Chapter V: Part 5

Throughout the plains of the lower San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys the native social units appear to have resembled rather uniformly the political organization of the Yokuts in the central and southern San Joaquin Valley. There were aggregates, or communities, consisting of perhaps one, but usually more than one, village, and occupying a more or less clearly defined territory. These groups, as they may be called, can be identified by the plural names which are ordinarily attached to them--the Bolbones, the Leuchas, and so forth. Naturally these groups varied considerably in size, and concerning no single one of them can we be absolutely sure of the number of their people. Nevertheless, if we had data concerning enough of them, the variations due both to inherent difference and to inaccurate estimate would tend to cancel out and an approximate average could be secured. No pretence can be made that we have enough estimates to establish a mean which would be statistically satisfactory. Nevertheless, as so frequently happens when we are dealing with data of this character, we have to employ the information available to us or forsake the problem entirely.

We have hitherto considered a number of the local groups mentioned above and have estimated their population as follows: Bolbones (restricted group, see p. 58), 1,500; Jusmites, 300; Tugites, 500; Nototemnes, 200; Leuchas, 900; Ochejamnes, 750; Guaypem, 300; Quenemsias, 400; Chucumes and Chuppumne, 1,500. The average for the nine groups is 705 or, in round numbers, 700. If we consider that the Aguastos, Chupunes, Ompines, Julpunes, and Tarquines were groups of the same character as the foregoing, then their total population may be taken as 3,500.

The total baptisms shown in the mission books of the five northern missions (in fact, only San Francisco and San Jose) for these groups is 911. In previous instances we have estimated the aboriginal population by doubling the baptism number. This procedure is admittedly purely arbitrary and based upon the general consideration that, except for small local populations relatively close to the mission, it was impossible for the missionaries and soldiers to prevent the escape of a sizable fraction of the people. Of the five groups here discussed, the Aguastos, it is evident, were completely missionized or at least obliterated. A much greater proportion of the other tribes survived, as is attested by their probable migrations up the rivers. Hence for the entire population it is doubtful if even one-half received baptism. Using the value of one half, the aboriginal number would have been approximately 2,000.

Linear distances along streams are useful as a basis for comparison in country where the rivers are similar ecologically but are clearly separated spatially and where the human population is concentrated along the stream banks to the exclusion of the interfluvial hinterland. Where a territory is marked by a network of creeks and sloughs, and the intermediate land is marsh, the linear comparisons become impossible. Areas must be substituted.

In relation to the present problem three such areas may be delineated. The first comprises the territory of the Bolbones (including all the subordinate villages) and the Leuchas. Following Schenck's map, it embraces all the land between the channels of the San Joaquin plus a strip approximately two miles wide east of the main river in T1 and 2S, R6E which accounts for the Leuchas. The area, as projected from a large-scale map onto coordinate paper, is 775 square miles, the population 3,400, and the density 4.39 persons per square mile. The second comprises the home of the Ochejamnes, Guaypem, Quenemsias, and Chucumnes-Chuppumne. For the habitat of these groups we have followed Schenck as far as possible. Our line runs actually from the junction of the east and west channels of the Sacramento at the foot of Grand Island southeast to the main channel of the San Joaquin, thence northeast and north to just east of Walnut Grove and then, at a distance of about 2 miles east of the eastern channel of the Sacramento, to a point 4 miles north of Courtland. Here the line crosses the river and continues downstream, 2 miles west of the river, to the starting point. This strip of the western bank of the western branch of the Sacramento is included in order to take in the Chucumes, who may have lived on the west side of the river. The area of this territory is 330 square miles, the population 2,950, and the density 8.94 persons per square mile.

The third area is the one shown by Schenck as belonging to the Chupunes, Tarquines, Julpunes, and Ompines, with the exception of the region east of the San Joaquin attributed to the Tarquines. For reasons stated previously the author does not believe that the Tarquines occupied this spot aboriginally. A strip 2 miles wide is included on the north shore, however, between Rio Vista and Collinsville, in the probable land of the Ompines. The eastern boundary is formed by the borders of areas one and two. In area three there are 600 square miles. The mean of the densities of the other two areas is 6.67 persons per square mile. Hence the population would have been 4,002 persons. No significance should be attributed to the third and probably also the second digit in these numbers. They are used only for purposes of estimate.

The three methods employed have yielded respectively 3,000, 2,000, and 4,000 as the most likely population of the five groups here being discussed. In default of any other evidence we may take the average 3,000.

(Chupunes, Tarquines, Ompines, Julpunes ... 3,000)
__________________________________________________

Adding the totals for the tribes known to inhabit the delta region of the great rivers and the southern shore of Suisun Bay, we arrive at a total population of 9,350.

Delta area ... 9,350
____________________

It is now preferable to depart from a strictly tribal sequence and revert once more to a classification based upon river basins. Three areas of this type are sufficiently clearly marked out; those corresponding to (1) the Cosumnes River, (2) the Mokelumne River, and (3) the lower San Joaquin River from just below the Merced to the head of tide water near Manteca. The inhabitants may be designated village or tribal groups in accordance with the river system where they were located.

_The Cosumnes group._--On the river of this name lived the large and important aggregate of peoples known popularly as the Cosumnes, which included a restricted tribelet or subgroup also called Cosumnes. Ethnically a portion of the Plains Miwok, they extended from Sloughhouse close to the foothills, along the lower course of the Cosumnes River to its confluence with the Mokelumne near Thornton, and from that point northwestward to the Sacramento. The tribe as a whole was divided into either villages or tribelets, the names of many of which have come down to us from the Spanish records or have been ascertained by informants from ethnographers. As might be expected, there is considerable confusion among the different sets of names.

The mission documents are replete with village and tribal names but the number of baptisms was not as large as might be anticipated from what must have been a very populous aggregate of natives. The reason probably lies in the fact that missionizing expeditions to the Cosumnes were preceded by exploratory and punitive expeditions which, to be sure, brought home a few converts but which were chiefly preoccupied with military objectives. The Cosumnes, together with the Mokelumnes and other peoples of the lower San Joaquin Valley, had the time and the opportunity to develop great facility in the raiding and stealing of livestock and consequently for many years were in a state of uninterrupted war with the coastal settlers. The bitter hostility thus generated, together with the aggressive psychology which accompanied successful physical opposition to the Spaniards, made extensive conversion to Christianity very difficult. As a result the relative proportion of the natives baptized was unquestionably much lower than among the bay and delta tribes previously considered. The baptisms which appear in the mission records follow.

Tribe or Group Date of Conversion Baptisms
______________ __________________ ________

Cosumnes
(Tribelet) 1826-1836 84
Junisumne
(Anizumne,
Unsumne) 1813-1834 363
Lelamne
(Llamne) 1813-1836 128
Gualacomne 1825-1836 158
Amuchamne
(Mackemne) 1834-1835 13
Sololumne 1828-1834 6
Locolumne 1826-1834 52
_____

Total 804

If we apply the general principle used with the delta groups and double the baptism number, the population becomes 1,608, a figure which is much too low. The Lelamne, with 128 baptisms, comprises the group attacked by Soto in 1813, at which time we have estimated that there were four villages of 475 persons each involved in the battle. This calculation implies a total of 1,900 for the Lelamne alone. On the other hand, the account is not entirely clear as to whether or not there were members of the Cosumnes tribelet concerned. If so, we may be dealing with both the Lelamne and adjacent neighbors who were designated locally Cosumnes. If we include the baptisms of all those under both names, we have 212. Furthermore, the Junisumne (or Unsumne or Anizumne) were often confused with the Cosumnes. If the 363 baptisms listed under the Junisumne are added we get 575 and, multiplying by 2, the population of the three divisions collectively would have been 1,150. This estimate also appears too small and leads to the conclusion suggested above on historical grounds that a baptism factor valid for the delta would not be applicable to the Cosumnes group as a whole.

Another documentary source is of interest in this connection. This is the account by Jose Berreyesa in 1830 (MS) of an affray along the lower Sacramento River in which Americans participated under Ewing Young. Christian fugitives from the missions had been protected by the Yunisumenes (Junisumne), who had joined with the Ochejamnes. They were opposed by the Mexicans and their allies, the Sigousamenes (Siakumne), the Cosomes, and the Ilamenes. These last tribes had gathered an army of 450 "Gentiles auciliares." The Yunisumenes, Cosomes, and Ilamenes are, of course, precisely the three subtribes discussed in the preceding paragraph. Now if the Sigousamenes, Cosomes, and Ilamenes contributed 450 men collectively, they each may be considered to have furnished 150 men. Since the opponents were fairly well matched, it is likely that the Yunisumenes supplied a similar number. We can assume that for routine fighting of this sort, particularly where two of the tribelets were ranged with the Mexicans instead of against them, the armies included no more than the strictly military population, or not in excess of half the males over the age of ten years. Hence, if the sex ratio was unity and the young children constituted approximately 15 per cent of the population, the aggregate number of the three subtribes would have amounted to 1,920, or almost the same as was estimated from the Soto report in 1813 for the Lelamne (Ilamenes) above, or perhaps the Lelamne augmented by some of the Cosumnes tribelets or subtribes. The Berreyesa episode occurred in 1830, after all these groups had suffered twenty years of attrition owing to perpetual minor warfare, disease, and starvation. Hence the population of the three tribelets jointly, Junisumne, Cosumnes, and Lelamne, must have reached fully 3,000 in 1813. The baptism factor, consequently, would not have been 50 per cent, but 575 divided by 3,000, or 19.2 per cent.

Three other villages or tribelets which can be identified in the mission records as being closely associated with the Cosumnes are the Amuchamne, Sololumne, and Locolumne. The first two probably correspond to Merriam's Oo-moo-chah and So-lo-lo, which in later times at least were rancherias. Assuming all three to have been villages, we may consider that each contained an average number of 300 inhabitants. The respective baptism numbers were 13.6, and 52. In relative terms the baptisms amounted to 4.3, 2.0, and 17.3 per cent.

The last division listed above is the Gualacomne, synonymous with Merriam's Wah-lah-kum-ne. Merriam (Mewko List, MS) places them between the lower Stanislaus and the Tuolumne rivers, but quotes Hale, who saw them in the 1840's, as saying that they lived on the lower east side of the Sacramento River. Hale's statement is strongly supported by the fact that they appear in J. A. Gatten's census of 1846 (MS, 1872). Gatten ennumerated only the tribes along the lower Sacramento. Whether the Gualacomne can be affiliated with the Cosumnes ethnically is doubtful but it is reasonable to include them with this group demographically.

Of the Gualacomne 158 were baptized in the missions. That the group was fairly large is attested by the fact that Gatten reported, under the name Yalesumne, that 485 were alive in 1846, Since no open valley group could possibly have retained more than one-third of its former members in 1846, it does not seem excessive to ascribe 1,455 persons to the tribelet. The baptism factor is 10.8 per cent, and the average of the five values secured with the Cosumnes group is 10.7, or, let us say 10.0 per cent. The total population on the lower Cosumnes and adjacent Sacramento rivers, according to the discussion above would be 5,355 souls.

We may approach the problem from a different direction if we start with the villages compiled by Merriam (1907, p. 349). He mentions sixteen villages on the Cosumnes River system from Sloughhouse nearly but not quite to the Sacramento. It is extremely probable that there were other villages on the Sacramento River itself. Nevertheless, let us take Merriam's list as it stands. The upper seven villages lie between Sloughhouse and the junction of the Cosumnes River with Deer Creek, the remainder below that point. Of the lower nine we may consider that four correspond to those seen by Soto, which were quite large. It was estimated that they contained 475 persons apiece. The other five lower villages, although perhaps not so populous, must have held fully 300 inhabitants each. The upper seven were no doubt smaller but still should have reached the values given by Moraga for similar stretches of the Tuolumne and Merced, i.e., approximately 250 persons. The total would then come to 5,150, very close to the previous estimate. It will be both adequate and conservative to establish the population at 5,200.

Cosumnes group ... 5,200
________________________

_The Moquelumne group._--Here are included the Indians living on the lower course of the Mokelumne River, the Calaveras River, and the plain between the two. Five tribes mentioned by the Spanish writers fall within this category: the Moquelumnes, the Siakumne, the Passasimas, the Yatchikumne and the Seguamne. The exact territorial status of these tribes has been a subject of considerable disagreement among ethnographers.

The original Moquelumnes of the Spaniards were undoubtedly located on the Mokelumne River itself from Campo Seco nearly to the junction with the Cosumnes at which point they adjoined the Cosumnes tribe. According to George H. Tinkham, in his History of San Joaquin County (1923), they extended in a north-south direction all the way from Dry Creek to the Calaveras River, but by the middle of the nineteenth century they may have spread out from their original habitat. The Yatchikumne are shown by Schenck as filling the space between the lower Mokelumne and the lower Calaveras and extending westward to the San Joaquin River. Merriam (Mewko List, MS) quotes F. T. Gilbert to the effect that they occupied the Mokelumne River basin, but if they did so, it was because of the displacements during the mining era. The Passasimas are placed by Schenck on the left bank of the Calaveras River at, and for several miles upstream from, its junction with the San Joaquin River.

The Siakumne and the Seguamne are subject to some confusion. This difficulty arises partially from the similarity in name. The Siakumne are called Si-a-kum-ne by Merriam and Sakayakumne by Kroeber. In Gatten's census of 1846 they appear as Sagayakumne. In the San Jose baptism book we find Ssicomne, Zicomne, Siusumne, and Sigisumne. The Seguamne, on the other hand are designated Seguamnes and Saywamines by Merriam and Sywameney or Seywameney by Sutter in his New Helvetia Diary (1939). Gatten calls them Sywamney. They appear in the San Jose record as Secuamne, Seguamne, Seyuame, and other variants.

The Siakumne lived somewhere between the Calaveras and Stanislaus rivers according to Merriam, who places one of their villages at Knights Ferry on the Stanislaus. Schenck doubts Merriam's location and Kroeber puts the rancheria Sakayakumne as far north as the Mokelumne. Sutter (1939, p. 88) says that some of these people came to work for him, an unlikely event if they had been living as far away as the Stanislaus. It is probable that the lower Calaveras River is as close as we can place them. The Seguamne are not mentioned at all by Schenck. Merriam (Mewko List, MS) says they were a "tribe or subtribe on E. side lower Sacramento River" and may have been a subtribe of the Bolbones. Sutter and Gatten both refer to the tribe, and the sphere of activity of these men did not extend much below the Sacramento River itself. Hence, although there are grounds for including the Seguamne with the Bolbones or the Cosumnes, no serious error will be committed by placing them in the Mokelumne group.

The Moquelumnes were unquestionably quite numerous. In Spanish and Mexican times they were the most aggressive and belligerent of all the valley tribes and gave the coastal settlers a very rough struggle. Nevertheless, in spite of their detestation of the missionaries they furnished 143 converts between 1817 and 1835. At a ratio of 10 per cent this would mean a population, prior to the mission period, of about 1,400 souls. J. M. Amador (MS, 1877, p. 43) says that once, during the later colonial period, they furnished 200 auxiliaries, a fact which would argue fully 1,000 people at the time. Gatten in his census of 1846 gives them a total of 81 persons but G. H. Tinkham says that in 1850 or thereabouts they possessed four sizable villages with four chieftains. This may have meant between 200 and 400 persons, a really considerable number of survivors for a tribe which had suffered so extensively in the preceding three decades. These indications, and it must be admitted that they are only indications, would lead one to infer that the aboriginal population reached at least 1,500.

Precisely because the Moquelumnes were so brutally handled in the colonial era the modern ethnographic accounts of villages are very incomplete. Neither Merriam nor Schenck gives us any list. Kroeber puts three on his map (1925, opp. p. 446): Mokel (-umni), Lelamni, and Sakayak-umni. I think we are now in a position to state that these names represent former tribes and if they were applied to villages by informants, it is because the component units had shrunk to very small size.

Stream density comparisons are of value for the Mokelumne group. On the Cosumnes River, from Sloughhouse to Thornton, Merriam shows thirteen rancherias (omitting those close to the Sacramento River). As was proposed above we may ascribe from 200 to 400 inhabitants to each of these, say on the average 300. Now there is no reason to suppose that the Mokelumne River from the San Joaquin-Calaveras county line to just west of Lodi was less heavily populated than the Cosumnes. If so, the number of villages per linear river mile must have been very nearly the same. For the stretches under consideration there were 24 miles on the Cosumnes and 22 on the Mokelumne. Thus we would get 12 villages and 3,600 persons living on the Mokelumne River.

The Yatchikumne and, if we are to credit Schenck, the Passasimas occupied a position on the Calaveras River comparable to that occupied by the Moquelumnes on the Mokelumne. Schenck regards the Yatchikumne as a tribe equal in importance to the Moquelumnes, and the county historians speak of them as a large group. Their river frontage is equivalent to that of the Moquelumnes. For these reasons we would be justified in ascribing to the Yatchikumne and Passasimas the same population as the Moquelumnes, i.e., 3,600. The evaluation of the other two groups from the geographical standpoint is difficult, owing to the uncertainty of their location. The Siakumne may be regarded as living somewhere on the lower Calaveras and, if so, must be included with the Yatchikumne and Passasimas in the estimate for the Calaveras. The Seguamne may or may not have inhabited the banks of the Mokelumne and Calaveras rivers. In view of our ignorance on this point it may be well to omit them from consideration in this connection and leave the estimate with the existing total of 7,200.

We may attempt some direct tribal comparisons. In considering the northern San Joaquin Valley and delta 21 tribes and tribelets have been examined, namely: Aguastos, Bolbones (4 tribes), Leuchas, Ochejamnes, Guaypen, Quenemsias, Chuppumne, Chupunes, Tarquines, Julpunes, Ompines, and the Cosumnes group (7 tribes). For all these the average population calculated has been very close to 700. If this figure is applied directly to the Moquelumne group, its population becomes 3,500. However, some adjustment is necessary. The Moquelumnes by all accounts, Spanish and American, were an unusually large tribe, probably reaching at least 1,500. The Yatchikumne may not have been as numerous but were apparently above the average size, let us say 1,200. The Passasimas, despite the fact that Schenck thinks they were a "group plus" may be regarded as smaller, perhaps no more than average. For the Siakumne and Seguamne we must also assume the average figure, 700. With these adjustments the total reaches 4,800.

The baptism books give us a record of the following conversions.

Tribe San Jose Santa Clara
_____ ________ ___________

Moquelumnes 143 ...
Yatchikumnes 118 ...
Passasimas 145 ...
Siakumne 22 ...
Seguamne 47 116

The Passasimas, Siakumne, and Seguamne were situated in the vicinity of the San Joaquin River and hence were more exposed to the Spanish expeditions than the tribes along the lateral streams. Hence the proportion of those taken for conversion may have been higher than the 10 per cent of the aboriginal population found for the Cosumnes, although it would not have attained the value of 50 per cent characteristic of the more westerly delta tribes. We may take an intermediate figure, 20 per cent. This would give the Passasimas a population of 725, the Siakumne 110, and the Seguamne 815. The great disparity between the figures for the last two tribes may well be due to confusion of names in the mission records. The total for the three is 1,650. For the Yatchikumne on the Calaveras River no more than 10 per cent baptisms can be assumed, yielding a population figure of 1,180. If only geographical location were considered, the same factor could be used for the Moquelumnes but this tribe resisted missionization with extraordinary tenacity. Hence we are not justified in using a factor of more than 7 per cent, from which we may infer that the population was 2,040. The baptism data would then give us a total for the group of 4,870.

According to the estimates furnished by pioneers and government officials for the period just preceding the Gold Rush the population ran into the thousands. The census by Savage (Dixon, MS, 1875) puts 4,000 on the Cosumnes, Mokelumne, and Calaveras and 2,500 on the Stanislaus, F. T. Gilbert (1879, p. 13) says that "before the advent of Sutter" there were 2,000 on the Mokelumne and, as far as I can ascertain, he implies that on the Cosumnes and Mokelumne together there were fully 5,000. These figures were undoubtedly greatly exaggerated but nevertheless indicate a very large population in the area just before the discovery of gold and subsequent to the destructive epidemics of 1833-1835. Even if we cut these estimates in half, there would remain in midcentury approximately 2,000 persons in the basins of the Moquelumne, Calaveras, and adjacent San Joaquin rivers. A residue of 2,000 in 1850 means certainly an original population of three times as much, i.e., 6,000.

To recapitulate the estimates for the Moquelumne group, we find:

By stream densities 7,200
By adjusted tribal averages 4,800
By baptism data 4,870
By extrapolation from American estimates 6,000
_______

Mean 5,720

The mean, 5,720, appears entirely reasonable for the aboriginal population of such a vigorous and important group.

Moquelumne group ... 5,720
__________________________

_The lower San Joaquin River group._--Here are included for convenience the tribes and fragments of tribes inhabiting the banks of the San Joaquin River from the habitat of the Leuchas, in the vicinity of Manteca, to just below the mouth of the Merced, together with those living along the lower courses of the Stanislaus and Tuolumne rivers (see maps 1, 5, and 6, area 8). The San Joaquin villages or tribes appear to have been Cuyens, Mayemes, Tationes, and Apaglamnes. The first two are regarded by Schenck as villages only and the latter two as "villages plus." The only Spaniard who described the area was Viader, in the accounts of his two expeditions of 1810.

On his first expedition, having left the village of Tomchom, he went south-southeast up the river for 2-1/2 leagues to another village "... cuya capitan se llama Cuyens." This was very close to section 10, in T3S, R6E. After a journey of another 2-1/2 to 3 leagues he found another village, whose captain was Maijem (sec. 8, in T4S, R7E). Then, after 2 leagues, still another village, whose captain was Bozenats (in sec. 34, in T4S, R7E), was seen. Three leagues farther in the same direction brought him to the rancheria "... cuyo appelido es Tationes." In the meantime he had seen 30 gentiles from the Apaglamnes. The Tationes were located close to section 27, in T5S, R8E.

During his second expedition, on October 22, Viader went from Pescadero southeast up the river for 5 leagues to "los indios Tugites." Three leagues farther on he was met by Indians from Cuyens, who went with him to the "Rancheria de Mayem," another 4-1/2 leagues farther on. Then, having forded the river to the east shore, they went still another 2 leagues to a rancheria "que se llama ... Taualames." The Rio Dolores (Tuolumne) was supposed to be 2 to 3 leagues north. However, Viader went upstream on the east bank 6 leagues to the Rio Merced, having in the meantime passed "en frente de ... los indios Apelamenes y Tatives."

The distances on both trips are very consistent and the village locations check closely with those shown on Schenck's map, except that only the Taualames should be placed on the east bank of the river. Viader is very explicit in saying that all the others were on the west bank.

Cuyens, Mayem, and Bozenats are beyond doubt villages, since each was named after its chief, or captain. The Tationes and Apaglamnes are given in the plural: "los indios Apelamenes y Tatives." They may well have possessed more than one rancheria each, as is supposed by Schenck. Schenck thinks that Cuyens and Mayem were transient parties from Kroeber's Miwok villages, Chuyumkatat and Mayemam, which were on the Cosumnes. Aside from the possible similarity in names there is not the slightest evidence in Viader's diaries to support such a theory. Viader definitely specifies rancherias, and the missionaries of that period were able to distinguish rancherias from fishing parties.

From the record we have in this area five villages certain and at least one other probable. For six villages of average size (there is no indication that they were smaller) the population would be assumed as 300 persons each, or 1,800 in all.

The mission records show for baptisms:

Tribe or Dates of Number of
Village Conversion Baptisms
________ __________ _________

Cuyens 1811-1813 88
Mayemes 1813-1823 91
Apaglamnes 1818-1824 48
Tationes 1805-1811 243

The total is 470. These were San Joaquin River natives, not from the delta and marsh region. On the other hand they were less remote from Spanish influence and attack than the tribes which extended up the lateral streams. Hence the proportion of baptisms was probably intermediate between the value of 50 per cent assumed for the very exposed bay and delta people and that of 10 per cent ascribed to the Cosumnes. An estimate of 25 per cent would be reasonable, yielding a population value of 1,800. The two methods of calculation coincide, and the result, 1,800 inhabitants, may be allowed for the area.

For the lower Stanislaus and Tuolumne rivers the only tribes mentioned in the Spanish documents are the Tauhalames (or Taulamnes) on the Tuolumne and the Lakisamne (or Lakisumne or Laquisemne) on the Stanislaus. Kroeber (1925, p. 485) writes: "the Tawalimni, presumably on Tuolumne River ... the Lakisamni ... on the Stanislaus ..." Schenck says (p. 141):

The villages of Taulamne and Taualames are both definitely
placed, the former on an inaccessible rock on the Stanislaus
river in the foothills, the latter at the ford of the San
Joaquin just below the mouth of the Tuolumne river.... This
seems to establish the region between the lower Tuolumne and
Stanislaus rivers as Taulamne territory. Merriam agrees in
assigning the same region to the Tuolumne.

Schenck's only reference to the Lakisamne is on the same page: "The Leuchas might possibly be identified with Kroeber's Lakisamni (Yokuts) on the Stanislaus river." But the mission records and all other documents clearly distinguish between the two groups, rendering Schenck's hypothesis entirely untenable.

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.

Diario formado p^{r} el Sargento Sebastian Rodriguez desde
el dia 26 de Mayo ... una expedicion al Tular por el rumbo
de S. Miguel, June 22, 1828, Monterey. Manuscript.

Sal, Hermenegildo

... Informe en el cual el teniente Herm^{do} Sal manifesta
lo que ha adquirido de varios sugetos para comunicarlo al
Governador dela Provincia; Jan. 31, 1796. Provincial State
Papers, XIV:14-16.

Sanchez, Jose

Letter to Ignacio Martinez, May 10, 1826. State Papers,
Missions and Colonization, II:15-20.

Savage, James

In H. Dixon, California Indians. MS 1875.

Viader, Jose

Diario, o noticia del viaje que acabo de hacer ... desde el
15 hasta el 28 de Agosto de 1810, Aug. 28, 1910, San Juan
Bautista. Santa Barbara Archive, IV:73-84.

Diario del P. Jose desde 19 hasta 27 de Octubre de 1810.
Letter to the Padre Presidente, Oct. 19, 1810, San Jose.
Santa Barbara Archive, IV:85-94.

Zalvidea, Jose Maria

Diario de una expedicion tierra adentro, 1806. Santa Barbara
Archive, IV:49-68.

To accompany Cook, "Aboriginal Population of San Joaquin Valley," Univ. of Calif. Publ., Anthro. Rec. Vol. 16, No. 2.]

* * * * *

Transcriber's Notes

Retained the spelling and punctuation inconsistencies of the original book, except for the following changes:

Page 52: Changed "haorses" to "horses".
Orig.: southeast from Copicha and saw haorses from the rancheria

Page 67: Changed "slighest" to "slightest".
Orig.: there is not the slightest evidence in Viader's diaries

Page 73: Changed "manuscipt" to "manuscript".
Orig.: Abella, Ramon ... Also original manuscipt.

Superscripts are indicated with ^{xx},
e.g.: Diario formado p^{r} el Sarg^{to} Jose Dolores Pico