The subordinate divisions of the natives inhabiting Alameda and Contra
Costa counties can probably be allocated to five primary geographical
areas. Some of these can be associated with reasonably well recognized
names; some cannot. They may be briefly considered.
_Area 1. The Alameda._--From Milpitas north to approximately Richmond,
and west of the hills, the early expeditions (Fages, Anza) found
numerous rancherias, as previously mentioned. The Sal-Danti party in
1795, covering the southern half of this area thoroughly, found almost
no native inhabitants. An originally fair-sized population therefore
must have been dispersed nearly completely in twenty years.
No general, regional name was ever applied to these Indians, but a few
individual rancheria names have been preserved. These are all designated
in the San Francisco Baptism Book as lying on the "otra banda del
estero" (or some similar expression):
1778: paraje Halchis
1779: paraje Chapugtac
paraje Tupucantche
1780: rancheria Genau (or Chynau)
rancheria Tupine
1780: rancheria Itenau
rancheria Tumiamac
1781: rancheria Torqui
1782: rancheria Putnatac
rancheria Ocquizara
rancheria Tacomui
1784: rancheria Ssichitca
araje Cosopo
1786: rancheria Ilorocrochay
paraje Guet
These records show, first, that from 1778 to 1786 the missionaries from
San Francisco recognized fifteen inhabited places along the southeast
shore of the Bay. Second, it is very clear that active search for
converts was proceeding during these eight years Finally, the field must
have been substantially exhausted because none of the fifteen localities
are noted after 1786.
Nevertheless, San Francisco did not get all the natives, because Santa
Clara was much closer and was active during the same period
Unfortunately we cannot determine the village of origin for these
neophytes, since the baptism book (according to Pinart's transcript)
allocates the individual converts to rancherias, not according to the
native names of the latter, but by corresponding Saint's names, which
must have been applied, Mexican fashion, by the local missionaries Only
after 1801 did Santa Clara change its system, and of course by this time
no heathen Indians remained locally.
San Jose was founded and began conversions in 1797. The baptism book
here has the converts identified according to general area, not specific
village. There are six such regions, or categories: "Palos colorados,"
"de la Alameda," "del Estero," "del Norte," "del Este," "del Sur." Of
these the first three are evidently local and in the region now being
discussed: (1) the redwoods back of Oakland and San Leandro; (2) Alameda
Creek and adjacent plain; (3) the shore of the Bay directly west of the
mission. The conversions, 1797-1802 inclusive, from these three areas
were respectively 31, 170, 130, indicating that San Francisco and Santa
Clara had by no means completed the conquest.
_Area 2. The coast from Richmond to Carquinez Strait._--That this strip
was held by the tribal group known as Huchiun (Cuchillones, Juchillones)
has been supported by the accounts of Amador (diary of 1797) and of
Abella (diary of 1811). The latter writer, it will be remembered,
renamed the Point of the Huchines, Point San Pablo, a name which it
retains today. The point of the Abastos or Aguastos became
Point San Pedro. The Abastos, it may be pointed out, were neither
Costanoan nor resident on the east side of the Bay. They lived on the
Bay shore of Marin County, as is abundantly evident from the San
Francisco baptism records.
The Huchiun are mentioned by Chamisso and by Choris (Mahr, 1932) in
1816, jointly with various other North Bay tribes. Chamisso says that
the Utschiun, together with the Guyment, Olumpalic, Soclan, and Sonomi,
all speak the same language, a manifest error. Choris repeats the
mistake. Arroyo de la Cuesta gives a Huichun vocabulary and says (1837;
MS p. 21) "Karquin and Huichun is one language--Saclan is another,
entirely distinct." The Huchiun are noted in the San Francisco records
first in 1787 (Tuchiun) and subsequently repeatedly until 1809, although
they never appear in the San Jose record. Apparently San Jose derived
converts from the east rather than from up coast.
The exact limits of the Huchiun are doubtful. Amador spent a night
somewhere near Richmond and then went north to find them. Abella
associates them closely with Point San Pablo, and implies that their
land reached as far as the strait. We may tentatively draw their
boundary between Rodeo and Crockett.
_Area 3. Carquinez Strait and Concord Valley._--We are dealing here with
the shore line from Crockett through Martinez nearly to Pittsburg, and
inland between Concord and Pacheco. The principal Indian name associated
with this area is Karquin, from which the strait takes its name. Just
what group of people is involved is a puzzling question.
Kroeber, in the Handbook of California Indians (1925, pp. 356, 466),
includes the Karkin as a division of the southern Wintun, which would
mean that the principal seat of habitation was north of the strait.
While there is no evidence in the early records to exclude this
completely, there is certainly no question that at least a portion of
the group lived on the south side. Thus the mission records before the
settlement of the north shore report numerous baptisms of Karquines or
Tarquines. Viader (1810) camped near Martinez, where the rancheria of
the Tauquines used to be. Arroyo de la Cuesta says the language of the
Karkin is the same as (or similar to) that of the Huchiun. The latter is
Costanoan: the former could not be Wintun. The name Karkin was said by
Arroyo de la Cuesta to signify "trocar," or "to trade." It has been
supposed that the reference is to the rancheria which traded with
Canizares and other early explorers.
The Karquines (on the south side at least) probably began near Crockett,
adjoining the Huchiun on the west. The next sure tribe on the east is
the Julpunes, whose western limit is near Antioch and who must be
considered a delta people.
Abella (1811) states that the strait ends on the east in the land of the
Chupunes, and on the strength of this statement Schenck (1926) places
the Chupunes from Port Costa to Martinez. Schenck also cites Father
Narciso Duran who, in 1817, mentions the Chupcanes as holding this
territory. Yet Viader, in 1810, says it was the site of the former
rancheria of the Karquines.
The mission records are illuminating. San Francisco reports its first
baptism of a Karquin in 1787. The statement reads: "natural de la otra
banda del paraje de Turis, o nacion Karquin." The next reference is in
1801 when eleven of this "nation" were baptized. In the meantime, scores
of Huchiun had been baptized. In 1810, Chupunes or Chupanes (or
Chupkanes) begin to appear, both at San Francisco and San Jose. This
looks as if missionization moved progressively north and east along
the shore: first the Huchiun, then the Karkin, then the Chupunes, and
finally the Julpunes, who begin to show up at San Jose in significant
numbers in 1811.
This concept of the original status of aboriginal units in northern
Contra Costa County is at variance with the arrangement postulated by
Schenck, who places the "Tarquimenes" and the "Tarquimes" eastward
across the delta islands nearly to Stockton. There is some reason to
believe that many of these delta islands were aboriginally uninhabited,
but wholly apart from this consideration, another explanation can be
offered, which has been suggested by Schenck (1926) and by the present
writer (1955). It rests upon the probability that many of the delta
tribes had undergone extensive migration, owing to Spanish military
pressure in the period from 1785 to 1810. Thus the Karquines of the
early accounts may have moved east along the south shore of Suisun Bay,
far into the delta, and hence may have been recorded by later visitors
under a series of name variants. In the meantime the Chupunes, or
Chupkanes, may have been pushed southwest, as intimated by Kotzebue
(cited by Schenck, 1926, p. 130). It is pretty clear that the tribal
territories as reported by a succession of explorers from 1805 to 1820
did not conform to the aboriginal pattern. Our best solution, for
present purposes, is to consider the strip from Crockett to Port Chicago
as having been the range of the Karkin.
_Area 4. The interior valleys from Lafayette to Walnut Creek and
Danville._--Part of this region was traversed by Fages and Crespi, who
reported several villages. It is later identified as the home of the
Saclanes. This tribal aggregate first comes into prominence in 1795 in
connection with the murder of the San Francisco Christians, who slept on
the beach and reached the Saclanes by noon. Amador, on his expedition of
1797, reached them in less than twenty-four hours from Mission San Jose.
Other documents, cited previously, indicate that in spite of terminal
disorganization and scattering the original home of the group was in the
small valleys west of Mt. Diablo.
The linguistic evidence adduced by Arroyo de la Cuesta (1837)
demonstrates that the Saclanes were a non-Costanoan people, perhaps
related to the Plains Miwok. This identification as Miwok, was first
made, on the basis of the de la Cuesta vocabulary, by A. S. Gatschett,
was verified by C. Hart Merriam, and first published by M. S. Beeler
(1955). Kroeber (1925) classes Saclan as doubtfully Costanoan, but shows
the group as Costanoan on his large colored tribal map. Regardless of
their linguistic affiliation, however, historically and ecologically
they must be considered as in the same position as the Costanoans who
surrounded them.
The mission records are explicit. The tribe, at least under the usual
name, was converted at the San Francisco Mission and no other. The first
baptisms occurred in 1794 and the last in 1798.
_Area 5. The interior valleys from Livermore to Dublin and
Pleasanton._--This territory was barely skirted on the west by Fages and
Crespi and on the east by Anza and Font, none of whom left any record of
native villages. In fact, no data in the correspondence or diaries are
of significance except the reference, cited previously, to the rancheria
of the Asirines. We have, on the other hand, some suggestive information
from the baptism books of the mission at San Jose.
Until 1803 converts were identified in the San Jose records largely by
direction. Thus three of the categories were "del Norte," "del Este,"
"del Sur." Of these, "del Este" seems to point to the Livermore Valley
and nearby arroyos as the most likely inhabited region. In 1803, the
rancheria, or some other type of ethnic name, is substituted. From 1803
to 1808, all converts were drawn from twelve places having recognizable
names, ending in _-an_, _-en_, _-in_, or _-un_, characteristic Costanoan
word endings. None of these places can be identified as connected with
the foothill or plains area bordering the Bay. None are Saclan--to the
northwest of the Livermore Valley--since that group was extinct by 1798.
None can be referred to the San Joaquin Valley, since no serious
conversions were attempted there, as indicated by the baptism book,
before 1809. Consequently these places must have been in the interior
valleys, east and northeast of Mission San Jose.
The names are as follows: Saoan, Ssouyen, Seunen, Irgin, Pelnen, Asirin,
Causen (or Cusscun), Tannan (Annan), Caburun (Calenrun, Carurun),
Zuicun, Tuibun, Julien. The first three are clearly synonyms, and refer
to the tribe often called Seunenes. The others might perhaps have been
rancherias subordinate to this tribal group, but such an hypothesis is
negated by the rancheria Asirin, which is referred to in the documents
relating to the Cuevas affair as if it had an independent status.
Therefore, there were apparently several independent villages in the
area as a whole.