The subordinate divisions of the natives inhabiting Alameda and Contra Costa counties can probably be allocated to five primary geographical areas. Some of these can be a.s.sociated with reasonably well recognized names; some cannot. They may be briefly considered.

_Area 1. The Alameda._--From Milpitas north to approximately Richmond, and west of the hills, the early expeditions (f.a.ges, Anza) found numerous rancherias, as previously mentioned. The Sal-Danti party in 1795, covering the southern half of this area thoroughly, found almost no native inhabitants. An originally fair-sized population therefore must have been dispersed nearly completely in twenty years.

No general, regional name was ever applied to these Indians, but a few individual rancheria names have been preserved. These are all designated in the San Francis...o...b..ptism Book as lying on the "otra banda del estero" (or some similar expression):

1778: paraje Halchis 1779: paraje Chapugtac paraje Tupucantche 1780: rancheria Genau (or Chynau) rancheria Tupine 1780: rancheria Itenau rancheria Tumiamac 1781: rancheria Torqui 1782: rancheria Putnatac rancheria Ocquizara rancheria Tacomui 1784: rancheria Ssichitca araje Cosopo 1786: rancheria Ilorocrochay paraje Guet

These records show, first, that from 1778 to 1786 the missionaries from San Francisco recognized fifteen inhabited places along the southeast sh.o.r.e of the Bay. Second, it is very clear that active search for converts was proceeding during these eight years Finally, the field must have been substantially exhausted because none of the fifteen localities are noted after 1786.

Nevertheless, San Francisco did not get all the natives, because Santa Clara was much closer and was active during the same period Unfortunately we cannot determine the village of origin for these neophytes, since the baptism book (according to Pinart's transcript) allocates the individual converts to rancherias, not according to the native names of the latter, but by corresponding Saint's names, which must have been applied, Mexican fashion, by the local missionaries Only after 1801 did Santa Clara change its system, and of course by this time no heathen Indians remained locally.

San Jose was founded and began conversions in 1797. The baptism book here has the converts identified according to general area, not specific village. There are six such regions, or categories: "Palos colorados,"

"de la Alameda," "del Estero," "del Norte," "del Este," "del Sur." Of these the first three are evidently local and in the region now being discussed: (1) the redwoods back of Oakland and San Leandro; (2) Alameda Creek and adjacent plain; (3) the sh.o.r.e of the Bay directly west of the mission. The conversions, 1797-1802 inclusive, from these three areas were respectively 31, 170, 130, indicating that San Francisco and Santa Clara had by no means completed the conquest.

_Area 2. The coast from Richmond to Carquinez Strait._--That this strip was held by the tribal group known as Huchiun (Cuchillones, Juchillones) has been supported by the accounts of Amador (diary of 1797) and of Abella (diary of 1811). The latter writer, it will be remembered, renamed the Point of the Huchines, Point San Pablo, a name which it retains today. The point of the Abastos or Aguastos became Point San Pedro. The Abastos, it may be pointed out, were neither Costanoan nor resident on the east side of the Bay. They lived on the Bay sh.o.r.e of Marin County, as is abundantly evident from the San Francis...o...b..ptism records.

The Huchiun are mentioned by Chamisso and by Choris (Mahr, 1932) in 1816, jointly with various other North Bay tribes. Chamisso says that the Utschiun, together with the Guyment, Olumpalic, Soclan, and Sonomi, all speak the same language, a manifest error. Choris repeats the mistake. Arroyo de la Cuesta gives a Huichun vocabulary and says (1837; MS p. 21) "Karquin and Huichun is one language--Saclan is another, entirely distinct." The Huchiun are noted in the San Francisco records first in 1787 (Tuchiun) and subsequently repeatedly until 1809, although they never appear in the San Jose record. Apparently San Jose derived converts from the east rather than from up coast.

The exact limits of the Huchiun are doubtful. Amador spent a night somewhere near Richmond and then went north to find them. Abella a.s.sociates them closely with Point San Pablo, and implies that their land reached as far as the strait. We may tentatively draw their boundary between Rodeo and Crockett.

_Area 3. Carquinez Strait and Concord Valley._--We are dealing here with the sh.o.r.e line from Crockett through Martinez nearly to Pittsburg, and inland between Concord and Pacheco. The princ.i.p.al Indian name a.s.sociated with this area is Karquin, from which the strait takes its name. Just what group of people is involved is a puzzling question.

Kroeber, in the Handbook of California Indians (1925, pp. 356, 466), includes the Karkin as a division of the southern Wintun, which would mean that the princ.i.p.al seat of habitation was north of the strait.

While there is no evidence in the early records to exclude this completely, there is certainly no question that at least a portion of the group lived on the south side. Thus the mission records before the settlement of the north sh.o.r.e report numerous baptisms of Karquines or Tarquines. Viader (1810) camped near Martinez, where the rancheria of the Tauquines used to be. Arroyo de la Cuesta says the language of the Karkin is the same as (or similar to) that of the Huchiun. The latter is Costanoan: the former could not be Wintun. The name Karkin was said by Arroyo de la Cuesta to signify "trocar," or "to trade." It has been supposed that the reference is to the rancheria which traded with Canizares and other early explorers.

The Karquines (on the south side at least) probably began near Crockett, adjoining the Huchiun on the west. The next sure tribe on the east is the Julpunes, whose western limit is near Antioch and who must be considered a delta people.

Abella (1811) states that the strait ends on the east in the land of the Chupunes, and on the strength of this statement Schenck (1926) places the Chupunes from Port Costa to Martinez. Schenck also cites Father Narciso Duran who, in 1817, mentions the Chupcanes as holding this territory. Yet Viader, in 1810, says it was the site of the former rancheria of the Karquines.

The mission records are illuminating. San Francisco reports its first baptism of a Karquin in 1787. The statement reads: "natural de la otra banda del paraje de Turis, o nacion Karquin." The next reference is in 1801 when eleven of this "nation" were baptized. In the meantime, scores of Huchiun had been baptized. In 1810, Chupunes or Chupanes (or Chupkanes) begin to appear, both at San Francisco and San Jose. This looks as if missionization moved progressively north and east along the sh.o.r.e: first the Huchiun, then the Karkin, then the Chupunes, and finally the Julpunes, who begin to show up at San Jose in significant numbers in 1811.

This concept of the original status of aboriginal units in northern Contra Costa County is at variance with the arrangement postulated by Schenck, who places the "Tarquimenes" and the "Tarquimes" eastward across the delta islands nearly to Stockton. There is some reason to believe that many of these delta islands were aboriginally uninhabited, but wholly apart from this consideration, another explanation can be offered, which has been suggested by Schenck (1926) and by the present writer (1955). It rests upon the probability that many of the delta tribes had undergone extensive migration, owing to Spanish military pressure in the period from 1785 to 1810. Thus the Karquines of the early accounts may have moved east along the south sh.o.r.e of Suisun Bay, far into the delta, and hence may have been recorded by later visitors under a series of name variants. In the meantime the Chupunes, or Chupkanes, may have been pushed southwest, as intimated by Kotzebue (cited by Schenck, 1926, p. 130). It is pretty clear that the tribal territories as reported by a succession of explorers from 1805 to 1820 did not conform to the aboriginal pattern. Our best solution, for present purposes, is to consider the strip from Crockett to Port Chicago as having been the range of the Karkin.

_Area 4. The interior valleys from Lafayette to Walnut Creek and Danville._--Part of this region was traversed by f.a.ges and Crespi, who reported several villages. It is later identified as the home of the Saclanes. This tribal aggregate first comes into prominence in 1795 in connection with the murder of the San Francisco Christians, who slept on the beach and reached the Saclanes by noon. Amador, on his expedition of 1797, reached them in less than twenty-four hours from Mission San Jose.

Other doc.u.ments, cited previously, indicate that in spite of terminal disorganization and scattering the original home of the group was in the small valleys west of Mt. Diablo.

The linguistic evidence adduced by Arroyo de la Cuesta (1837) demonstrates that the Saclanes were a non-Costanoan people, perhaps related to the Plains Miwok. This identification as Miwok, was first made, on the basis of the de la Cuesta vocabulary, by A. S. Gatschett, was verified by C. Hart Merriam, and first published by M. S. Beeler (1955). Kroeber (1925) cla.s.ses Saclan as doubtfully Costanoan, but shows the group as Costanoan on his large colored tribal map. Regardless of their linguistic affiliation, however, historically and ecologically they must be considered as in the same position as the Costanoans who surrounded them.

The mission records are explicit. The tribe, at least under the usual name, was converted at the San Francisco Mission and no other. The first baptisms occurred in 1794 and the last in 1798.

_Area 5. The interior valleys from Livermore to Dublin and Pleasanton._--This territory was barely skirted on the west by f.a.ges and Crespi and on the east by Anza and Font, none of whom left any record of native villages. In fact, no data in the correspondence or diaries are of significance except the reference, cited previously, to the rancheria of the Asirines. We have, on the other hand, some suggestive information from the baptism books of the mission at San Jose.

Until 1803 converts were identified in the San Jose records largely by direction. Thus three of the categories were "del Norte," "del Este,"

"del Sur." Of these, "del Este" seems to point to the Livermore Valley and nearby arroyos as the most likely inhabited region. In 1803, the rancheria, or some other type of ethnic name, is subst.i.tuted. From 1803 to 1808, all converts were drawn from twelve places having recognizable names, ending in _-an_, _-en_, _-in_, or _-un_, characteristic Costanoan word endings. None of these places can be identified as connected with the foothill or plains area bordering the Bay. None are Saclan--to the northwest of the Livermore Valley--since that group was extinct by 1798.

None can be referred to the San Joaquin Valley, since no serious conversions were attempted there, as indicated by the baptism book, before 1809. Consequently these places must have been in the interior valleys, east and northeast of Mission San Jose.

The names are as follows: Saoan, Ssouyen, Seunen, Irgin, Pelnen, Asirin, Causen (or Cusscun), Tannan (Annan), Caburun (Calenrun, Carurun), Zuicun, Tuibun, Julien. The first three are clearly synonyms, and refer to the tribe often called Seunenes. The others might perhaps have been rancherias subordinate to this tribal group, but such an hypothesis is negated by the rancheria Asirin, which is referred to in the doc.u.ments relating to the Cuevas affair as if it had an independent status.

Therefore, there were apparently several independent villages in the area as a whole.

POPULATION ESTIMATES

Since we have no other information and since there is no obvious tribal designation a.s.sociated with the region, the geographical description will have to suffice to designate the area.

The aboriginal population of the East Bay was tentatively estimated from the village counts of the f.a.ges and Anza expeditions as 2,400 and 2,150, respectively. It is possible to arrive at a new and independent estimate by means of the mission statistics.

The missionaries, or their agents, entered the area in question and sought converts to Christianity, who were immediately baptized and entered in the mission archive as Christians. Alameda and Contra Costa counties, except for the extreme eastern border in the San Joaquin Valley, were completely Christianized by 1810. Theoretically, therefore, the total baptisms should equal the population. However, during the process of conversion a serious population decline was in progress for other reasons. Disease, fugitivism to the deep interior, depression of the birth rate, economic and social upheaval, military butchery, all took such a toll of the nonmissionized, or surviving, Indians that certainly no more than one-half of the aboriginal number could have been actually baptized. At all events, the total number of baptisms represents a subminimal estimate of population.

The baptisms are here tabulated according to the mission and according to the five areas described previously. No attempt is made to segregate the entries by year, since we are interested in the total, not the annual increment. Certain particular problems deserve comment.

The San Francisco record is very precise, since it allocates each neophyte to his rancheria, or at least to the local region of his origin. Santa Clara, however, as noted previously, gives no indication of the origin before 1805. By this time, all the local natives had been exhausted and only valley tribes are mentioned. It is probable that from 1777 to 1789 the natives in the immediate vicinity were being converted.

From 1790 to 1801, inclusive, 1,392 baptisms of gentiles were recorded.

Some of these came from the south and the southwest, some from the hills to the east, and probably some represented early conquests in the San Joaquin Valley. Many, however, must have come from the north and northeast, in particular, before the foundation of San Jose in 1797. A conservative guess for this fraction would be 400, and this figure will be adopted.

San Jose, from 1797 to 1802 inclusive, indicates the origin of its converts only by general area or direction, as previously pointed out.

Some arbitrary allocation is demanded. Hence, as a reasonable solution, those natives from "Palos colorados," "de la Alameda," "del Estero," and "del Sur" are a.s.signed to area 1. Those from "del Norte" are considered Huchiun and those "del Este" are allocated to area 5. After 1802, the San Jose records specify the villages, which are all from area 5. The tabulated totals are shown at bottom of page.

The total for San Francisco and San Jose equals 1,848 baptisms. Adding an estimated 400 for Santa Clara makes 2,248. This figure, which has to be regarded as a minimum for population since it covers only mission baptisms from the region, is as great as the estimates based on the expeditions of the first decade of settlement, and proves beyond question that those estimates were highly conservative. If we a.s.sume that the aboriginal population was twice the value of the baptisms, the total would have reached 4,496. If it be allowed that conversion close to the missions was exceptionally rapid and thorough, a somewhat lower figure may be accepted, say 3,000. This estimate, however, must be regarded as the lowest consistent with the known facts.

Although little direct information pertaining to population can be secured, it is nevertheless interesting to consider the prehistoric sites in the East Bay which have been noted by California archaeologists. Most of those which can be regarded as habitation mounds have been recorded by the University of California Archaeological Survey, and have been plotted on map 1.

Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Total

San Francisco 33 206 211 297 15 762 Santa Clara 400 San Jose 347 136 603 1,086 --- --- --- --- --- ----- Total 380 342 211 297 618 2,248

It must not be thought that each site represented on the map by a dot was inhabited in 1769, or the years immediately preceding, for many of the mounds are known to have been formed during the Middle Culture period, which antedated modern times by several centuries. The chief physical characteristic of these acc.u.mulations is the very high content of mussel, and to some extent clam, sh.e.l.l. From this feature it has been deduced that at one time a very large population existed along the sh.o.r.e of the Bay.

The record of known sites, as shown on map 1, is valuable, not as an indication of the size of population, but rather of its distribution.

Admitting that perhaps the majority of the sites along the Bay sh.o.r.e from San Leandro to Crockett were abandoned before 1770, it is still apparent that the areas designated on the map as Alamedan and Huchiun contained a heavy concentration of inhabited spots. This conclusion is in conformity with the waterfront habitat and the probable large food reserves. Along the strait and the southern sh.o.r.e of Suisun Bay the known habitation mounds are less numerous, but there are enough to indicate a reasonably high population density. This area on the map has been ascribed to Karquin.

Through the generally hilly interior of Alameda and Contra Costa counties there are but two areas of sizable extent in which preconquest village sites occur with relative frequency. One is the Lafayette-Walnut Creek-Danville region and the other the Livermore Valley, west to Pleasanton and Dublin. These provinces were inhabited in the late eighteenth century by the Saklan and Seunen respectively, and are so designated on the map. Indeed, the correspondence between archaeological sites and the occurrence of rancherias in early colonial times is remarkably close. The conclusion is permissible that the pattern of occupancy found by the Spaniards had been established long previously and was fully stabilized at the time of their arrival. This condition in turn argues a mature balance between the natural environment and the indigenous population.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

_Abbreviations_

BAE-B Bureau of Ethnology, Bulletin UC University of California Publications -AR Anthropological Records -PAAE American Archaeology and Ethnology

Abella, Fr. Ramon

MS Diario de un registro de los Rios Grandes. Oct. 31, 1811, San Francisco. Bancroft Trans., Santa Barbara Arch., IV: 101-134.

Bancroft Library, Berkeley, California