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 a.s.sumed 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 a.s.sumed 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 doc.u.ments 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 a.s.signing 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 doc.u.ments 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 doc.u.ments 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 doc.u.ments 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 s.p.a.cing and distribution of the tribes became irreparably lost and that the surviving fragments of both amalgamated and reconst.i.tuted 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.
a.s.suming 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 a.s.signed 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 a.s.sess 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 reb.u.t.tal 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, ma.s.sacre, 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.