men all males between the ages seven and forty. If, on the +other hand, we assume that Abella referred to all males except small +children and further that the sex ratio was unity, the adults would +have numbered 400 and, if 15 per cent of the village were children, the +total would be approximately 470. However, in the northern end of the +valley we have much more solid data with which to work than at the +extreme south. + +The baptism records of the missions of San Jose and Santa Clara to +which reference is made above include for each gentile village a +breakdown of men, women, and children. These data have been already +discussed in connection with the rancherias on Lake Tulare and it has +been shown that, if proper correction is made for the sex ratio, men +and women each contributed 41.8 per cent of the population and children +16.4 per cent. It is clear that in the north the Franciscans employed +their standard system of calling children all persons under the age of +ten years (not seven years) and including as males all men above the +same age. Zalvidea's system was used only by himself. Consequently, a +village with 200 men would have contained 563 persons in all. + +For the village of the Tauquimenes with 60 houses the average would +have been 9.38 persons per house. That this number is not excessive is +demonstrated by the account of the village of Chuppumne contained also +in Duran's diary. This rancheria had 35 houses, some of which were 40 +to 50 paces in circumference. Since a pace is roughly a yard the +diameter of such a house would be 43 feet, amply sufficient to +accommodate 9 persons. Chuppumne would thus have had a population of +315. Duran also mentions a rancheria of the Ochejamnes which had 40 +houses, or 360 inhabitants. + +Luis Argueello (MS, 1813) describes an expedition under the command of +one Soto, whose party was attacked by Indians in the marshes of the +delta. Schenck (1926, p. 129) locates the scene as in T5N, R4E, near +Walnut Grove and designates the tribe as the Unsumnes or Cosumnes. Now +Argueello states that the expedition crept up on the Indians overnight +and attacked at dawn. They were surprised to find that their coming had +nevertheless been detected and that the Indians had sent away the women +and children. The Spaniards were met by a force of warriors, which Soto +placed as his best estimate at 1,000 persons. These were drawn from +four rancherias in the vicinity. One may always exercise skepticism +with reference to these estimates of enemy forces, particularly in this +instance, since the Spaniards were roughly handled and suffered several +casualties in addition to being forced to withdraw. On the other hand, +the invaders consisted of 13 well armed Spaniards and 100 Indian +auxiliaries. Nothing like an equal number of natives could have +withstood them. Soto's estimate may be cut in half but at least 500 +warriors must be allowed, or 125 for each of the four rancherias. Now +the fighting population, even in a great emergency, does not coincide +with the total male population. If there were 500 warriors, there must +have been fully 300 young boys, invalids, and old men who were not +present. Hence we must concede a male population of no less than 800 +for the four villages. If the percentage values established previously +are used, the mean village size was approximately 475. + +To the villages just described may be added the one seen by Moraga on +the Stanislaus River in 1806, which had 200 inhabitants. + +These twelve villages thus yield an average of 362 inhabitants each. +Although throughout the territory many rancherias were doubtless small, +it is equally probable that some were very large, approaching the +magnitude of Chischa and Bubal in the south. Hence, unless in some +particular instance there is clear reason to believe otherwise, 300 +cannot be regarded as an excessive estimate for the average village of +the delta. + +In considering in detail the population of the delta (see map 6, area +13), it is convenient to segregate groups according to tribal +distinctions rather than strictly according to geographical points. The +reason lies primarily in the fact that the early writers and the +mission records were relatively explicit with respect to names of +villages and groups but were badly confused with respect to localities. +In the densely populated but physiographically homogeneous delta +region, with its scores of small streams, sloughs, and islands, +explorers found it very difficult to establish clear landmarks by which +the inhabitants might be oriented. A state of confusion has arisen of a +kind to generate many controversies among ethnographers, controversies +which are not pertinent in the present connection and which it is +desirable to avoid as far as possible. In order to adopt a more or less +uniform system with respect to tribal nomenclature and arrangement it +is proposed to follow here the practice of Schenck (1926), who has made +an exhaustive study of the area. + +_Bolbones (syn. Cholbones, Chilamne, Chulame)._--This large group +occupied the sloughs of the lower San Joaquin west of Stockton. +Schenck, on his map (1926, p. 133) shows their territory as being +bounded by the main stream of the San Joaquin River on the east and by +the channel now known as the "Old River" on the west. This delineation +of their habitat is supported by the diaries of Abella and Viader. +Schenck classifies the subtribes or divisions of the main group as +follows: + + Cholbones a group + Pescadero a village + Jusmites or Cosmistas a village plus + Fugites or Tugites a village plus + Tomchom, under Fugites a village + Nototemnes a village + +Although these natives are mentioned frequently in the correspondence +of the period, the first recorded exploration of their area was that of +Fr. Jose Viader in 1810. This missionary left Mission San Jose on +August 15 and went by way of Pittsburg and Antioch to the mouth of the +San Joaquin, whence he traveled southeast to Pescadero, "... la +rancheria de los Cholvones." Leaving the rancheria he went on up the +river. Viader's second expedition was carried out during the month of +October of the same year. This time he went directly from San Jose to +Pescadero, which he says was 15 leagues northeast to east-northeast of +Mission San Jose. The account at this point is not particularly lucid. +The entry for October 20 states that at Pescadero the gentiles were +having a dance (bayle). That for the following day begins with the +statement that at dawn Viader's party attacked "... asaltamos una +rancheria de este lado del rio y solo escapo un Christiano ..." Then +they attacked another rancheria on the other side of the river and +captured 15 Christians and 69 gentiles. From the context it may be +inferred that the first rancheria attacked was the one at which the +dance was being celebrated on the evening of the 20th, that is to say, +Pescadero. If it was, then there was another, quite sizable, village +just across the river. If the first village was not Pescadero, then +there were two other villages in close proximity to it. + +The next visitor was Fr. Ramon Abella, who left San Francisco by boat +on October 15, 1811. Passing Sherman Island on the 18th and wandering +erratically through the swamps he reached the "tierra de los cholbones" +on the next day. On October 20 he reached the village of Pescadero but +made no comment on it in his diary. After examining the territory of +the Cosmistas and Boyboses 5 to 15 miles to the east, the party turned +about 8 to 9 miles (3 leagues) northwest, following the general trend +of the river downstream. At this point they found a rancheria of 900 +persons "divididas en tres rancherias, alguna distancia una de otras. +No vimos que la una: Se presentan como 150 personas ... y nos ensenaron +al desembarcadero y las mismas casas que havia duplicado gente ..." +Abella's distances are extremely inaccurate but it is apparent that the +three villages mentioned were north or northwest of Pescadero. + +The key village in this complex is Pescadero, a rancheria to which +repeated reference is made in the documents of the period and whose +identity neither Viader nor Abella could have mistaken. That it +belonged to the Bolbones is attested by Viader's expression "... la +rancheria de los Cholvones." Viader saw at least one and perhaps two +other villages near by belonging to the same tribe. Abella clearly +states that he saw three rancherias in addition to Pescadero. One of +these may have been the one attacked by Viader, and if so, the entire +group included a minimum of four villages. Otherwise, there were at +least five. Abella's count of 900 persons for the three villages +appears accurate and reasonable. On the other hand, Pescadero was +evidently regarded as the most important rancheria of the area and +probably was more populous than any other. Hence it must have contained +no less than 400 persons. The sum of the four villages would then be +1,300. + +Between 1806 and 1811 the mission records show a total of 200 baptisms +ascribed to the Cholbones, most of them at San Jose. In addition, there +were 81 baptisms from 1821 to 1828 designated Chilamne. At the time of +Abella's visit, therefore, the area had been subject to repeated raids +for the purpose of securing converts and must have undergone serious +social and economic disturbance of the type noted throughout the entire +San Joaquin Valley. Merely adding the 200 missionized natives would +bring the population estimate for the Bolbones up to 1,500, and the +aboriginal value was probably even higher. + +The Jusmites, or Cosmistas, are credited by Schenck with "a village +plus," meaning certainly one and probably two or more. Viader, on his +second expedition, found "los indios Jusmites" about 2-1/2 leagues +southeast of and up the river from the second village, which he +attacked on October 21. This places them in the locality shown by +Schenck on his map (1926, p. 133), i.e., in northwestern T1S, R6E. No +further information is given by Viader. The next year Abella found "la +rancheria de los Cosmistas" in approximately the same region, but gave +no data regarding size. Neither author implies in any way that there +was more than one village. At San Jose 86 converts were baptized from +"Jossmit," a number which suggests a village of fully 300 inhabitants. + +Viader on his first expedition, on August 20, went south-southeast from +Pescadero for 3 leagues and reached a village "cuyo capitan se llama +Tomchom." He then went 2-1/2 leagues southeast from the Jusmites and +reached "los indios Tugites." Both Tomchom and Tugites therefore appear +to have been in the same general area. For this reason Schenck has +placed the Tugites, as a tribe, directly south of the Jusmites and has +called Tomchom a village of the tribe. It is perhaps more likely that +there were two villages involved (rather than a tribe and an included +village), designated respectively Tomchom and Tugites. This view is +substantiated by the baptism data. Of the entire group 268 were +baptized, rather equally distributed between San Jose and Santa Clara. +Over half the conversions occurred in the year 1811. The San Jose book +lists 126 from "Tamcan" and 7 from "Tuguits." The Santa Clara book has +125 from "Los Tugites" and none under any other designation. It may +therefore be concluded that two villages, or subtribes, were involved, +one of which was taken to San Jose and the other to Santa Clara. A +total of 268 converts would imply a population of at least 500 persons +at the time of conversion and probably more aboriginally. + +The village of Nototemnes is mentioned only by Duran in his diary of +1817. In the night of May 22-23 he passed "la rancheria de los +Nototemnes," but did not actually see the village or count its +inhabitants. However, the rancheria furnished 97 converts to Mission +San Jose. It must therefore have contained at least 200 people. Schenck +shows the Nototemnes as covering nearly two townships in the northern +delta region and calls them "a village plus." He cites, however, no +authority for this view other than Duran, and Duran, as mentioned +above, refers only to the rancheria of the Nototemnes. There is no +reason, consequently, for assuming more than one village for the tribe +or group. + +In summary, the Bolbones tribal complex consisted of fully eight medium +to large villages. Those belonging to the Bolbones proper, four in +number, were estimated to contain 1,500 persons. The Jusmites were +allowed 300 persons, the Tugites 500, and the Nototemnes 200. The total +is 2,500, and the average village size slightly over 300 persons. + + (Bolbones ... 2,500) + ____________________ + +_Leuchas._--Schenck shows this tribe as living east of the San Joaquin +River 10 to 15 miles south of Stockton. He implies that the tribe +contained two villages, Coyboses and Pitemis (Aupimis), in addition +perhaps to other settlements. The mission books mention all three names +and show baptisms (figures in parentheses), which may be tabulated as +follows. + + Baptisms, San Jose Baptisms, Santa Clara + __________________ _____________________ + +Leuchas "Leucha" (26), "Los Leuchas" (81), + 1805-1812 1805-1809 + (88 per cent in (85 per cent in + 1805-1806) 1805) + +Pitemis None (60), 1814-1831 + (98 per cent in + 1814-1816) + +Coybos (94), 1808-1826 None + (71 per cent in + 1811-1812) + +To judge by the three separate periods in which the majority of the +baptisms occurred there were three groups of people: the Leuchas, who +were brought into the fold primarily during 1805 and 1806, the Coybos, +principally in 1811-1812, and the Pitemis, converted two or three years +later. The Leuchas were taken to both missions, but the Coybos were +brought only to San Jose and the Pitemis only to Santa Clara. Abella +said that in 1811 the village of Coybos had 180 inhabitants, a figure +which has been used in computing the average village size. But the +aboriginal population was probably greater. This view is substantiated +by the events which preceded Abella's visit. In 1805 Father Cuevas of +San Jose Mission went on an unauthorized expedition to the Leuchas--the +best account is that by Jose Argueello (MS, 1805)--in search of +converts.[5] He was badly treated and some of his men were wounded by +the natives. This and the punitive expeditions which immediately +followed no doubt accounted for the wave of conversions in 1805 and +1806. But at the same time the entire aboriginal group unquestionably +suffered heavily from battle casualties and economic disturbance so +that the population five years later must have been seriously reduced. +It is thus justifiable to assume that originally there were three +villages and that each was of average size. The population may +therefore be set at fully 900 persons. + +Some further information is derived from the recollections of Jose +Maria Amador (MS, 1877). This pioneer, who received his facts +second-hand from his father, mentions (pp. 13-15) the campaign of 1805 +against the "Loechas," who, he says lived 4 to 5 leagues from +Livermore. This would put them west of the San Joaquin River, south of +the Bolbones, in T1S, R5E, not on the east bank as shown by Schenck. +Amador then goes on to say that after the Cuevas affair the Leuchas +"... se habian ya cambiado el rio de San Joaquin a una rancheria que se +llamaba de los Pitemis." They were all captured and taken to San Jose. +It is thus reasonably clear that the Leuchas originally did live west +of the river, and crossed over to the east side as a result of the +punitive expeditions of the Spaniards. Furthermore, the village of the +Pitemis was already in existence at this time, probably at or near the +spot shown by Schenck. Coybos undoubtedly was another village within +the same area. This region, therefore, at the time of Abella's visit in +1807 contained the established villages of Pitemis and Coybos plus a +residue of unconverted, fugitive Leuchas who had taken refuge in them. + +Amador's assertion that the Leuchas were all captured and taken to San +Jose is not borne out by the baptism figures, which show only 23 +Leuchas enrolled at Mission San Jose in 1805 to 1806. Many more, +actually 73, were baptized at Santa Clara in 1805. The total is 96, and +scarcely represents the entire personnel of the group. Nevertheless, if +we add the casualties of battle, disease, and exposure to those +baptized in the missions, and allow for the dispersion of the +remainder, the sum will amount to no less than the 300 assumed above +for the Leuchas. + +As for the Pitemis, Viader, on his first expedition, left Pescadero on +August 20, 1810, and traveled south-southeast at some distance from the +river. Within 3 leagues he passed "... en frente de una rancheria ... +Aupemis." Schenck says (p. 141): "Pitemis is a village of the Leuchas +and it seems that Aupimis is to be identified with it." This cannot be +true because Viader is highly explicit to the effect that he was west +of the river and Amador is equally emphatic in stating that Pitemis was +across the San Joaquin from Leuchas, i.e., to the east of it. Since +Viader's visit was in 1810, after the Cuevas affair, there must have +been three rancherias of the Leuchas and their allies: Aupimis, +Pitemis, and Coybos. + +Parenthetically, and for the record, the present writer would like to +offer the comment that certain modern writers tend to assert the +identity of Spanish or Indian names without adequate evidence. +Schenck's opinion that Aupimis and Pitemis were the same place could +have been based upon no more than a fancied resemblance in the names. +Also, on page 141 of his paper he says: "The Leuchas might possibly be +identified with Kroeber's Lakisamni (Yokuts) on the Stanislaus river." +A brief examination of the mission records, apart from any other +evidence, shows conclusively that two separate and distinct tribes were +recognized by the contemporary missionaries. + + (Leuchas et al. ... 900) + ________________________ + +_Ochejamnes._--This tribe is placed by Schenck on the east bank of the +Sacramento River near the mouth of the Cosumnes. Kroeber refers to the +village of Ochehak and considers it a "political community." He shows +it on his map (1925, p. 446) as lying on the Mokelumne, due north of +Stockton. Duran, in his diary, May 21 (MS, 1817), describes how he +followed the main stream of the Sacramento, i.e., the left branch, on +his way back from his stopping point above Courtland. He reached the +rancheria "llamada de Oche jamnes," which, although it contained 40 +houses, was deserted. Quite soon thereafter ("a poco rato") he reached +"la punta de la isla llamada de los Quenemsias," which has been +identified definitely as Grand Island. Clearly, therefore, in 1817 the +Ochejamnes had a village on the Sacramento higher up the river than is +shown by Schenck. + +According to Duran the village had 40 houses, which would mean 360 +persons without reckoning possible subsidiary rancherias. The name is +mentioned for only one mission, San Jose, at which 428 Ochejamne, or +Oocheganes, were baptized between 1829 and 1836. This is prima facie +evidence that Duran, who saw them in 1817, was referring, as he +implies, only to one rancheria and that the tribe was actually larger. +This idea is supported by the account of Jose Berreyesa in 1830 of +severe Indian fighting in the delta (Berryesa, MS, 1830). The +Ochejamnes and the Yunisumnes with certain American trappers were +arrayed against the Californians, who had gathered together 450 +auxiliary fighters from the Cosumnes and other tribes. No value is +placed upon the number of Ochejamnes but it must have been +considerable. It was probably as a result of this campaign that 428 +members of the tribe were baptized at Mission San Jose. Even with a +relatively complete conquest many of the natives must have escaped; +hence in 1830 their total number must have reached 500. But this was in +1830, after a generation of expeditions and petty warfare. The +aboriginal number must have been considerably greater, let us say 750. + + (Ochejamnes ... 750) + ____________________ + +_Guaypem._--This group is thought by Schenck to have been simply a +village but Merriam (1907, p. 350) regards them as a tribe called the +Wipa, located on Sherman Island near the Sacramento River estuary. +Duran in his diary says that Guaypens is 6 leagues south and southeast +of the fork of the river below Courtland. Allowing for his usual +exaggeration of distances, this puts the rancheria near the mouth of +the Mokelumne, in the vicinity of Walnut Grove. He speaks of _the_ +rancheria "de los Guaypens" and saw only a few people. Thus neither +size nor locality supports the contention that Guaypem was synonymous +with Wipa. The tribe was not converted until relatively late, 41 +converts being taken to San Jose between 1821 and 1824. By that time +the tribe had been subject to severe attrition. Thus the evidence +points to an aboriginal group consisting of one village of average +size, or close to 300 inhabitants. + + (Guaypem ... 300) + _________________ + +_Quenemsias._--These people, who lived near the two preceding tribes, +are designated a "group" by Schenck (p. 136). They covered, according +to him, "the southern part, or perhaps all, of Grand Island." The +ecclesiastical diarists make no mention of them save the reference by +Duran to the "isla llamada de los Quenemisias." One other citation is +worth mentioning, however. In the Bancroft Transcripts is a document +dated January 31, 1796, entitled "Informe en el cual el teniente +Herm^{do} Sal manifesta lo que ha adquirido de varios sugetos para +comunicarlo al Gobernador de la Provincia," which gives a description +of the lower reaches of the San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers and the +delta and mentions the natives (Sal, MS, 1796). In detail, the account +is extremely inaccurate. However, one of the Indians "... dio noticia +de las naciones Tulpunes, Quinensiat, Taunantoc, y Quisitoc: los +primeros son de la orilla del estero; los 2^{os} estan del otro lado de +los rios ..." Although no numerical data are given, the mention of the +Quenemsias (Quinensiat) as a "nacion" in the delta region establishes +them as a group of more than average importance. The mission books show +185 Quenemsias baptized at Mission San Jose. Roughly double the number +of baptisms may be taken as the aboriginal population, i.e., 400. + + (Quenemsias ... 400) + ____________________ + +_Chuppumne, Chucumes._--Schenck places these two settlements, which he +calls villages, on the Sacramento River near the mouth of the Cosumnes. +Most of our documentary information concerning them is derived from the +accounts of Duran and of Luis Argueello. Luis Antonio Argueello +accompanied Duran on his expedition and wrote a report to the governor +in the form of a letter, dated May 26, 1817, the original of which is +preserved in the Bancroft Library (library no. fm-F864A64; also typed +copy). The existence of this letter evidently was not known to either +Kroeber or Schenck. It is less complete and less detailed than the +diary of Duran but it is of value in checking the statements made by +the latter. + +On May 16 the party reached the foot of Grand Island and on May 17 +proceeded up the left-hand (i.e., western) watercourse. The village of +Chucumes was found 8 leagues (leguas) upstream, according to Duran, 13 +miles (millas) according to Argueello. The latter estimate is probably +closer, since Duran is notoriously inaccurate (usually on the side of +overestimate) in his computation of distances. Here Duran counted 35 +houses whereas Argueello says 36, a sufficiently close correspondence. +As indicated previously, a population of 315 persons is probable. +Continuing their journey, they went on for 4 miles (Argueello); Duran +says approximately 3 leagues. There they stopped at a rancheria, +"arruinada" according to Argueello, although Duran makes no mention of +this. + +On May 18 the party went on upstream, making during the day 4 leagues +(Duran) or 16 miles (Argueello). Duran states that after going 1 league +they got back into the main stream of the Sacramento. This was clearly +at the head of Grand Island, close to Courtland. At 1 league beyond +this point, on May 19, they found the rancheria Chuppumne, which was +deserted. The location therefore was very close to that shown by +Schenck on his map (p. 133) and, if we can put any credence in the +Duran-Argueello account, a good many miles north of Chucumes. Near +Chuppumne Duran saw three other rancherias in the distance (inland?) +but could not get at them. On May 20 the expedition pressed on upstream +for 5 miles (Argueello) or 4 leagues (Duran), at which point they turned +around and began the return trip. On May 21 Argueello says that they +passed "algunas rancherias," all deserted, which may well have been +those mentioned by Duran on May 19. + +On the river frontage covered from May 17 to May 21 the expedition saw +a minimum of 6 villages, 2 of which are mentioned by name (Chucumes and +Chuppumne) and for 1 of which the houses were counted. If all these +villages were of comparable size--as they may have been +aboriginally--then the total population represented would have been +1,800. This estimate would of course not include other villages which +the expedition did not see. + +The mission records show for San Jose a total of 377 persons baptized +from Chucumne and Chuppumne, of whom 322 were converted during 1823 and +1824. We may predicate, therefore, a residual population of 700 to 800 +just prior to those years. That the area had suffered severely before +that is attested by the deserted and "ruined" rancherias seen by Duran +in 1817. It is quite probable that the aboriginal population reached a +value of 1,500. + + (Chucumes, Chuppumne ... 1,500) + _______________________________ + +_Chupunes (Chupcanes), Tarquines (Tarquimenes, Tauquines), Julpunes +(Tulpunes) and Ompines._--This constellation of tribes is best +considered collectively, first, because there are no direct estimates +of their population, and second, because they occupied a relatively +unified area. + +Schenck places them along the south shore of Suisun Bay from the east +entrance of Carquinez Strait and through the slough region between the +Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers as far upstream as Isleton on the +Sacramento. However, he points out that there is great uncertainty with +respect to their exact location, an uncertainty which is emphasized by +the wide divergence between his views and those of Merriam. Even the +Spanish accounts present numerous discrepancies. In view of this state +of our knowledge Schenck makes the very reasonable suggestion that the +lower delta tribes may have been so greatly disturbed and shifted +around during the period from 1775 to 1810 that the aboriginal +locations were forgotten. It is worth while to examine in some detail +some of the evidence on this problem. We may begin with examination of +the area at and just east of Carquinez Strait on the south shore of +Suisun Bay. This consideration entails a preliminary discussion of two +small groups, the Aguastos and the Huchium (syn. Habastos, Quivastos, +Juchium, Huchimes, Tuchimes, etc.). + +This tribe or group of tribes, which must have been of some importance, +is not mentioned by name by Kroeber or Schenck, but there is a brief +set of typed notes in the Merriam collection in which the location is +discussed (MS entitled: "On the East Side San Francisco Peninsula"). +The multiplicity of synonyms, however, as well as the large number of +neophytes involved, indicates that these tribes were very familiar to +the missionaries. + +The Merriam notes (pp. 5 and 6) point out the following considerations. + +1. "Abella's diary (1811) speaks of present Point San Pablo as the +Point of the Huchunes and says their territory extended on the mainland +from this point to Pt. San Andres (Pt. Pinole)." + +2. Several rancherias belonging to this tribe are mentioned as being on +the east side of the bay. + +3. "The mission books locate the Habasto tribe 'on the other side of +the Bay from the Mission of San Francisco toward the estero which goes +to the rivers (Suisun Bay).' Abella's diary calls Point San Pedro the +Point of the Abastos." + +Merriam therefore was strongly of the opinion that these tribes +inhabited the south shore of San Pablo Bay and did not extend farther +than Carquinez Strait. + +On the other hand, the item in the mission books quoted by Merriam +(par. 3, above) indicates Suisun Bay rather than San Pablo Bay. +Moreover, there is another statement in the baptism books alongside the +designation "Aguastos o Huchum" to the effect that this tribe was 16 to +18 leagues by water from San Francisco. This distance would place them +close to the site of the modern town of Pittsburg, that is, on the +southern shore of Suisun Bay. But this area is assigned by Schenck to +the Tarquines and perhaps the Julpunes, tribes which are also clearly +mentioned by name in the mission records. + +If the Aguastos extended from Richmond to Crockett or thereabouts, they +were Costanoan and strictly bay people; hence not pertinent to this +study. If they lived along Suisun Bay, regardless of their ethnic +affiliation they may be included for demographic purposes among the +delta tribes. Some further light can be thrown upon the problem by an +analysis of the dates shown for baptisms in the San Francisco Mission +records. + +If the baptisms of gentiles are tabulated according to village and +year, it is seen immediately that the conversions in the first year, +1777, were all from local rancherias. This group was extended during +the following decade until the San Francisco peninsula had been +completely covered. However, after the year 1792 all mention of the +peninsula abruptly and entirely ceases. As early as 1778 on the other +hand baptisms are listed from a village (Halchis) specified as being in +the "sierra oriente de la otra banda." In the succeeding years villages +ascribed to the "otra banda" become more frequent and reach a peak +between 1790 and 1795. Subsequent to 1800 the conversions from these +places diminish rapidly and disappear. Now we know by following the +documentary accounts of expeditions that during the decade 1790 to 1800 +the great effort of the San Francisco Mission was expended in securing +neophytes from the east shore of San Francisco Bay as far north as the +Carquinez Strait. There are no baptisms of gentiles whatever listed in +the San Francisco books for the years 1797, 1798, and 1799. Therefore +it is reasonable to assume that the supply of Costanoans from the east +bay had been exhausted. Furthermore, village names qualified by the +term "otra banda" and appearing in the baptism record _for the first +time_ prior to 1800 must certainly refer to villages in this region. +Among these are rancherias stated as belonging to the "nacion Juchium" +together with the separate designation "Tuchimes." Thus it is clear +that the Huchium lived, as Merriam believed, on the east shore of the +bay. + +After the inactive period at the end of the century a flood of +neophytes began to pour into the mission together with a completely new +set of names. One of the first of these is Habastos, a rancheria which +contributed 137 converts in 1800 and 1801 and which is now stated, for +the first time in the mission book, to lie "acia el estero de los +rios." Later, the variants Quivastos and Aguastos are used. Conversions +from this tribe continued until 1810, after which the name disappears +from the lists. + +The sharp segregation of dates of conversion are clear evidence that, +whatever the racial or linguistic affiliation, there were two groups of +Indians, one converted before 1801 and living along the shore of the +bay generally south and west of the Carquinez Strait, the other +converted between 1801 and 1810 and living at the east end of the +strait and along Suisun Bay. There probably was no clear separation of +the two in the minds of the Spaniards; hence the confusion of names. We +are concerned here with the second group, the one uniformly designated +Aguastos, which inhabited the approaches to the delta. + +With respect to the aboriginal population of this group we have no +direct evidence whatever. On the other hand the record of the San +Francisco Mission shows 396 baptisms. This immediately sets a lower +limit to the number of Aguastos for there certainly can have been no +fewer members of the tribe than were baptized. Regarding the upper +limit it can be pointed out only that the group was completely +obliterated at the time of conversion and its name never appears again +in either contemporary or modern records. Hence it is safe to assume +that substantially all the Aguastos were taken to San Francisco and +that the baptisms include the entire tribe. We may thus ascribe to them +a population of approximately 400 persons. + +We now encounter the Chupunes (or Chupcanes), concerning whom Schenck +(1926, p. 143) has this to say: + + The Chupunes (Chupcanes), apparently a group, were located + along the southern shore near the east end of Carquinez + strait. West of the strait, also on the southern shore--in + the Pinole region of San Pablo bay--were the Huchones. + +The earliest documentary reference is to the diary of Abella, in 1811. +On October 16 he went through Carquinez Strait by boat. Then he says +that the strait "... remata en la tierra de los Chupunes, porque hay ya +ensancha ..." The "ensancha" or widening begins at Port Costa and +continues to Martinez. This, then, is the boundary of the Chupunes. On +October 28, discussing the Suisunes on the north side of the bay, he +says that "La rancheria citada de los Suisunes cahe al nordeste de los +Chupanes, tierra adentro del Cerro de los Karquines ..." The Cerro de +los Karquines is, of course, Mt. Diablo. + +In his account of the expedition of 1817 Duran tells how he arrived at +noon of May 14, by boat from San Francisco, at the "remate" of the +"estrecho de los Chucanes," at a point 14 leagues northeast of San +Francisco and 17 leagues north-northeast of San Jose. The rancheria of +this name, he states, is now Christian, at San Francisco and San Jose. +The mission books show a total of 105 baptisms at the two +establishments. + +It is reasonably plain that the Aguastos and the Chupunes occupied more +or less the same territory--along the south shore of the eastern end of +Carquinez Strait and the western end of Suisun Bay. The diaries and the +baptism records both indicate that the original inhabitants were the +Aguastos, who were missionized and removed. Their place seems to have +been taken by another group of natives known as the Chupunes, who also +were gathered into the fold at some period between the visits of Abella +and Duran. Subsequent to the 1817 diary of Duran there is no further +mention of this tribe. With respect to population we have only the +record showing 105 baptisms. Since the conversion seems to have been +quite complete, we may set the aboriginal value at no more than 150. + +Let us now consider the Ompines. This group is placed by Schenck on the +north bank of the Sacramento River at and above the junction of the +river and Suisun Bay. Schenck also (p. 137) discusses the possibility +that the Ompines and Julpunes composed a single group. In spite of an +assumed similarity in names the Spanish accounts are unequivocally +explicit to the effect that there were two groups, not one, hence +Schenck's hypothesis may be disregarded. With respect to location the +later Spanish accounts bear out Schenck's contention that the tribe was +situated north of the river. + +In his entry for May 14, 1817, Duran says that his expedition stopped +at the mouth of the San Joaquin River, whereas another boat (that of +Argueello) stopped opposite "en tierra de Ompines." The next day they +all went up the Sacramento River to the "remate de las lomas de los +Ompines." Meanwhile Argueello, in his entry for May 15, says that they +went along the north shore and stopped "donde termina la tierra de los +Ompines." This puts the eastern edge of the Ompines at the east side of +the Montezuma Hills in T3N, R2E, approximately as shown by Schenck. +Altimira describes an unauthorized raid by Fr. Duran on the tribes +north of Suisun Bay, among them "... otra rancheria aislada llamada los +Ompines" (Altimira, MS, 1823). + +A few of the earlier documents, on the other hand, contain statements +which raise the possibility that the Ompines were not always confined +exclusively to the north shore. In his diary of 1811 Abella describes +how, on October 17, his party entered a big bay (Suisun Bay) and, after +5 leagues, following along the south shore, began to find estuaries and +numerous islands covered with tules. They continued into the west +channel of the San Joaquin and stopped at an island on which large +trees were growing. At this point, somewhere near Antioch, there was a +"pescadero" of the Ompines. It is evident, therefore, that in 1811 the +Ompines had at least temporary fishing spots on the south side of the +estuary, in an area usually ascribed to the Julpunes or Tarquines. + +The San Jose baptism book shows the conversion of 108 Ompines. Those +from San Rafael and Solano do not mention the tribe. The fact that a +tribe situated north of Suisun Bay does not appear in the records of +either of these missions is noteworthy, since during the 1820's and +1830's the north-bay groups were brought to them in large numbers, and +since we know from Altimira's comment on Duran's raid that the Ompines +were still in existence in 1823. Furthermore, the Ompines must have +constituted more than a single small village, for Argueello and Duran +both refer to the "tierra" of the Ompines. The hypothesis is possible, +although admittedly there is no real proof, that the Ompines may have +originally occupied the sloughs and islands at and above Antioch, that +they may have been pushed north at an early date by Spanish intrusion +from the south and west, and that they may have been further dispersed, +or exterminated without extensive conversion, prior to 1830. If such a +theory in any way represents the course of their decline and +disappearance, then it also follows that the aboriginal population was +considerably greater than the baptism number would lead one to suppose. + +To turn now to the Julpunes, there seems to be little difference of +opinion regarding their original location. This was as Schenck pictures +it: the south shore of the San Joaquin estuary from Antioch to the line +between R3E and R4E. The "Informe" of Hermengildo Sal, written in 1796 +and previously referred to, specifies the "Tulpunes" as a "nacion" +living on the "orilla del estero." Fourteen years later in 1810 Viader +went 7 leagues from Pittsburg to the "old river" west of Stockton. He +was: "... esta tierra es de los Tulpunes." Duran, May 24, 1817, on his +return journey downstream reached the region of the Julpunes at 8:00 +A.M. and joined the other boat at 6:00 P.M. of the same day at +Carquinez Strait. + +Schenck (1926, p. 137) points out that Kotzebue, who was in the area in +1823, implies that the Julpunes were living on the north bank. Merriam +(1907, p. 348), says that the Hulpoomne "occupied the east bank of the +Sacramento River from a few miles south of the mouth of American river +southward ..." Schenck's explanation of the discrepancy appears to the +present writer entirely sound: the Julpunes retired across the estuary +to the north bank and then upstream nearly to Sacramento. In so doing +they may very well have carried the surviving Ompines with them. The +San Jose record lists 148 baptisms of Julpunes but the name is absent +from the records of San Francisco, Santa Clara, San Rafael, and Solano +missions. Along with the Ompines the Julpunes must have escaped the +active proselyting effort of San Rafael, and particularly Solano, +between 1824 and 1834, by a rapid retirement so far up the river as to +elude the parties sent out from the missions. The converts at San Jose +must have been captured by the Viader, Duran, Argueello, and similar +expeditions before the migration upstream. + +The Tarquines are claimed by Schenck to have been "... a single group. +It seems to have stretched from east to west entirely across the marsh +area between the main channels of the Sacramento and San Joaquin +rivers, and then to have extended along the southern shore of Suisun +Bay" (pp. 134-136). Schenck's belief in this remarkable distribution is +based upon three documentary references (at least he cites no more than +these three in his tabulation on p. 135). + +The first of the three documents, chronologically, is the first +expedition of Viader, in 1810. In his entry for August 17 Viader says +that, having spent the preceding night near the present location of +Pittsburg, he reconnoitred these lands which "... son de los Tarquines, +que lo mas, 6 casi todos son Cristianos de San Francisco." After noting +the mouths of the two rivers, he goes on to mention a spot on the +estuary "... en donde dicen _estaba_ la rancheria de los Tarquines" +(emphasis mine). Let it be emphasized that in 1810 _the_ Tarquines are +_almost all_ Christians in San Francisco, and Viader saw there _the_ +rancheria which _was_, or _had been_, that of the Tarquines. The San +Francisco baptism book shows 18 "Talquines" converted in 1801 and 63 +more in 1802, making a total of 83. This number could well be the +majority, or almost all, the inhabitants of a moderate-sized rancheria. +Schenck is therefore technically correct in placing the tribe on the +south shore of the eastern end of Suisun Bay. + +The second document is the diary of Abella in 1811. On October 25, in +the course of the return trip downstream, some distance below the +junction of the channels of the San Joaquin, he found a rancheria of +the Tauquimenes, one part of each side of the river, which was 30 to 40 +varas wide. This point was apparently at or near the head of Sherman +Island. The rancheria had 60 houses. He saw 200 warriors. He then +crossed through the sloughs to the Sacramento River and on or opposite +Sherman Island saw one rancheria of 14 houses and several of 2 to 3 +houses. He says that all they passed this day was "... parte de una +isla" (i.e., Sherman Island). Furthermore + + ... en todo este dia andubimos como unas 12 leguas + [overestimate] y podra haver gente, como 200 almas, todavia + puede que haiga mas, porque en la primera [rancheria] + habraumas 1,000, segun lo grande que por aqui son las casas, + tienen un circuito de 28 o 30 varas, con su orcon en medio + ... + +This account deserves comment on several grounds: with relation to +Viader's visit of the previous year and the baptisms at San Francisco +it is evident that whereas the southern extension of the Tarquines' +habitat, whatever its size, had been swept clear prior to 1810, +nevertheless the tribe persisted on the estuarine islands in truly +large numbers. Moreover, since there is evidence of no more than one +rancheria on the south shore, it appears that the territory in that +region allotted by Schenck to the tribe is too large and should be +restricted to a small area of the southeastern corner of Suisun Bay. + +With respect to population, Abella's figures are quite credible. It has +been suggested that one of the huge houses found in this region could +accommodate 9 persons without difficulty. Then the large village should +have had 540 inhabitants. Allowing 24 houses for the other villages +seen, 216 persons should be added, making a total of 756, a figure not +far from Abella's guess of 1,000. + +The final reference to the tribe occurs in the diary of Duran. During +the night of May 22-23, 1817, he went up the main channel of the San +Joaquin, in T3N, R4E, and passed the Tauguimenes on the _left_, that is +to say, on the _east_ bank. Schenck thinks that the group covered the +entire strip from Pittsburg to the east bank of the main river +_contemporaneously_. Now it has been pointed out as probable that the +southwestern outliers were missionized, or pushed back into the swamps, +as early as 1801. It is equally possible that the island communities +described by Abella in 1811 were pushed, in the next five or six years, +off the islands altogether and clear back eastward to the far bank of +the main river. Of considerable significance is the fact that whereas +both Viader and Abella mention the Tarquines as being in the estuary +region, Duran, who covered this area thoroughly, is completely silent +with regard to their presence. It is highly unlikely that, had there +been any of the tribe left in their former habitat, he would have +failed to note them. + +The details are very obscure but the main outlines of events in the +first three decades of the nineteenth century can be perceived. +Aboriginally and perhaps till nearly 1800, there was a dense population +of natives extending from Port Costa along the southern shore of Suisun +Bay and up the rivers for fifteen miles beyond Antioch. Among them +were included tribal groups, or rancherias, called Aguastos, Chupunes, +Ompines, Julpunes, and Tarquines, belonging very likely to different +ethnic and linguistic stocks. Under the pressure of the Spanish +military power, which was the real force behind missionization, +portions of these groups were exterminated, other segments gave ground +and shifted habitat, and occasional remnants persisted in the old +localities. Thus each visitor in turn found a different geographical +organization, until the entire native society was obliterated. + +An accurate assessment of aboriginal population in this area is +impossible. The best we can do is try to make an intelligent guess. +Several methods are available for this purpose--group comparisons, +mission figures, area comparisons. + +Throughout the plains of the lower San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys +the native social units appear to have resembled rather uniformly the +political organization of the Yokuts in the central and southern San +Joaquin Valley. There were aggregates, or communities, consisting of +perhaps one, but usually more than one, village, and occupying a more +or less clearly defined territory. These groups, as they may be called, +can be identified by the plural names which are ordinarily attached to +them--the Bolbones, the Leuchas, and so forth. Naturally these groups +varied considerably in size, and concerning no single one of them can +we be absolutely sure of the number of their people. Nevertheless, if +we had data concerning enough of them, the variations due both to +inherent difference and to inaccurate estimate would tend to cancel out +and an approximate average could be secured. No pretence can be made +that we have enough estimates to establish a mean which would be +statistically satisfactory. Nevertheless, as so frequently happens when +we are dealing with data of this character, we have to employ the +information available to us or forsake the problem entirely. + +We have hitherto considered a number of the local groups mentioned +above and have estimated their population as follows: Bolbones +(restricted group, see p. 58), 1,500; Jusmites, 300; Tugites, 500; +Nototemnes, 200; Leuchas, 900; Ochejamnes, 750; Guaypem, 300; +Quenemsias, 400; Chucumes and Chuppumne, 1,500. The average for the +nine groups is 705 or, in round numbers, 700. If we consider that the +Aguastos, Chupunes, Ompines, Julpunes, and Tarquines were groups of the +same character as the foregoing, then their total population may be +taken as 3,500. + +The total baptisms shown in the mission books of the five northern +missions (in fact, only San Francisco and San Jose) for these groups is +911. In previous instances we have estimated the aboriginal population +by doubling the baptism number. This procedure is admittedly purely +arbitrary and based upon the general consideration that, except for +small local populations relatively close to the mission, it was +impossible for the missionaries and soldiers to prevent the escape of a +sizable fraction of the people. Of the five groups here discussed, the +Aguastos, it is evident, were completely missionized or at least +obliterated. A much greater proportion of the other tribes survived, as +is attested by their probable migrations up the rivers. Hence for the +entire population it is doubtful if even one-half received baptism. +Using the value of one half, the aboriginal number would have been +approximately 2,000. + +Linear distances along streams are useful as a basis for comparison in +country where the rivers are similar ecologically but are clearly +separated spatially and where the human population is concentrated +along the stream banks to the exclusion of the interfluvial hinterland. +Where a territory is marked by a network of creeks and sloughs, and the +intermediate land is marsh, the linear comparisons become impossible. +Areas must be substituted. + +In relation to the present problem three such areas may be delineated. +The first comprises the territory of the Bolbones (including all the +subordinate villages) and the Leuchas. Following Schenck's map, it +embraces all the land between the channels of the San Joaquin plus a +strip approximately two miles wide east of the main river in T1 and 2S, +R6E which accounts for the Leuchas. The area, as projected from a +large-scale map onto coordinate paper, is 775 square miles, the +population 3,400, and the density 4.39 persons per square mile. The +second comprises the home of the Ochejamnes, Guaypem, Quenemsias, and +Chucumnes-Chuppumne. For the habitat of these groups we have followed +Schenck as far as possible. Our line runs actually from the junction of +the east and west channels of the Sacramento at the foot of Grand +Island southeast to the main channel of the San Joaquin, thence +northeast and north to just east of Walnut Grove and then, at a +distance of about 2 miles east of the eastern channel of the +Sacramento, to a point 4 miles north of Courtland. Here the line +crosses the river and continues downstream, 2 miles west of the river, +to the starting point. This strip of the western bank of the western +branch of the Sacramento is included in order to take in the Chucumes, +who may have lived on the west side of the river. The area of this +territory is 330 square miles, the population 2,950, and the density +8.94 persons per square mile. + +The third area is the one shown by Schenck as belonging to the +Chupunes, Tarquines, Julpunes, and Ompines, with the exception of the +region east of the San Joaquin attributed to the Tarquines. For reasons +stated previously the author does not believe that the Tarquines +occupied this spot aboriginally. A strip 2 miles wide is included on +the north shore, however, between Rio Vista and Collinsville, in the +probable land of the Ompines. The eastern boundary is formed by the +borders of areas one and two. In area three there are 600 square miles. +The mean of the densities of the other two areas is 6.67 persons per +square mile. Hence the population would have been 4,002 persons. No +significance should be attributed to the third and probably also the +second digit in these numbers. They are used only for purposes of +estimate. + +The three methods employed have yielded respectively 3,000, 2,000, and +4,000 as the most likely population of the five groups here being +discussed. In default of any other evidence we may take the average +3,000. + + (Chupunes, Tarquines, Ompines, Julpunes ... 3,000) + __________________________________________________ + +Adding the totals for the tribes known to inhabit the delta region of +the great rivers and the southern shore of Suisun Bay, we arrive at a +total population of 9,350. + + Delta area ... 9,350 + ____________________ + +It is now preferable to depart from a strictly tribal sequence and +revert once more to a classification based upon river basins. Three +areas of this type are sufficiently clearly marked out; those +corresponding to (1) the Cosumnes River, (2) the Mokelumne River, and +(3) the lower San Joaquin River from just below the Merced to the head +of tide water near Manteca. The inhabitants may be designated village +or tribal groups in accordance with the river system where they were +located. + +_The Cosumnes group._--On the river of this name lived the large and +important aggregate of peoples known popularly as the Cosumnes, which +included a restricted tribelet or subgroup also called Cosumnes. +Ethnically a portion of the Plains Miwok, they extended from +Sloughhouse close to the foothills, along the lower course of the +Cosumnes River to its confluence with the Mokelumne near Thornton, and +from that point northwestward to the Sacramento. The tribe as a whole +was divided into either villages or tribelets, the names of many of +which have come down to us from the Spanish records or have been +ascertained by informants from ethnographers. As might be expected, +there is considerable confusion among the different sets of names. + +The mission documents are replete with village and tribal names but the +number of baptisms was not as large as might be anticipated from what +must have been a very populous aggregate of natives. The reason +probably lies in the fact that missionizing expeditions to the Cosumnes +were preceded by exploratory and punitive expeditions which, to be +sure, brought home a few converts but which were chiefly preoccupied +with military objectives. The Cosumnes, together with the Mokelumnes +and other peoples of the lower San Joaquin Valley, had the time and the +opportunity to develop great facility in the raiding and stealing of +livestock and consequently for many years were in a state of +uninterrupted war with the coastal settlers. The bitter hostility thus +generated, together with the aggressive psychology which accompanied +successful physical opposition to the Spaniards, made extensive +conversion to Christianity very difficult. As a result the relative +proportion of the natives baptized was unquestionably much lower than +among the bay and delta tribes previously considered. The baptisms +which appear in the mission records follow. + + Tribe or Group Date of Conversion Baptisms + ______________ __________________ ________ + + Cosumnes + (Tribelet) 1826-1836 84 + Junisumne + (Anizumne, + Unsumne) 1813-1834 363 + Lelamne + (Llamne) 1813-1836 128 + Gualacomne 1825-1836 158 + Amuchamne + (Mackemne) 1834-1835 13 + Sololumne 1828-1834 6 + Locolumne 1826-1834 52 + _____ + + Total 804 + +If we apply the general principle used with the delta groups and double +the baptism number, the population becomes 1,608, a figure which is +much too low. The Lelamne, with 128 baptisms, comprises the group +attacked by Soto in 1813, at which time we have estimated that there +were four villages of 475 persons each involved in the battle. This +calculation implies a total of 1,900 for the Lelamne alone. On the +other hand, the account is not entirely clear as to whether or not +there were members of the Cosumnes tribelet concerned. If so, we may be +dealing with both the Lelamne and adjacent neighbors who were +designated locally Cosumnes. If we include the baptisms of all those +under both names, we have 212. Furthermore, the Junisumne (or Unsumne +or Anizumne) were often confused with the Cosumnes. If the 363 baptisms +listed under the Junisumne are added we get 575 and, multiplying by 2, +the population of the three divisions collectively would have been +1,150. This estimate also appears too small and leads to the conclusion +suggested above on historical grounds that a baptism factor valid for +the delta would not be applicable to the Cosumnes group as a whole. + +Another documentary source is of interest in this connection. This is +the account by Jose Berreyesa in 1830 (MS) of an affray along the lower +Sacramento River in which Americans participated under Ewing Young. +Christian fugitives from the missions had been protected by the +Yunisumenes (Junisumne), who had joined with the Ochejamnes. They were +opposed by the Mexicans and their allies, the Sigousamenes (Siakumne), +the Cosomes, and the Ilamenes. These last tribes had gathered an army +of 450 "Gentiles auciliares." The Yunisumenes, Cosomes, and Ilamenes +are, of course, precisely the three subtribes discussed in the +preceding paragraph. Now if the Sigousamenes, Cosomes, and Ilamenes +contributed 450 men collectively, they each may be considered to have +furnished 150 men. Since the opponents were fairly well matched, it is +likely that the Yunisumenes supplied a similar number. We can assume +that for routine fighting of this sort, particularly where two of the +tribelets were ranged with the Mexicans instead of against them, the +armies included no more than the strictly military population, or not +in excess of half the males over the age of ten years. Hence, if the +sex ratio was unity and the young children constituted approximately 15 +per cent of the population, the aggregate number of the three subtribes +would have amounted to 1,920, or almost the same as was estimated from +the Soto report in 1813 for the Lelamne (Ilamenes) above, or perhaps +the Lelamne augmented by some of the Cosumnes tribelets or subtribes. +The Berreyesa episode occurred in 1830, after all these groups had +suffered twenty years of attrition owing to perpetual minor warfare, +disease, and starvation. Hence the population of the three tribelets +jointly, Junisumne, Cosumnes, and Lelamne, must have reached fully +3,000 in 1813. The baptism factor, consequently, would not have been 50 +per cent, but 575 divided by 3,000, or 19.2 per cent. + +Three other villages or tribelets which can be identified in the +mission records as being closely associated with the Cosumnes are the +Amuchamne, Sololumne, and Locolumne. The first two probably correspond +to Merriam's Oo-moo-chah and So-lo-lo, which in later times at least +were rancherias. Assuming all three to have been villages, we may +consider that each contained an average number of 300 inhabitants. The +respective baptism numbers were 13.6, and 52. In relative terms the +baptisms amounted to 4.3, 2.0, and 17.3 per cent. + +The last division listed above is the Gualacomne, synonymous with +Merriam's Wah-lah-kum-ne. Merriam (Mewko List, MS) places them between +the lower Stanislaus and the Tuolumne rivers, but quotes Hale, who saw +them in the 1840's, as saying that they lived on the lower east side of +the Sacramento River. Hale's statement is strongly supported by the +fact that they appear in J. A. Gatten's census of 1846 (MS, 1872). +Gatten ennumerated only the tribes along the lower Sacramento. Whether +the Gualacomne can be affiliated with the Cosumnes ethnically is +doubtful but it is reasonable to include them with this group +demographically. + +Of the Gualacomne 158 were baptized in the missions. That the group was +fairly large is attested by the fact that Gatten reported, under the +name Yalesumne, that 485 were alive in 1846, Since no open valley group +could possibly have retained more than one-third of its former members +in 1846, it does not seem excessive to ascribe 1,455 persons to the +tribelet. The baptism factor is 10.8 per cent, and the average of the +five values secured with the Cosumnes group is 10.7, or, let us say +10.0 per cent. The total population on the lower Cosumnes and adjacent +Sacramento rivers, according to the discussion above would be 5,355 +souls. + +We may approach the problem from a different direction if we start with +the villages compiled by Merriam (1907, p. 349). He mentions sixteen +villages on the Cosumnes River system from Sloughhouse nearly but not +quite to the Sacramento. It is extremely probable that there were other +villages on the Sacramento River itself. Nevertheless, let us take +Merriam's list as it stands. The upper seven villages lie between +Sloughhouse and the junction of the Cosumnes River with Deer Creek, the +remainder below that point. Of the lower nine we may consider that four +correspond to those seen by Soto, which were quite large. It was +estimated that they contained 475 persons apiece. The other five lower +villages, although perhaps not so populous, must have held fully 300 +inhabitants each. The upper seven were no doubt smaller but still +should have reached the values given by Moraga for similar stretches of +the Tuolumne and Merced, i.e., approximately 250 persons. The total +would then come to 5,150, very close to the previous estimate. It will +be both adequate and conservative to establish the population at 5,200. + + Cosumnes group ... 5,200 + ________________________ + +_The Moquelumne group._--Here are included the Indians living on the +lower course of the Mokelumne River, the Calaveras River, and the plain +between the two. Five tribes mentioned by the Spanish writers fall +within this category: the Moquelumnes, the Siakumne, the Passasimas, +the Yatchikumne and the Seguamne. The exact territorial status of these +tribes has been a subject of considerable disagreement among +ethnographers. + +The original Moquelumnes of the Spaniards were undoubtedly located on +the Mokelumne River itself from Campo Seco nearly to the junction with +the Cosumnes at which point they adjoined the Cosumnes tribe. According +to George H. Tinkham, in his History of San Joaquin County (1923), they +extended in a north-south direction all the way from Dry Creek to the +Calaveras River, but by the middle of the nineteenth century they may +have spread out from their original habitat. The Yatchikumne are shown +by Schenck as filling the space between the lower Mokelumne and the +lower Calaveras and extending westward to the San Joaquin River. +Merriam (Mewko List, MS) quotes F. T. Gilbert to the effect that they +occupied the Mokelumne River basin, but if they did so, it was because +of the displacements during the mining era. The Passasimas are placed +by Schenck on the left bank of the Calaveras River at, and for several +miles upstream from, its junction with the San Joaquin River. + +The Siakumne and the Seguamne are subject to some confusion. This +difficulty arises partially from the similarity in name. The Siakumne +are called Si-a-kum-ne by Merriam and Sakayakumne by Kroeber. In +Gatten's census of 1846 they appear as Sagayakumne. In the San Jose +baptism book we find Ssicomne, Zicomne, Siusumne, and Sigisumne. The +Seguamne, on the other hand are designated Seguamnes and Saywamines by +Merriam and Sywameney or Seywameney by Sutter in his New Helvetia Diary +(1939). Gatten calls them Sywamney. They appear in the San Jose record +as Secuamne, Seguamne, Seyuame, and other variants. + +The Siakumne lived somewhere between the Calaveras and Stanislaus +rivers according to Merriam, who places one of their villages at +Knights Ferry on the Stanislaus. Schenck doubts Merriam's location and +Kroeber puts the rancheria Sakayakumne as far north as the Mokelumne. +Sutter (1939, p. 88) says that some of these people came to work for +him, an unlikely event if they had been living as far away as the +Stanislaus. It is probable that the lower Calaveras River is as close +as we can place them. The Seguamne are not mentioned at all by Schenck. +Merriam (Mewko List, MS) says they were a "tribe or subtribe on E. side +lower Sacramento River" and may have been a subtribe of the Bolbones. +Sutter and Gatten both refer to the tribe, and the sphere of activity +of these men did not extend much below the Sacramento River itself. +Hence, although there are grounds for including the Seguamne with the +Bolbones or the Cosumnes, no serious error will be committed by placing +them in the Mokelumne group. + +The Moquelumnes were unquestionably quite numerous. In Spanish and +Mexican times they were the most aggressive and belligerent of all the +valley tribes and gave the coastal settlers a very rough struggle. +Nevertheless, in spite of their detestation of the missionaries they +furnished 143 converts between 1817 and 1835. At a ratio of 10 per cent +this would mean a population, prior to the mission period, of about +1,400 souls. J. M. Amador (MS, 1877, p. 43) says that once, during the +later colonial period, they furnished 200 auxiliaries, a fact which +would argue fully 1,000 people at the time. Gatten in his census of +1846 gives them a total of 81 persons but G. H. Tinkham says that in +1850 or thereabouts they possessed four sizable villages with four +chieftains. This may have meant between 200 and 400 persons, a really +considerable number of survivors for a tribe which had suffered so +extensively in the preceding three decades. These indications, and it +must be admitted that they are only indications, would lead one to +infer that the aboriginal population reached at least 1,500. + +Precisely because the Moquelumnes were so brutally handled in the +colonial era the modern ethnographic accounts of villages are very +incomplete. Neither Merriam nor Schenck gives us any list. Kroeber puts +three on his map (1925, opp. p. 446): Mokel (-umni), Lelamni, and +Sakayak-umni. I think we are now in a position to state that these +names represent former tribes and if they were applied to villages by +informants, it is because the component units had shrunk to very small +size. + +Stream density comparisons are of value for the Mokelumne group. On the +Cosumnes River, from Sloughhouse to Thornton, Merriam shows thirteen +rancherias (omitting those close to the Sacramento River). As was +proposed above we may ascribe from 200 to 400 inhabitants to each of +these, say on the average 300. Now there is no reason to suppose that +the Mokelumne River from the San Joaquin-Calaveras county line to just +west of Lodi was less heavily populated than the Cosumnes. If so, the +number of villages per linear river mile must have been very nearly the +same. For the stretches under consideration there were 24 miles on the +Cosumnes and 22 on the Mokelumne. Thus we would get 12 villages and +3,600 persons living on the Mokelumne River. + +The Yatchikumne and, if we are to credit Schenck, the Passasimas +occupied a position on the Calaveras River comparable to that occupied +by the Moquelumnes on the Mokelumne. Schenck regards the Yatchikumne +as a tribe equal in importance to the Moquelumnes, and the county +historians speak of them as a large group. Their river frontage is +equivalent to that of the Moquelumnes. For these reasons we would be +justified in ascribing to the Yatchikumne and Passasimas the same +population as the Moquelumnes, i.e., 3,600. The evaluation of the other +two groups from the geographical standpoint is difficult, owing to the +uncertainty of their location. The Siakumne may be regarded as living +somewhere on the lower Calaveras and, if so, must be included with the +Yatchikumne and Passasimas in the estimate for the Calaveras. The +Seguamne may or may not have inhabited the banks of the Mokelumne and +Calaveras rivers. In view of our ignorance on this point it may be well +to omit them from consideration in this connection and leave the +estimate with the existing total of 7,200. + +We may attempt some direct tribal comparisons. In considering the +northern San Joaquin Valley and delta 21 tribes and tribelets have been +examined, namely: Aguastos, Bolbones (4 tribes), Leuchas, Ochejamnes, +Guaypen, Quenemsias, Chuppumne, Chupunes, Tarquines, Julpunes, Ompines, +and the Cosumnes group (7 tribes). For all these the average population +calculated has been very close to 700. If this figure is applied +directly to the Moquelumne group, its population becomes 3,500. +However, some adjustment is necessary. The Moquelumnes by all accounts, +Spanish and American, were an unusually large tribe, probably reaching +at least 1,500. The Yatchikumne may not have been as numerous but were +apparently above the average size, let us say 1,200. The Passasimas, +despite the fact that Schenck thinks they were a "group plus" may be +regarded as smaller, perhaps no more than average. For the Siakumne and +Seguamne we must also assume the average figure, 700. With these +adjustments the total reaches 4,800. + +The baptism books give us a record of the following conversions. + + Tribe San Jose Santa Clara + _____ ________ ___________ + + Moquelumnes 143 ... + Yatchikumnes 118 ... + Passasimas 145 ... + Siakumne 22 ... + Seguamne 47 116 + +The Passasimas, Siakumne, and Seguamne were situated in the vicinity of +the San Joaquin River and hence were more exposed to the Spanish +expeditions than the tribes along the lateral streams. Hence the +proportion of those taken for conversion may have been higher than the +10 per cent of the aboriginal population found for the Cosumnes, +although it would not have attained the value of 50 per cent +characteristic of the more westerly delta tribes. We may take an +intermediate figure, 20 per cent. This would give the Passasimas a +population of 725, the Siakumne 110, and the Seguamne 815. The great +disparity between the figures for the last two tribes may well be due +to confusion of names in the mission records. The total for the three +is 1,650. For the Yatchikumne on the Calaveras River no more than 10 +per cent baptisms can be assumed, yielding a population figure of +1,180. If only geographical location were considered, the same factor +could be used for the Moquelumnes but this tribe resisted +missionization with extraordinary tenacity. Hence we are not justified +in using a factor of more than 7 per cent, from which we may infer that +the population was 2,040. The baptism data would then give us a total +for the group of 4,870. + +According to the estimates furnished by pioneers and government +officials for the period just preceding the Gold Rush the population +ran into the thousands. The census by Savage (Dixon, MS, 1875) puts +4,000 on the Cosumnes, Mokelumne, and Calaveras and 2,500 on the +Stanislaus, F. T. Gilbert (1879, p. 13) says that "before the advent of +Sutter" there were 2,000 on the Mokelumne and, as far as I can +ascertain, he implies that on the Cosumnes and Mokelumne together there +were fully 5,000. These figures were undoubtedly greatly exaggerated +but nevertheless indicate a very large population in the area just +before the discovery of gold and subsequent to the destructive +epidemics of 1833-1835. Even if we cut these estimates in half, there +would remain in midcentury approximately 2,000 persons in the basins of +the Moquelumne, Calaveras, and adjacent San Joaquin rivers. A residue +of 2,000 in 1850 means certainly an original population of three times +as much, i.e., 6,000. + +To recapitulate the estimates for the Moquelumne group, we find: + + By stream densities 7,200 + By adjusted tribal averages 4,800 + By baptism data 4,870 + By extrapolation from American estimates 6,000 + _______ + + Mean 5,720 + +The mean, 5,720, appears entirely reasonable for the aboriginal +population of such a vigorous and important group. + + Moquelumne group ... 5,720 + __________________________ + +_The lower San Joaquin River group._--Here are included for convenience +the tribes and fragments of tribes inhabiting the banks of the San +Joaquin River from the habitat of the Leuchas, in the vicinity of +Manteca, to just below the mouth of the Merced, together with those +living along the lower courses of the Stanislaus and Tuolumne rivers +(see maps 1, 5, and 6, area 8). The San Joaquin villages or tribes +appear to have been Cuyens, Mayemes, Tationes, and Apaglamnes. The +first two are regarded by Schenck as villages only and the latter two +as "villages plus." The only Spaniard who described the area was +Viader, in the accounts of his two expeditions of 1810. + +On his first expedition, having left the village of Tomchom, he went +south-southeast up the river for 2-1/2 leagues to another village "... +cuya capitan se llama Cuyens." This was very close to section 10, in +T3S, R6E. After a journey of another 2-1/2 to 3 leagues he found +another village, whose captain was Maijem (sec. 8, in T4S, R7E). Then, +after 2 leagues, still another village, whose captain was Bozenats (in +sec. 34, in T4S, R7E), was seen. Three leagues farther in the same +direction brought him to the rancheria "... cuyo appelido es Tationes." +In the meantime he had seen 30 gentiles from the Apaglamnes. The +Tationes were located close to section 27, in T5S, R8E. + +During his second expedition, on October 22, Viader went from Pescadero +southeast up the river for 5 leagues to "los indios Tugites." Three +leagues farther on he was met by Indians from Cuyens, who went with him +to the "Rancheria de Mayem," another 4-1/2 leagues farther on. Then, +having forded the river to the east shore, they went still another 2 +leagues to a rancheria "que se llama ... Taualames." The Rio Dolores +(Tuolumne) was supposed to be 2 to 3 leagues north. However, Viader +went upstream on the east bank 6 leagues to the Rio Merced, having in +the meantime passed "en frente de ... los indios Apelamenes y +Tatives." + +The distances on both trips are very consistent and the village +locations check closely with those shown on Schenck's map, except that +only the Taualames should be placed on the east bank of the river. +Viader is very explicit in saying that all the others were on the west +bank. + +Cuyens, Mayem, and Bozenats are beyond doubt villages, since each was +named after its chief, or captain. The Tationes and Apaglamnes are +given in the plural: "los indios Apelamenes y Tatives." They may well +have possessed more than one rancheria each, as is supposed by Schenck. +Schenck thinks that Cuyens and Mayem were transient parties from +Kroeber's Miwok villages, Chuyumkatat and Mayemam, which were on the +Cosumnes. Aside from the possible similarity in names there is not the +slightest evidence in Viader's diaries to support such a theory. Viader +definitely specifies rancherias, and the missionaries of that period +were able to distinguish rancherias from fishing parties. + +From the record we have in this area five villages certain and at least +one other probable. For six villages of average size (there is no +indication that they were smaller) the population would be assumed as +300 persons each, or 1,800 in all. + +The mission records show for baptisms: + + Tribe or Dates of Number of + Village Conversion Baptisms + ________ __________ _________ + + Cuyens 1811-1813 88 + Mayemes 1813-1823 91 + Apaglamnes 1818-1824 48 + Tationes 1805-1811 243 + +The total is 470. These were San Joaquin River natives, not from the +delta and marsh region. On the other hand they were less remote from +Spanish influence and attack than the tribes which extended up the +lateral streams. Hence the proportion of baptisms was probably +intermediate between the value of 50 per cent assumed for the very +exposed bay and delta people and that of 10 per cent ascribed to the +Cosumnes. An estimate of 25 per cent would be reasonable, yielding a +population value of 1,800. The two methods of calculation coincide, and +the result, 1,800 inhabitants, may be allowed for the area. + +For the lower Stanislaus and Tuolumne rivers the only tribes mentioned +in the Spanish documents are the Tauhalames (or Taulamnes) on the +Tuolumne and the Lakisamne (or Lakisumne or Laquisemne) on the +Stanislaus. Kroeber (1925, p. 485) writes: "the Tawalimni, presumably +on Tuolumne River ... the Lakisamni ... on the Stanislaus ..." Schenck +says (p. 141): + + The villages of Taulamne and Taualames are both definitely + placed, the former on an inaccessible rock on the Stanislaus + river in the foothills, the latter at the ford of the San + Joaquin just below the mouth of the Tuolumne river.... This + seems to establish the region between the lower Tuolumne and + Stanislaus rivers as Taulamne territory. Merriam agrees in + assigning the same region to the Tuolumne. + +Schenck's only reference to the Lakisamne is on the same page: "The +Leuchas might possibly be identified with Kroeber's Lakisamni (Yokuts) +on the Stanislaus river." But the mission records and all other +documents clearly distinguish between the two groups, rendering +Schenck's hypothesis entirely untenable. + +Some of the confusion may derive from the account of Munoz. In his +diary of the Moraga expedition he tells how, on October 1, 1806, the +party left the Merced River and proceded northwest for 7 to 8 leagues, +reaching finally a river which they called the Dolores (i.e., the +Tuolumne, probably near Modesto). There were no Indians, but signs of +"varias rancherias," the inhabitants having all absconded. On October 2 +they went northwest again and at 4 leagues, in the middle of a very +large oak park, they came upon another river, which they called the +Guadelupe. This could only have been the Stanislaus, probably somewhere +east of Ripon. On the next day, October 3, they went up this river, and +at the end of 6 leagues reached a rancheria called Taulamne. It was +situated in "unos empinados voladeros e inacesibles por unas +encrespadas rocas." They could not get at the Indians but estimated the +population as 200, on the basis of the people they could discern. This +village, be it noted, was situated among "steep cliffs, inaccessible +because of certain rough rocks"--not on an inaccessible rock in the +river. This spot, judging by both the distances and the description, +was along the limestone bluffs which steeply border the south bank of +the Stanislaus for several miles opposite Knights Ferry. The Indians +said that there were six other rancherias upstream. From this point the +expedition moved the next day again northwest toward the Calaveras +River. We gather little concerning tribal names from Moraga's account +but we learn that there was a considerable population along the +Stanislaus which demonstrated sharp defiance to the Spanish invaders. + +In the later documents there is little if any reference to the +Taulamnes but much discussion of the Lakisamni. There are repeated +allusions to this group as being very hostile, bad raiders, and the +object of several military campaigns, particularly those against the +great Indian rebel chief, Estanislao. The fighting was undoubtedly on +the Stanislaus River and the Indian protagonists were frequently allied +with the Cosumnes and Mokelumnes. From the context of the documents +they would seem to have been as numerous, or at least as bellicose, as +either of these two tribes. + +Jose Sanchez in 1826 refers to his bitter battle with Estanislao, which +took place on the "rio de los Laquisimes" (MS, 1826). Joaquin Pina +describes a military expedition under Guadelupe Vallejo in 1829 (MS, +1829). The objective was two "rancherias," one of the Laquisimes and +the other of the Tagualames, on the "Rio de los Laquisimes," or the +"Rio Pescadero." The campaign was inconclusive since nearly all of the +Indians escaped. + +From the citations above it appears probable that the Taulamnes and the +Lakisamne were two distinct tribal groups and that their home was on +both the Tuolumne and Stanislaus rivers. It is also likely that in the +turmoil and confusion of the period between 1800 and 1830 the original +spacing and distribution of the tribes became irreparably lost and that +the surviving fragments of both amalgamated and reconstituted +themselves with reference to their Spanish enemies rather than with +reference to their aboriginal social organization. Hence they may have +come to be concentrated more on the Stanislaus than on the Tuolumne. + +The only direct population estimate we have for them is that of Munoz, +who claimed 200 persons for the village of Taulamne, among the cliffs. +Assuming that 50 persons were not seen, the village would have had 250 +inhabitants, which is more or less standard for the general area, +according to Moraga's account. If the other six villages had an equal +population, the total would have been 1,500. But this estimate does not +include the portion of the Stanislaus below Taulamne which was covered +by Moraga in his march of 6 leagues upstream. No villages are mentioned +in connection with this march but they could scarcely have failed to +exist. Hence we may add another 500 without much fear of exaggeration, +making a total of 2,000 for the course of the river from the San +Joaquin to several miles above Knights Ferry. On the Tuolumne "varias +rancherias" were seen, all deserted by their occupants. However, Moraga +also remarked that the lower Tuolumne resembled the lower Merced. On +the latter were 8 rancherias, hence there may have been an equal number +on the Tuolumne. At a conservative 225 persons in each, the aggregate +would have been 1,800. The sum for the two rivers would be 3,800. + +The baptism lists show 151 conversions for the Lakisamne and 263 for +the Taulamnes, or 414 in all. In view of the notorious hostility and +the successful resistance these groups opposed to the white men, +evident even in Moraga's day, we are justified in setting the baptism +factor as low as for the Mokelumnes, or 7 per cent. This gives a +potential aboriginal population of 5,920. + +The midcentury American estimates would indicate more than this number. +H. W. Wessells (1859) claims 500 to 700 on the Stanislaus and Tuolumne +in 1853. Adam Johnston (1853) put 1,350 on his map of the same area in +1852. W. M. Ryer vaccinated 1,010 on the two rivers in 1851. The Daily +Alta California for May 31, 1851, said that the Indians were 1,000 +strong between the Stanislaus and the Tuolumne, and Savage, for an +earlier period, put them at 4,600 (Dixon, MS, 1875). On the other hand, +it must be remembered that as a result of Spanish and Mexican, not to +mention American, aggression most of the strictly San Joaquin River +people had long since retreated up the lateral streams. Hence the +natives seen by the commissioners between 1850 and 1853 included the +residues of all the river tribes from Manteca to Merced. For the +southern part of the San Joaquin Valley it was determined, in a +previous discussion, that the population remainder in 1850 represented +approximately one-third of the aboriginal population. Of the estimates +just cited the most reliable is that of Ryer. Following the suggestions +presented in the consideration of his activities, we must make a +correction to account for persons who missed vaccination. Such a +correction would bring the number to 1,420. Then application of the +factor one-third gives an aboriginal value of 4,730. + +The three modes of estimate yield respectively a population of 3,800, +5,920, and 4,730, with an average of 4,817. We may use a slightly +greater value and call the population 5,000. To this must be added the +1,800 persons estimated to have lived along the San Joaquin River +itself. The lower San Joaquin River group as a whole, therefore, may be +assigned a population of 6,800. + + Lower San Joaquin River Group ... 6,800 + _______________________________________ + + NORTHERN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY ... 27,070 + ______________________________________ + + +THE MIWOK FOOTHILL AREA + +Above the central valley itself and occupying the foothills from the +Cosumnes to the Tuolumne lived the northern and central Miwok. This +region was not reached by the Spanish expeditions nor were many, if +any, of the inhabitants incorporated in the missions. It is therefore +necessary to rely exclusively upon the reports of the ethnographers. +In a preceding discussion of the central Miwok, who lived on the upper +Stanislaus and Tuolumne, there were cited the data secured by Gifford, +Kroeber, and Merriam for 70 villages. This area in 1850 was estimated +to contain a population of 1,470. There are no data comparable to +Gifford's for the rivers farther north, largely because the natives on +the upper Cosumnes, Mokelumne, and Calaveras were thoroughly dispersed +during the Gold Rush and village names and locations have become lost +to the memory of Indian and white man alike. It is possible, however, +to get a reasonable estimate of the population indirectly. + +The territory of the northern Miwok, from the ecological standpoint +resembles closely that of the central Miwok. Hence stream mileage and +area comparisons are justified. If we use the boundaries of the two +groups substantially as given by Kroeber in the Handbook (map, opp. p. +446) and plot rivers and areas on a large-scale map, the equivalent +aboriginal population for the northern Miwok by stream mileage and area +is 2,480 and 1,535, respectively. The discrepancy in the two estimates +is due to the greater frequency of streams and creeks in the northern +area. The average of the population calculated by the two methods is +2,008, very close to that found for the central Miwok. The total for +the foothill strip is then 4,138 or in round numbers 4,150. + + MIWOK FOOTHILL AREA ... 4,150 + _____________________________ + + +FOOTNOTES: + +[Footnote 5: There are numerous other letters pertaining to this matter +in the same volume of the Provincial State Papers.] + + + + +SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS + + +From the data presented in detail in the last section we may now derive +the aboriginal population of the San Joaquin Valley as a whole. + + Region Population + ______ __________ + + Tulare Lake Basin 6,500 + Kaweah River 7,600 + Merced River 3,500 + Kings River 9,100 + Mariposa, Fresno, + Chowchilla, upper + San Joaquin 19,000 + Southern San Joaquin Valley 6,900 + Northern San Joaquin Valley + Delta area 9,350 + Lower Cosumnes 5,200 + Lower Mokelumne 5,720 + Lower San Joaquin, + Calaveras, + Tuolumne, + and Stanislaus 6,800 27,070 + _______ + Foothill strip (central + and northern Miwok) 4,150 + _______ + + Total 83,820 + +The total, 83,820, is more than four times as large as the population +estimated to be surviving in 1850 (19,000) and much exceeds any +previous estimate advanced by modern students of the California +Indians. + +Dr. C. Hart Merriam in 1905 computed the population of the entire state +of California as 260,000, of whom perhaps one-fifth may have occupied +the San Joaquin Valley, although Merriam does not attempt to assess the +population of this area as such. Kroeber discusses the matter at length +in the Handbook (pp. 488-491, 880-891) and concludes that the +population of the whole state was 133,000. Of these the Yokuts had +18,000, the Miwok (Plains and Sierra) 9,000, the Western Mono about +1,000, and the peripheral tribes in the south perhaps 2,000, a total of +30,000. Schenck is more liberal, since for the delta region he allows +for a spread of between 3,000 and 15,000 persons. The present estimate +for the same area, as closely as it can be determined, is in the +vicinity of 13,000, or within Schenck's limits although toward his +upper extreme. + +Since the data and reasoning upon which the present figure of 83,820 is +based are set forth in detail in the preceding pages there is little +value in repeating them, nor will anything be gained by attempting a +rebuttal to the arguments presented by Kroeber. At the same time the +author may be permitted to recapitulate three points wherein he thinks +many modern scholars have been misled. + + 1. All available information from the Spanish and Mexican + sources must be consulted. To confine an argument or an + estimate to a single account, such as that by Moraga, may + lead to a false impression. Kroeber seems to have been thus + deceived in his discussion of the population of the Yokuts. + + 2. It must be remembered that in the central valley, as + contrasted perhaps with an area like the Klamath River, no + informants speaking since 1900, and particularly since 1920, + can possibly have furnished a true picture of conditions + prior to the Spanish invasion in the decade following 1800. + + 3. The depletion of population in the San Joaquin Valley + between 1800 and 1850 was far greater than has been + appreciated, although the basic facts have always been + recognized. Warfare, massacre, forced conversion, starvation, + and exposure all took a tremendous toll of life but the + sweeping epidemics of the 1830's were even more devastating. + Together these forces destroyed in the aggregate fully 75 per + cent of the aboriginal population. + + + + +APPENDIX + + +After this manuscript was completed, the writer had an opportunity to +examine those documentary files of the Office of Indian Affairs and of +the War Department which are at present in the National Archives at +Washington. Several letters in the files containing information on the +native population of the San Joaquin Valley have never, so far as could +be determined, been published. Since the data thus procured are +fragmentary and since they do not apparently invalidate the conclusions +set forth in previous pages, they have not been incorporated in the +body of this paper. These items, however, have some intrinsic interest +and therefore merit specific mention. They are briefly abstracted as +follows. + + +_War Department_ + +_Record Group 98._ 10th Military Dept. Letters received + Calif., Document no. _K 21_. E. D. Keyes, Camp Magruder, + June 17, 1851. + + The 8 tribes on the Kaweah, with whom a treaty was concluded + on May 30 contain 1,240 individuals. + + The 4 tribes on Paint Creek with whom a treaty was concluded + on June 3 contain 1,660 persons. + +_Record Group 98._ Letters received Calif., 1854. Enclosure + to document no. _W 2_. John Nugent, Camp Wessells, Dec. 31, + 1853. + + The Four Creeks region (Kaweah) from the Sierra Nevada to + Tulare Lake will not contain more than 1,000, all told. + +_Record Group 98._ Letters received Calif., 1854. Enclosure + to document no. _W 12_. H. W. Wessells, Fort Miller, March + 7, 1854. + + The Indians under control of Fort Miller include those on + the Fresno, San Joaquin, Kings, and Kaweah Rivers. They are + much reduced in numbers, owing to the recent sickness. + + Fresno River: 400 persons, including 100 able men. + + San Joaquin River: 350, including 80-90 able men. + + Kings River: 1,100, including 250 able men. + + Kaweah River: 800, including 200 able men. + + +_Office of Indian Affairs_ + +_Record Group 75._ Letters received Calif., 1854. Enclosure + to document no. _H 758_. D. A. Enyart, Fresno Reservation, + Nov. 3, 1854. + + The Indians on the Fresno Farm include: 30 Chowchilla, 220 + Choot-chances, 90 Pohonicha, and 100 Potohanchi. + + The Indians in Mariposa, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne counties + do not exceed a total of 2,000. + + By river system he breaks them down thus: 300 on the Merced, + 350 on the Tuolumne, 250 at Plant's Ferry on the Stanislaus, + 100 elsewhere on the Stanislaus, and 100 scattering through + the country. + +_Record Group 75._ Letters received Calif., 1855. Enclosure + to document no. _H 1050_. Report of D. A. Enyart, Fresno + Reservation, Aug. 22, 1855. + + "I find that there are at least about 1,000 to 1,500 Indians + on the River (i.e., San Joaquin).... This does not include + the 'Mono' tribe which is the most numerous of any tribe...." + +_Record Group 75._ Letters received Calif., 1859. Enclosure + to document no. _M 66_. M. B. Lewis, Fresno Agency, Aug. 30, + 1859. + + A report on the 22 tribes which recognize the Fresno Agency + as their headquarters. Abstracted as follows: + + _Wel-leelch-um-nies_: + the most northerly tribe; is "temporarily" + on the Tuolumne River because of displacement + by the whites. 85 + + _Poto-en-cies_: + have abandoned their native land, the Merced + Valley and are now on the Chowchilla. 110 + + _Noot-choos_: + "a union of the remnant of other tribes," + including some Yosemites. Now on the north + fork of the Chowchilla. 85 + + _Po-ho-nee-chees_: + on the headwaters of the Fresno. 105 + + _Chow-chillas_: + have moved from the Chowchilla to the Fresno River. 85 + + _Cooc-chances_: + the largest "unbroken" tribe in the agency, + originally on Coarse Gold Creek; some still + there, some at agency. 240 + + _How-ches_: + once large; always have been on the Fresno. 18 + + _Pit-cat-ches_ and _Tal-linches_: + (two distinct tribes); native habitat was the + San Joaquin River; still near Fort Miller. 150 + + _Coss-waz_: + "to some extent identified with the Pit-cat-ches"; + native land is Deer Creek. 88 + + _Monos_: + on Fine Gold Creek and the upper San Joaquin River. 535 + + _War-to-kes_, _Itee-ches_, and _Cho-pes_: + all on Kings River; "constitute one nation" but + have separate heads (on Wartoke Creek). 290 + + _Wat-ches_: + since 1854 have been on Kings River Farm. 75 + + _No-to-no-tos_ and _We-melches_. 190 + + _Tat-ches_ and _Wo-wells_: + these four tribes are native to the lower Kings + River and Tulare Lake. They were recently driven + to their homes on the Fresno Farm. 165 + + _Cow-willas_: + their home is the mouth of the Kaweah at the + foothills. 110 + + _Tel-em-nies_: + on the Kaweah, near Visalia. 105 + _____ + + Total 2,436 + + + + +BIBLIOGRAPHY + + +PUBLISHED WORKS + +Barbour, G. W. + + 1852. 32nd Cong., 1st sess., Sen. Ex. Doc. 1, pt. III. + + 1853. Report to the Indian Commissioner. 33rd Cong., spec. + sess., Sen. Ex. Doc. 4, pp. 249-264 [Ser. no. 688]. + +Barbour, G. W., R. McKee, and O. M. Wozencraft + + 1853. Report to the Indian Commissioner. 33rd Cong., spec. + sess., Sen. Ex. Doc. 4, pp. 56-59. + +Carson, James H. + + 1852. In San Joaquin Republican (Stockton, Feb., 1852), as + quoted by S. P. Elias, Stories of Stanislaus (Modesto, + 1924), p. 196. + +Chapman, Charles E. + + 1911. Expedition on the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers in + 1817, Diary of Fray Narciso Duran. Publ. Acad. Pacific Coast + Hist., Vol. 2, No. 5. + +Cook, S. F. + + 1940. Population Trends among the California Mission + Indians. Univ. Calif. Ibero-Americana 17. Berkeley. + +Coues, Elliott, ed. + + 1900. On the Trail of a Spanish Pioneer. (The diary of + Francisco Garces.) Trans, and ed. by Elliott Coues. New + York. The parts pertaining to the San Joaquin Valley are in + 1:281-300. + +Derby, Lt. George H. + + 1852. A Report of the Tulare Valley. 32nd. Cong., 1st sess., + Sen. Ex. Doc. 110, pp. 4-16. + +Farquhar, Francis P. + + 1932. The Topographical Reports of George H. Derby, + California Hist. Soc. Quarterly, 11:99, 247, 365. + +Gayton, A. H. + + 1948. Yokuts and Western Mono Ethnography. Univ. Calif. + Publ. Anthro. Rec., Vol. 10. Berkeley. + +Gifford, E. W. + + 1932. The Northfork Mono. Univ. Calif. Publ. Am. Arch. and + Ethn., 31:15-65. Berkeley. + +Gifford, E. W., and W. Egbert Schenck + + 1926. Archaeology of the Southern San Joaquin Valley, + California. Univ. Calif. Publ. Am. Arch. and Ethn., + 23:1-122. Berkeley. + +Gilbert, F. T. + + 1879. History of San Joaquin County, California. Oakland, + Calif. + +Henley, T. J. + + 1857. Report to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, + accompanying Ann. Rept. Sec. of the Interior for 1856. No. + 100, pp. 236-246. + +Johnston, Adam + + 1853. Report to the Indian Commissioner. 33rd Cong., spec. + sess., Sen. Ex. Doc. 4, pp. 241-247. + + 1860. In H. R. Schoolcraft, Archives of Aboriginal + Knowledge, 4:406 ff. + +Kroeber, A. L. + + 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bur. Amer. + Ethn. Bull. 78. Washington, D. C. + +Latta, F. F. + + 1949. Handbook of Yokuts Indians. Bakersfield, Calif. + +Mason, J. D. + + 1881. History of Amador County, California. Oakland, Calif. + +Merriam, C. Hart + + 1905. The Indian Population of California, American + Anthropologist, n.s., 7:594-606. + + 1907. Distribution and Classification of the Mewan Stock of + California, American Anthropologist, n.s., 9:338-357. + +Powers, Stephen + + 1877. Tribes of California, Contributions to North American + Ethnology. Washington, D. C. + +Ryer, W. M. + + 1852. Vouchers for vaccination. 32nd Cong., 2nd sess., Sen. + Ex. Doc. 61, pp. 20-23 [Ser. no. 620]. + +Savage, James D. + + 1851. Letter in the True Standard, reprinted in the + Sacramento Union, Apr. 10, 1851. + +Schenck, W. Egbert + + 1926. Historic Aboriginal Groups of the California Delta + Region. Univ. Calif. Publ. Am. Arch. and Ethn., 23:123-146. + Berkeley. + +Sutter, John A. + + 1850. Letter to H. W. Halleck, Dec. 20, 1847. 31st Cong., + 1st sess., H. R. Ex. Doc. 17. + + 1939. New Helvetia Diary; a Record of Events Kept by John A. + Sutter and His Clerks at New Helvetia, California, from + September 9, 1845, to May 25, 1848. San Francisco, Calif. + +Tinkham, George H. + + 1923. History of San Joaquin County, California. Los + Angeles, Calif. + +United States Treaties + + 1905. Message from the President ... communicating Eighteen + Treaties made with Indians in California ... [1851-1852, by + G. W. Barbour, O. M. Wozencraft, and Redick McKee.] 32nd + Cong., 1st sess., Sen. Con. Doc. Reprint of 1905. + Washington, D. C. + +Warner, J. J. + + Description of 1832 Epidemic among the Indians of the San + Joaquin Valley. In An Illustrated History of San Joaquin + County, California ... pp. 28-29. The Lewis Publishing Co. + Chicago. + +Wessels, H. W. + + 1857. Report on the Tribes of the San Joaquin Valley. 34th + Cong., 3rd sess., H. R. Ex. Doc. 76, pp. 31-32. + +Wozencraft, O. M. + + 1851. Letter dated July 12, 1851. 32nd Cong., 1st sess., + Sen. Ex. Doc. 1, pt. III, pp. 488-490 [Ser. no. 906]. + + +MANUSCRIPTS + +All manuscripts are in the Bancroft Library, University of California, +Berkeley, unless otherwise stated. + +Abella, Ramon + + Diario de un registro de los Rios Grandes, Oct. 31, 1811, + San Francisco. Santa Barbara Archive, IV:101-134. Also + original manuscript. + +Altimira, Jose + + Letter to Prefect Jose Senan, July 10, 1823, San Francisco. + Archbishop's Archive, IV (2):21-26. + +Amador, Jose Maria + + Memorias sobre la Historia de California, 1877. Original + manuscript C-D 28. + +Argueello, Jose + + Letter to Governor Arrillaga, May 30, 1805, San Francisco. + Provincial State Papers, XIX:42 ff. + +Argueello, Luis Antonio + + Letter to Governor Arrillaga, Oct. 31, 1813, San Francisco. + Provincial State Papers, XIX:345-349. + + Carta al Gobernador Don Pablo Vicente de Sola ... May 26, + 1817, San Francisco. Original manuscript (no. fm F864A64); + also typed copy. + +Berryesa, Jose + + Dated July 15, 1830, San Jose. Departmental State Papers, + II:135-137. + +Cabot, Juan + + Expedicion al valle de los Tulares, Letter to the Padre + Presidente, Apr. 7, 1815. Santa Barbara Archive, VI:67-72. + + Letter to De La Guerra, May 23, 1818. De La Guerra + Documents, VII:88. + +Dixon, H. + + California Indians. 1875. + +Duran, Narciso + + Diario de la expedicion de reconocimiento hecha en el mes de + Mayo de 1817.... Original manuscript. (See also Charles E. + Chapman, 1911.) + +Estudillo, Jose Maria + + Diario que formo yo el ten^{te} d^{n} Jose Maria Estudillo + en la campana ... emprendo p^{a} el reconocimiento y visita + de las rancherias situadas en los tulares ... Nov. 10, 1819, + Monterey. Original manuscript; also typed copy. + +Garcia, Inocente + + Hechos Historicos de California, 1878. Original manuscript. + CC-D 84. + +Jaime, Antonio + + Letter to Governor Sola, March 30, 1816, Soledad. + Archbishop's Archive, III(1):23-24. + +Marquinez, Marcelino + + Letter to Governor Sola, May 26, 1816. Archbishop's Archive, + III(1):41-42. + +Martin, Juan + + Visita a los Gentiles Tularenos, Apr. 26, 1815, San Miguel. + Santa Barbara Archive, VI:85-89. + +Martinez, Luis Antonio + + Entrada en las Rancherias del Tular, May 29, 1816, San Luis + Obispo. Archbishop's Archive, III(1):42-45. + +McKinstry, George + + Documents for the History of California, 1846-9. Presented + by Dr. George McKinstry of San Diego, 1872. + +Merriam, C. Hart + + Manuscript collection in Department of Anthropology, + University of California, Berkeley. + +Moraga, Gabriel + + Diario de la tercera expedicion echa por el Alferez Don + Gabriel Moraga ... a los rios del norte; verificada en el + mes de septiembre de el ano de 1808. Original manuscript; + also two typed copies. + +Munoz, Pedro + + Diario de la Exp^{n} echa por D. Gabriel Moraga de la + Compania de San Francisco a los nuevos descubrimientos del + tular ... Nov. 2, 1806, San Francisco. Santa Barbara + Archive, IV:1-47. + +Ortega, Juan de + + Diario que forma el Sarg^{to} Dist^{do} D^{n} Juan de Ortega + segun los sitios q^{e} por orn. del Sr. Gov^{or} de su mando + registrar ... Dec. 2, 1815, San Juan Bautista. Original + manuscript; also typed copy. + +Pico, Jose Dolores + + Diario formado p^{r} el Sarg^{to} Jose Dolores Pico de la + expedicion que a echo p^{r} dispocion del ciudadano ... Jose + Estudillo, Jan. 31, 1826. Original manuscript. + +Pina, Joaquin + + Quaderno de las Novedades Hoccuridas diariamente en la + expedicion que marcha a las ordenes del ... Guadelupe + Vallejo, June 13, 1829, Monterey. Original manuscript; also + a copy in the California Manuscript series, no. E-88. + +Rodriguez, Sebastian + + Diario que forma yo el Sarg^{to} Sebastian Rodriguez de la + Campana nombrada el dia 17 de Abril de 1828 [dated May 8, + 1828]. Original manuscript. + + Diario formado p^{r} el Sargento Sebastian Rodriguez desde + el dia 26 de Mayo ... una expedicion al Tular por el rumbo + de S. Miguel, June 22, 1828, Monterey. Manuscript. + +Sal, Hermenegildo + + ... Informe en el cual el teniente Herm^{do} Sal manifesta + lo que ha adquirido de varios sugetos para comunicarlo al + Governador dela Provincia; Jan. 31, 1796. Provincial State + Papers, XIV:14-16. + +Sanchez, Jose + + Letter to Ignacio Martinez, May 10, 1826. State Papers, + Missions and Colonization, II:15-20. + +Savage, James + + In H. Dixon, California Indians. MS 1875. + +Viader, Jose + + Diario, o noticia del viaje que acabo de hacer ... desde el + 15 hasta el 28 de Agosto de 1810, Aug. 28, 1910, San Juan + Bautista. Santa Barbara Archive, IV:73-84. + + Diario del P. Jose desde 19 hasta 27 de Octubre de 1810. + Letter to the Padre Presidente, Oct. 19, 1810, San Jose. + Santa Barbara Archive, IV:85-94. + +Zalvidea, Jose Maria + + Diario de una expedicion tierra adentro, 1806. Santa Barbara + Archive, IV:49-68. + +[Illustration: Map 1. This map covers the entire area under discussion, +extending from the Cosumnes River to the Tehachapi. The smaller +divisions, denoted by numbers and letters, represent the habitat areas +considered in detail in the text. The succeeding maps, drawn to larger +scale, show these same areas with the tribal divisions entered as far +as possible. + +To accompany Cook, "Aboriginal Population of San Joaquin Valley," Univ. +of Calif. Publ., Anthro. Rec. Vol. 16, No. 2.] + +[Illustration: Map 2. Habitat areas 1A-2: the southern Yokuts and +peripheral tribes.] + +[Illustration: Map 3. Habitat areas 3A-4C: the basins of the Kaweah and +Kings rivers, including the Yokuts and part of the Mono.] + +[Illustration: Map 4. Habitat areas 5A-6B: the Yokuts, part of the +Mono, and the Southern Miwok.] + +[Illustration: Map 5. Habitat areas 7A-14: the Northern Yokuts, Central +and Northern Miwok.] + +[Illustration: Map 6. The Lower San Joaquin River and Delta areas +(particularly areas 8 and 13).] + + + * * * * * + + +Transcriber's Notes + + +Retained the spelling and punctuation inconsistencies of the original +book, except for the following changes: + +Page 52: Changed "haorses" to "horses". + Orig.: southeast from Copicha and saw haorses from the rancheria + +Page 67: Changed "slighest" to "slightest". + Orig.: there is not the slightest evidence in Viader's diaries + +Page 73: Changed "manuscipt" to "manuscript". + Orig.: Abella, Ramon ... Also original manuscipt. + +Superscripts are indicated with ^{xx}, + e.g.: Diario formado p^{r} el Sarg^{to} Jose Dolores Pico + + + + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Aboriginal Population of the San +Joaquin Valley, California, by Sherburne F. Cook + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ABORIGINAL POP.--SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY *** + +***** This file should be named 38770.txt or 38770.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + https://www.gutenberg.org/3/8/7/7/38770/ + +Produced by Colin Bell, Joseph Cooper, Diane Monico, and +the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at +https://www.pgdp.net + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +https://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +https://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at https://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit https://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including including checks, online payments and credit card +donations. To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + https://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |