FOOTNOTES:
[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 |