diff options
Diffstat (limited to '38770-h/38770-h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | 38770-h/38770-h.htm | 6708 |
1 files changed, 6708 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/38770-h/38770-h.htm b/38770-h/38770-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..91f6fd7 --- /dev/null +++ b/38770-h/38770-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,6708 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> + <head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" /> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> + <title> + The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Aboriginal Population of the San Joaquin Valley, California, by S. F. Cook. + </title> + <style type="text/css"> + +body { + margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; +} + + h1,h2,h3,h4 { + text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ + clear: both; +} + +p { + margin-top: .75em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .75em; +} + +p.title { text-align: center; text-indent: 0; + font-weight: bold; + line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 3em; } + +.i4 { + display: block; + margin-left: 4em; + padding-left: 3em; + text-indent: -3em; +} + +hr { + width: 33%; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; + clear: both; +} + +hr.tb {width: 45%;} +hr.chap {width: 65%} + +table { + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; +} + +.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ + /* visibility: hidden; */ + position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: smaller; + text-align: right; +} + +.blockquot { + margin-left: 5%; + margin-right: 10%; +} + +.center {text-align: center;} + +.right {text-align: right;} + +.u {text-decoration: underline;} + +.caption {font-weight: bold;} + +.figcenter { + margin: auto; + text-align: center; +} + +.footnotes {border: dashed 1px;} + +.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} + +.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} + +.fnanchor { + vertical-align: super; + font-size: .8em; + text-decoration: + none; +} + +.transnote {background-color: #E6E6FA; + color: black; + font-size:smaller; + padding:0.5em; + margin-bottom:5em; + font-family:sans-serif, serif; } + + </style> + </head> +<body> + + +<pre> + +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: ISO-8859-1 + +*** 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 + + + + + + +</pre> + + + + + + +<h1> +THE ABORIGINAL POPULATION<br /> +OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY,<br /> +CALIFORNIA</h1> + + +<p class="title"><small>BY</small><br /> +S. F. COOK +<br /><br /> + +ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS<br /><br /> + +Vol. 16, No. 2 +</p> +<hr class="chap" /> + + + +<p class="center"> +UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA<br /> +ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS<br /> +<br /> +Editors (Berkeley): R. L. Olson, R. F. Heizer, T. D. McCown, J. H. Rowe<br /> +Volume 16, No. 2, pp. 31-80<br /> +6 maps<br /> +<br /> +Submitted by editors October 8, 1954<br /> +Issued July 11, 1955<br /> +Price, 75 cents<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +University of California Press<br /> +Berkeley and Los Angeles<br /> +California<br /> +<br /> +Cambridge University Press<br /> +London, England<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<small>Manufactured in the United States of America</small><br /> +</p> + + + +<hr class="chap" /><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_iii" id="Page_iii">[Pg iii]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CONTENTS" id="CONTENTS"></a>CONTENTS</h2> + + + + +<div class="center"> +<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="toc"> +<tr><td align="left"> </td><td align="right">Page</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Introduction</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_31">31</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">The population of the San Joaquin Valley in approximately 1850</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_33">33</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"><span style="margin-left: 2em;">Contemporary estimates and counts for the entire region</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_33">33</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"><span style="margin-left: 2em;">Analysis based upon restricted areas</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#ANALYSIS_BASED_UPON_RESTRICTED_AREAS">34</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"><span style="margin-left: 4em;">Stanislaus and Tuolumne rivers</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#STANISLAUS_AND_TUOLUMNE_RIVERS">34</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"><span style="margin-left: 4em;">Merced River, Mariposa Creek, and Chowchilla River</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#MERCED_RIVER_MARIPOSA_CREEK">35</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"><span style="margin-left: 4em;">The Cosumnes, Mokelumne, and Calaveras rivers</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#THE_COSUMNES_MOKELUMNE">36</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"><span style="margin-left: 4em;">The Fresno and the upper San Joaquin rivers</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#THE_FRESNO_AND_THE_UPPER">36</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"><span style="margin-left: 4em;">The Kings and Kaweah rivers</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#THE_KINGS_AND_THE_KAWEAH_RIVERS">38</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"><span style="margin-left: 4em;">The Tulare Lake basin</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#THE_TULARE_LAKE_BASIN">40</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"><span style="margin-left: 4em;">The Tule River, the Kern River, and the Buenavista Basin</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#TULE_RIVER_KERN_RIVER_AND_THE_BUENAVISTA_BASIN">40</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">The aboriginal population</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_42">42</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"><span style="margin-left: 2em;">The Tulare Lake basin</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#TULARE_LAKE_BASIN">42</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"><span style="margin-left: 2em;">The Kaweah River</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#THE_KAWEAH_RIVER">45</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"><span style="margin-left: 2em;">The Merced River</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#THE_MERCED_RIVER">48</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"><span style="margin-left: 2em;">The Kings River</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#THE_KINGS_RIVER">49</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"><span style="margin-left: 2em;">The Upper San Joaquin, Fresno, and Chowchilla rivers and Mariposa Creek</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#UPPER_SAN_JOAQUIN_FRESNO_AND_CHOWCHILLA_RIVERS_AND_MARIPOSA_CREEK">50</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"><span style="margin-left: 2em;">The Southern San Joaquin Valley</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#THE_SOUTHERN_SAN_JOAQUIN_VALLEY">54</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"><span style="margin-left: 2em;">The Northern San Joaquin Valley</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#THE_NORTHERN_SAN_JOAQUIN_VALLEY">56</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"><span style="margin-left: 2em;">The Miwok Foothill Area</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#THE_MIWOK_FOOTHILL_AREA">68</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Summary and conclusions</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_70">70</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Appendix</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_71">71</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Bibliography</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_72">72</a></td></tr> +<tr><th align="center">MAPS</th></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1. The San Joaquin Valley from the Cosumnes River to the Tehachapi</td><td align="right">facing page <a href="#map1">74</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">2. Habitat areas 1A-2: the southern Yokuts and peripheral tribes</td><td align="right"><a href="#map2">75</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">3. Habitat areas 3A-4C: the basins of the Kaweah and Kings rivers</td><td align="right"><a href="#map3">76</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">4. Habitat areas 5A-6B: the Yokuts, a part of the Mono, and the southern Miwok</td><td align="right"><a href="#map4">76</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">5. Habitat areas 7A-14: the northern Yokuts, central and northern Miwok</td><td align="right"><a href="#map5">77</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">6. The Lower San Joaquin River and Delta areas</td><td align="right"><a href="#map6">78</a></td></tr> +</table></div> + + + +<hr class="chap" /><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</a></span></p> +<h2><big>THE ABORIGINAL POPULATION OF THE<br /> +SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA</big></h2> + +<p class="title"><small>BY</small><br /> + +S. F. COOK</p> + + + + +<h2><a name="INTRODUCTION" id="INTRODUCTION"></a>INTRODUCTION</h2> + + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + + +<hr class="chap" /><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="THE_POPULATION_OF_THE_SAN_JOAQUIN_VALLEY_1850" id="THE_POPULATION_OF_THE_SAN_JOAQUIN_VALLEY_1850"></a> +THE POPULATION OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY<br /> +IN APPROXIMATELY 1850</h2> + +<h3>CONTEMPORARY ESTIMATES AND COUNTS FOR THE ENTIRE REGION</h3> + + +<p>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."</p> + +<p>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).</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>A somewhat smaller area was covered by four of the +eighteen treaties concluded by commissioners McKee, +Barbour, and Wozencraft<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> 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.</p> + +<p>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 <span class="u">north</span> 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.</p> + +<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</a></span> +which we are considering. There are left the following +figures, which seem essentially valid.</p> + + +<div class="center"> +<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="valid"> +<tr><td align="left">Ryer and the treaties (1851)</td><td align="right">8,648</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Wessels (1853)</td><td align="right">7,500-8,000</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Barbour (1853)</td><td align="right">7,500-8,000</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Henley (1856)</td><td align="right">5,150</td></tr> +</table></div> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<h3><a name="ANALYSIS_BASED_UPON_RESTRICTED_AREAS" id="ANALYSIS_BASED_UPON_RESTRICTED_AREAS"></a>ANALYSIS BASED UPON RESTRICTED AREAS</h3> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<h4><a name="STANISLAUS_AND_TUOLUMNE_RIVERS" id="STANISLAUS_AND_TUOLUMNE_RIVERS"></a>STANISLAUS AND TUOLUMNE RIVERS</h4> + +<p>We may begin with the watersheds of the Stanislaus +and Tuolumne rivers, since for this area reasonably +complete information is available (see maps <a href="#map1">1</a>, <a href="#map5">5</a>, and +<a href="#map6">6</a>, 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a>, and Gifford,<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> +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.</p><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</a></span></p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>I have tabulated below the number of villages according +to river system and according to occurrence in the +lists mentioned.</p> + + +<div class="center"> +<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="stanislaus"> +<tr><th align="left"> </th><th align="right"> <span class="u">Stanislaus</span></th><th align="right"><span class="u">Tuolumne</span></th></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Kroeber, Merriam, and Gifford</td><td align="center">8</td><td align="center">13</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Kroeber and Merriam</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">3</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Kroeber and Gifford</td><td align="center">6</td><td align="center">5</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Kroeber only</td><td align="center">6</td><td align="center">8</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Gifford only</td><td align="center">5</td><td align="center">12</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Merriam only</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">1</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"> </td><td align="center">——</td><td align="center">——</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"><span style="margin-left: 2em;">Total</span></td><td align="center">28</td><td align="center">42</td></tr> +</table></div> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>To summarize, we have the following estimates for +the Stanislaus-Tuolumne watershed at or about the year +1851:</p> + + +<div class="center"> +<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="estimate"> +<tr><td align="left">Savage (perhaps before 1851)</td><td align="right">4,600</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Chief Kossus</td><td align="right">4,000</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Daily Alta California, 1851</td><td align="right">1,000</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Vaccinations by Ryer</td><td align="right">1,420</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Adam Johnston's estimate, 1853</td><td align="right">1,350</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Adam Johnston's estimate, 1860</td><td align="right">1,800</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">H. W. Wessels, 1853</td><td align="right">600</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Village lists</td><td align="right">1,800</td></tr> +</table></div> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p class="right"> +<span class="u">STANISLAUS-TUOLUMNE ... 2,000</span><br /> +</p> + + +<h4><a name="MERCED_RIVER_MARIPOSA_CREEK" id="MERCED_RIVER_MARIPOSA_CREEK"></a>MERCED RIVER, MARIPOSA CREEK, +AND CHOWCHILLA RIVER</h4> + +<p>South of the Tuolumne are the Merced River, Mariposa +Creek, and the Chowchilla River, all within the +territory of the southern Miwok (see maps <a href="#map1">1</a> and <a href="#map4">4</a>, 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</a></span> +To this may be added, according to Ryer and to Johnston, +50 to 600 for the lower river, making a total of +1,800.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<div class="center"> +<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="vilperriv"> +<tr><th align="left"> <br /><span class="u">River</span></th><th align="center">Estimated<br /> <span class="u">Length (mi.</span>)</th><th align="center"> <br /> <span class="u">Villages</span></th><th align="center">Villages per<br /><span class="u">river mi.</span></th></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Stanislaus</td><td align="center">85</td><td align="center">28</td><td align="center">0.33</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Tuolumne</td><td align="center">105</td><td align="center">42</td><td align="center">0.40</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Merced</td><td align="center">125</td><td align="center">59</td><td align="center">0.47</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Mariposa</td><td align="center">40</td><td align="center">13</td><td align="center">0.32</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Chowchilla</td><td align="center">65</td><td align="center">13</td><td align="center">0.20</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"> </td><td align="right"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center">————</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Mean</td><td align="right"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center">0.34</td></tr> +</table></div> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p class="right"> +<span class="u">MERCED-MARIPOSA-CHOWCHILLA ... 2,500</span><br /> +</p> + + +<h4><a name="THE_COSUMNES_MOKELUMNE" id="THE_COSUMNES_MOKELUMNE"></a>THE COSUMNES, MOKELUMNE, +AND CALAVERAS RIVERS</h4> + +<p>The northern Miwok held the upper reaches of the +Mokelumne plus most of the Cosumnes and Calaveras +(see maps <a href="#map1">1</a>, <a href="#map5">5</a>, and <a href="#map6">6</a>, 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p class="right"> +<span class="u">COSUMNES-MOKELUMNE-CALAVERAS ... 1,000</span><br /> +</p> + + +<h4><a name="THE_FRESNO_AND_THE_UPPER" id="THE_FRESNO_AND_THE_UPPER"></a>THE FRESNO AND THE UPPER +SAN JOAQUIN RIVERS</h4> + +<p>We next turn south and consider the valleys of the +Fresno and upper San Joaquin rivers (see maps <a href="#map1">1</a> and <a href="#map4">4</a>, +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.</p> + +<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 <span class="u">different</span> 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</a></span> +Posgisa, Holkoma, Wobonuch, Waksachi, and Balwisha. +Merriam subdivides to a much greater extent. His +grouping may be expressed essentially as follows:</p> + + + +<div class="center"> +<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="merriam"> +<tr><td align="left">1. Pogesas</td><td align="left">equivalent to Kroeber's Posgisa</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">2. Nim</td><td align="left">synonymous with the North Fork subtribe</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">3. Kwetah</td><td align="left">included in Kroeber's Holkoma</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">4. Kokoheba</td><td align="left">included in Kroeber's Holkoma</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">5. Holkoma</td><td align="left">included in Kroeber's Holkoma</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">6. Towincheba</td><td align="left">included in Kroeber's Holkoma</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">7. Toinetche</td><td align="left">included in Kroeber's Holkoma</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">8. Tsooeawatah</td><td align="left">included in Kroeber's Holkoma</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">9. Emtimbitch</td><td align="left">classed by Kroeber as a Yokuts tribe</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">10. Woponuch</td><td align="left">equivalent to Kroeber's Wobonuch</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">11. Wuksatche</td><td align="left">equivalent to Kroeber's Waksachi</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">12. Padoosha</td><td align="left">equivalent to Kroeber's Balwisha</td></tr> +</table></div> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>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."</p></div> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p class="right"> +<span class="u">FRESNO-SAN JOAQUIN ... 3,600</span><br /> +</p> + + +<h4><a name="THE_KINGS_AND_THE_KAWEAH_RIVERS" id="THE_KINGS_AND_THE_KAWEAH_RIVERS"></a>THE KINGS AND THE +KAWEAH RIVERS</h4> + +<p>The Kings and Kaweah watersheds may be considered +at this point in their entirety (see maps <a href="#map1">1</a> and <a href="#map3">3</a>, 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.</p> + +<p>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:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>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.</p></div><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</a></span></p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>In his manuscript entitled "Ho-lo-ko-ma, Cole Spring, +Pine Ridge," Merriam has the following to say:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>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."</p></div> + +<p>(There is only one survivor of the Burr Valley +tribe.)</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a></p> + +<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p class="right"> +<span class="u">KINGS-KAWEAH ... 6,800</span><br /> +</p> + + +<h4><a name="THE_TULARE_LAKE_BASIN" id="THE_TULARE_LAKE_BASIN"></a>THE TULARE LAKE BASIN</h4> + +<p>The shores of Tulare Lake (see maps <a href="#map1">1</a> and <a href="#map2">2</a>, 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p class="right"> +<span class="u">TULARE LAKE BASIN ... 1,100</span><br /> +</p> + + +<h4><a name="TULE_RIVER_KERN_RIVER_AND_THE_BUENAVISTA_BASIN" id="TULE_RIVER_KERN_RIVER_AND_THE_BUENAVISTA_BASIN"></a>TULE RIVER, KERN RIVER, AND +THE BUENAVISTA BASIN</h4> + +<p>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 <a href="#map1">1</a> and <a href="#map2">2</a>, 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<p class="right"> +<span class="u">TULE-KERN-BUENAVISTA ... 2,000</span><br /> +</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + + +<div class="center"> +<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="a19000"> +<tr><td align="left">Stanislaus-Tuolumne</td><td align="right">2,000</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Merced-Mariposa-Chowchilla</td><td align="right">2,500</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Cosumnes-Mokelumne-Calaveras</td><td align="right">1,000</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Fresno-San Joaquin</td><td align="right">3,600</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Kings-Kaweah</td><td align="right">6,800</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Tulare Lake Basin</td><td align="right">1,100</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Tule-Kern-Buenavista</td><td align="right">2,000</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"> </td><td align="center">————</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="right">19,000</td></tr> +</table></div> + +<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> 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."</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> 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.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> 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.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> 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.</p></div> +</div> + + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="THE_ABORIGINAL_POPULATION" id="THE_ABORIGINAL_POPULATION"></a>THE ABORIGINAL POPULATION</h2> + + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 Garcés 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.</p> + +<p>Two other demographic consequences arise from +this very early white contact. In the first place, the +documentary record, if we ignore Garcés 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 <span class="u">continually decreasing</span>. 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<h3><a name="TULARE_LAKE_BASIN" id="TULARE_LAKE_BASIN"></a>THE TULARE LAKE BASIN</h3> + +<p>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 <a href="#map1">1</a> and <a href="#map2">2</a>, 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 <span class="u">less</span> 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.</p> + +<p>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 (Muñoz 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."</p> + +<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</a></span> +of the Wowol was on Atwell's Island.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p></div> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 Garcés in 1776 and Martin in 1804.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p class="right"> +<span class="u">TULARE LAKE BASIN ... 6,500</span><br /> +</p> + + +<h3><a name="THE_KAWEAH_RIVER" id="THE_KAWEAH_RIVER"></a>THE KAWEAH RIVER</h3> + +<p>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 <a href="#map1">1</a> and <a href="#map3">3</a>, 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Martin entered the delta in 1804 and called the +people Telame. Moraga in 1806 explored it more thoroughly. +According to the Muñoz 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>In 1816 Father Luís 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 únos 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Telame was one village, according to all observers +except Moraga (actually Muñoz, 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 Muñoz) 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 +Muñoz. There is no reason to impugn either the judgment +or veracity of this missionary. However, if one examines +his account, it becomes evident that Muñoz 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. Muñoz therefore consistently +saw only the residue, a fraction of the actual number.</p> + +<p>For the above reasons the writer believes that a correction +factor should be applied to the Moraga-Muñoz +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Estudillo was the first white man to see Chischa. On +this point he is very explicit:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>... 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 ...</p></div> + +<p>Consequently, allowing for possible communicable +disease, Chischa was in its aboriginal state when +Estudillo saw it.</p> + +<p>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 coördinate 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.</p> + +<p>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):</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>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."</p></div> + +<p>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."</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p class="right"> +<span class="u">KAWEAH RIVER ... 7,600</span><br /> +</p> + + +<h3><a name="THE_MERCED_RIVER" id="THE_MERCED_RIVER"></a>THE MERCED RIVER</h3> + +<p>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 <a href="#map1">1</a> and <a href="#map4">4</a>, area 6).</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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:</p> + + + +<div class="center"> +<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="inhabitants"> +<tr><th align="center">Inhabitants<br /><span class="u">per Village</span></th><th align="center">Number of<br /><span class="u">Villages</span></th><th align="center">Number of<br /><span class="u">Persons</span></th></tr> +<tr><td align="center">60</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">60</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">55</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">55</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">35</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">105</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">30</td><td align="center">6</td><td align="center">180</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">25</td><td align="center">8</td><td align="center">200</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">20</td><td align="center">9</td><td align="center">180</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">15</td><td align="center">6</td><td align="center">90</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">10</td><td align="center">12</td><td align="center">120</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">5</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">5</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">0</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">0</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">——</td><td align="center">——</td><td align="center">——</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="center">49</td><td align="center">995</td></tr> +</table></div> +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</a></span> +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."</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 Muñoz, 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 Muñoz-Moraga count gives +us 1,600 inhabitants.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p class="right"> +<span class="u">MERCED RIVER ... 3,500</span><br /> +</p> + + +<h3><a name="THE_KINGS_RIVER" id="THE_KINGS_RIVER"></a>THE KINGS RIVER</h3> + +<p>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).</p> + +<p>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 Muñoz, 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 <span class="u">without +their weapons</span> 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.</p> + +<p>By the year 1850 the tribes of the Kings River delta +were represented, according to the account of G. H.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p>For the second sector of the Kings River we are +dependent primarily upon the record of the Moraga +expedition. Moraga and Muñoz 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.</p> + +<p>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 Muñoz 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.</p> + +<p>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:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>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.</p></div> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Other considerations are worth mention at this point. +In his diary of 1826 José 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p class="right"> +<span class="u">KINGS RIVER ... 9,100</span> +</p> + + +<h3><a name="UPPER_SAN_JOAQUIN_FRESNO_AND_CHOWCHILLA_RIVERS_AND_MARIPOSA_CREEK" id="UPPER_SAN_JOAQUIN_FRESNO_AND_CHOWCHILLA_RIVERS_AND_MARIPOSA_CREEK"></a>UPPER SAN JOAQUIN, FRESNO, AND +CHOWCHILLA RIVERS AND MARIPOSA CREEK</h3> + +<p>The area between the Merced and the Kings rivers +(see maps <a href="#map1">1</a> and <a href="#map4">4</a>, 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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."</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>These natives were distributed along the San Joaquin +River from its big bend near Mendota to approximately +the mouth of the Merced (see map <a href="#map4">4</a>, 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 José 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</a></span> +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<sup>r</sup> 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<div class="center"> +<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="rivers"> +<tr><th align="center">River<br /><span class="u">Sector</span></th><th align="center">Miles<br /><span class="u">in Length</span></th><th align="center"> <br /><span class="u">Population</span></th><th align="center">Persons per<br /><span class="u">River Mile</span></th></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Lower Merced</td><td align="center">32</td><td align="center">1,750</td><td align="center">55</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Middle Kings</td><td align="center">75</td><td align="center">5,000</td><td align="center">67</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Lower Kings</td><td align="center">20</td><td align="center">1,500</td><td align="center">75</td></tr> +</table></div> +<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</a></span> +computed figure may reflect more closely the aboriginal +population level.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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:</p> + + +<div class="center"> +<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="western"> +<tr><th align="left"> <br /> <br /><span class="u">Region</span></th><th align="center"> <br />Area<br /><span class="u">(sq. mi.)</span></th><th align="center"> <br /> <br /><span class="u">Population</span></th><th align="center">Population<br />density<br /><span class="u">per sq. mi.</span></th></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Kaweah-Tulare</td><td align="center">1,880</td><td align="right">14,100</td><td align="center">7.12</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Kings</td><td align="center">1,530</td><td align="right">9,100</td><td align="center">5.85</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Merced</td><td align="center">1,400</td><td align="right">3,500</td><td align="center">2.50</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Mariposa-San Joaquin</td><td align="center">3,760</td><td align="right">19,000</td><td align="center">5.05</td></tr> +</table></div> +<p>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):</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>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.</p></div> + +<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</a></span> +axis of the valley the villages were numerous, some of +them containing 50 to 100 houses or at least 250 to 500 +people.</p> + +<p>What happened to these villages is graphically told +in Warner's own words.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>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.</p></div> + +<p>This was the pandemic of 1833, concerning which, in +comparison with some accounts, Warner's description +is a model of conservatism.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p class="right"> +<span class="u">MARIPOSA-SAN JOAQUIN ... 19,000</span> +</p> + + +<h3><a name="THE_SOUTHERN_SAN_JOAQUIN_VALLEY" id="THE_SOUTHERN_SAN_JOAQUIN_VALLEY"></a>THE SOUTHERN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY</h3> + +<p>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).</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>For the remainder of the territory held by the Yokuts +there are only two documentary references, the diaries +of Garcés in 1776 and Zalvidea in 1806. Both these +writers give population data which have been subject to +considerable controversy.</p> + +<p>For the Buenavista region the four pertinent villages +are mentioned by Zalvidea and are as follows:</p> + +<div class="center"> +<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="buenavista"> +<tr><th align="left">Village<br /><span class="u">and Tribe</span></th><th align="center"> <br /><span class="u">Houses</span></th><th align="center"> <br /><span class="u">Men</span></th><th align="center"> <br /><span class="u">Women</span></th><th align="center"> <br /><span class="u">Children</span></th><th align="center"> <br /><span class="u">Total</span></th></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Malapoa<br /><span style="margin-left: 0.5em;">(Tulamni)</span></td><td align="center">...</td><td align="center">29</td><td align="center"> 22</td><td align="center">8</td><td align="center">59</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Buenavista<br /><span style="margin-left: 0.5em;">(Tulamni)</span></td><td align="center">...</td><td align="center">36</td><td align="center">144</td><td align="center">38</td><td align="center">218</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Sisipistu<br /><span style="margin-left: 0.5em;">(Hometwoli)</span></td><td align="center"> 28</td><td align="center">50-60</td><td align="center">...</td><td align="center"> ...</td><td align="center"> ...</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Yaguelame<br /><span style="margin-left: 0.5em;">(Yauelmani)</span></td><td align="center">...</td><td align="center">92</td><td align="center">...</td><td align="center"> ...</td><td align="center">300</td></tr> +</table></div> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p>For the southern foothills we must rely upon the +diary of Garcés. Gifford and Schenck (1926) discuss +this document at length, concluding (p. 21) that the population +actually seen by Garcés 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 Garcés account. In so doing the exact route of the +explorer must be made plain.</p> + +<p>On May 1, 1776, having previously descended the +southern mountains to the valley floor, Garcés broke +camp:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>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.</p></div> + +<p>(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.</p> + +<p>Garcés 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.</p> + +<p>After crossing the river with difficulty Garcés 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.</p> + +<p>After passing the night at the rancheria mentioned +(no. 4), Garcés went straight north for 4½ 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 Garcés 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 Garcés 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.</p> + +<p>After traveling 4½ leagues Garcés 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 2½ 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.</p> + +<p>On May 5 Garcés started to retrace his steps southward, +reaching at 2½ 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."</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>To summarize the rancherias mentioned: Garcés +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.</p> + +<p>The size of these villages has been subject to some +debate. Garcés 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).<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</a></span> +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 Garcés 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 Garcés was in the vicinity of 1,200.</p> + +<p>Now it is evident that Garcés 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.</p> + +<p>One secondary piece of evidence is at hand. Garcés +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 Garcés.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p class="right"> +<span class="u">SOUTHERN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY ... 6,900</span> +</p> + + + +<h3><a name="THE_NORTHERN_SAN_JOAQUIN_VALLEY" id="THE_NORTHERN_SAN_JOAQUIN_VALLEY"></a>THE NORTHERN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY</h3> + +<p>The remaining portion of the Yokuts-Miwok territory +lay in the valley and foothills north of the Merced River. +This area (see maps <a href="#map1">1</a> and <a href="#map5">5</a>, 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.</p> + +<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Luís Argüello (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 Argüello 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.</p> + +<p>To the villages just described may be added the one +seen by Moraga on the Stanislaus River in 1806, which +had 200 inhabitants.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>In considering in detail the population of the delta (see +map <a href="#map6">6</a>, 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.</p> + +<p><span class="u">Bolbones (syn. Cholbones, Chilamne, Chulame).</span>—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:</p> + + +<div class="center"> +<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="schenck"> +<tr><td align="left">Cholbones</td><td align="left">a group</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Pescadero</td><td align="left">a village</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Jusmites or Cosmistas</td><td align="left">a village plus</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Fugites or Tugites</td><td align="left">a village plus</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Tomchom, under Fugites</td><td align="left">a village</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Nototemnes</td><td align="left">a village</td></tr> +</table></div> +<p>Although these natives are mentioned frequently in +the correspondence of the period, the first recorded +exploration of their area was that of Fr. José 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p>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 enseñaron al desembarcadero y las mismas +casas que havía duplicado gente ..." Abella's distances +are extremely inaccurate but it is apparent that +the three villages mentioned were north or northwest +of Pescadero.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 2½ 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.</p> + +<p>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 2½ 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p class="right"> +(<span class="u">Bolbones ... 2,500</span>)<br /> +</p> + +<p><span class="u">Leuchas.</span>—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.</p> + + + +<div class="center"> +<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" summary="baptisms"> +<tr><th align="center"> </th><th align="center"><span class="u">Baptisms, San Jose</span> </th><th align="center"><span class="u">Baptisms, Santa Clara</span></th></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Leuchas<br /> <br /> <br /> </td><td align="center">"Leucha" (26),<br />1805-1812<br />(88 per cent in<br />1805-1806)</td><td align="center">"Los Leuchas" (81),<br />1805-1809<br />(85 per cent in<br />1805)</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Pitemis<br /> <br /> </td><td align="center">None<br /> <br /> </td><td align="center">(60), 1814-1831<br />(98 per cent in<br />1814-1816)</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Coybos<br /> <br /> </td><td align="center">(94), 1808-1826<br />(71 per cent in<br />1811-1812)</td><td align="center">None<br /> <br /> </td></tr> +</table></div> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</a></span></p> +<p>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 José Argüello (MS, +1805)—in search of converts.<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> 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.</p> + +<p>Some further information is derived from the recollections +of José María 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p class="right"> +<span class="u">(Leuchas et al. ... 900)</span><br /> +</p> + +<p><span class="u">Ochejamnes.</span>—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.</p> + +<p>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 José 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.</p> + +<p class="right"> +<span class="u">(Ochejamnes ... 750)</span><br /> +</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</a></span></p> + +<p><span class="u">Guaypem.</span>—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 <span class="u">the</span> 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.</p> + +<p class="right"> +<span class="u">(Guaypem ... 300)</span><br /> +</p> + +<p><span class="u">Quenemsias.</span>—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<sup>do</sup> +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<sup>os</sup> 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.</p> + +<p class="right"> +<span class="u">(Quenemsias ... 400)</span><br /> +</p> + +<p><span class="u">Chuppumne, Chucumes.</span>—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 Luís Argüello. +Luís Antonio Argüello 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.</p> + +<p>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 Argüello. 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 +Argüello 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 (Argüello); Duran says approximately 3 leagues. +There they stopped at a rancheria, "arruinada" according +to Argüello, although Duran makes no mention of +this.</p> + +<p>On May 18 the party went on upstream, making during +the day 4 leagues (Duran) or 16 miles (Argüello). 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-Argüello +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 +(Argüello) or 4 leagues (Duran), at which point they +turned around and began the return trip. On May 21 +Argüello says that they passed "algunas rancherias," +all deserted, which may well have been those mentioned +by Duran on May 19.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p class="right"> +<span class="u">(Chucumes, Chuppumne ... 1,500)</span><br /> +</p> + +<p><span class="u">Chupunes (Chupcanes), Tarquines (Tarquimenes, +Tauquines), Julpunes (Tulpunes) and Ompines.</span>—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.</p> + +<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</a></span> +consideration entails a preliminary discussion of two +small groups, the Aguastos and the Huchium (syn. +Habastos, Quivastos, Juchium, Huchimes, Tuchimes, +etc.).</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>The Merriam notes (pp. 5 and 6) point out the following +considerations.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>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)."</p> + +<p>2. Several rancherias belonging to this tribe are mentioned +as being on the east side of the bay.</p> + +<p>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."</p> +</div> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 ó 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 <span class="u">for the first +time</span> 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>We now encounter the Chupunes (or Chupcanes), concerning +whom Schenck (1926, p. 143) has this to say:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>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.</p></div> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 Argüello) 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 Argüello, 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).</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +Argüello 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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, Argüello, +and similar expeditions before the migration upstream.</p> + +<p>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).</p> + +<p>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 <span class="u">estaba</span> la rancheria de los Tarquines" (emphasis +mine). Let it be emphasized that in 1810 <span class="u">the</span> Tarquines +are <span class="u">almost all</span> Christians in San Francisco, and Viader +saw there <span class="u">the</span> rancheria which <span class="u">was</span>, or <span class="u">had been</span>, 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p>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</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>... 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 ...</p></div> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 <span class="u">left</span>, that is to say, on +the <span class="u">east</span> bank. Schenck thinks that the group covered the +entire strip from Pittsburg to the east bank of the main +river <span class="u">contemporaneously</span>. 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>We have hitherto considered a number of the local +groups mentioned above and have estimated their population +as follows: Bolbones (restricted group, see p. <a href="#Page_58">58</a>), +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p>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 coördinate 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p class="right"> +<span class="u">(Chupunes, Tarquines, Ompines, Julpunes ... 3,000)</span><br /> +</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p class="right"> +<span class="u">Delta area ... 9,350</span><br /> +</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p><span class="u">The Cosumnes group.</span>—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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<div class="center"> +<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="conversion"> +<tr><th align="left"><span class="u">Tribe or Group</span> </th><th align="center"><span class="u">Date of Conversion</span> </th><th align="center"><span class="u">Baptisms</span></th></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Cosumnes<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">(Tribelet)</span></td><td align="center"> 1826-1836</td><td align="center"> 84</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Junisumne<br /><span style="margin-left: 1em;">(Anizumne,</span><br /><span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">Unsumne)</span></td><td align="center">1813-1834</td><td align="center">363</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Lelamne<br /><span style="margin-left: 1em;">(Llamne)</span></td><td align="center"> 1813-1836</td><td align="center">128</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Gualacomne</td><td align="center">1825-1836</td><td align="center">158</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Amuchamne<br /><span style="margin-left: 1em;">(Mackemne)</span></td><td align="center">1834-1835</td><td align="center">13</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Sololumne</td><td align="center">1828-1834</td><td align="center">6</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Locolumne</td><td align="center">1826-1834</td><td align="center">52</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"> </td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center"> ———</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">Total</td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center">804</td></tr> +</table></div> + +<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p>Another documentary source is of interest in this +connection. This is the account by José 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p class="right"> +<span class="u">Cosumnes group ... 5,200</span><br /> +</p> + +<p><span class="u">The Moquelumne group.</span>—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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</a></span> +record as Secuamne, Seguamne, Seyuame, and other +variants.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>The baptism books give us a record of the following +conversions.</p> + + +<div class="center"> +<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="bapbooksjsc"> +<tr><th align="left"><span class="u">Tribe</span></th><th align="center"><span class="u">San Jose</span> </th><th align="center"><span class="u">Santa Clara</span></th></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Moquelumnes</td><td align="center">143</td><td align="center">...</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Yatchikumnes</td><td align="center">118</td><td align="center">...</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Passasimas</td><td align="center">145</td><td align="center">...</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Siakumne</td><td align="center">22</td><td align="center">...</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Seguamne</td><td align="center">47</td><td align="center">116</td></tr> +</table></div> + +<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</a></span> +was 2,040. The baptism data would then give us a total +for the group of 4,870.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>To recapitulate the estimates for the Moquelumne +group, we find:</p> + + +<div class="center"> +<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="moquelumne"> +<tr><td align="left">By stream densities</td><td align="left">7,200</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">By adjusted tribal averages</td><td align="left">4,800</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">By baptism data</td><td align="left">4,870</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">By extrapolation from American estimates</td><td align="left"><span class="u">6,000</span></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"><span style="margin-left: 2em;">Mean</span></td><td align="left">5,720</td></tr> +</table></div> + +<p>The mean, 5,720, appears entirely reasonable for the aboriginal +population of such a vigorous and important group.</p> + +<p class="right"> +<span class="u">Moquelumne group ... 5,720</span><br /> +</p> + +<p><span class="u">The lower San Joaquin River group.</span>—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 <a href="#map1">1</a>, <a href="#map5">5</a>, and <a href="#map6">6</a>, 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.</p> + +<p>On his first expedition, having left the village of Tomchom, +he went south-southeast up the river for 2½ leagues +to another village "... cuya capitan se llama Cuyens." +This was very close to section 10, in T3S, R6E. After a +journey of another 2½ 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.</p> + +<p>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 4½ 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."</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>The mission records show for baptisms:</p> + + + +<div class="center"> +<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="viader"> +<tr><th align="left">Tribe or<br /><span class="u">Village</span></th><th align="center">Dates of<br /><span class="u">Conversion</span></th><th align="center">Number of<br /><span class="u">Baptisms</span></th></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Cuyens</td><td align="center">1811-1813</td><td align="center">88</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Mayemes</td><td align="center">1813-1823</td><td align="center">91</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Apaglamnes</td><td align="center">1818-1824</td><td align="center">48</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Tationes</td><td align="center">1805-1811</td><td align="center">243</td></tr> +</table></div> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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):</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>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.</p></div> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Some of the confusion may derive from the account of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</a></span> +Muñoz. 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>José Sanchez in 1826 refers to his bitter battle with +Estanislao, which took place on the "rio de los Laquisimes" +(MS, 1826). Joaquin Piña 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>The only direct population estimate we have for them +is that of Muñoz, 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p class="right"> +<span class="u">Lower San Joaquin River Group ... 6,800</span><br /> +</p> + +<p class="right"> +<span class="u">NORTHERN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY ... 27,070</span><br /> +</p> + + +<h3><a name="THE_MIWOK_FOOTHILL_AREA" id="THE_MIWOK_FOOTHILL_AREA"></a>THE MIWOK FOOTHILL AREA</h3> + +<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p class="right"> +<span class="u">MIWOK FOOTHILL AREA ... 4,150</span><br /> +</p> + + +<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> There are numerous other letters pertaining to this matter in the same +volume of the Provincial State Papers.</p></div> +</div> + + +<hr class="chap" /><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="SUMMARY_AND_CONCLUSIONS" id="SUMMARY_AND_CONCLUSIONS"></a>SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS</h2> + + +<p>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.</p> + + +<div class="center"> +<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="summary"> +<tr><th align="left"><span class="u">Region</span></th><th align="left"> </th><th align="right"><span class="u">Population</span></th></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Tulare Lake Basin</td><td align="right"> </td><td align="right">6,500</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Kaweah River</td><td align="right"> </td><td align="right">7,600</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Merced River</td><td align="right"> </td><td align="right">3,500</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Kings River</td><td align="right"></td><td align="right">9,100</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Mariposa, Fresno, Chowchilla,<br /><span style="margin-left: 1em;">upper San Joaquin</span></td><td align="right"> </td><td align="right"> <br />19,000</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Southern San Joaquin Valley</td><td align="right"> </td><td align="right">6,900</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Northern San Joaquin Valley</td><td align="right"> </td><td align="right"> </td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">Delta area</span></td><td align="right">9,350</td><td align="right"> </td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">Lower Cosumnes</span></td><td align="right">5,200</td><td align="right"> </td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">Lower Mokelumne</span></td><td align="right">5,720</td><td align="right"> </td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">Lower San Joaquin, Calaveras,</span><br /><span style="margin-left: 1em;">Tuolumne, and Stanislaus</span></td><td align="right"> <br /><span class="u">6,800</span></td><td align="right"> <br />27,070</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Foothill strip (central<br /><span style="margin-left: 1em;">and northern Miwok)</span></td><td align="right"> </td><td align="right"> <br /><span class="u">4,150</span></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"><span style="margin-left: 2em;">Total</span></td><td align="right"> </td><td align="right">83,820</td></tr> +</table></div> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p></div> + + + +<hr class="chap" /><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="APPENDIX" id="APPENDIX"></a>APPENDIX</h2> + + +<p>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.</p> + + +<p class="center"><span class="u">War Department</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="u">Record Group 98.</span> 10th Military Dept. Letters received +Calif., Document no. <span class="u">K 21</span>. E. D. Keyes, Camp +Magruder, June 17, 1851.</p> + +<p>The 8 tribes on the Kaweah, with whom a treaty was +concluded on May 30 contain 1,240 individuals.</p> + +<p>The 4 tribes on Paint Creek with whom a treaty was +concluded on June 3 contain 1,660 persons.</p> + +<p><span class="u">Record Group 98.</span> Letters received Calif., 1854. +Enclosure to document no. <span class="u">W 2</span>. John Nugent, Camp +Wessells, Dec. 31, 1853.</p> + +<p>The Four Creeks region (Kaweah) from the Sierra +Nevada to Tulare Lake will not contain more than +1,000, all told.</p> + +<p><span class="u">Record Group 98.</span> Letters received Calif., 1854. +Enclosure to document no. <span class="u">W 12</span>. H. W. Wessells, +Fort Miller, March 7, 1854.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Fresno River: 400 persons, including 100 able men.</p> + +<p>San Joaquin River: 350, including 80-90 able men.</p> + +<p>Kings River: 1,100, including 250 able men.</p> + +<p>Kaweah River: 800, including 200 able men.</p></div> + + +<p class="center"><span class="u">Office of Indian Affairs</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="u">Record Group 75.</span> Letters received Calif., 1854. +Enclosure to document no. <span class="u">H 758</span>. D. A. Enyart, +Fresno Reservation, Nov. 3, 1854.</p> + +<p>The Indians on the Fresno Farm include: 30 Chowchilla, +220 Choot-chances, 90 Pohonicha, and 100 Potohanchi.</p> + +<p>The Indians in Mariposa, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne +counties do not exceed a total of 2,000.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p><span class="u">Record Group 75.</span> Letters received Calif., 1855. +Enclosure to document no. <span class="u">H 1050</span>. Report of D. A. +Enyart, Fresno Reservation, Aug. 22, 1855.</p> + +<p>"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...."</p> + +<p><span class="u">Record Group 75.</span> Letters received Calif., 1859. +Enclosure to document no. <span class="u">M 66</span>. M. B. Lewis, +Fresno Agency, Aug. 30, 1859.</p> + +<p>A report on the 22 tribes which recognize the Fresno +Agency as their headquarters. Abstracted as follows:</p></div> + + + +<div class="center"> +<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="abstract" width="80%"> +<tr><td align="left"><span class="u">Wel-leelch-um-nies</span>:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">the most northerly tribe; is "temporarily" on the Tuolumne River +because of displacement by the whites.</span></td><td align="right"> <br />85</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td align="left"><span class="u">Poto-en-cies</span>:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">have abandoned their native land, the Merced Valley and are now on the +Chowchilla.</span></td><td align="right"> <br />110</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td align="left"><span class="u">Noot-choos</span>:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">"a union of the remnant of other tribes," +including some Yosemites. Now on the +north fork of the Chowchilla.</span></td><td align="right"> <br />85</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td align="left"><span class="u">Po-ho-nee-chees</span>:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">on the headwaters of the Fresno.</span></td><td align="right"> <br />105</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td align="left"><span class="u">Chow-chillas</span>:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">have moved from the Chowchilla to the Fresno River.</span></td><td align="right"> <br />85</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td align="left"><span class="u">Cooc-chances</span>:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">the largest "unbroken" tribe in the agency, +originally on Coarse Gold Creek; some +still there, some at agency.</span></td><td align="right"> <br />240</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td align="left"><span class="u">How-ches</span>:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">once large; always have been on the Fresno.</span></td><td align="right"> <br />18</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td align="left"><span class="u">Pit-cat-ches</span> and <span class="u">Tal-linches</span>:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">(two distinct tribes); native habitat was the San Joaquin River; still near Fort Miller.</span></td><td align="right"> <br />150</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td align="left"><span class="u">Coss-waz</span>:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">"to some extent identified with the +Pit-cat-ches"; native land is Deer Creek.</span></td><td align="right"> <br />88</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td align="left"><span class="u">Monos</span>:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">on Fine Gold Creek and the upper San Joaquin River.</span></td><td align="right"> <br />535</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td align="left"><span class="u">War-to-kes</span>, <span class="u">Itee-ches</span>, and <span class="u">Cho-pes</span>:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">all on Kings River; "constitute one +nation" but have separate heads (on Wartoke Creek).</span></td><td align="right"> <br />290</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td align="left"><span class="u">Wat-ches</span>:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">since 1854 have been on Kings River Farm.</span></td><td align="right"> <br />75</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td align="left"><span class="u">No-to-no-tos</span> and <span class="u">We-melches</span>.</td><td align="right">190</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td align="left"><span class="u">Tat-ches</span> and <span class="u">Wo-wells</span>:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">these four tribes are native to the lower Kings River and Tulare Lake. +They were recently driven to their homes on the Fresno Farm.</span></td><td align="right"> <br />165</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td align="left"><span class="u">Cow-willas</span>:<br /> +their home is the mouth of the Kaweah at the foothills.</td><td align="right"> <br />110</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td align="left"><span class="u">Tel-em-nies</span>:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">on the Kaweah, near Visalia.</span></td><td align="right"> <br />105</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td align="left"> </td><td align="right">——</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td align="left"><span style="margin-left: 4em;">Total</span></td><td align="right">2,436</td> +</tr> +</table></div> + + + +<hr class="chap" /><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="BIBLIOGRAPHY" id="BIBLIOGRAPHY"></a>BIBLIOGRAPHY</h2> + + +<h3>PUBLISHED WORKS</h3> + +<p>Barbour, G. W.</p> + +<p class="i4">1852. 32nd Cong., 1st sess., Sen. Ex. Doc. 1, pt. +III.</p> + +<p class="i4">1853. Report to the Indian Commissioner. 33rd +Cong., spec. sess., Sen. Ex. Doc. 4, pp. +249-264 [Ser. no. 688].</p> + +<p>Barbour, G. W., R. McKee, and O. M. Wozencraft</p> + +<p class="i4">1853. Report to the Indian Commissioner. 33rd +Cong., spec. sess., Sen. Ex. Doc. 4, pp. +56-59.</p> + +<p>Carson, James H.</p> + +<p class="i4">1852. In San Joaquin Republican (Stockton, Feb., +1852), as quoted by S. P. Elias, Stories of +Stanislaus (Modesto, 1924), p. 196.</p> + +<p><a name="Chapman_Charles_E" id="Chapman_Charles_E"></a>Chapman, Charles E.</p> + +<p class="i4">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.</p> + +<p>Cook, S. F.</p> + +<p class="i4">1940. Population Trends among the California +Mission Indians. Univ. Calif. Ibero-Americana +17. Berkeley.</p> + +<p>Coues, Elliott, ed.</p> + +<p class="i4">1900. On the Trail of a Spanish Pioneer. (The diary +of Francisco Garcés.) Trans, and ed. by Elliott +Coues. New York. The parts pertaining +to the San Joaquin Valley are in 1:281-300.</p> + +<p>Derby, Lt. George H.</p> + +<p class="i4">1852. A Report of the Tulare Valley. 32nd. Cong., +1st sess., Sen. Ex. Doc. 110, pp. 4-16.</p> + +<p>Farquhar, Francis P.</p> + +<p class="i4">1932. The Topographical Reports of George H. +Derby, California Hist. Soc. Quarterly, +11:99, 247, 365.</p> + +<p>Gayton, A. H.</p> + +<p class="i4">1948. Yokuts and Western Mono Ethnography. Univ. +Calif. Publ. Anthro. Rec., Vol. 10. Berkeley.</p> + +<p>Gifford, E. W.</p> + +<p class="i4">1932. The Northfork Mono. Univ. Calif. Publ. Am. +Arch. and Ethn., 31:15-65. Berkeley.</p> + +<p>Gifford, E. W., and W. Egbert Schenck</p> + +<p class="i4">1926. Archaeology of the Southern San Joaquin +Valley, California. Univ. Calif. Publ. Am. +Arch. and Ethn., 23:1-122. Berkeley.</p> + +<p>Gilbert, F. T.</p> + +<p class="i4">1879. History of San Joaquin County, California. +Oakland, Calif.</p> + +<p>Henley, T. J.</p> + +<p class="i4">1857. Report to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, +accompanying Ann. Rept. Sec. of the Interior +for 1856. No. 100, pp. 236-246.</p> + +<p>Johnston, Adam</p> + +<p class="i4">1853. Report to the Indian Commissioner. 33rd +Cong., spec. sess., Sen. Ex. Doc. 4, pp. +241-247.</p> + +<p class="i4">1860. In H. R. Schoolcraft, Archives of Aboriginal +Knowledge, 4:406 ff.</p> + +<p>Kroeber, A. L.</p> + +<p class="i4">1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bur. +Amer. Ethn. Bull. 78. Washington, D. C.</p> + +<p>Latta, F. F.</p> + +<p class="i4">1949. Handbook of Yokuts Indians. Bakersfield, +Calif.</p> + +<p>Mason, J. D.</p> + +<p class="i4">1881. History of Amador County, California. Oakland, +Calif.</p> + +<p>Merriam, C. Hart</p> + +<p class="i4">1905. The Indian Population of California, American +Anthropologist, n.s., 7:594-606.</p> + +<p class="i4">1907. Distribution and Classification of the Mewan +Stock of California, American Anthropologist, +n.s., 9:338-357.</p> + +<p>Powers, Stephen</p> + +<p class="i4">1877. Tribes of California, Contributions to North +American Ethnology. Washington, D. C.</p> + +<p>Ryer, W. M.</p> + +<p class="i4">1852. Vouchers for vaccination. 32nd Cong., 2nd +sess., Sen. Ex. Doc. 61, pp. 20-23 [Ser. +no. 620].</p> + +<p>Savage, James D.</p> + +<p class="i4">1851. Letter in the True Standard, reprinted in the +Sacramento Union, Apr. 10, 1851.</p> + +<p>Schenck, W. Egbert</p> + +<p class="i4">1926. Historic Aboriginal Groups of the California +Delta Region. Univ. Calif. Publ. Am. Arch. +and Ethn., 23:123-146. Berkeley.</p> + +<p>Sutter, John A.</p> + +<p class="i4">1850. Letter to H. W. Halleck, Dec. 20, 1847. 31st +Cong., 1st sess., H. R. Ex. Doc. 17.</p> + +<p class="i4">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.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</a></span></p> + +<p>Tinkham, George H.</p> + +<p class="i4">1923. History of San Joaquin County, California. +Los Angeles, Calif.</p> + +<p>United States Treaties</p> + +<p class="i4">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.</p> + +<p>Warner, J. J.</p> + +<p class="i4">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.</p> + +<p>Wessels, H. W.</p> + +<p class="i4">1857. Report on the Tribes of the San Joaquin +Valley. 34th Cong., 3rd sess., H. R. Ex. +Doc. 76, pp. 31-32.</p> + +<p>Wozencraft, O. M.</p> + +<p class="i4">1851. Letter dated July 12, 1851. 32nd Cong., 1st +sess., Sen. Ex. Doc. 1, pt. III, pp. 488-490 +[Ser. no. 906].</p> + + +<h3>MANUSCRIPTS</h3> + +<p class="center">All manuscripts are in the Bancroft Library,<br /> University +of California, Berkeley, unless otherwise stated.</p> + +<p>Abella, Ramon</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Diario de un registro de los Rios Grandes, +Oct. 31, 1811, San Francisco. Santa Barbara +Archive, IV:101-134. Also original manuscript.</p></div> + +<p>Altimira, José</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Letter to Prefect José Senan, July 10, 1823, +San Francisco. Archbishop's Archive, IV (2):21-26.</p></div> + +<p>Amador, José Maria</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Memorias sobre la Historia de California, +1877. Original manuscript C-D 28.</p></div> + +<p>Argüello, José</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Letter to Governor Arrillaga, May 30, 1805, +San Francisco. Provincial State Papers, XIX:42 ff.</p></div> + +<p>Argüello, Luís Antonio</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Letter to Governor Arrillaga, Oct. 31, 1813, +San Francisco. Provincial State Papers, XIX:345-349.</p> + +<p>Carta al Gobernador Don Pablo Vicente de +Sola ... May 26, 1817, San Francisco. +Original manuscript (no. fm F864A64); also +typed copy.</p></div> + +<p>Berryesa, José</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Dated July 15, 1830, San Jose. Departmental +State Papers, II:135-137.</p></div> + +<p>Cabot, Juan</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Expedicion al valle de los Tulares, Letter to +the Padre Presidente, Apr. 7, 1815. Santa +Barbara Archive, VI:67-72.</p> + +<p>Letter to De La Guerra, May 23, 1818. De +La Guerra Documents, VII:88.</p></div> + +<p>Dixon, H.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>California Indians. 1875.</p></div> + +<p>Duran, Narciso</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Diario de la expedicion de reconocimiento +hecha en el mes de Mayo de 1817.... +Original manuscript. (See also <a href="#Chapman_Charles_E">Charles E. Chapman</a>, 1911.)</p></div> + +<p>Estudillo, José Maria</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Diario que formo yo el ten<sup>te</sup> d<sup>n</sup> Jose Maria +Estudillo en la campaña ... emprendo p<sup>a</sup> +el reconocimiento y visita de las rancherias +situadas en los tulares ... Nov. 10, 1819, +Monterey. Original manuscript; also typed +copy.</p></div> + +<p>Garcia, Inocente</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Hechos Historicos de California, 1878. Original +manuscript. CC-D 84.</p></div> + +<p>Jaime, Antonio</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Letter to Governor Sola, March 30, 1816, +Soledad. Archbishop's Archive, III(1):23-24.</p></div> + +<p>Marquinez, Marcelino</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Letter to Governor Sola, May 26, 1816. Archbishop's +Archive, III(1):41-42.</p></div> + +<p>Martin, Juan</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Visita a los Gentiles Tulareños, Apr. 26, +1815, San Miguel. Santa Barbara Archive, +VI:85-89.</p></div> + +<p>Martinez, Luís Antonio</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Entrada en las Rancherias del Tular, May 29, +1816, San Luis Obispo. Archbishop's Archive, +III(1):42-45.</p></div> + +<p>McKinstry, George</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Documents for the History of California, +1846-9. Presented by Dr. George McKinstry +of San Diego, 1872.</p></div> + +<p>Merriam, C. Hart</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Manuscript collection in Department of Anthropology, +University of California, Berkeley.</p></div><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</a></span></p> + +<p>Moraga, Gabriel</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>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 año de 1808. Original manuscript; also +two typed copies.</p></div> + +<p>Muñoz, Pedro</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Diario de la Exp<sup>n</sup> 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.</p></div> + +<p>Ortega, Juan de</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Diario que forma el Sarg<sup>to</sup> Dist<sup>do</sup> D<sup>n</sup> Juan de +Ortega segun los sitios q<sup>e</sup> por orn. del Sr. +Gov<sup>or</sup> de su mando registrar ... Dec. 2, +1815, San Juan Bautista. Original manuscript; +also typed copy.</p></div> + +<p>Pico, José Dolores</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Diario formado p<sup>r</sup> el Sarg<sup>to</sup> José Dolores +Pico de la expedicion que a echo p<sup>r</sup> dispocion +del ciudadano ... José Estudillo, Jan. 31, +1826. Original manuscript.</p></div> + +<p>Piña, Joaquin</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>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.</p></div> + +<p>Rodriguez, Sebastián</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Diario que forma yo el Sarg<sup>to</sup> Sebastian +Rodriguez de la Campana nombrada el dia 17 +de Abril de 1828 [dated May 8, 1828]. Original +manuscript.</p> + +<p>Diario formado p<sup>r</sup> 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.</p></div> + +<p>Sal, Hermenegildo</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>... Informe en el cual el teniente Herm<sup>do</sup> +Sal manifesta lo que ha adquirido de varios +sugetos para comunicarlo al Governador dela +Provincia; Jan. 31, 1796. Provincial State +Papers, XIV:14-16.</p></div> + +<p>Sanchez, José</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Letter to Ignacio Martinez, May 10, 1826. +State Papers, Missions and Colonization, +II:15-20.</p></div> + +<p>Savage, James</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>In H. Dixon, California Indians. MS 1875.</p></div> + +<p>Viader, José</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p></div> + +<p>Zalvidea, José Maria</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Diario de una expedicion tierra adentro, 1806. +Santa Barbara Archive, IV:49-68.</p></div><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</a></span></p> + +<hr class="chap" /> +<p class="center"><small>[TN: Click on maps for larger views.]</small><br /><br /></p> +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 493px;"> +<a name="map1" id="map1"></a> +<a href="images/i074g.png"> +<img src="images/i074.png" width="493" height="600" alt="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."/> +</a> +<span class="caption">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.<br /><br /> + +To accompany Cook, "Aboriginal Population of San Joaquin +Valley," Univ. of Calif. Publ., Anthro. Rec. Vol. 16, No. 2.</span> +</div> +<hr class="tb" /> +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 600px;"> +<a name="map2" id="map2"></a> +<a href="images/i075g.png"> +<img src="images/i075.png" width="600" height="551" alt="Map 2. Habitat areas 1A-2: the southern Yokuts and peripheral tribes."/> +</a><span class="caption">Map 2. Habitat areas 1A-2: the southern Yokuts and peripheral tribes.</span> +</div> +<hr class="tb" /><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</a></span></p> +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 600px;"> +<a name="map3" id="map3"></a> +<a href="images/i076g.png"> +<img src="images/i076a.png" width="600" height="384" alt="Map 3. Habitat areas 3A-4C: the basins of the Kaweah and Kings rivers, including the Yokuts +and part of the Mono."/> +</a><span class="caption">Map 3. Habitat areas 3A-4C: the basins of the Kaweah and Kings rivers, including the Yokuts +and part of the Mono.</span> +</div> +<hr class="tb" /> +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 600px;"> +<a name="map4" id="map4"></a> +<a href="images/i076h.png"> +<img src="images/i076b.png" width="600" height="447" alt="Map 4. Habitat areas 5A-6B: the Yokuts, part of the Mono, and the Southern Miwok."/> +</a><span class="caption">Map 4. Habitat areas 5A-6B: the Yokuts, part of the Mono, and the Southern Miwok.</span> +</div> +<hr class="tb" /><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</a></span></p> +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 600px;"> +<a name="map5" id="map5"></a> +<a href="images/i077g.png"> +<img src="images/i077.png" width="600" height="392" alt="Map 5. Habitat areas 7A-14: the Northern Yokuts, Central and Northern Miwok."/> +</a><span class="caption">Map 5. Habitat areas 7A-14: the Northern Yokuts, Central and Northern Miwok.</span> +</div> +<hr class="tb" /><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</a></span></p> +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 542px;"> +<a name="map6" id="map6"></a> +<a href="images/i078g.png"> +<img src="images/i078.png" width="542" height="600" alt="Map 6. The Lower San Joaquin River and Delta areas (particularly areas 8 and 13)."/> +</a><span class="caption">Map 6. The Lower San Joaquin River and Delta areas (particularly areas 8 and 13).</span> +</div> + +<hr class="chap" /> + + +<p class="transnote">Transcriber's Notes<br /><br /> + + +Retained the spelling and punctuation inconsistencies of the original +book, except for the following changes:<br /><br /> + +Page <a href="#Page_52">52</a>: Changed "haorses" to "horses".<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Orig.: southeast from Copicha and saw haorses from the rancheria</span><br /> +<br /> +Page <a href="#Page_67">67</a>: Changed "slighest" to "slightest".<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Orig.: there is not the slightest evidence in Viader's diaries</span><br /> +<br /> +Page <a href="#Page_73">73</a>: Changed "manuscipt" to "manuscript".<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Orig.: Abella, Ramon ... Also original manuscipt.</span><br /> +</p> + + + + + + + + + + +<pre> + + + + + +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-h.htm or 38770-h.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. + + +</pre> + +</body> +</html> |