Part 2

We have therefore 70 reasonably well authenticated villages in the hill area traversed by the two rivers. With regard to the number of inhabitants, further data are provided by Gifford. His informant gave for each permanent place an estimate of the number of persons present in the year 1840. Gifford secured his material in approximately the year 1915 from a man very old at the time. If the informant was then seventy-five years of age, he must have been born in 1840. Hence he could scarcely be expected to remember population figures from a date much earlier than his childhood. The names and location of the villages themselves were at least semipermanent and could have been derived from the informant's parents even if not from his own memory. Hence it is probable that the figure furnished to Gifford more nearly represents the number of inhabitants in 1850 than in 1840. The average value for all 49 villages is 20.8 persons. Yet 7 villages are stated to have held 15 persons, 11 villages 10 persons, and 3 villages 5 or less persons. Such a condition argues a rapidly declining population, for no normal aboriginal settlement is likely to have contained less than 20 inhabitants. Gifford's average of 21 persons per village must, however, be accepted as representing the closest we can get to the value for the period of 1850. This means a population of 588 for the Stanislaus and 882 for the Tuolumne. The total is 1,470 for the foothill region. Between 300 and 400 may be added to account for scattered remnants along the lower courses of these rivers and on the San Joaquin itself, or 1,800 for the entire area under consideration.

To summarize, we have the following estimates for the Stanislaus-Tuolumne watershed at or about the year 1851:

Savage (perhaps before 1851) 4,600 Chief Kossus 4,000 Daily Alta California, 1851 1,000 Vaccinations by Ryer 1,420 Adam Johnston's estimate, 1853 1,350 Adam Johnston's estimate, 1860 1,800 H. W. Wessels, 1853 600 Village lists 1,800

The crude numerical average is about 2,070 but since the best of the above estimates, the village lists, shows no more than 1,800, it will be preferable to set 2,000 as a fair approximation.

STANISLAUS-TUOLUMNE ... 2,000 _____________________________

MERCED RIVER, MARIPOSA CREEK, AND CHOWCHILLA RIVER

South of the Tuolumne are the Merced River, Mariposa Creek, and the Chowchilla River, all within the territory of the southern Miwok (see maps 1 and 4, areas 5E, 5F, 6). The earliest of the midcentury counts pertaining to the region is probably that of Savage (Dixon, MS, 1875) who put 2,100 persons on the Merced but omitted reference to any other stream between the Tuolumne and the upper San Joaquin. Ryer, in a bill submitted July 31, 1851, claimed to have vaccinated 695 persons along the Merced, principally on the lower course of that river. The value, corrected according to the system adopted previously, is 977. McKee, Barbour, and Wozencraft in a report on May 15, 1851 (Wozencraft, 1851) described the proposed reservation No. 1 between the Tuolumne and the Merced and estimated the total number of Indians on both rivers as 2,000 to 3,000, or let us say 1,250 on the Merced alone. The map of Adam Johnston, dated in early 1852, shows 500 persons on the Merced, but these were reservation Indians. The state census of 1852, as cited by the Sacramento Union for November 17, 1852, gave 4,533 persons for Mariposa County, a figure which no doubt included all the natives from the Tuolumne to the Fresno River. H. W. Wessels on August 21, 1853, wrote that there were 500 to 700 Indians on the Stanislaus and Tuolumne, 500 to 600 on the upper San Joaquin and that the entire area contained 2,500 to 3,000 (Wessels, 1857). The Merced-Fresno region therefore accounted for somewhere between 1,000 and 1,700. A rough average for all these rather haphazard estimates would be 1,000 natives on the Merced watershed and another 1,000 on the Mariposa and the Chowchilla, or 2,000 in all.

We may now turn to the village lists. Unfortunately, Gifford did not work south of the Tuolumne but we have the list given by Kroeber in the Handbook (1925) for the southern Miwok and two manuscript lists of Merriam (entitled "Mewuk Village List" and "Indian Village and Camp Sites in Yosemite Valley and Merced Canyon"). For the middle Merced Valley, from a point some ten miles below El Portal to the base of the foothills, Kroeber and Merriam both list 14 villages, to which Merriam alone adds another 10. From El Portal to a point six or seven miles downstream Merriam has found no less than 15 villages. In Yosemite Valley itself he has located 33 villages, of which 12 are qualified as either camps or summer villages, leaving 20 which he presumes are permanent. On the upper Merced, above Yosemite, and the headwaters of the Chowchilla, Kroeber has found the name of one village and Merriam one. Clearly this area has never been investigated exhaustively. For the well-known portion of the river, therefore, there are 59 located villages.

Of the 35 village sites in Yosemite and below El Portal, Merriam says 10 were large and 6 small. The rest are not qualified but were presumably medium to small. Gifford's average for the central Miwok of 21 persons per village in 1850-1852 may be applied directly, giving a population for the Merced Valley in the hills of 1,239. To this may be added, according to Ryer and to Johnston, 50 to 600 for the lower river, making a total of 1,800.

Mariposa Creek and the Chowchilla River have never been as thoroughly investigated as the Merced. Merriam's "Mewuk List" mentions 13 sites on each of the two streams, including the 6 given by Kroeber in the Handbook. At 21 persons per village this would mean a population of 273 for each or 546 for both, a value which appears rather low.

Another approach to the problem is by way of territorial comparisons. There are under consideration, including those previously discussed, five small river systems, those of the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Merced, Mariposa, and Chowchilla. Physiographically and ecologically they are very similar since the rivers all descend the foothills of the Sierra Nevada and traverse the plain to the San Joaquin through the same life zones and at nearly the same latitude. There are, to be sure, some local differences between them with respect to how much of their course is favorable for village sites, but in the aggregate the similarities outweigh the differences. It is of interest, therefore, to estimate the village density along each watercourse. This value can be computed with a fair degree of accuracy by measuring on a large-scale map the length of each river and its principal affluents from the edge of the plain to the upper limit of known permanent habitation. The village numbers can be derived from the lists of Kroeber, Gifford, and Merriam.

Estimated Villages per River Length (mi.) Villages river mi. _____ ____________ ________ ____________

Stanislaus 85 28 0.33 Tuolumne 105 42 0.40 Merced 125 59 0.47 Mariposa 40 13 0.32 Chowchilla 65 13 0.20 ______

Mean 0.34

The figures, considering physiographic differences and varying coverage by ethnographers, are quite consistent. Only that for the Chowchilla appears unduly low and this in turn may be referable to an incomplete count by Merriam. It is reasonable to concede this possibility and assume an actual count of 0.30 village for each mile of this stream. On 65 miles of river front there would thus have been 19.5 villages. This consequently means, using Gifford's population average of 21 per village, 273 inhabitants on the Mariposa and 410 on the Chowchilla. These may be added to the 1,800 calculated for the Merced, making a total of 2,483.

The very approximate value derived from general estimates was 2,000 persons. The village data are probably more accurate and may be rounded off to an even 2,500.

MERCED-MARIPOSA-CHOWCHILLA ... 2,500 ____________________________________

THE COSUMNES, MOKELUMNE, AND CALAVERAS RIVERS

The northern Miwok held the upper reaches of the Mokelumne plus most of the Cosumnes and Calaveras (see maps 1, 5, and 6, areas 10, 11, 12). The population must have been very small in the period of the early 1850's owing to extreme attrition suffered from the Spanish and particularly from the gold miners. Kroeber gives only 20 villages on all three streams, most of them on the Mokelumne. Merriam adds another 3, making 23 in all. At Gifford's population value this means 480 persons. The official sources are of little help since none of the agents or commissioners reported specifically on the area. Evidently there were too few survivors among the natives to warrant the trouble of placing them under the reservation system.

Savage assessed the population on the Cosumnes, Mokelumne, and Calaveras at 1,000 each (Dixon, MS, 1875) but it is likely that he was thinking in terms of the days before the Gold Rush. F. T. Gilbert (1879, p. 113) says that the Mokelkos, by which he means all the Indians between the Mokelumne and the Cosumnes in the hills and as far as Stockton on the plain, had 12 rancherias of 200 to 300 each and numbered about 3,000 in all. He, however, was referring specifically to the period "before the advent of Sutter." Likewise J. D. Mason (1881, p. 256) ascribed to the same tribe "nearly a score of towns, with a total of 3,000 to 4,000." In amplification Gilbert says that in 1850 rancherias lined both banks of the Mokelumne from Ahearn's (near Lodi) to Campo Seco (near the present Pardee Reservoir), and that they numbered then about 2,000. In 1852, however, there were only 4 rancherias left, with 390 inhabitants.

Gilbert was referring explicitly to the lower course of the rivers, whereas the villages cited by Kroeber were definitely above this region in the foothills. We may accept Gilbert's figure of 390 on the lower Mokelumne, to which may be added 110 for the lower Cosumnes and Calaveras and 480 for the upper villages, making a total of 980 or, let us say, 1,000.

COSUMNES-MOKELUMNE-CALAVERAS ... 1,000 ______________________________________

THE FRESNO AND THE UPPER SAN JOAQUIN RIVERS

We next turn south and consider the valleys of the Fresno and upper San Joaquin rivers (see maps 1 and 4, areas 5B, 5C, 5D.) There are three counts or estimates pertaining to this area specifically. The first is that of Savage, who does not mention the Fresno but puts 2,700 persons on the upper San Joaquin. The second source is the May 29, 1851, issue of the Daily Alta California, which carried a letter written by an unidentified officer who was with the Indian commissioners and in fact may have been G. W. Barbour. This officer refers to the treaty made with the natives between the Chowchilla and the Kings rivers and says that "the total is probably 3,000 Indians." The third is Adam Johnston, who on his map ascribed 1,200 people to the Fresno and 1,000 to the San Joaquin (Johnston, 1853). The average of the three estimates is 2,633.

W. M. Ryer submitted three reports for the territory below the Merced and north of the Tehachapi Mountains. In each he mentions the tribes vaccinated (Ryer, 1852). There are 45 in all, but 8 tribal or rancheria names are indeterminate and there are many duplicate names among the rest. Putting all three lists together we can get 27 recognizable tribal names, of which one is southern Miwok, four are Mono, and the others Yokuts. The total vaccinations performed numbered 4,451, or, correcting to conform to the figures based on blanket distribution, 6,255, an average of 232 per tribe. To allow for the nontribal and unrecognizable names on Ryer's lists this value may be arbitrarily reduced to 200. Ryer mentions in the Fresno-San Joaquin area the following: Chowchilla, Chukchansi, Heuchi, Pitkachi, Goshowu, Dumna, Dalinchi, Pohinichi (Miwok), and Posgisa (Mono). The Pohinichi should be excluded since they have already been considered in connection with the southern Miwok. The other nine, reckoned at 200 persons per tribe, would represent an aggregate of 1,800. However, Kroeber (1925, p. 481, and map, p. 526) shows four other Yokuts subdivisions within the same territory: Hoyima, Wakichi, Kechayi, and Tolichi. Although Ryer may have included these under other tribal names they perhaps ought to be included here, thus making the total 2,600.

For villages there are two sets of sources. The first pertains primarily to the Yokuts, covers a territory substantially coterminous with that seen by the contemporary observers mentioned above, and is found in the work of Kroeber (1925), Gayton (1948), and Latta (1949). The second set of villages is confined to the Mono and is derived from Gifford (1932) and Merriam.

The first group of authors list villages for the 13 tribes mentioned in the preceding discussion, 49 in all or an average of 3.77 per tribe. With respect to size there is reason to believe that the settlements in this area, even in the early 1850's, were considerably larger than those described by Gifford for the central Miwok. The estimate of Adam Johnston of an average of 125 per rancheria on the lower Tuolumne has already been mentioned. H. W. Wessels in 1853 wrote that the Pitkachi plus the Noo-to-ah, a Mono group, had 500 to 600 souls (Wessels, 1857). Half of these, or 300, may have been Pitkachi, a tribe for which Kroeber lists 3 villages. This would have meant 100 per village. Merriam credits Savage with the statement that in 1851 the Kechayi had 1,000 people. Kroeber, Gayton, and Latta list 6 different villages for this tribe or, according to Savage's figures, 167 persons per village. Ryer's total of 2,600 prorated among 49 villages, would yield 53 persons each. Although it is probable that the values computed from the statements of Johnston, Wessels, and Savage are too high, that derived from Ryer may be somewhat too low. An intermediate figure of 70 inhabitants per village for the valley and lower foothills would perhaps come as close as we can get to the truth. This, with 49 villages, gives 3,430, somewhat more than the 2,633 cited as the average of the general estimates.

Inhabiting the higher foothills and extending to the upper limit of habitation from the San Joaquin to the Kaweah rivers were the Western Mono. This tribe lived just above the Yokuts and at points was in very close association with them. As a whole the Western Mono constitute a racial and ecological unit and as such it is probably preferable to consider them as a single population entity than to segregate them by rivers, as has been done for the Miwok and the Yokuts. It will be necessary, therefore, to digress for this purpose and subsequently return to the discussion.

The classic ethnographic work on the tribe, and the only work which contains any numerical data, is that of Gifford (1932) on the North Fork division of the Mono. This is supplemented by Merriam's manuscript entitled "Monache Tribes, Bands, and Villages." Gifford gives the names (text and map) of 67 North Fork villages, or, as he prefers to call them, hamlets. These were quite unlike either those of the Miwok or of the valley Yokuts, being very much smaller and subject to an extraordinary turnover in inhabitants. Gifford makes it very clear that each family was accustomed to move every few years from one settlement to another and that sites were being continually occupied and deserted. The 67 names are therefore no criterion for population. For the time of the American occupation Gifford estimates the number of persons in the group or subtribe as approximately 300, which, divided directly by 67, would give the absurd average of 4 persons per hamlet. However, a more detailed analysis is possible.

Of Gifford's 67 names, 2 may be deducted as being only camps, leaving 65 which at some period were permanently occupied. In his Appendix A (pp. 57-61) he lists the sites, together with the number of houses in each and the number of males and females inhabiting them. From these data may be computed the total number of families and the mean number of persons per family. There were 227 families in all. However, 36 of these are listed two or more times by virtue of moves made from one hamlet to another, which were remembered by Gifford's informants. This would leave 191 families for the subtribe, provided Gifford recorded all the moves. But Gifford clearly implies that he did not, since his informants could not remember them all. Hence the number of families must be further corrected. In Appendix A, 15 out of a total of 65 hamlets were concerned in the moves recorded. These 15 hamlets were inhabited at different times by 61 families but many of these, owing to frequent change of residence, are repetitions. Actually there was a total of 24 _different_ families rotating among the 15 villages. Now if in the other 50 hamlets the same process was going on, although Gifford was not able to record the moves, it is legitimate to apply the same ratio as is in fact found for the 15 hamlets. The crude total of 227 families must therefore be reduced to 89. From Gifford's complete list it can be determined that there were on the average 4.93 persons per family. This gives a population of 439 for the period remembered by the informants.

On general grounds it is to be expected that the conditions reported by Gifford's informants were not entirely aboriginal. This is also indicated by the value of 4.93 persons per family, which is somewhat too low for a stable prehistoric population. Moreover, Gifford himself states that there were formerly 44 more houses than there were in the time referred to by the informants (figures given individually for the hamlets in App. A). About 1850 there were 227 houses, and if 44 are added, the aboriginal number would have been 271. Each house may be assumed to have held one family but the houses were probably occupied in rotation. The crude estimate of 271 houses or families, each containing (according to aboriginal standards) a possible 6 persons, would mean a total of 1,626 for the subtribe. If, however, we apply the correction factor for family moves we must reduce this estimate to 640, a far more reasonable figure. For the North Fork Mono, therefore, we may accept as the best estimate obtainable a population of 440 for the period near 1850 and of 640 for precontact time.

The other subtribes of the Mono provide no data comparable with those available for the North Fork group. Some method of extrapolation is thus called for.

The village method is very unsatisfactory. Kroeber says substantially nothing on this score and Merriam, although he lists 19 villages for the North Fork Mono, gives no more than one or two or, at the most, half-a-dozen names for each of the other groups. Tribal distinctions are also very confusing. Kroeber in the Handbook mentions 6 Mono subtribes: North Fork group, Posgisa, Holkoma, Wobonuch, Waksachi, and Balwisha. Merriam subdivides to a much greater extent. His grouping may be expressed essentially as follows:

1. Pogesas equivalent to Kroeber's Posgisa 2. Nim synonymous with the North Fork subtribe 3. Kwetah included in Kroeber's Holkoma 4. Kokoheba included in Kroeber's Holkoma 5. Holkoma included in Kroeber's Holkoma 6. Towincheba included in Kroeber's Holkoma 7. Toinetche included in Kroeber's Holkoma 8. Tsooeawatah included in Kroeber's Holkoma 9. Emtimbitch classed by Kroeber as a Yokuts tribe 10. Woponuch equivalent to Kroeber's Wobonuch 11. Wuksatche equivalent to Kroeber's Waksachi 12. Padoosha equivalent to Kroeber's Balwisha

Nos. 5 to 8 inclusive are consolidated by Merriam as smaller groups within a main group or subtribe called the Toohookmutch. Concerning these Merriam says: "Large tribe on King's River. On both sides but largest area on north side. Contains many rancheria bands."

Using Merriam's nomenclature, the Nim are generally conceded to have been the largest single subtribe. For this we may take as a working base line the previous estimate of 440 persons and Merriam's list of 19 villages. Elsewhere Merriam mentions the names of the following: Toinetche 3 villages, Holkoma 4, Woponuch 9, Emtimbitch 2, Waksache 1, Kokoheba 1, and Toohookmutch 10. The total is 30. By direct proportion the inhabitants should have numbered 695 but this would leave five of Merriam's groups with no population at all. If we consider that the Toohookmutch complex plus the Kokoheba and Kwetah are the equivalent of Kroeber's Holkoma we find 18 villages, which implies 416 people. Merriam cites 9 villages or, at the same ratio, 208 persons for the Wobonuch. The total for these three of Kroeber's subtribes would then be 1,064. If we guess that the remaining groups contained 500 persons, the figure for the Mono in 1850 would reach the vicinity of 1,600.

In view of the paucity of the village data for all subtribes except the North Fork group it is proper to fall back on area-density comparisons. The territory actually inhabited by the Mono is vague, particularly on the eastern border approaching the high mountains. Nevertheless Merriam's villages furnish a fair guide in outline, since his findings, while very incomplete, can be regarded as a reasonably well distributed sample. Moreover, his descriptions of tribal boundaries and village locations appear to be very accurate. When we plot the latter on a large scale map, therefore, the outlines of the Western Mono area become sufficiently distinct.

There are two possible variants of the method, one by computing stream distances and the other by measuring areas. Both must of course rest for their basis on the data for the North Fork subtribe. This in turn may entail some error, since the North Fork group may have been not only the most populous but also the densest.

For the North Fork territory the distribution shown by Gifford on his map (1932, p. 18) is used plus the area of Bass Lake, since Merriam has found that there were once villages there. The southern and eastern boundary is taken as the San Joaquin River, because the North Fork Mono apparently did not cross to the left bank of the river. Several miles on Little Fine Gold Creek must also be included, according to Gifford's map.

In this region there were approximately 60 miles of streams, including the San Joaquin River itself. With a population of 440 this means 7.33 persons per stream mile. The stream mileage for the San Joaquin system as a whole within the Mono boundaries amounted to 100 miles. Hence the population in the same ratio would be 733. The analogous values for the Kings River system are 150 miles and 1,100 persons and for the Kaweah drainage 75 miles and 550 persons. The total population would then be 2,383.

If areas are calculated from the township lines on the map, that covered by the North Fork Mono is approximately 150 square miles and that of the Mono collectively is 1,090 square miles. Equating the North Fork population to the entire area gives for the Mono as a whole 3,195.