Chapter II: Part 2

Although the data in the letter are scanty, the distribution of Indian population indicated by Crespi and Font is substantially confirmed. The text of the letter mentions only one rancheria, the one at or near Pinole or Selby, to which Canizares (on the strength of four visits) ascribes a population of 400. This is the exact value given by Font, and seems to constitute very reliable evidence. Other villages are shown on the 1776 map, under the symbol "q." as "Rancherias de Indios Amigos," one on the north side of Southampton Bay, one near Martinez, one apparently near Bay Point (or Port Chicago), and one somewhere near Pittsburg. The same number of symbols (here "O") is shown on the 1781 map, but those on the south side of the strait are displaced several miles to the west. We can be reasonably sure therefore that Canizares found four rancherias, including the one described in the letter, three on the south shore, one on the north. In view of the vague placement on the maps it is scarcely worth while to insist upon the precise location. As far as population is concerned, what information can be derived from Canizares lends support to the conclusions based upon Crespi and Font.

EXPLORATORY AND PUNITIVE EXPEDITIONS, 1776-1811

After the return of Anza to Monterey in 1776 the San Francisco Presidio was founded. After this a joint expedition was sent out under Jose Joaquin Moraga and Francisco Quiros. The latter was to proceed by water and the former by land to a junction near the mouths of the rivers. The plan, however, miscarried, and Moraga went off on the earliest and the least known exploration of the main San Joaquin River. Meanwhile Quiros, with Jose Canizares and Father Pedro Cambon, sailed up the Bay to a point quite close to that described by Canizares in his first trip. The only account we have of this journey is contained in Palou's New California (1926, IV: 127-130). No details of ecological interest are given and there is no mention of natives. For a detailed discussion of the exploration, reference may be made to Cutter (1950, pp. 24-26).

One further document requires mention at this point: The Historical, Political and Natural Description of California, by Pedro Fages, as translated by Herbert I. Priestley (1937). Written in 1775, this little volume has become a classic for its thorough and sympathetic description of the Indians of California by one who was in a position to write on the subject. Unfortunately, however, Fages discusses the Indians of the San Francisco Mission area and of the Central Valley of the interior, but he does not specifically refer to the natives of the East Bay. Hence his essay must be passed over with this brief citation.

Following the series of explorations which culminated in the Anza Expedition of 1776, little further official notice was taken of the East Bay counties until approximately 1794. There is an item in the Bancroft Library Transcript series (hereafter designated Bancroft Transcripts, or Bancroft Trans.), consisting of a letter from Fages to Moraga, January 23, 1783 (Prov. Rec., III: 83), noting that the latter had pursued the "indios gentiles Serranos" who had killed 18 head of livestock belonging to the Mission of San Jose. It is probable that many other unrecorded punitive expeditions were being undertaken throughout the two decades from 1775 to 1795.

In 1793 there was activity along the coast, in the course of which Lieutenant Francisco Eliza spent approximately two weeks exploring the Bay, but the documents available (Cutter, 1950, p. 29; Archivo General de la Nacion, Mexico, Ramo Historia, Vol. 71, Expediente on Matute and the Bodega Settlement, and Account by Eliza, dated November 4, 1793, at San Blas) include no details of topography, vegetation, or ethnography worth recording.

Late in the following year, 1794, trouble began with the natives of the Contra Costa. The immediate cause appears to have been the zeal of the missionaries to push conversion in the area. On November 30, 1794, the military commander at San Francisco, Perez-Fernandez, wrote to Governor Borica (Bancroft Trans., Prov. St. Pap., XII: 29-30) that "the missionaries of San Francisco have requested an additional two or three men for the guard in order to go from Santa Clara to the other shore, in a northerly direction, as far as opposite the port [of San Francisco] to make conquests of the heathen...." The request was refused for reasons which in themselves throw light on the status of the East Bay natives:

1st. Because it is almost unknown country: there are indications
that the heathen who occupy it are uncooperative.

2nd. He [the Commandant] does not believe that a priest, with two
or three soldiers and some Christian Indians, constitutes a
party sufficiently strong to cross and camp overnight in
strange territory.

3rd. Although the Fathers believe this to be a favorable
opportunity, because the heathen lack food, having lost
their crop due to the severity of the drouth, and this
will facilitate catching them, he does not have the means
at his disposal for expeditions of this type.

Nevertheless, such forays were already in progress, for Perez-Fernandez reported that the Fathers at San Francisco "sent by sea to the islands and other shore opposite the mouth of the port some Mission Indians in rafts of tule on the 4th of this month to capture heathen." One of the rafts was carried as far out to sea as the Farallones, and two men were lost.

On March 3, 1795, Perez-Fernandez again wrote to Governor Borica from San Francisco (Bancroft Trans., Prov. St. Pap., XIII: 455-456.). (This, and many other letters cited here, are also to be found in the Archivo General de la Nacion, Mexico City, Ramo Californias, Vol. 65, Expediente no. 3, entitled "Sobre la Muerte que dieron los Indios Gentiles a siete Indios cristianos de la Mission de San Fran^{co}.") He now announced the murder by the heathen of seven Christian Indians sent across the bay by Fray Antonio Danti to hunt for runaway neophytes. The culprits belonged to the rancheria of the Chaclanes, and, says Perez-Fernandez, "these rancherias of the Chaclanes are in the country where the said Father Danti wanted to go, and whom I prevented from going, as I told your Excellency under date of November 29 last."

A lively correspondence ensued, reference to most of which may be omitted. An investigation was inaugurated and some type of scouting party was sent out. At least, we have record of a letter dated at Monterey, June 2, 1795, from Governor Borica to Jose Perez (Bancroft Trans., Prov. Rec., V: 56) in which the Governor orders Perez "to tell Sergeant Amador that he has received the report he sent concerning the reconnaissance to the Alameda, and that he shall continue this with the others who went with him." This is no doubt the expedition by Amador referred to by Danti in his diary (see below).

On June 23, 1795, from Monterey, Governor Borica rendered a full and final account of the affair to Viceroy Branciforte (Archivo General de la Nacion, Californias, Vol. 65, Expediente no. 3, "Sobra la muerte ..." etc. Doc. no. 122, MS p. 79). Parts of this document are worth quoting. One of the survivors was a neophyte named Othon, whose story follows.

Five old Christian Indians set out from the San Francisco
Mission, including the alcaldes Pasqual and Rogerio, together
with nine new Christians of the rancherias from the other shore
of the bay, with orders from Father Missionary Fray Antonio
Danti to bring back all the Christians who had run away. On the
first day they crossed the bay in their boats and slept on the
beach. On the second day at dawn they set out for the rancheria
of the Chaclanes where they arrived at noon, and not having
found any people in it, they kept on all that day and all night,
travelling without sleep or rest, in spite of the rain, and
reached the rancheria of the Chimenes at about two o'clock in
the afternoon. They encountered there a great multitude, as many
as there are in the mission [perhaps 900, according to Borica].
The men, armed with bows and arrows, came out of a big temascal
with such a rush that they broke it to pieces, immediately
beginning to shoot arrows, shouting, "Kill our enemies." The
alcaldes, seeing this violence, tried to persuade the natives
that we had not come to fight or to do harm, but the others took
no heed and kept on shooting until they killed as many as
seven....

Governor Borica goes on to say:

This Othon and others told me that these Chimenes Indians are of
a rough and valiant nature. They are at continual war with the
neighboring villages, and particularly with the Tegunes. They
live toward the north coast in the vicinity of the Port of
Bodega. Their food is amole, bellota and pinole and their chiefs
are called Mule and Yuma.

The identity of these Chimenes is something of a mystery. Certainly the Christian Indians, after leaving the rancheria of the Chaclanes (i.e., Saclanes), somewhere behind the Oakland hills, could not have even approached the port of Bodega, for they could not have crossed the Bay and the rivers on foot. Yet they traveled twenty-four hours, if Othon's account is even approximately correct. Hence they must have covered fully twenty-five or thirty miles, a distance which would have brought them to some point on the south shore of Carquinez Strait or Suisun Bay. If this is true, then they encountered representatives of the Huchiunes, the Karkines, or the Chupunes, the only tribal groups known definitely to have inhabited the area. The statements of Othon, as transmitted by the Governor, regarding the number of Chimenes, as well as their ferocity, must be heavily discounted (although the smashing of the temescal is a touch which would hardly be supplied by imagination alone). One hundred, or even fifty, infuriated warriors would no doubt have appeared to be thousands to the fourteen terrified Christians, and the Governor would hardly want to report to the viceroy that his Mission Indians had been routed by a handful of wild natives. On the other hand, the incident proves the existence of a sizable rancheria somewhere in northern Contra Costa County in 1795.

FR. ANTONIO DANTI'S EXPEDITION

In the late fall of the year 1795, following the reconnaissance of Sergeant Amador, of which no written record survives, another and more pretentious expedition covered the lower east side of San Francisco Bay. There are two accounts available describing this trip. One was written by Hermenegildo Sal (1795), a soldier from Monterey, and the other by Fray Antonio Danti (1795). The two documents are very similar in form and give indication of collaboration in the writing. Sal's "Informe" is the longer and the more circumstantial but is so badly executed as to be nearly incomprehensible in some of its passages. Danti's "Diario" is very succinct but clearly written. Since both accounts cover the same events, only one needs to be presented in full. Here follows the "Diario" of Danti, commencing with line 5, page 196 of the Bancroft Transcript.

_Diary of Fr. Antonio Danti (1795)_

22 October: After lunch we set out [from Santa Clara] for the
place called the Alameda. We arrived by nightfall at the first
arroyo, which is [the one mentioned by] Sergeant Amador. At
sunrise of the 23rd we went on our way upstream, as far as we
could go on horseback, which will be about one league distant
from the camping place. We wanted to examine the origin of the
stream but the soldier told us that it emerged opposite the
town. When the various sections of the arroyo had been explored,
the water was found to be of the same quantity throughout and in
my opinion can irrigate two or three ditches of corn at the same
time because of the slope of the land. The removal of the water
is not a great problem, for the heathen took it out in two
distinct places. There is much fine land and easily worked. The
timber in this place is scarce, as is also the firewood. It is
to the north of Santa Clara about 6 or 7 leagues. In this arroyo
are three empty houses.

Having examined all that has been described, we went along the
foot of the hills. We encountered [p. 197] another watercourse
which was dry, and where there is the stone called cantarra [a
type of clay]. This is not far from the camping place. A little
farther on is the lime pit, which is no more than caliche
[crude, soft limestone]. We arrived at the Alameda, but before
reaching it there are three little creeks, one of which could
irrigate a garden. The other two, if widened, could serve as
watering places for cattle. We went on to the river of the
Alameda, which is filled with many large boulders from floods
and is heavily overgrown with willow, cottonwood, and some
laurel. Where the water runs, the stream is half a vara deep and
4 varas across, and in other places it widens and contains more
water. We proceeded along it with much effort for about a league
and a half, at which point it is joined by another arroyo from
the north, the main stream continuing on to the east. We
examined the feasibility of removing water and found it to be
not impossible but very difficult. This is because of the
gravelly nature of the soil and because several ditches would
have to be constructed to regulate the floods, and in case these
occurred annually a dam would have to be built. Following the
arroyo farther down, we saw where the water disappears, perhaps
a quarter of a league from the hills. At a distance of a league
the water comes out again. In all this stretch [p. 198] the bed
of the river, or arroyo, is deep and the removal of water
impossible. In this locality the arroyo is covered with a dense
stand of woods: cottonwoods and willows. A short section through
which the river flows is reached by the tides of the bay.

24th day: We left for the north, staying close to the hills.
There are very fine plains and very good pasturage. We
encountered several water holes where cattle might drink.

From the Alameda, which is called San Clemente, to the first
arroyo northward, which is called San Juan de la Cruz, the
distance is about three leagues. The latter creek has little
water and a few cottonwoods. We followed along the hills until
the Mission of Our Father San Francisco came into view. At this
point we turned around; the plains run to the parallel of the
presidio. After eating, we surveyed the shore of the bay where,
after about a league with no water, we came upon some salt
marshes which without doubt are those which Sergeant Amador
mentions in his diary. At the present time they do not contain
salt, from which I infer that they are marshes like those of San
Mateo where in dry years the salt crystallizes out.

25th day: We returned [p. 119] to the first watering place,
called San Francisco Solano, at which it is possible to
establish the mission, although there is likely to be much
damage inflicted by the horses of the town. A cross was placed
on a small hill, for in all the region we covered there is no
place more suitable. The unconverted heathen are fairly
numerous, according to the many trails which are to be seen. In
the same plain there are three moderate-sized rancherias.

The above is what I consider adequate for the information of
your reverence. If anything be lacking you will advise me so
that your reverence may form an appropriate opinion.

The itinerary may be followed with reasonable precision. The journey of the 22nd brought the party to a creek 6 or 7 leagues (Sal says 6) north of Santa Clara. Taking the league as 2.7 miles, this distance puts them on Mission Creek not far from Mission San Jose (called by Danti, San Francisco Solano). On the morning of the 23rd they penetrated to the headwaters of this creek, approximately 2 or 3 miles into the hills. The idea that this creek came out opposite the town of San Jose is manifestly an error.

Returning to the starting point and then going along the foot of the hills for 2 leagues, as Sal says in the "Informe," they reached Alameda Creek very close to Niles. They then went upstream to the junction of Stonybrook Creek in the hills and then retraced their steps to Niles. The water disappeared just southwest of the town (1/4 league from the hills) and reappeared one league below, perhaps a mile southwest of Decoto and 3 miles east of Alvarado and on the edge of the salt marshes.

On the 24th the party proceeded 3 leagues northward to the stream called San Juan de la Cruz. From the distances, this can have been no other than San Lorenzo Creek. If so, they went on out to the shore of the Bay and saw San Francisco from a point just west of San Lorenzo. A few miles now to the southward would have brought them to the salt marshes just southwest of Mt. Eden. The hills they ascended were the Coyote Hills near Newark. From this point they crossed the plain directly to Mission San Jose and thence to Santa Clara.

Danti notes on Mission Creek the presence of three empty houses, indicating at least transient occupation by a few natives. Toward the end of the "Diario" he says that the unconverted heathen are "fairly numerous" and that on the plain there are three "moderate-sized" rancherias. Actually, therefore, he saw no indigenous heathen, and could find traces of no more than would inhabit three rancherias of dubious size. It will be remembered that Crespi reported in 1772 that there were five villages between Milpitas and San Lorenzo, whereas Anza in 1776 found six. Danti, in a much more exhaustive survey, located only three. It is evident that during the intervening twenty years the native population in southwestern Alameda County had been seriously depleted, reduced perhaps more than half. Accordingly it must be recognized that the documents relating to the Danti-Sal expedition (and all later ones) are of little value for estimating the preconquest population of the East Bay. The reduction was due, of course, to conversion by the missions and disturbance of the native economy, as well as to introduced diseases.

RAYMUNDO EL CALIFORNIO'S TRIP

Activity along the Contra Costa was again intensified in 1797. This time, as in 1795, the reason for attention in the official records was a minor expedition which got into trouble. Reference to the purely routine correspondence is here omitted and citation is made only of those letters containing matter of intrinsic interest.

On June 20, 1797, the commandant, Jose Arguello, wrote from San Francisco to the missionaries at San Jose (Bancroft Trans., Prov. St. Pap., XV: 213). He had just learned that a Christian Indian, named Raymundo el Californio, had left the mission at the head of about 30 or 40 other Indians in pursuit of fugitive Christians on the other shore. He asked for confirmation of this report. Within a few days he had his answer. In an undated letter, probably subsequent to June 22, from San Francisco he informed Governor Borica what had happened (Bancroft Trans., Prov. St. Pap., XV: 216-217).

The Indians under Raymundo el Californio returned, completely
dispersed because the winds and high waves swamped many of
them. Since they did not tell the same story, he [Arguello]
questioned Raymundo, who declared: having reached the other
shore he found in three rancherias of the Cuchillones several
Christians, men, women and children. On retreating to the beach
with them, he was attacked by the other Indians of the place,
but he succeeded in embarking in the boats without their having
started a battle. Two of his group who had lagged behind were
pursued by the Indians and were forced to jump into the water.
Soon they were rescued by a boat, one of them having received a
spear wound in the head, but of little severity. While they [the
whole party] were all retiring, a storm came up which dispersed
them widely. When they tried to follow Raymundo, they were twice
forced back to the territory of the Cuchillones. Seeing that
their boats were being broken up and thinking themselves lost,
they abandoned the boats and went by land, without leaving the
edge of the beach until they arrived opposite San Francisco,
where they came upon a rancheria of heathen, named Santa Anna.
The inhabitants made them welcome and furnished them with tules
from their own houses, with which they constructed other boats
and crossed to this shore.

The expedition sailed across, apparently to the region of Richmond or San Pablo. Later, the fugitives followed the beach to the vicinity of Oakland and San Leandro. The existence of a rancheria of heathen, bearing the name of Santa Anna, is peculiar. The name was familiarly applied without church sanction, or it was a village containing Christian converts rather than heathen. In either event, complete absorption of the natives into the Spanish Colonial system as far north as Oakland is implied. Also noteworthy is the casual manner in which the Mission Indians crossed and recrossed the Bay at its widest point in tule rafts.

PEDRO AMADOR'S EXPEDITIONS

On July 8, Sergeant Pedro Amador reported from San Jose to the Governor (Bancroft Trans., Prov. St. Pap., XV: 371-373) that two heathen, or wild, Indians were trying to stir up a revolt among the Christians of San Jose. "These two Gentiles are from the rancherias of the Sacalanes, from those which committed the offenses against the Christians of San Francisco. All of them are neighbors of those of the valley of San Jose in that part of the shore opposite San Francisco." Since the Valley of San Jose was the valley of upper Alameda Creek, extending from Sunol to above Pleasanton, this statement tends to place the Sacalanes in the general area west of Livermore and in the hills to the northward.

Two days later, July 10, the Governor answered Amador's letter, from Monterey (Bancroft Trans., Prov. St. Pap., XVI: 71-72), ordering him to go with two soldiers and twenty civilians to the rancheria of the Sacalanes and capture both the chiefs and all fugitive Christians. Amador carried out the order immediately and, after his return, submitted a report to the Governor in the form of a diary, together with a letter, both dated July 19 at San Jose. The diary in full is to be found in the Archivo General de la Nacion, Ramo Californias, Vol. 65, Doc. no. 1, MS p. 93. The essential portions are worth reproducing and are translated as follows.

_Amador's Diary (1797)_

[July 6 to 12 inclusive were spent making preparations.]

July 13. We set forth [from Mission San Jose] on the campaign in
the evening. I traveled all that night till dawn and hid with
the party in a brushy ravine throughout the day,

July 14. In the evening we arrived at the place where the
rancheria of the Sacalanes was located.

July 15. At dawn we attacked the said rancheria. We met much
resistance from the Indians in it. Although we repeatedly told
them that we did not wish to fight but only to take away the
Christians, they admitted to no persuasion but began to shoot so
as to kill one of our horses and wound two others. Seeing this
opposition, we used our weapons in order to subdue them so that
they would surrender. Some were killed, for they refused for two
hours to give up. Finally, it was necessary to dismount and
throw them back with swords and lances, for they have some wells
in the middle of the village which are like walls and which can
be strongly defended. There may have been about fifty persons,
men and women.

There were three rancherias close together, and with the
destruction of this one, the inhabitants of the others fled. We
captured only two from the second rancheria, although in the
first the number captured was thirty, including both Gentiles
and Christians. Having carried out an investigation and having
ascertained the guilty ones and the Christians, I made it clear
to the rest, through interpreters, that we did not wish to do
them any harm. They said they wanted to obey and that they well
understood that we had no evil intentions. I liberated the
Gentiles and we set forth toward the region of the Juchillones.

We had gone but a short distance when there began to assemble a
great many Indians, uttering shrieks and cries, so that we had
to go into line of battle again. Falling upon them, we killed
one, and with this they all retreated. We followed our course in
the direction we were going and concealed ourselves in a ravine
near the beach. It has much timber, water, and firewood, good
for a settlement. There we spent all the day hidden until
nightfall when we went on to the rancheria of the Juchillones.

At dawn [of July 16] we reached the place where were gathered
all the Christians whom we wanted, together with those Gentiles
who had participated in the attempt to kill Raymundo and his
people. We struck the first, second, and third village in the
same morning. When we reconnoitred the Indians of the last
rancheria, which is very large, the inhabitants were just about
to open hostilities, but being admonished by the interpreters
that we had not come to harm them but to hunt for Christians,
they were pacified. We pointed out to them that we had punished
the others because they had fought with us. Then we returned to
the first village with the Christians and Gentiles and there
assembled all those who had been concealed in the three
rancherias. Having separated out all those we had caught and
were taking with us, we set forth on our return journey. The
Gentiles had been cautioned, the same as the preceding ones,
that we did not wish to injure them if they did not harm us. We
followed our course of retirement along the coast. We reached an
arroyo with little water and much timber, in which we passed the
night with sentinels in the camp and at two advanced posts.

July 17. At night we reached an arroyo which has much water,
much timber and firewood, and also has nearby redwood, and very
much good sand and some very long valleys.

July 18. We reached Mission San Jose at a distance of six
leagues.

Amador's diary helps us to estimate the location and numbers of the tribal groups in question. After leaving Mission San Jose in the evening, his party traveled till dawn. Since all the men were mounted, this means a probable rate of 4 miles an hour for at least six hours, or 24 miles. The following day, "in the evening," they reached the first rancheria of the Sacalanes. Allowing a ride of three hours, the total distance would be 36 miles. Since there is no mention of the coast, the route must have been the well-known inland trail through Pleasanton and Dublin. Hence the destination was in the Walnut Creek-Lafayette area. This effectually disposes, I think, of any possibility that the Sacalanes could have inhabited the Livermore Valley.

Further evidence is provided by subsequent events. After spending presumably several hours subduing the Sacalanes, Amador went over near the beach where he spent "all day," obviously meaning the rest of the day. Probably no more than three or four hours were consumed in the actual ride, or a distance of 9 to 12 miles. It must be remembered that now Amador was burdened with captives, who traveled on foot at a likely rate of no more than 3 miles per hour. Hence he must have reached the bay shore in the vicinity of Richmond.

At nightfall, the party went on to the rancheria of the Juchillones, which may have been a few miles up the coast. No indication is given of distance, except that at dawn they reached their destination. The most probable guess is that the rancheria was somewhere on the southeast shore of San Pablo Bay between Pinole and Rodeo. This view is supported by the account of the return trip.

After having attacked three rancherias, conducted negotiations, identified and secured several dozen captives, Amador began his retreat "along the coast." At night they reached a well watered arroyo, which could have been San Pablo Creek or Wildcat Creek. On the 17th the party spent the whole day moving down the shore to an arroyo, near some redwoods, which, according to the notation of the following day, was 6 leagues from Mission San Jose. The arroyo which best fits the description and the distance (about 15 mi.) is San Leandro Creek. This, in turn, is just about a day's journey from San Pablo Creek for a military party encumbered with numerous prisoners. There are therefore reasonable grounds contained in Amador's diary for placing the Juchillones on the shore of San Pablo Bay from Point San Pablo northeast to Rodeo or beyond.

With respect to numbers, it may first be noted that Amador found three rancherias fairly close together for each tribal group: Sacalanes and Juchillones. The only indication of size for the Sacalanes is the mention of 50 men and women who participated in the defense of the first rancheria; The other two rancherias had been deserted. Perhaps a maximum of 300 and a minimum of 100 inhabitants for all three villages is indicated. For the Juchillones, Amador states only that the third rancheria was "very large." This may be taken to mean a population of over 100, and on this assumption the total might be set within the range suggested for the Sacalanes, i.e., 100-300.

In the letter to the Governor covering his report, dated July 19 at Mission San Jose (Bancroft Trans., Prov. St. Pap., XV: 319-320) Amador says, regarding the Cuchillones [Juchillones] "... it is certain that there are many rancherias and very big ones; and this is the reason why they assemble to hold their councils and eat many seeds." This statement would favor a fairly large population. Furthermore, in replying to Amador on July 21, Governor Borica (Bancroft Trans., Prov. Rec., V: 118) notes that the expedition brought back 83 Christians and 9 Gentiles. This fact shows that the two tribal groups, Sacalanes and Juchillones, had already been able to absorb the losses occasioned by the missionization of 40 persons per tribe--plus the conversion of probably many others who were not fugitives or at least were not captured by Amador, plus the attrition due to disease and disruption of food supplies--and yet were in a position to maintain a total of 6 rancherias, each of moderate to large size. The preconquest population per group must have reached at least 300 and very likely was much greater.

After Amador's return in late July a full-scale investigation was ordered. A great many Indians were interrogated in an effort to discover the cause, not only of the bitter hostility of the East Bay villages, but also of the incorrigible fugitivism which plagued the local missions. Two sets of testimony are on record (Archivo General de la Nacion, Ramo Californias, Vol. 65, no. 3, MS p. 101, and no. 5, MS p. 109, dated respectively August 9 and September 16, 1797) which are of interest to the student of Indian psychology but of no particular ethnographic significance.

Meanwhile, more small expeditions were sent out. The records of the pueblo of San Jose (Bancroft Trans., Dep. St. Pap., San Jose, I: 81-82) show that on July 2 an expedition was ordered to capture and punish Gentiles who had killed two mares. Later reports indicated that this objective had been accomplished. Subsequently, in a letter to Governor Borica dated at San Jose on September 3, Sergeant Amador described another expedition (Bancroft Trans., Prov. St. Pap., XV: 317-318). He says that "he set out at 8:00 p.m. on August 26 in search of the rancheria Pijugma. First they went to that of Juquili and at dawn fell upon the first rancheria [presumably Pijugma] where they did not find the chieftain they sought." However, they afterwards caught this chief, with three others, all of whom they took to the mission. Amador says the rancherias "will be about 10 leagues from the mission and are opposite the beach." The latter statement, together with the fact that the distance was covered in one night's travel on horseback, suggests the area of the Livermore Valley.

The Sacalanes and Cuchillones appear again in a letter from Governor Borica to the Viceroy, dated at Monterey, March 14, 1799 (Bancroft Trans., Prov. Rec., VI: 443-444). The transcript reads:

Says that only in serious cases should vigorous measures be
taken against them [Indians]. The Indians fugitive from the
Mission of San Francisco, Sacalanes and Cuchillones, are being
recovered by means of emissaries and parties of soldiers who are
treating them with the greatest gentleness and humanity. In the
month of June, last, 18 of all ages and sexes came back to their
ministers. In the following December the corporal of the guard
of San Jose brought in 33 who wished to remain there [Mission
San Jose], as they had agreed with the Father President, because
of the horror with which they regard the Mission of San
Francisco.

A year later there was another attack on these unfortunate people. In a letter dated at San Francisco, May 20, 1800, the commander, Arguello, wrote to Governor Arrillaga (Bancroft Trans., Prov. St. Pap., XVIII: 32-33) that, in conformity with orders to investigate the murder of two Christian Indians at Mission San Jose, Sergeant Amador went out with a large party to the "sierra." In another letter of Alberni to Governor Arrillaga, Monterey, July 2, 1800 (Bancroft Trans., Prov. St. Pap., XVIII: 33-34), the people concerned are described as "the Gentiles of San Jose called Sacalanes, who were committing depredations." Amador's own account, dated May 14, 1800, at San Francisco, is contained in another transcript (Bancroft Trans., Prov. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., XXVIII: 130-132). It reads thus:

Left Santa Clara on the 7th--arrived at the location of the
rancheria he sought. It was not there--it had been moved. On the
9th they found it. The Indians fled to the sierra from which
they threatened, but did not attack. With the best horses a few
of the warriors were caught. To hold on to them sword and lance
had to be employed and a captain was killed. Then the expedition
retired from the rancheria, and waited about three hours to be
sure that the Indians were not going to attack, for it was not
easy to reach the spot where they were.

The expedition descended to the plains of San Jose [probably the
western end of the Livermore Valley], where it awaited the
corporal and four soldiers sent to take the 10 captive Indians
to the garrison at San Jose.

At 3:00 p.m. on the 10th the corporal and four men returned.
They traveled all night to reach the rancherias.

The 11th he fell upon the seven rancherias to gather up the 21
Christians who were delivered by the chiefs. None of the
Gentiles wanted to be made a Christian. In two of the rancherias
the Gentiles almost took up arms.... The 12th the expedition
arrived at Mission San Jose....

Since no specific information is given, it may be assumed that this expedition penetrated the area lying between Mt. Diablo and the Livermore Valley, perhaps getting as far north as Walnut Creek. It is stated and implied that the Sacalanes were in a condition of great disorganization. They had been driven into the hills, apparently widely scattered and probably seriously depleted in numbers.

LUIS PERALTA'S EXPEDITIONS

The last information we possess concerning this group of natives comes from the year 1804. In 1803, a letter, dated May 11 at Loreto, from Governor Arrillaga to the Viceroy (Archivo General de la Nacion, Ramo Californias, Vol. 9, MS p. 433) mentions the fact that 20 Christians, sent out by the missionaries of Santa Clara, were attacked and routed by Gentiles who killed their "principal." In connection with this murder, and with a supposed plot to destroy Mission San Jose, the testimony of witnesses was taken a year later (Archivo General de la Nacion, Ramo Californias, Vol. 9, MS pp. 437-439, June 21, 1804, San Jose, Luis Peralta in charge). On September 27, 1804, from Santa Clara, in a letter to an unnamed captain, Luis Peralta (Bancroft Trans., Prov. St. Pap., XVIII: 334) advised that the expedition he made against Gentile Indians had no satisfactory results, because of lack of guides. On September 29, Arguello, at San Francisco, wrote to Governor Arrillaga (Bancroft Trans., Prov. St. Pap., XVII: 354) that he had ordered Peralta to go to the "Sierra de San Jose" in pursuit of Gentile assassins of Christians, but Peralta could not catch them.

Peralta went out a second time. Arguello, from San Francisco, on October 26, wrote again to Governor Arrillaga (Bancroft Trans., Prov. St. Pap., XVII, 358-359) that Peralta could not catch the killers of the Mission Indian Jorge, but he did catch 11 Christians, and after leaving the women and children at the mission, brought 32 "gandules" ("rogues," "rascals," a colloquial term for renegade Indians) to the Presidio. Since the "Sierra de San Jose" was the coast range behind the East Bay it is clear that the remnant of the people who originally inhabited the interior had taken to the hills in a last stand against the invader. After 1804 all mention of them ceases.

_The Cuevas Affair._--In 1805 occurred what is called the "Cuevas Affair." This event has significance for the Alameda and Contra Costa natives, rather than those of the delta or lower San Joaquin Valley, only if the Indians concerned were bona fide aboriginal inhabitants of the inner coast ranges, as Cutter (1950) seems to assume. We must therefore review the evidence.

On January 16, 1805, Jose Antonio Sanchez wrote from San Jose to Jose Arguello (Bancroft Trans., Prov. St. Pap., XIX: 34-35) that Father Pedro Cuevas had asked for a guard to visit and confess invalids in a "rancheria of Christian Indians." The guard was granted. When the party arrived at the designated rancheria, they did not find the invalids. Whereupon they continued farther to another rancheria, where they were attacked and badly mauled. The most reliable account is probably that of Governor Arrillaga, contained in a letter dated March 11, 1805, at Loreto, to the Viceroy (Archivo General de la Nacion, Ramo Californias, Vol. 9, MS pp. 452-453). According to him, Father Cuevas was intending to confess Indians at a "nearby" rancheria called Asiremes. Jose Arguello (January 31, 1805, San Francisco, letter to Governor Arrillaga, Bancroft Trans., Prov. St. Pap., XIX: 36-37) calls it Asirenes and says it was in the "interior of the Sierra." No other mention of this rancheria occurs, to my knowledge, in the contemporary documents.

The Governor then recounts the casualties: the major domo and two Mission Indians killed, Father Cuevas and two Indians wounded, all the horses killed. He adds that Sergeant Luis Peralta immediately went out with a punitive expedition.

Peralta's story is told in a diary dated January 30, at San Francisco (Bancroft Trans., Prov. St. Pap., XIX: 33-34). He left San Francisco January 19 for Santa Clara to raise personnel. With 18 soldiers and some civilians he arrived on the 22nd "at the point where the evil doers made their attack." They found the body of the major domo, and "since, due to the rain, they could find no trace of the Indians, they camped in the Sierra." Very clearly there was no rancheria or other habitation at this point.

Peralta continues that he found two Gentiles who told them where the rancheria was. Early on January 23 they marched to the place designated. When the occupants began hostilities, the Spaniards fell upon them and killed five. The remainder "fired at us from some barrancas, part of them from a wood [_bosque_] which was located there. Soon all retreated to the wood." The whites then attacked the wood and cleared it out, capturing 25 persons, all women and children, and killing another five "Indios." At dark they retired for the night "to where the horses had been left," but the following day returned briefly to the wood, where they found no one. Then all hands returned to the mission.

Despite the fact that at least 40 Indians were encountered, there is no indication in the Peralta diary of any permanent habitation. The attack on Father Cuevas occurred at a point where no trace of natives could be found. The battle in which Peralta was engaged took place among barrancas and in a forested area--again, no suggestion of houses or of even a temporary settlement.

With regard to the name of the tribal group concerned there seems to be no question. In a letter of May 30, 1805, from San Francisco to Governor Arrillaga (Bancroft Trans., Prov. St. Pap., XIX: 42) Jose Arguello speaks of "the rancheria of the Luechas, where the attack against Father Cuevas took place." Much later, Jose Maria Amador, writing for H. H. Bancroft in 1877 (Bancroft Manuscript, Amador, Memorias, translated by Earl R. Hewitt), referred to "Cuevas, who was going to instruct in the Christian faith the heathen at the Lochis rancheria...." Here is a discrepancy, for the contemporary documents state that Father Cuevas intended to exercise his religious functions at the rancheria of the Asirenes. However, it is clear enough that the outrage itself was perpetrated by the Luechas.

The location of the people--wholly apart from the question of where the attack occurred--is equivocal. That the attack took place in the Sierra is beyond doubt, but that the home of the offenders was likewise in the hills is not so sure. Cutter (1950, p. 92) relies upon a statement of Amador (below) when he states: "The Indians had turned out to be the Luechas, residents of the hills between Livermore and the San Joaquin Valley"; and "this would place them at the foothills east of Mount Diablo at the entrance of the Valley." The pertinent sentence in Amador's Memorias (MS, p. 13) reads thus: "rancheria de Loechas, como 14 leguas al oriente de la mision, arriba del actual pueblo de Livermore a 4 o 5 leguas de dist^{a}."

Allowing, conservatively, 2.5 miles per league, the total distance from the mission, if Amador is correct, would be 35 miles. The rancheria would be from 10 to 12.5 miles from Livermore. The term "above" ("arriba de....") does not necessarily mean toward the geographical north, but the direction may be taken as in the quadrant from north to east. The arc of the circumference of a circle with center at Livermore and radius of 12 miles passes approximately from San Ramon in the northwest, well south of Mount Diablo, across the very rough lower spurs of the mountain massif to the mouth of Kellogg Creek near Byron to the northeast. From here it runs along beyond Altamont, close to Mountain House and Midway, as far as upper Corral Hollow to the southeast. This entire stretch is devoid of any indication of substantial aboriginal occupancy, either in the eighteenth-century documents or in modern archaeological research.

Let us also note Amador's total: 14 leagues east of the Mission, or fully 35 miles. The horseback trail of 1805 followed pretty much the shortest highways of today: from Mission San Jose to Sunol and thence to Livermore via Pleasanton or directly across the low hills east of Sunol. By the first route the distance is 18 miles, by the second 16 miles. Using the larger value, 18 miles, the rancheria would have been not 12, but 17 miles beyond Livermore, which would have put it definitely in, or on the edge of, the San Joaquin Valley.

This conclusion agrees with Cutter's, referred to above, with respect to the location of the attack, but the theory that these Luechas actually were "residents" of the inner coast ranges and hence to be included in the area here being considered is contradicted by the following points.

1. As indicated above, no contemporary account explicitly states that an inhabited village was encountered or entered by the Californians during the Cuevas campaign.

2. There is no other documentary evidence for villages actually in the hills due west of the San Joaquin Valley floor.

3. In a letter to Governor Arrillaga dated February 28 at San Francisco (Bancroft Trans., Prov. St. Pap., XIX: 39-40), Jose Arguello mentions a second expedition by Sergeant Peralta "to the sierra where the Indians were who attacked Father Cuevas." In the course of this journey by Peralta: "A chief of the big rancheria on the river San Francisco, called Pescadero, came to give Sergeant Peralta the assurance that neither he nor his people had taken part in the attack against Father Cuevas and his guard." Since Pescadero was the main rancheria of the Bolbones, near Bethany, and since the latter were a delta tribe of either Miwok or Yokuts stock, it is unlikely that the chief would have feared a confusion of identity with a tribal group which was indigenous to the hill country to the west. But if the guilty parties were plains or delta people, he might well have been apprehensive.

4. Amador, in the Memorias (MS, pp. 14-15) says that "Lieutenant Gabriel Moraga and his troops set out to punish the evildoers. The latter had already moved to the San Joaquin River and gone to a rancheria called Pitenis." Pitenis was on the main San Joaquin River above Lathrop.

Here again we see an affinity of the Luechas with the Valley, rather than the hill habitat, for the refugees, if traditionally and aboriginally sierran, would have been very unlikely to seek sanctuary in the depths of the Valley.

5. Schenck (1926) has no hesitation in placing the Luechas (or Leuchas) in approximately the region of Manteca and says Pitenis was one of their villages.

On the whole, the writer feels that the evidence is insufficient to warrant placing the Luechas in the coast ranges as a group aboriginally native to that area. They are preferably to be regarded as a valley people, of unknown ethnic affiliation, who penetrated the hills from the east and for some reason got into difficulty with Father Cuevas and his followers. At all events they cannot be considered Costanoans.

FR. JOSE VIADER'S FIRST EXPEDITION

In the years following the Cuevas episode numerous expeditions were sent out which opened up the interior of California. Most of these are more appropriate to a consideration of the interior valleys than to a survey of the coast ranges to the east of San Francisco Bay. Two, however, contain sufficient pertinent material to warrant their citation. They are the first expeditions by Father Fray Jose Viader in 1810 and that by Father Fray Ramon Abella in 1811. Both these missionaries explored the delta region and the rivers but on their way to the valley they passed through the East Bay and left descriptions of considerable interest. A translation of this portion of the diaries is presented without comment and a discussion of the native tribes mentioned is deferred until a subsequent section.

_Fr. Jose Viader's Diary (1810)_

_August 15._ [Left San Jose Mission and went 6 leagues north to
the valley of San Jose.]

_August 16._ In this day, following the same direction, north,
we traveled about 6 leagues before noon, and having killed two
bears and a very large deer, we stopped to rest at the
headwaters of a stream called Walnut Creek. This stream,
although it has good water, is running very little. In the
afternoon, in the same direction, having traveled another six
leagues, having killed a deer and an antelope, and having
observed fine country well covered with trees, all without
water, we arrived at dark at the end of Walnut Creek. This is at
the beginning of some inlets on the northeast side of a well
known plain, well covered with trees (among others large
walnuts).

_August 17._ We passed this day (without moving camp) in
scouting the plain and adjacent hills, the lands of which belong
to the Tarquines, most, or almost all, of whom are Christians of
San Francisco. We have seen the mouth of the two rivers, one of
which comes from the north and the other from the southeast.
Uniting, they enter one of the estuaries which reach from San
Francisco. In all this region, very well known for its climate,
fine lands, much wood and walnut groves, the only water we found
was one pool of stagnant water, another with good water although
its water could not escape, and a spring which flows a little
and which is next to the willow grove close to the inlet where
it is said used to be the rancheria of the Tarquines. Granting
what has been said and that Walnut Creek contains very little
water, the area seems to me unsuitable for a foundation. In all
this day we killed three bears and 11 deer....

_August 18._ We set out early from the above mentioned place,
and going to the east we crossed the main range and in 7 leagues
reached the San Joaquin, or, as they say, the Tulare River. This
is one-quarter of a league wide and appears to be very deep and
to feel the tides of the sea. Here we stopped to rest between
the river and a very large oak forest. This is said to be the
land of the Tulpunes. We saw neither them nor any sign or trace
of heathen.... In the afternoon we went two leagues further,
toward the east, in the middle of the oak forest ... and this
place also belongs to the Tulpunes, who did not let themselves
be seen.

_August 19._ [Went on southeast to Pescadero.]

FR. RAMON ABELLA'S EXPEDITION

_Abella's Diary (1811)_

_October 15._ At 10 o'clock in the morning we left the
embarcadero at the port and stopped at the Island of Los Angeles
because the tide was changing. At about 4 o'clock in the
afternoon when the tide was favorable we set out and arrived at
the point of the Huchunes, and stopped on the south side of this
point. All day we went about five hours, all by oar, the sea
being calm. The Island of Los Angeles and the points of Huchunes
and Abastos form a double bay. That on the side of the Port
[i.e., San Francisco], the big one, has eight islands, most of
which are small. One of them must be passed in sailing to the
point of the Huchunes. It has a sandbar and must be passed a
little distant to the west. It is noticeable only at low tide
and on the western side is entirely covered with trees.

_October 16._ We left the said point of the Huchunes, which we
called San Pablo. Where we slept there is a beach good as a
camping place, with water and firewood. This Point San Pablo has
opposite it another point which we called San Pedro, and between
them are two little islands. From one point to the other might
be twice the distance from the fort to the opposite shore [i.e.,
across the Golden Gate]. These two points enclose the bay as we
have said, and form another one, much larger, which we estimate
to be 4 leagues from the center to the periphery. This bay is
square in shape. On the north and west it has 5 rancherias which
are still unconverted. On the western side is a cove which,
according to the Indians, is quite large. But Alferez Gabriel
Moraga has explored it twice, on the expeditions he has made to
those parts.

At a league and a half we encountered another headland, which we
called San Andres [i.e., Point Pinole]. Between the latter and
that of San Pablo, all mainland of San Jose, is an estuary which
terminates in a stream [i.e., mouth of San Pablo Creek] which,
according to those who have been there and to the Indians, is
like that of the pueblo, except that it is deeper and is well
wooded. From one point to the other the depth of the water is
four varas, becoming shallower to two, when one sails close to
the shore. Farther into the bay conditions would be the same as
at the port for there is a channel which carries a considerable
current. This is all the land of the Huchunes. It is quite bare,
although there are some oak trees.