Leuchas might possibly be identified with Kroeber's Lakisamni (Yokuts)
on the Stanislaus river." But the mission records and all other
documents clearly distinguish between the two groups, rendering
Schenck's hypothesis entirely untenable.
Some of the confusion may derive from the account of Munoz. In his
diary of the Moraga expedition he tells how, on October 1, 1806, the
party left the Merced River and proceded northwest for 7 to 8 leagues,
reaching finally a river which they called the Dolores (i.e., the
Tuolumne, probably near Modesto). There were no Indians, but signs of
"varias rancherias," the inhabitants having all absconded. On October 2
they went northwest again and at 4 leagues, in the middle of a very
large oak park, they came upon another river, which they called the
Guadelupe. This could only have been the Stanislaus, probably somewhere
east of Ripon. On the next day, October 3, they went up this river, and
at the end of 6 leagues reached a rancheria called Taulamne. It was
situated in "unos empinados voladeros e inacesibles por unas
encrespadas rocas." They could not get at the Indians but estimated the
population as 200, on the basis of the people they could discern. This
village, be it noted, was situated among "steep cliffs, inaccessible
because of certain rough rocks"--not on an inaccessible rock in the
river. This spot, judging by both the distances and the description,
was along the limestone bluffs which steeply border the south bank of
the Stanislaus for several miles opposite Knights Ferry. The Indians
said that there were six other rancherias upstream. From this point the
expedition moved the next day again northwest toward the Calaveras
River. We gather little concerning tribal names from Moraga's account
but we learn that there was a considerable population along the
Stanislaus which demonstrated sharp defiance to the Spanish invaders.
In the later documents there is little if any reference to the
Taulamnes but much discussion of the Lakisamni. There are repeated
allusions to this group as being very hostile, bad raiders, and the
object of several military campaigns, particularly those against the
great Indian rebel chief, Estanislao. The fighting was undoubtedly on
the Stanislaus River and the Indian protagonists were frequently allied
with the Cosumnes and Mokelumnes. From the context of the documents
they would seem to have been as numerous, or at least as bellicose, as
either of these two tribes.
Jose Sanchez in 1826 refers to his bitter battle with Estanislao, which
took place on the "rio de los Laquisimes" (MS, 1826). Joaquin Pina
describes a military expedition under Guadelupe Vallejo in 1829 (MS,
1829). The objective was two "rancherias," one of the Laquisimes and
the other of the Tagualames, on the "Rio de los Laquisimes," or the
"Rio Pescadero." The campaign was inconclusive since nearly all of the
Indians escaped.
From the citations above it appears probable that the Taulamnes and the
Lakisamne were two distinct tribal groups and that their home was on
both the Tuolumne and Stanislaus rivers. It is also likely that in the
turmoil and confusion of the period between 1800 and 1830 the original
spacing and distribution of the tribes became irreparably lost and that
the surviving fragments of both amalgamated and reconstituted
themselves with reference to their Spanish enemies rather than with
reference to their aboriginal social organization. Hence they may have
come to be concentrated more on the Stanislaus than on the Tuolumne.
The only direct population estimate we have for them is that of Munoz,
who claimed 200 persons for the village of Taulamne, among the cliffs.
Assuming that 50 persons were not seen, the village would have had 250
inhabitants, which is more or less standard for the general area,
according to Moraga's account. If the other six villages had an equal
population, the total would have been 1,500. But this estimate does not
include the portion of the Stanislaus below Taulamne which was covered
by Moraga in his march of 6 leagues upstream. No villages are mentioned
in connection with this march but they could scarcely have failed to
exist. Hence we may add another 500 without much fear of exaggeration,
making a total of 2,000 for the course of the river from the San
Joaquin to several miles above Knights Ferry. On the Tuolumne "varias
rancherias" were seen, all deserted by their occupants. However, Moraga
also remarked that the lower Tuolumne resembled the lower Merced. On
the latter were 8 rancherias, hence there may have been an equal number
on the Tuolumne. At a conservative 225 persons in each, the aggregate
would have been 1,800. The sum for the two rivers would be 3,800.
The baptism lists show 151 conversions for the Lakisamne and 263 for
the Taulamnes, or 414 in all. In view of the notorious hostility and
the successful resistance these groups opposed to the white men,
evident even in Moraga's day, we are justified in setting the baptism
factor as low as for the Mokelumnes, or 7 per cent. This gives a
potential aboriginal population of 5,920.
The midcentury American estimates would indicate more than this number.
H. W. Wessells (1859) claims 500 to 700 on the Stanislaus and Tuolumne
in 1853. Adam Johnston (1853) put 1,350 on his map of the same area in
1852. W. M. Ryer vaccinated 1,010 on the two rivers in 1851. The Daily
Alta California for May 31, 1851, said that the Indians were 1,000
strong between the Stanislaus and the Tuolumne, and Savage, for an
earlier period, put them at 4,600 (Dixon, MS, 1875). On the other hand,
it must be remembered that as a result of Spanish and Mexican, not to
mention American, aggression most of the strictly San Joaquin River
people had long since retreated up the lateral streams. Hence the
natives seen by the commissioners between 1850 and 1853 included the
residues of all the river tribes from Manteca to Merced. For the
southern part of the San Joaquin Valley it was determined, in a
previous discussion, that the population remainder in 1850 represented
approximately one-third of the aboriginal population. Of the estimates
just cited the most reliable is that of Ryer. Following the suggestions
presented in the consideration of his activities, we must make a
correction to account for persons who missed vaccination. Such a
correction would bring the number to 1,420. Then application of the
factor one-third gives an aboriginal value of 4,730.
The three modes of estimate yield respectively a population of 3,800,
5,920, and 4,730, with an average of 4,817. We may use a slightly
greater value and call the population 5,000. To this must be added the
1,800 persons estimated to have lived along the San Joaquin River
itself. The lower San Joaquin River group as a whole, therefore, may be
assigned a population of 6,800.
Lower San Joaquin River Group ... 6,800
_______________________________________
NORTHERN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY ... 27,070
______________________________________
THE MIWOK FOOTHILL AREA
Above the central valley itself and occupying the foothills from the
Cosumnes to the Tuolumne lived the northern and central Miwok. This
region was not reached by the Spanish expeditions nor were many, if
any, of the inhabitants incorporated in the missions. It is therefore
necessary to rely exclusively upon the reports of the ethnographers.
In a preceding discussion of the central Miwok, who lived on the upper
Stanislaus and Tuolumne, there were cited the data secured by Gifford,
Kroeber, and Merriam for 70 villages. This area in 1850 was estimated
to contain a population of 1,470. There are no data comparable to
Gifford's for the rivers farther north, largely because the natives on
the upper Cosumnes, Mokelumne, and Calaveras were thoroughly dispersed
during the Gold Rush and village names and locations have become lost
to the memory of Indian and white man alike. It is possible, however,
to get a reasonable estimate of the population indirectly.
The territory of the northern Miwok, from the ecological standpoint
resembles closely that of the central Miwok. Hence stream mileage and
area comparisons are justified. If we use the boundaries of the two
groups substantially as given by Kroeber in the Handbook (map, opp. p.
446) and plot rivers and areas on a large-scale map, the equivalent
aboriginal population for the northern Miwok by stream mileage and area
is 2,480 and 1,535, respectively. The discrepancy in the two estimates
is due to the greater frequency of streams and creeks in the northern
area. The average of the population calculated by the two methods is
2,008, very close to that found for the central Miwok. The total for
the foothill strip is then 4,138 or in round numbers 4,150.
MIWOK FOOTHILL AREA ... 4,150
_____________________________
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 5: There are numerous other letters pertaining to this matter
in the same volume of the Provincial State Papers.]
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
From the data presented in detail in the last section we may now derive
the aboriginal population of the San Joaquin Valley as a whole.
Region Population
______ __________
Tulare Lake Basin 6,500
Kaweah River 7,600
Merced River 3,500
Kings River 9,100
Mariposa, Fresno,
Chowchilla, upper
San Joaquin 19,000
Southern San Joaquin Valley 6,900
Northern San Joaquin Valley
Delta area 9,350
Lower Cosumnes 5,200
Lower Mokelumne 5,720
Lower San Joaquin,
Calaveras,
Tuolumne,
and Stanislaus 6,800 27,070
_______
Foothill strip (central
and northern Miwok) 4,150
_______
Total 83,820
The total, 83,820, is more than four times as large as the population
estimated to be surviving in 1850 (19,000) and much exceeds any
previous estimate advanced by modern students of the California
Indians.
Dr. C. Hart Merriam in 1905 computed the population of the entire state
of California as 260,000, of whom perhaps one-fifth may have occupied
the San Joaquin Valley, although Merriam does not attempt to assess the
population of this area as such. Kroeber discusses the matter at length
in the Handbook (pp. 488-491, 880-891) and concludes that the
population of the whole state was 133,000. Of these the Yokuts had
18,000, the Miwok (Plains and Sierra) 9,000, the Western Mono about
1,000, and the peripheral tribes in the south perhaps 2,000, a total of
30,000. Schenck is more liberal, since for the delta region he allows
for a spread of between 3,000 and 15,000 persons. The present estimate
for the same area, as closely as it can be determined, is in the
vicinity of 13,000, or within Schenck's limits although toward his
upper extreme.
Since the data and reasoning upon which the present figure of 83,820 is
based are set forth in detail in the preceding pages there is little
value in repeating them, nor will anything be gained by attempting a
rebuttal to the arguments presented by Kroeber. At the same time the
author may be permitted to recapitulate three points wherein he thinks
many modern scholars have been misled.
1. All available information from the Spanish and Mexican
sources must be consulted. To confine an argument or an
estimate to a single account, such as that by Moraga, may
lead to a false impression. Kroeber seems to have been thus
deceived in his discussion of the population of the Yokuts.
2. It must be remembered that in the central valley, as
contrasted perhaps with an area like the Klamath River, no
informants speaking since 1900, and particularly since 1920,
can possibly have furnished a true picture of conditions
prior to the Spanish invasion in the decade following 1800.
3. The depletion of population in the San Joaquin Valley
between 1800 and 1850 was far greater than has been
appreciated, although the basic facts have always been
recognized. Warfare, massacre, forced conversion, starvation,
and exposure all took a tremendous toll of life but the
sweeping epidemics of the 1830's were even more devastating.
Together these forces destroyed in the aggregate fully 75 per
cent of the aboriginal population.
APPENDIX
After this manuscript was completed, the writer had an opportunity to
examine those documentary files of the Office of Indian Affairs and of
the War Department which are at present in the National Archives at
Washington. Several letters in the files containing information on the
native population of the San Joaquin Valley have never, so far as could
be determined, been published. Since the data thus procured are
fragmentary and since they do not apparently invalidate the conclusions
set forth in previous pages, they have not been incorporated in the
body of this paper. These items, however, have some intrinsic interest
and therefore merit specific mention. They are briefly abstracted as
follows.
_War Department_
_Record Group 98._ 10th Military Dept. Letters received
Calif., Document no. _K 21_. E. D. Keyes, Camp Magruder,
June 17, 1851.
The 8 tribes on the Kaweah, with whom a treaty was concluded
on May 30 contain 1,240 individuals.
The 4 tribes on Paint Creek with whom a treaty was concluded
on June 3 contain 1,660 persons.
_Record Group 98._ Letters received Calif., 1854. Enclosure
to document no. _W 2_. John Nugent, Camp Wessells, Dec. 31,
1853.
The Four Creeks region (Kaweah) from the Sierra Nevada to
Tulare Lake will not contain more than 1,000, all told.
_Record Group 98._ Letters received Calif., 1854. Enclosure
to document no. _W 12_. H. W. Wessells, Fort Miller, March
7, 1854.
The Indians under control of Fort Miller include those on
the Fresno, San Joaquin, Kings, and Kaweah Rivers. They are
much reduced in numbers, owing to the recent sickness.
Fresno River: 400 persons, including 100 able men.
San Joaquin River: 350, including 80-90 able men.
Kings River: 1,100, including 250 able men.
Kaweah River: 800, including 200 able men.
_Office of Indian Affairs_
_Record Group 75._ Letters received Calif., 1854. Enclosure
to document no. _H 758_. D. A. Enyart, Fresno Reservation,
Nov. 3, 1854.
The Indians on the Fresno Farm include: 30 Chowchilla, 220
Choot-chances, 90 Pohonicha, and 100 Potohanchi.
The Indians in Mariposa, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne counties
do not exceed a total of 2,000.
By river system he breaks them down thus: 300 on the Merced,
350 on the Tuolumne, 250 at Plant's Ferry on the Stanislaus,
100 elsewhere on the Stanislaus, and 100 scattering through
the country.
_Record Group 75._ Letters received Calif., 1855. Enclosure
to document no. _H 1050_. Report of D. A. Enyart, Fresno
Reservation, Aug. 22, 1855.
"I find that there are at least about 1,000 to 1,500 Indians
on the River (i.e., San Joaquin).... This does not include
the 'Mono' tribe which is the most numerous of any tribe...."
_Record Group 75._ Letters received Calif., 1859. Enclosure
to document no. _M 66_. M. B. Lewis, Fresno Agency, Aug. 30,
1859.
A report on the 22 tribes which recognize the Fresno Agency
as their headquarters. Abstracted as follows:
_Wel-leelch-um-nies_:
the most northerly tribe; is "temporarily"
on the Tuolumne River because of displacement
by the whites. 85
_Poto-en-cies_:
have abandoned their native land, the Merced
Valley and are now on the Chowchilla. 110
_Noot-choos_:
"a union of the remnant of other tribes,"
including some Yosemites. Now on the north
fork of the Chowchilla. 85
_Po-ho-nee-chees_:
on the headwaters of the Fresno. 105
_Chow-chillas_:
have moved from the Chowchilla to the Fresno River. 85
_Cooc-chances_:
the largest "unbroken" tribe in the agency,
originally on Coarse Gold Creek; some still
there, some at agency. 240
_How-ches_:
once large; always have been on the Fresno. 18
_Pit-cat-ches_ and _Tal-linches_:
(two distinct tribes); native habitat was the
San Joaquin River; still near Fort Miller. 150
_Coss-waz_:
"to some extent identified with the Pit-cat-ches";
native land is Deer Creek. 88
_Monos_:
on Fine Gold Creek and the upper San Joaquin River. 535
_War-to-kes_, _Itee-ches_, and _Cho-pes_:
all on Kings River; "constitute one nation" but
have separate heads (on Wartoke Creek). 290
_Wat-ches_:
since 1854 have been on Kings River Farm. 75
_No-to-no-tos_ and _We-melches_. 190
_Tat-ches_ and _Wo-wells_:
these four tribes are native to the lower Kings
River and Tulare Lake. They were recently driven
to their homes on the Fresno Farm. 165
_Cow-willas_:
their home is the mouth of the Kaweah at the
foothills. 110
_Tel-em-nies_:
on the Kaweah, near Visalia. 105
_____
Total 2,436
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PUBLISHED WORKS
Barbour, G. W.
1852. 32nd Cong., 1st sess., Sen. Ex. Doc. 1, pt. III.
1853. Report to the Indian Commissioner. 33rd Cong., spec.
sess., Sen. Ex. Doc. 4, pp. 249-264 [Ser. no. 688].
Barbour, G. W., R. McKee, and O. M. Wozencraft
1853. Report to the Indian Commissioner. 33rd Cong., spec.
sess., Sen. Ex. Doc. 4, pp. 56-59.
Carson, James H.
1852. In San Joaquin Republican (Stockton, Feb., 1852), as
quoted by S. P. Elias, Stories of Stanislaus (Modesto,
1924), p. 196.
Chapman, Charles E.
1911. Expedition on the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers in
1817, Diary of Fray Narciso Duran. Publ. Acad. Pacific Coast
Hist., Vol. 2, No. 5.
Cook, S. F.
1940. Population Trends among the California Mission
Indians. Univ. Calif. Ibero-Americana 17. Berkeley.
Coues, Elliott, ed.
1900. On the Trail of a Spanish Pioneer. (The diary of
Francisco Garces.) Trans, and ed. by Elliott Coues. New
York. The parts pertaining to the San Joaquin Valley are in
1:281-300.
Derby, Lt. George H.
1852. A Report of the Tulare Valley. 32nd. Cong., 1st sess.,
Sen. Ex. Doc. 110, pp. 4-16.
Farquhar, Francis P.
1932. The Topographical Reports of George H. Derby,
California Hist. Soc. Quarterly, 11:99, 247, 365.
Gayton, A. H.
1948. Yokuts and Western Mono Ethnography. Univ. Calif.
Publ. Anthro. Rec., Vol. 10. Berkeley.
Gifford, E. W.
1932. The Northfork Mono. Univ. Calif. Publ. Am. Arch. and
Ethn., 31:15-65. Berkeley.
Gifford, E. W., and W. Egbert Schenck
1926. Archaeology of the Southern San Joaquin Valley,
California. Univ. Calif. Publ. Am. Arch. and Ethn.,
23:1-122. Berkeley.
Gilbert, F. T.
1879. History of San Joaquin County, California. Oakland,
Calif.
Henley, T. J.
1857. Report to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs,
accompanying Ann. Rept. Sec. of the Interior for 1856. No.
100, pp. 236-246.
Johnston, Adam
1853. Report to the Indian Commissioner. 33rd Cong., spec.
sess., Sen. Ex. Doc. 4, pp. 241-247.
1860. In H. R. Schoolcraft, Archives of Aboriginal
Knowledge, 4:406 ff.
Kroeber, A. L.
1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bur. Amer.
Ethn. Bull. 78. Washington, D. C.
Latta, F. F.
1949. Handbook of Yokuts Indians. Bakersfield, Calif.
Mason, J. D.
1881. History of Amador County, California. Oakland, Calif.
Merriam, C. Hart
1905. The Indian Population of California, American
Anthropologist, n.s., 7:594-606.
1907. Distribution and Classification of the Mewan Stock of
California, American Anthropologist, n.s., 9:338-357.
Powers, Stephen
1877. Tribes of California, Contributions to North American
Ethnology. Washington, D. C.
Ryer, W. M.
1852. Vouchers for vaccination. 32nd Cong., 2nd sess., Sen.
Ex. Doc. 61, pp. 20-23 [Ser. no. 620].
Savage, James D.
1851. Letter in the True Standard, reprinted in the
Sacramento Union, Apr. 10, 1851.
Schenck, W. Egbert
1926. Historic Aboriginal Groups of the California Delta
Region. Univ. Calif. Publ. Am. Arch. and Ethn., 23:123-146.
Berkeley.
Sutter, John A.
1850. Letter to H. W. Halleck, Dec. 20, 1847. 31st Cong.,
1st sess., H. R. Ex. Doc. 17.
1939. New Helvetia Diary; a Record of Events Kept by John A.
Sutter and His Clerks at New Helvetia, California, from
September 9, 1845, to May 25, 1848. San Francisco, Calif.
Tinkham, George H.
1923. History of San Joaquin County, California. Los
Angeles, Calif.
United States Treaties
1905. Message from the President ... communicating Eighteen
Treaties made with Indians in California ... [1851-1852, by
G. W. Barbour, O. M. Wozencraft, and Redick McKee.] 32nd
Cong., 1st sess., Sen. Con. Doc. Reprint of 1905.
Washington, D. C.
Warner, J. J.
Description of 1832 Epidemic among the Indians of the San
Joaquin Valley. In An Illustrated History of San Joaquin
County, California ... pp. 28-29. The Lewis Publishing Co.
Chicago.
Wessels, H. W.
1857. Report on the Tribes of the San Joaquin Valley. 34th
Cong., 3rd sess., H. R. Ex. Doc. 76, pp. 31-32.
Wozencraft, O. M.
1851. Letter dated July 12, 1851. 32nd Cong., 1st sess.,
Sen. Ex. Doc. 1, pt. III, pp. 488-490 [Ser. no. 906].
MANUSCRIPTS
All manuscripts are in the Bancroft Library, University of California,
Berkeley, unless otherwise stated.
Abella, Ramon
Diario de un registro de los Rios Grandes, Oct. 31, 1811,
San Francisco. Santa Barbara Archive, IV:101-134. Also
original manuscript.
Altimira, Jose
Letter to Prefect Jose Senan, July 10, 1823, San Francisco.
Archbishop's Archive, IV (2):21-26.
Amador, Jose Maria
Memorias sobre la Historia de California, 1877. Original
manuscript C-D 28.
Argueello, Jose
Letter to Governor Arrillaga, May 30, 1805, San Francisco.
Provincial State Papers, XIX:42 ff.
Argueello, Luis Antonio
Letter to Governor Arrillaga, Oct. 31, 1813, San Francisco.
Provincial State Papers, XIX:345-349.
Carta al Gobernador Don Pablo Vicente de Sola ... May 26,
1817, San Francisco. Original manuscript (no. fm F864A64);
also typed copy.
Berryesa, Jose
Dated July 15, 1830, San Jose. Departmental State Papers,
II:135-137.
Cabot, Juan
Expedicion al valle de los Tulares, Letter to the Padre
Presidente, Apr. 7, 1815. Santa Barbara Archive, VI:67-72.
Letter to De La Guerra, May 23, 1818. De La Guerra
Documents, VII:88.
Dixon, H.
California Indians. 1875.
Duran, Narciso
Diario de la expedicion de reconocimiento hecha en el mes de
Mayo de 1817.... Original manuscript. (See also Charles E.
Chapman, 1911.)
Estudillo, Jose Maria
Diario que formo yo el ten^{te} d^{n} Jose Maria Estudillo
en la campana ... emprendo p^{a} el reconocimiento y visita
de las rancherias situadas en los tulares ... Nov. 10, 1819,
Monterey. Original manuscript; also typed copy.
Garcia, Inocente
Hechos Historicos de California, 1878. Original manuscript.
CC-D 84.
Jaime, Antonio
Letter to Governor Sola, March 30, 1816, Soledad.
Archbishop's Archive, III(1):23-24.
Marquinez, Marcelino
Letter to Governor Sola, May 26, 1816. Archbishop's Archive,
III(1):41-42.
Martin, Juan
Visita a los Gentiles Tularenos, Apr. 26, 1815, San Miguel.
Santa Barbara Archive, VI:85-89.
Martinez, Luis Antonio
Entrada en las Rancherias del Tular, May 29, 1816, San Luis
Obispo. Archbishop's Archive, III(1):42-45.
McKinstry, George
Documents for the History of California, 1846-9. Presented
by Dr. George McKinstry of San Diego, 1872.
Merriam, C. Hart
Manuscript collection in Department of Anthropology,
University of California, Berkeley.
Moraga, Gabriel
Diario de la tercera expedicion echa por el Alferez Don
Gabriel Moraga ... a los rios del norte; verificada en el
mes de septiembre de el ano de 1808. Original manuscript;
also two typed copies.
Munoz, Pedro
Diario de la Exp^{n} echa por D. Gabriel Moraga de la
Compania de San Francisco a los nuevos descubrimientos del
tular ... Nov. 2, 1806, San Francisco. Santa Barbara
Archive, IV:1-47.
Ortega, Juan de
Diario que forma el Sarg^{to} Dist^{do} D^{n} Juan de Ortega
segun los sitios q^{e} por orn. del Sr. Gov^{or} de su mando
registrar ... Dec. 2, 1815, San Juan Bautista. Original
manuscript; also typed copy.
Pico, Jose Dolores
Diario formado p^{r} el Sarg^{to} Jose Dolores Pico de la
expedicion que a echo p^{r} dispocion del ciudadano ... Jose
Estudillo, Jan. 31, 1826. Original manuscript.
Pina, Joaquin
Quaderno de las Novedades Hoccuridas diariamente en la
expedicion que marcha a las ordenes del ... Guadelupe
Vallejo, June 13, 1829, Monterey. Original manuscript; also
a copy in the California Manuscript series, no. E-88.
Rodriguez, Sebastian
Diario que forma yo el Sarg^{to} Sebastian Rodriguez de la
Campana nombrada el dia 17 de Abril de 1828 [dated May 8,
1828]. Original manuscript.