Produced by Colin Bell, Joseph Cooper, Diane Monico, and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
https://www.pgdp.net
THE ABORIGINAL POPULATION
OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY,
CALIFORNIA
BY
S. F. COOK
ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS
Vol. 16, No. 2
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS
Editors (Berkeley): R. L. Olson, R. F. Heizer, T. D. McCown, J. H. Rowe
Volume 16, No. 2, pp. 31-80
6 maps
Submitted by editors October 8, 1954
Issued July 11, 1955
Price, 75 cents
University of California Press
Berkeley and Los Angeles
California
Cambridge University Press
London, England
Manufactured in the United States of America
CONTENTS
Page
Introduction 31
The population of the San Joaquin Valley in approximately 1850 33
Contemporary estimates and counts for the entire region 33
Analysis based upon restricted areas 34
Stanislaus and Tuolumne rivers 34
Merced River, Mariposa Creek, and Chowchilla River 35
The Cosumnes, Mokelumne, and Calaveras rivers 36
The Fresno and the upper San Joaquin rivers 36
The Kings and Kaweah rivers 38
The Tulare Lake basin 40
The Tule River, the Kern River, and the Buenavista Basin 40
The aboriginal population 42
The Tulare Lake basin 42
The Kaweah River 45
The Merced River 48
The Kings River 49
The Upper San Joaquin, Fresno, and Chowchilla rivers and
Mariposa Creek 50
The Southern San Joaquin Valley 54
The Northern San Joaquin Valley 56
The Miwok Foothill Area 68
Summary and conclusions 70
Appendix 71
Bibliography 72
MAPS
1. The San Joaquin Valley from the Cosumnes River
to the Tehachapi facing page 74
2. Habitat areas 1A-2: the southern Yokuts and
peripheral tribes 75
3. Habitat areas 3A-4C: the basins of the Kaweah
and Kings rivers 76
4. Habitat areas 5A-6B: the Yokuts, a part of the
Mono, and the southern Miwok 76
5. Habitat areas 7A-14: the northern Yokuts, central
and northern Miwok 77
6. The Lower San Joaquin River and Delta areas 78
THE ABORIGINAL POPULATION OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
BY
S. F. COOK
INTRODUCTION
Ecologically the great central valley of California forms a single
unit. Nevertheless it is convenient for the purposes of this paper to
divide the entire area into two portions, north and south. The vast
expanse from Red Bluff to the Tehachapi is too extensive to cover
demographically in a single exposition. Moreover, the northern tribes,
the Wintun and Maidu, are physiographically clearly segregated from the
southern by the northern extension of San Francisco Bay and the delta
of the rivers. Hence we shall consider here only those peoples south of
the Sacramento and American River watersheds.
The area possesses definite natural limits but its exact boundaries
must be to some extent arbitrary. On the north the line has already
been indicated: the south bank of the upper Bay and the Sacramento
River as far upstream as a point five miles below the city of
Sacramento and thence easterly along the El Dorado--Amador County line
into the high mountains. This follows Kroeber's tribal boundary between
the Maidu and the Sierra Miwok. On the west the line starts northeast
of Mt. Diablo and follows the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley to
the Tehachapi Mountains. On the east we include the Sierra Nevada as
far as was reached by permanent habitation on the west slope. The
southern extremity is represented by the crest of the Tehachapi.
The region designated embraces the territory of the Plains and Sierra
Miwok, the Yokuts, the Western Mono, the Tubatulabal, and the Kawaiisu.
From the standpoint of habitat the area is diversified since it extends
from the swampy valley floor through the oak country of the lower
foothills into the transition life-zone of the middle altitudes.
Perhaps an ecological segregation would be desirable. Such a procedure,
however, would cut across tribal boundaries and make an accurate
evaluation of population difficult. On the accompanying maps, areas are
delineated, and numbered, primarily for convenience of reference. At
the same time they conform as closely as is feasible with the natural
subdivisions of the territory marked out by river valleys, lakes,
plains, and mountains. It should be stressed that they do not
necessarily coincide precisely with the areas occupied by specific
tribes or groups of tribes.
The demography of the central valley is rendered still more complex by
the fact that the contact with the white race took place in a series of
steps rather than by a single overwhelming invasion. In central Mexico,
or to a somewhat lesser degree in northwestern California, aboriginal
life continued relatively untouched until there occurred a rapid and
catastrophic occupation of the entire territory. As a result, the
population was affected in a uniform manner throughout and a
sufficiently clear line can be drawn between aboriginal and postcontact
conditions. In the central valley the white influence was very gradual,
beginning at or near the year 1770 with the entrance of the Spanish
missionaries along the coast and the infiltration of a very few
foreigners into the valley. The volume of invasion increased slowly
over the next three decades, but the effect was intensified by the
escape of numerous mission neophytes into the valley. The years after
1800 saw repeated incursions by the coastal whites who overran the
floor of the valley from the Sacramento River to Buena Vista Lake.
Meanwhile the foothill and mountain tribes were permitted to remain
fairly intact. With discovery of gold, however, these groups lost their
immunity and were rapidly destroyed. Therefore, even though we
oversimplify, we may say that the aboriginal population persisted in
the valley proper up to 1770, in the lower foothills up to roughly
1810, and in the higher foothills and more remote canyons of the Sierra
Nevada up to 1850.
Our sources of information cover only the period during which the
demographic status of the natives was undergoing change. No written
record exists that describes conditions as they might have been found
prior to 1770. The only possible substitute would be an examination of
the habitation sites left from prehistoric times, but archaeological
research in the area has not yet progressed to the point where an
adequate quantitative estimate of population is available. There are
three primary bodies of data to which we have access, all falling
within the historical period between 1770 and 1860.
The first of these derives from the serious effort on the part of the
Americans, who between 1848 and 1852 were entering the region in large
numbers, to determine the quantity of natives surviving in the central
valley. This task was performed by such men as Sutter, Bidwell, and
Savage, together with several Indian commissioners, and army officers
sent out by the government. To their reports may be added the
statements contained in the local county histories published in the era
of 1880 to 1890, as well as in many pioneer reminiscences.
A second major source of information consists of the ethnographic
studies made within the past fifty years, among which should be
mentioned the works of Kroeber, Merriam, Schenck, Gayton, and Gifford.
These investigators depended principally upon informants who were
elderly people in the decades from 1900 to 1940. Their memories,
together with their recollection of what had been told them by their
parents, carry back, on the average, to the period of the American
invasion or just before it. Hence their knowledge of truly aboriginal
population would be valid for the hill tribes only; yet data derived
from them for that region is probably more accurate than can be
obtained from the general estimates made by contemporary white men.
These two types of information, contemporary American accounts and
modern ethnographic material, can thus be used to supplement and check
each other for the era of 1850.
For conditions in the valley before 1840 we have to depend almost
exclusively upon the historical records left by the Spanish and
Mexicans. These consist of a series of diaries, reports, and letters,
by both laymen and ecclesiastics, together with baptism lists and
censuses from the coastal missions. This array of documents is to be
found in the manuscript collections of the Bancroft Library of the
University of California at Berkeley.
It will be clear from these considerations that the population of the
San Joaquin Valley can be determined with some degree of accuracy at
two stages in the history of the region. The later period is at the
point of intense occupancy by the Americans, at or near the year 1850,
for here may be brought to a focus the data from both contemporary
counts and the research of modern ethnographers. The earlier is for the
epoch just preceding the entrance of the Spanish into California, or
just before 1770. To assess the population at this period it is
necessary to bring to bear information from all sources, American and
Spanish, and to utilize all indirect methods of computation which may
be appropriate. As a matter of historical interest, as well as to
provide a background for the estimate of aboriginal population, the
state of the natives in the period of the Gold Rush will be first
examined.
THE POPULATION OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY IN APPROXIMATELY 1850
CONTEMPORARY ESTIMATES AND COUNTS FOR THE ENTIRE REGION
General estimates for the population of the San Joaquin Valley during
the period 1848 to 1855 were made by several individuals. James D.
Savage, one of the earliest settlers in the Fresno region, stated in
1851 that the population from the Tuolumne River to the Kern River was
from 50,000 to 55,000. Elsewhere he modified these figures considerably
(Dixon, MS, 1875) and reported the total from the Cosumnes to the Kern
as 18,100, of which 14,000 were from south of the Stanislaus River.
James H. Carson, another pioneer, said in 1852 that "the Indians of the
Tulare Valley number nearly 6,000. About half this number inhabit the
mountains.... The other portion inhabit the plains along the rivers and
lakes."
In 1852 the Indian commissioner, O. M. Wozencraft, estimated for the
area lying between the Yuba and the Mokelumne rivers a total of 40,000
inhabitants. He quotes old residents as saying that four years
previously (i.e., in 1848) the population for the same area had been
80,000. At about the same time another agent, Adam Johnston (1853),
estimated all the Sierra and valley tribes as being 80,000 strong
(including both Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys). In general
magnitude these figures correspond to those given by Sutter for the
region bounded by the Yuba, the Stanislaus, the Sacramento, the San
Joaquin, and the line of the foothills: 21,873 (Sutter, 1850). Sutter's
value definitely represents conditions prior to 1847. Meanwhile H. W.
Wessels reported in 1853 that from the Stanislaus south there were
7,500 to 8,000 persons. In the same year G. W. Barbour, another
commissioner, referred to the reservation Indians as "seven or eight
thousand hungry souls." In 1856, agent T. J. Henly put the aggregate
population of the Fresno and Kings River reservations plus Tulare,
Mariposa, Tuolumne, Calaveras, and San Joaquin counties as 5,150
(Henley, 1857).
It is evident that the foregoing data represent two distinctly
different types of estimate: broad generalization based largely upon
subjective impression and applying to the years preceding 1847, and
more narrow semi-estimate derived during the years subsequent to 1849
from some attempt to make an actual count. The figures obtained from
the first method are certainly too high, particularly for the period
centering around 1850. On the other hand, it may be possible that the
other method yielded figures which were too low.
Some check on the reliability of the estimates supplied by the various
commissioners and agents may be obtained from two sources, neither of
which constituted a direct attempt to assess population. These comprise
reports submitted concerning (1) vaccinations and (2) distribution of
blankets.
During the summer of 1851 Dr. W. M. Ryer was employed to vaccinate
those Indians in the San Joaquin Valley who could be persuaded to
undergo the operation. Each month Dr. Ryer submitted a voucher
specifying the number of Indians vaccinated during the preceding thirty
days and also mentioning the tribes and areas covered. These vouchers
are included with other documents in Senate Executive Document No. 61,
32nd Congress, first session, 1852 (pp. 20 to 23). Some question might
be raised concerning the accuracy of the figures, but there is no
indication in the correspondence of the period of irregularity or
dishonesty. Dr. Ryer claimed that he had vaccinated, from the
Stanislaus to the south shore of Lake Tulare, 6,154 persons.
A somewhat smaller area was covered by four of the eighteen treaties
concluded by commissioners McKee, Barbour, and Wozencraft[1] with the
California tribes in 1851. These four treaties may be designated A, B,
C, and N, following the order in which they are presented in the Senate
Report. Under the agreements, one of the commodities which were to be
furnished to the Indians by the government was blankets. The tribes
included under treaties A, B, and C were to receive a total of 3,000.
In treaty N (as also in several other treaties not concerned with this
area) it was stated that the Indians were to receive one blanket apiece
for every person over fifteen years of age, and presumably this ratio
was employed universally in the issue of blankets. Under the conditions
existing at that time it may safely be assumed that the persons over
fifteen years of age constituted at least 80 per cent of the total
population. Therefore the three treaties first mentioned (A, B, and C)
must have covered 3,750 individuals. Regarding the group embraced by
treaty N it is explicitly stated that "they may number ... some 2,000
to 3,000." If we take the mean, or 2,500, then the total for the area
is 6,250.
The area included under the four treaties extended actually only from
the Chowchilla River to the south shore of Lake Tulare and the Kern
River, whereas the territory covered by Ryer during his vaccination
tour began with the Stanislaus. Within the treaty limits he vaccinated
4,449 persons. The discrepancy between his total and that of the
treaties poses no difficulty since it is apparent that, as would be
expected with any primitive group, fewer individuals consented to be
vaccinated than made known their desire to receive gifts of blankets.
Hence the figure derived from potential blanket distribution is
probably closer to the actuality than the vaccination figure. If,
accordingly, we correct Ryer's report of 1,705 persons vaccinated
_north_ of the Chowchilla River to conform to the ratio found south of
that stream, we get 2,398. If we add this to 6,250 the total is 8,648
for the entire strip from the Stanislaus to the southern end of the San
Joaquin Valley.
In summarizing general estimates and counts we may discard the very
high values submitted by Wozencraft, Johnston, and Sutter on the
grounds that they were either mere guesses or applied to an earlier
period than that which we are considering. There are left the
following figures, which seem essentially valid.
Ryer and the treaties (1851) 8,648
Wessels (1853) 7,500-8,000
Barbour (1853) 7,500-8,000
Henley (1856) 5,150
Since the wastage of native population in the valley was exceedingly
rapid during the decade of the 'fifties, these figures are remarkably
consistent. As a preliminary value, therefore, based upon the best
general estimates, we may set the population in 1851 at 8,600.
ANALYSIS BASED UPON RESTRICTED AREAS
Further examination and correction are now in order. It will be noted
that the estimates above do not include the area traversed by the
Cosumnes, Mokelumne, and Calaveras rivers. Moreover, the federal agents
confined their calculations to those natives who voluntarily or
otherwise were incorporated in the local reservation system. That many
Indians were overlooked, not only in the more remote foothills, but
also in the valley itself cannot be doubted. In order to assess the
population in greater detail as well as to introduce new sources of
information it will be advantageous to break up the entire region into
smaller units and consider these units one by one.
STANISLAUS AND TUOLUMNE RIVERS
We may begin with the watersheds of the Stanislaus and Tuolumne rivers,
since for this area reasonably complete information is available (see
maps 1, 5, and 6, areas 7 and 9.) On May 31, 1851, the Daily Alta
California reported the treaty made with tribes of this region and
stated that they were 1,000 strong. This treaty (treaty E in the
California Treaties) covered the courses of the two streams as far as
their junction with the San Joaquin, on the one hand, and an
indeterminate distance into the hills, on the other. Ryer vaccinated in
the area during June of the same year and submitted a bill for 1,010
operations. He specifies 6 bands, rancherias, or tribes which were
predominantly Siakumne and Taulamni, a fact which implies that he
confined his attention principally to the inhabitants of the valley and
the lower foothills. In the preceding discussion it was pointed out
that Ryer's figures are probably too low and that a correction should
be introduced. If the same ratio is used as before, the value becomes
1,420.
Adam Johnston, in a statement published in 1853 includes a map
(Johnston, 1853, p. 242). Along the rivers shown on this map he has
placed figures for population. According to him there were 900 Indians
on the Stanislaus and 450 on the Tuolumne, or a total of 1,350. These
are distinctly noted as reservation Indians and hence would not have
included the entire population. Four years later, H. W. Wessels
reported for the same area only 500-700 persons (Wessels, 1857). These
were the Indians left on the reservations.
At about the same period, James D. Savage gave as his opinion that
there were 2,500 people on the Stanislaus and 2,100 on the Tuolumne
(Dixon, MS, 1875). In their report in 1853 Barbour, McKee, and
Wozencraft refer to a statement by a chief named Kossus that under his
jurisdiction were 4,000 persons and 30 rancherias from the Calaveras to
the Stanislaus. Although these two estimates are widely at variance
with those submitted by the officials, it must be remembered that both
Savage and Chief Kossus may have been referring to a somewhat earlier
date and that both included bands and settlements higher up the rivers
than was actually reached by the commissioners. Hence, although the
figure of over 4,000 is likely too high, 1,000 to 1,500 may have been
too low.
With respect to the strictly lowland tribes there is but little doubt
that by the year 1852 the northern Yokuts lying between Stockton and
Modesto had practically disappeared. Thus the first state census, taken
in 1852, showed only 275 Indians remaining on the lower Stanislaus.
George H. Tinkham states that in the same year there were only 10
families (perhaps 50 persons) left from the tribe which formerly had
inhabited the region between the Calaveras and the Stanislaus and had
extended eastward along the latter stream as far as Knights Ferry
(Tinkham, 1923). The valley plains can consequently account for no more
than approximately 350 persons and it must be assumed that almost all
the remaining natives were living along the border of the foothills and
higher up in the mountains.
One item of some significance is the discussion of the Tuolumne River
tribes by Adam Johnston, written in the year 1860, definitely after the
Gold Rush period. He says there were six chiefs in command of six
rancherias, the names of which he gives. These rancherias "contain from
fifty to two hundred Indians, men, women and children." One of these
bands, the Aplache, "resided further in the mountains," from which one
may infer that the other five were also in the mountains. At an average
of 125 per band, or rancheria, this means 900 people whose existence
was known to Johnston as late as 1860. An equivalent number can be
assumed for the Stanislaus, or 1,800 in all.
The ethnographers have given us an imposing list of villages for the
area under consideration, derived entirely from modern informants.
There are three of these lists, those of Kroeber (1925), Merriam[2],
and Gifford,[3] which merit careful scrutiny. Kroeber's (p. 445 of the
Handbook) includes 49 names, which he says are of villages "that can be
both named and approximately located." Merriam's "Mewuk List" has 28
names of places located on the Stanislaus and Tuolumne. Gifford shows
49 villages which he says are "permanent," in addition to perhaps twice
that number of "temporary" villages and camps. Gifford's list is
probably the most carefully compiled of the three. The geographical
location is indicated by counties but since his field of observation
embraces Calaveras and Tuolumne counties, it coincides territorially
quite exactly with the other two lists.
Certain villages are recorded by all three investigators, others by two
of them, and some by only one. Concerning the existence of the first
two groups there can be little, if any, doubt. Of those appearing on
only one list some question might be raised. On the other hand, the
care and conservatism exhibited by all three ethnographers makes it
very difficult to doubt the essential validity of their data. The
discrepancies are clearly due to the differences between informants and
the high probability that no single informant could recall all the
inhabited places over so large an area.
I have tabulated below the number of villages according to river system
and according to occurrence in the lists mentioned.
Stanislaus Tuolumne
__________ ________
Kroeber, Merriam, and Gifford 8 13
Kroeber and Merriam 2 3
Kroeber and Gifford 6 5
Kroeber only 6 8
Gifford only 5 12
Merriam only 1 1
____ ____
Total 28 42
We have therefore 70 reasonably well authenticated villages in the hill
area traversed by the two rivers. With regard to the number of
inhabitants, further data are provided by Gifford. His informant gave
for each permanent place an estimate of the number of persons present
in the year 1840. Gifford secured his material in approximately the
year 1915 from a man very old at the time. If the informant was then
seventy-five years of age, he must have been born in 1840. Hence he
could scarcely be expected to remember population figures from a date
much earlier than his childhood. The names and location of the villages
themselves were at least semipermanent and could have been derived from
the informant's parents even if not from his own memory. Hence it is
probable that the figure furnished to Gifford more nearly represents
the number of inhabitants in 1850 than in 1840. The average value for
all 49 villages is 20.8 persons. Yet 7 villages are stated to have held
15 persons, 11 villages 10 persons, and 3 villages 5 or less persons.
Such a condition argues a rapidly declining population, for no normal
aboriginal settlement is likely to have contained less than 20
inhabitants. Gifford's average of 21 persons per village must, however,
be accepted as representing the closest we can get to the value for the
period of 1850. This means a population of 588 for the Stanislaus and
882 for the Tuolumne. The total is 1,470 for the foothill region.
Between 300 and 400 may be added to account for scattered remnants
along the lower courses of these rivers and on the San Joaquin itself,
or 1,800 for the entire area under consideration.
To summarize, we have the following estimates for the
Stanislaus-Tuolumne watershed at or about the year 1851:
Savage (perhaps before 1851) 4,600
Chief Kossus 4,000
Daily Alta California, 1851 1,000
Vaccinations by Ryer 1,420
Adam Johnston's estimate, 1853 1,350
Adam Johnston's estimate, 1860 1,800
H. W. Wessels, 1853 600
Village lists 1,800
The crude numerical average is about 2,070 but since the best of the
above estimates, the village lists, shows no more than 1,800, it will
be preferable to set 2,000 as a fair approximation.
STANISLAUS-TUOLUMNE ... 2,000
_____________________________
MERCED RIVER, MARIPOSA CREEK, AND CHOWCHILLA RIVER
South of the Tuolumne are the Merced River, Mariposa Creek, and the
Chowchilla River, all within the territory of the southern Miwok (see
maps 1 and 4, areas 5E, 5F, 6). The earliest of the midcentury counts
pertaining to the region is probably that of Savage (Dixon, MS, 1875)
who put 2,100 persons on the Merced but omitted reference to any other
stream between the Tuolumne and the upper San Joaquin. Ryer, in a bill
submitted July 31, 1851, claimed to have vaccinated 695 persons along
the Merced, principally on the lower course of that river. The value,
corrected according to the system adopted previously, is 977. McKee,
Barbour, and Wozencraft in a report on May 15, 1851 (Wozencraft, 1851)
described the proposed reservation No. 1 between the Tuolumne and the
Merced and estimated the total number of Indians on both rivers as
2,000 to 3,000, or let us say 1,250 on the Merced alone. The map of
Adam Johnston, dated in early 1852, shows 500 persons on the Merced,
but these were reservation Indians. The state census of 1852, as cited
by the Sacramento Union for November 17, 1852, gave 4,533 persons for
Mariposa County, a figure which no doubt included all the natives from
the Tuolumne to the Fresno River. H. W. Wessels on August 21, 1853,
wrote that there were 500 to 700 Indians on the Stanislaus and
Tuolumne, 500 to 600 on the upper San Joaquin and that the entire area
contained 2,500 to 3,000 (Wessels, 1857). The Merced-Fresno region
therefore accounted for somewhere between 1,000 and 1,700. A rough
average for all these rather haphazard estimates would be 1,000 natives
on the Merced watershed and another 1,000 on the Mariposa and the
Chowchilla, or 2,000 in all.
We may now turn to the village lists. Unfortunately, Gifford did not
work south of the Tuolumne but we have the list given by Kroeber in the
Handbook (1925) for the southern Miwok and two manuscript lists of
Merriam (entitled "Mewuk Village List" and "Indian Village and Camp
Sites in Yosemite Valley and Merced Canyon"). For the middle Merced
Valley, from a point some ten miles below El Portal to the base of the
foothills, Kroeber and Merriam both list 14 villages, to which Merriam
alone adds another 10. From El Portal to a point six or seven miles
downstream Merriam has found no less than 15 villages. In Yosemite
Valley itself he has located 33 villages, of which 12 are qualified as
either camps or summer villages, leaving 20 which he presumes are
permanent. On the upper Merced, above Yosemite, and the headwaters of
the Chowchilla, Kroeber has found the name of one village and Merriam
one. Clearly this area has never been investigated exhaustively. For
the well-known portion of the river, therefore, there are 59 located
villages.
Of the 35 village sites in Yosemite and below El Portal, Merriam says
10 were large and 6 small. The rest are not qualified but were
presumably medium to small. Gifford's average for the central Miwok of
21 persons per village in 1850-1852 may be applied directly, giving a
population for the Merced Valley in the hills of 1,239. To this may be
added, according to Ryer and to Johnston, 50 to 600 for the lower
river, making a total of 1,800.
Mariposa Creek and the Chowchilla River have never been as thoroughly
investigated as the Merced. Merriam's "Mewuk List" mentions 13 sites on
each of the two streams, including the 6 given by Kroeber in the
Handbook. At 21 persons per village this would mean a population of 273
for each or 546 for both, a value which appears rather low.
Another approach to the problem is by way of territorial comparisons.
There are under consideration, including those previously discussed,
five small river systems, those of the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Merced,
Mariposa, and Chowchilla. Physiographically and ecologically they are
very similar since the rivers all descend the foothills of the Sierra
Nevada and traverse the plain to the San Joaquin through the same life
zones and at nearly the same latitude. There are, to be sure, some
local differences between them with respect to how much of their course
is favorable for village sites, but in the aggregate the similarities
outweigh the differences. It is of interest, therefore, to estimate the
village density along each watercourse. This value can be computed with
a fair degree of accuracy by measuring on a large-scale map the length
of each river and its principal affluents from the edge of the plain to
the upper limit of known permanent habitation. The village numbers can
be derived from the lists of Kroeber, Gifford, and Merriam.
Estimated Villages per
River Length (mi.) Villages river mi.
_____ ____________ ________ ____________
Stanislaus 85 28 0.33
Tuolumne 105 42 0.40
Merced 125 59 0.47
Mariposa 40 13 0.32
Chowchilla 65 13 0.20
______
Mean 0.34
The figures, considering physiographic differences and varying coverage
by ethnographers, are quite consistent. Only that for the Chowchilla
appears unduly low and this in turn may be referable to an incomplete
count by Merriam. It is reasonable to concede this possibility and
assume an actual count of 0.30 village for each mile of this stream. On
65 miles of river front there would thus have been 19.5 villages. This
consequently means, using Gifford's population average of 21 per
village, 273 inhabitants on the Mariposa and 410 on the Chowchilla.
These may be added to the 1,800 calculated for the Merced, making a
total of 2,483.
The very approximate value derived from general estimates was 2,000
persons. The village data are probably more accurate and may be rounded
off to an even 2,500.
MERCED-MARIPOSA-CHOWCHILLA ... 2,500
____________________________________
THE COSUMNES, MOKELUMNE, AND CALAVERAS RIVERS
The northern Miwok held the upper reaches of the Mokelumne plus most of
the Cosumnes and Calaveras (see maps 1, 5, and 6, areas 10, 11, 12).
The population must have been very small in the period of the early
1850's owing to extreme attrition suffered from the Spanish and
particularly from the gold miners. Kroeber gives only 20 villages on
all three streams, most of them on the Mokelumne. Merriam adds another
3, making 23 in all. At Gifford's population value this means 480
persons. The official sources are of little help since none of the
agents or commissioners reported specifically on the area. Evidently
there were too few survivors among the natives to warrant the trouble
of placing them under the reservation system.
Savage assessed the population on the Cosumnes, Mokelumne, and
Calaveras at 1,000 each (Dixon, MS, 1875) but it is likely that he was
thinking in terms of the days before the Gold Rush. F. T. Gilbert
(1879, p. 113) says that the Mokelkos, by which he means all the
Indians between the Mokelumne and the Cosumnes in the hills and as far
as Stockton on the plain, had 12 rancherias of 200 to 300 each and
numbered about 3,000 in all. He, however, was referring specifically to
the period "before the advent of Sutter." Likewise J. D. Mason (1881,
p. 256) ascribed to the same tribe "nearly a score of towns, with a
total of 3,000 to 4,000." In amplification Gilbert says that in 1850
rancherias lined both banks of the Mokelumne from Ahearn's (near Lodi)
to Campo Seco (near the present Pardee Reservoir), and that they
numbered then about 2,000. In 1852, however, there were only 4
rancherias left, with 390 inhabitants.
Gilbert was referring explicitly to the lower course of the rivers,
whereas the villages cited by Kroeber were definitely above this region
in the foothills. We may accept Gilbert's figure of 390 on the lower
Mokelumne, to which may be added 110 for the lower Cosumnes and
Calaveras and 480 for the upper villages, making a total of 980 or, let
us say, 1,000.
COSUMNES-MOKELUMNE-CALAVERAS ... 1,000
______________________________________
THE FRESNO AND THE UPPER SAN JOAQUIN RIVERS
We next turn south and consider the valleys of the Fresno and upper San
Joaquin rivers (see maps 1 and 4, areas 5B, 5C, 5D.) There are three
counts or estimates pertaining to this area specifically. The first is
that of Savage, who does not mention the Fresno but puts 2,700 persons
on the upper San Joaquin. The second source is the May 29, 1851, issue
of the Daily Alta California, which carried a letter written by an
unidentified officer who was with the Indian commissioners and in fact
may have been G. W. Barbour. This officer refers to the treaty made
with the natives between the Chowchilla and the Kings rivers and says
that "the total is probably 3,000 Indians." The third is Adam Johnston,
who on his map ascribed 1,200 people to the Fresno and 1,000 to the San
Joaquin (Johnston, 1853). The average of the three estimates is 2,633.
W. M. Ryer submitted three reports for the territory below the Merced
and north of the Tehachapi Mountains. In each he mentions the tribes
vaccinated (Ryer, 1852). There are 45 in all, but 8 tribal or rancheria
names are indeterminate and there are many duplicate names among the
rest. Putting all three lists together we can get 27 recognizable
tribal names, of which one is southern Miwok, four are Mono, and the
others Yokuts. The total vaccinations performed numbered 4,451, or,
correcting to conform to the figures based on blanket distribution,
6,255, an average of 232 per tribe. To allow for the nontribal and
unrecognizable names on Ryer's lists this value may be arbitrarily
reduced to 200. Ryer mentions in the Fresno-San Joaquin area the
following: Chowchilla, Chukchansi, Heuchi, Pitkachi, Goshowu, Dumna,
Dalinchi, Pohinichi (Miwok), and Posgisa (Mono). The Pohinichi should
be excluded since they have already been considered in connection with
the southern Miwok. The other nine, reckoned at 200 persons per tribe,
would represent an aggregate of 1,800. However, Kroeber (1925, p. 481,
and map, p. 526) shows four other Yokuts subdivisions within the same
territory: Hoyima, Wakichi, Kechayi, and Tolichi. Although Ryer may
have included these under other tribal names they perhaps ought to be
included here, thus making the total 2,600.
For villages there are two sets of sources. The first pertains
primarily to the Yokuts, covers a territory substantially coterminous
with that seen by the contemporary observers mentioned above, and is
found in the work of Kroeber (1925), Gayton (1948), and Latta (1949).
The second set of villages is confined to the Mono and is derived from
Gifford (1932) and Merriam.
The first group of authors list villages for the 13 tribes mentioned in
the preceding discussion, 49 in all or an average of 3.77 per tribe.
With respect to size there is reason to believe that the settlements in
this area, even in the early 1850's, were considerably larger than
those described by Gifford for the central Miwok. The estimate of Adam
Johnston of an average of 125 per rancheria on the lower Tuolumne has
already been mentioned. H. W. Wessels in 1853 wrote that the Pitkachi
plus the Noo-to-ah, a Mono group, had 500 to 600 souls (Wessels, 1857).
Half of these, or 300, may have been Pitkachi, a tribe for which
Kroeber lists 3 villages. This would have meant 100 per village.
Merriam credits Savage with the statement that in 1851 the Kechayi had
1,000 people. Kroeber, Gayton, and Latta list 6 different villages for
this tribe or, according to Savage's figures, 167 persons per village.
Ryer's total of 2,600 prorated among 49 villages, would yield 53
persons each. Although it is probable that the values computed from the
statements of Johnston, Wessels, and Savage are too high, that derived
from Ryer may be somewhat too low. An intermediate figure of 70
inhabitants per village for the valley and lower foothills would
perhaps come as close as we can get to the truth. This, with 49
villages, gives 3,430, somewhat more than the 2,633 cited as the
average of the general estimates.
Inhabiting the higher foothills and extending to the upper limit of
habitation from the San Joaquin to the Kaweah rivers were the Western
Mono. This tribe lived just above the Yokuts and at points was in very
close association with them. As a whole the Western Mono constitute a
racial and ecological unit and as such it is probably preferable to
consider them as a single population entity than to segregate them by
rivers, as has been done for the Miwok and the Yokuts. It will be
necessary, therefore, to digress for this purpose and subsequently
return to the discussion.
The classic ethnographic work on the tribe, and the only work which
contains any numerical data, is that of Gifford (1932) on the North
Fork division of the Mono. This is supplemented by Merriam's manuscript
entitled "Monache Tribes, Bands, and Villages." Gifford gives the names
(text and map) of 67 North Fork villages, or, as he prefers to call
them, hamlets. These were quite unlike either those of the Miwok or of
the valley Yokuts, being very much smaller and subject to an
extraordinary turnover in inhabitants. Gifford makes it very clear
that each family was accustomed to move every few years from one
settlement to another and that sites were being continually occupied
and deserted. The 67 names are therefore no criterion for population.
For the time of the American occupation Gifford estimates the number of
persons in the group or subtribe as approximately 300, which, divided
directly by 67, would give the absurd average of 4 persons per hamlet.
However, a more detailed analysis is possible.
Of Gifford's 67 names, 2 may be deducted as being only camps, leaving
65 which at some period were permanently occupied. In his Appendix A
(pp. 57-61) he lists the sites, together with the number of houses in
each and the number of males and females inhabiting them. From these
data may be computed the total number of families and the mean number
of persons per family. There were 227 families in all. However, 36 of
these are listed two or more times by virtue of moves made from one
hamlet to another, which were remembered by Gifford's informants. This
would leave 191 families for the subtribe, provided Gifford recorded
all the moves. But Gifford clearly implies that he did not, since his
informants could not remember them all. Hence the number of families
must be further corrected. In Appendix A, 15 out of a total of 65
hamlets were concerned in the moves recorded. These 15 hamlets were
inhabited at different times by 61 families but many of these, owing to
frequent change of residence, are repetitions. Actually there was a
total of 24 _different_ families rotating among the 15 villages. Now if
in the other 50 hamlets the same process was going on, although Gifford
was not able to record the moves, it is legitimate to apply the same
ratio as is in fact found for the 15 hamlets. The crude total of 227
families must therefore be reduced to 89. From Gifford's complete list
it can be determined that there were on the average 4.93 persons per
family. This gives a population of 439 for the period remembered by the
informants.
On general grounds it is to be expected that the conditions reported by
Gifford's informants were not entirely aboriginal. This is also
indicated by the value of 4.93 persons per family, which is somewhat
too low for a stable prehistoric population. Moreover, Gifford himself
states that there were formerly 44 more houses than there were in the
time referred to by the informants (figures given individually for the
hamlets in App. A). About 1850 there were 227 houses, and if 44 are
added, the aboriginal number would have been 271. Each house may be
assumed to have held one family but the houses were probably occupied
in rotation. The crude estimate of 271 houses or families, each
containing (according to aboriginal standards) a possible 6 persons,
would mean a total of 1,626 for the subtribe. If, however, we apply the
correction factor for family moves we must reduce this estimate to 640,
a far more reasonable figure. For the North Fork Mono, therefore, we
may accept as the best estimate obtainable a population of 440 for the
period near 1850 and of 640 for precontact time.
The other subtribes of the Mono provide no data comparable with those
available for the North Fork group. Some method of extrapolation is
thus called for.
The village method is very unsatisfactory. Kroeber says substantially
nothing on this score and Merriam, although he lists 19 villages for
the North Fork Mono, gives no more than one or two or, at the most,
half-a-dozen names for each of the other groups. Tribal distinctions
are also very confusing. Kroeber in the Handbook mentions 6 Mono
subtribes: North Fork group, Posgisa, Holkoma, Wobonuch, Waksachi, and
Balwisha. Merriam subdivides to a much greater extent. His grouping may
be expressed essentially as follows:
1. Pogesas equivalent to Kroeber's Posgisa
2. Nim synonymous with the North Fork subtribe
3. Kwetah included in Kroeber's Holkoma
4. Kokoheba included in Kroeber's Holkoma
5. Holkoma included in Kroeber's Holkoma
6. Towincheba included in Kroeber's Holkoma
7. Toinetche included in Kroeber's Holkoma
8. Tsooeawatah included in Kroeber's Holkoma
9. Emtimbitch classed by Kroeber as a Yokuts tribe
10. Woponuch equivalent to Kroeber's Wobonuch
11. Wuksatche equivalent to Kroeber's Waksachi
12. Padoosha equivalent to Kroeber's Balwisha
Nos. 5 to 8 inclusive are consolidated by Merriam as smaller
groups within a main group or subtribe called the
Toohookmutch. Concerning these Merriam says: "Large tribe on
King's River. On both sides but largest area on north side.
Contains many rancheria bands."
Using Merriam's nomenclature, the Nim are generally conceded to have
been the largest single subtribe. For this we may take as a working
base line the previous estimate of 440 persons and Merriam's list of 19
villages. Elsewhere Merriam mentions the names of the following:
Toinetche 3 villages, Holkoma 4, Woponuch 9, Emtimbitch 2, Waksache 1,
Kokoheba 1, and Toohookmutch 10. The total is 30. By direct proportion
the inhabitants should have numbered 695 but this would leave five of
Merriam's groups with no population at all. If we consider that the
Toohookmutch complex plus the Kokoheba and Kwetah are the equivalent of
Kroeber's Holkoma we find 18 villages, which implies 416 people.
Merriam cites 9 villages or, at the same ratio, 208 persons for the
Wobonuch. The total for these three of Kroeber's subtribes would then
be 1,064. If we guess that the remaining groups contained 500 persons,
the figure for the Mono in 1850 would reach the vicinity of 1,600.
In view of the paucity of the village data for all subtribes except the
North Fork group it is proper to fall back on area-density comparisons.
The territory actually inhabited by the Mono is vague, particularly on
the eastern border approaching the high mountains. Nevertheless
Merriam's villages furnish a fair guide in outline, since his findings,
while very incomplete, can be regarded as a reasonably well distributed
sample. Moreover, his descriptions of tribal boundaries and village
locations appear to be very accurate. When we plot the latter on a
large scale map, therefore, the outlines of the Western Mono area
become sufficiently distinct.
There are two possible variants of the method, one by computing stream
distances and the other by measuring areas. Both must of course rest
for their basis on the data for the North Fork subtribe. This in turn
may entail some error, since the North Fork group may have been not
only the most populous but also the densest.
For the North Fork territory the distribution shown by Gifford on his
map (1932, p. 18) is used plus the area of Bass Lake, since Merriam has
found that there were once villages there. The southern and eastern
boundary is taken as the San Joaquin River, because the North Fork Mono
apparently did not cross to the left bank of the river. Several miles
on Little Fine Gold Creek must also be included, according to
Gifford's map.
In this region there were approximately 60 miles of streams, including
the San Joaquin River itself. With a population of 440 this means 7.33
persons per stream mile. The stream mileage for the San Joaquin system
as a whole within the Mono boundaries amounted to 100 miles. Hence the
population in the same ratio would be 733. The analogous values for the
Kings River system are 150 miles and 1,100 persons and for the Kaweah
drainage 75 miles and 550 persons. The total population would then be
2,383.
If areas are calculated from the township lines on the map, that
covered by the North Fork Mono is approximately 150 square miles and
that of the Mono collectively is 1,090 square miles. Equating the North
Fork population to the entire area gives for the Mono as a whole 3,195.
We may now return to the consideration of the Fresno-San Joaquin
region. For the lower courses of these rivers, mainly in Yokuts
territory, three values were derived, 2,633 from general estimates,
2,600 from Ryer's vaccinations, and 3,430 from village lists. We may
accept the average, 2,890. For the Mono of the upper San Joaquin the
best estimate, as given above, is 733. The total is 3,623 or, rounded
off to the nearest hundred, 3,600.
FRESNO-SAN JOAQUIN ... 3,600
____________________________
THE KINGS AND THE KAWEAH RIVERS
The Kings and Kaweah watersheds may be considered at this point in
their entirety (see maps 1 and 3, areas 3 and 4). If we deduct 730
persons for the San Joaquin basin, the estimates for the Mono on the
two former streams was estimated by the village method as 870, by the
stream mileage method as 1,653, and by the area method as 2,465. If one
regards some of these figures as too high, he should bear in mind that
the natives on the Kings and Kaweah rivers were exposed to more intense
contact with the white race for a longer period before 1850 than those
on the relatively sheltered North Fork, and that their extermination
proceeded with tremendous velocity after that date. This fact may well
account for the inability of either Kroeber or Merriam to find more
than a few villages on the Kings and Kaweah, as compared with the
success of Gifford on the North Fork. The more exposed villages may
simply have disappeared before the era reached by the memory of modern
informants. If this is so, the stream mileage and area comparisons may
be more accurate than otherwise might be supposed.
Considerable evidence for a rather high population in this region at
the midpoint of the nineteenth century is to be derived from
contemporary accounts and from statements obtained by Merriam. Among
the papers in his collection is a clipping from the Stockton Record of
February 21, 1925, containing an article by Walter Fry of the United
States Park Service. Included is an account of early days on the Kaweah
by Hale D. Thorpe, obtained by Mr. Fry in 1910. Mr. Thorpe says:
When I first came to the Three Rivers country in 1856, there
were over 2,000 Indians living along the Kaweah River above
Lemon Cove. Their headquarters camp was at Hospital Rock....
There were over 600 Indians then living at the camp.
The Indians were mostly Mono, of the Patwisha tribe. Dr. Merriam
evidently consulted Mr. George W. Stewart concerning this matter, since
the file also contains a letter from Mr. Stewart written to Dr. Merriam
on March 29, 1926, stating that this camp was occupied only during the
summer and that there were several permanent rancherias along the
stream. Mr. Thorpe's figure of 2,000 probably refers to Indians of all
tribes, since by 1856 all the natives from the delta region had been
driven up the river. The 600 at or near Hospital Rock were undoubtedly
Mono.
In his manuscript entitled "Ho-lo-ko-ma, Cole Spring, Pine Ridge,"
Merriam has the following to say: