1 Rogers, D. B., 1929, Heizer, , 1941b. Bibliography, see pp. 141–146 of this issue.Google ScholarPubMed

2 Olson, 1930.

3 Olson, , 1934; Heizer, , 1939. For the region immediately to the east see Wedel, 1941.Google Scholar

4 Schenck, and Dawson, , 1929, pp. 402–403.Google Scholar

5 Lillard, and Purves, , 1936; Lillard, Heizer and Fenenga, 1939; Heizer and Fenenga, 1939.Google Scholar

6 Reports of the University's field work have been presented, in summary, in Lillard, Heizer and Fenenga, 1939; Heizer and Fenenga, 1939.

7 The problem of dating the Early culture is being attacked by physiographers, and soil chemists working with the archaeologists. The indications of definitive results are promising. See Krieger, 1940.

8 See Heizer, and Fenenga, , 1939, p. 394; Lillard, Heizer and Fenenga, 1939, p. 73; Stewart, 1940, p. 41; Kroeber, 1938.Google Scholar

9 Lillard, Heizer and Fenenga, 1939, pp. 79–82.

10 Protohistoric as defined and used here signifies sites or cultural remains which are post-European in time, i.e. in the larger California area, but not necessarily in evidence, i.e. metal objects or glass beads. This point will be more clearly brought out in the discussion. Wedel's definition of protohistoric (1936, p. 24; 1940, p. 297) is somewhat different. Cf. our definition to Wedel, 1940, p. 317.

11 There is some crude pottery in southern California outside our area. See Gayton, , 1929; Rogers, M., 1936; Heizer, , 1937.Google Scholar

12 For the various types of stratification, see Heizer, and Fenenga, , 1939, p. 380.Google Scholar

13 Full documentation is impossible here. See Strong, , 1930; 1935, pp. 55–68; Wedel, , 1935, 1936, 1940; Kroeber, , 1939, pp. 76–88.Google Scholar

14 This process, little known and less advertised, also occurred in the South American Chaco. See, e.g., Kersten, , 1904; Bazan, , 1931; Dobrizhoffer, , 1822.Google Scholar

l5 A gentile (unbaptized pagan) could come and go at will, but a neophyte (baptized Indian) was the property of the church. See Englehardt, , 1912, II, pp. 263–64; von Kotzebue, , 1814, III, p. 45.Google Scholar

16 Beechey, 1836, p. 421; Fremont, 1887, p. 360.

17 See also Bancroft, , 1884, I, pp. 584–85, who indicates pursuit of deserters was not practiced in all missions. Google Scholar

18 Bancroft, , 1884, I; 1886, II. See also Chapman, 1930, Chap. 32; Papen, N. D.Google Scholar

19 Schenck, , 1926; Gifford and Schenck, 1926, pp. 20–28.Google Scholar

20 Beattie, , 1928, pp. 248, 249. This paper gives some very important information on the subject of inland natives and their pressure on the coastal establishments. See also Gudde, 1936, pp. 28–29; Englehardt, 1913, III, pp. 33–34.Google Scholar

21 These would be Southern Yokuts from the upper San Joaquin Valley. See Mason, , 1912, p. 115.Google Scholar

22 Gifford and Schenck, 1926, pp. 20–28; Bolton, 1931a, pp. 217–218; Gayton, 1936; Bancroft, 1886, II; Bolton, 19316, pp. 388–394. Walker's valuable preliminary report on the Elk Hills site yields a maximum historic dating of 1780 on the basis of Caucasianmade objects (Walker, 1935). See also Wedel, 1941, pp. 151–153.

23 Bancroft, , 1886, II, pp. 335, fn. 30 translating from Payeras’ account of 1819 says that “The best horses are being stolen; that in the Tulares all ride, even the women; and that regular fairs for the sale of horses are held there.” See also Beattie, , 1928, pp. 343–344; Torchiana, 1933, p. 270.Google Scholar

24 Watson, , 1934. Font in 1776 (Bolton, 1931b, Chaps. 15–16) saw and described many Indians in the Straits.Google Scholar

25 Font's vivid account of the difficulties of Delta travel (Bolton, 1931b, pp. 396, 406–409), for the Tulare region, see Gayton, 1936.

26 Duhaut-Cilly, , 1929, p. 313.Google Scholar

27 Schenck, , 1926, p. 140; Bancroft, 1886, II, p. 335.Google Scholar

28 Schenck, , 1926, p. 142. Site C.6, a large protohistoric center, is in Cosumne territory.Google Scholar

29 1884, I, pp. 479–480.

30 Lillard, Heizer and Fenenga, 1939, pp. 79–82.

31 Since Phase 1 is the earliest and definitely prehistoric phase of Late culture, it is reasonable to assume that it appeared at about the same time in the valley area wherever it has been disclosed. It was at any rate, in operation throughout our area in pre-Hispanic times.

32 My colleague, W. C. Massey, has prepared for publication a special report on these decorated objects. His intensive analysis bears out my simple statement of fact.

33 Lillard, Heizer and Fenenga, 1939, p. 80.

34 As shown by the presence of the same types of glass trade beads and clamshell disk beads.

35 Archaeology of the Miller Site, Colusa Co., California (MS). See also Lillard, Heizer and Fenenga, 1939, pp. 64–69.

36 This is suggested by the type of Phase 2 material culture from Site S.3. It resembles most closely material from south of Carquinez Straits rather than that from sites to the north of the Straits. For example, baked clay objects (Heizer, 1937, p. 39) are present on Site S.2, but absent from Site S.l and S.3. This is more a Sacramento than a Delta area trait.

37 See Kroeber, , 1908; Schenck, , 1926; Merriam, , 1907.Google Scholar

38 Map location shown by Schenck, 1926, Figs. 1, 2.

39 Handbook American Indians: I, p. 659; Schenck, 1926, pp. 134, 136.

40 Kroeber, 1925, p. 356; Schenck, 1926, Fig. 1.

41 U. S. Geographical Surveys W. of the 100th Meridian, 1879, p. 420.

42 Leonard, , 1904, pp. 229–231.Google Scholar

43 Bancroft, , 1886, II, pp. 530–537. See also Englehardt, 1913, III, pp. 194 ff.Google Scholar

44 Swan, , 1857, pp. 313–314.Google Scholar

45 New Helvetia Diary, 1939, p. 46. See also Gudde, 1936, pp. 177–178.

45a Heizer, N. D. b.

46 On this, see Font's statements in Bolton, 1931b, Chapters 16, 17.

47 Cf. to the Santa Barbara shell specimens shown by Rogers, D. B., 1929, Pls. 36 (top), 71 (lower); U. S. Geographical Surveys, 1879, PI. X III ; Harrington, 1928, Pl. 26 j–1.

48 These will be amply illustrated by Gifford, E. W. in his forthcoming “Californian Shell Artifacts.” The specimens I have reference to are from site C.138.Google Scholar

49 Found only in one Delta area site (C.138) in a Phase 2 burial. Heizer, N. D. a.

50 Note, for example, the knowledge among the Yokuts in 1819 of what was happening all over the San Joaquin valley (Gayton, 1936).

51 A careful study is indicated along the lines of estimating the time and numbers of Indians who were deserting. Apparently considerable numbers of neophytes left at times. Bancroft (1884,I, p. 497) mentions 138 deserters from Santa Cruz about 1797; whether in groups or singly is not stated. Cook, N.D., has a chapter on fugitivism.

52 Venereal diseases were very early prevalent in the southern San Joaquin Valley, (Englehardt, 1912, I, p. 620). Desertions assumed serious proportions (over 200 neophytes) as early as 1795 at San Francisco (Bancroft, 1884, I, pp. 709–711; Englehardt, 1912, I, pp. 499–503). An epidemic disease was one of the factors leading to these desertions (ibid., pp. 711–712). Sanchez (1922, p. 276) mentions the Suisun tribe (location shown by Schenck, 1926) which was estimated at 40,000 in 1835. An epidemic disease introduced by the Russians and which lasted from 1837–39 left only about 200 survivors, cited also by James, 1906, p. 274. A smallpox epidemic in 1833 took terrific toll of the Sacramento Valley tribes (Schenck, 1926, p. 131; Leonard, 1904, p. 185; Delano, 1936, p. 140, Wilkes, 1844, pp. 172, 174; Gudde, 1936, pp. 28–29; Torchiana, 1933, pp. 329–330). See also Cook, 1939; Cook, N.D., Chap, on disease.

53 Torchiana (1933, p. 274) states that the death rate in the missions of baptized Indians was fifty per cent in 1800, seventy-two per cent in 1810, and eighty-six per cent in 1830. Cook's paper (1940) which appeared after this was written corrects these and other figures on mission population given in this article from secondary sources.

54 The numbers of baptized Indians (33,717 in 1802; 68,218 in 1819; 87,787 in 1832) indicates a heavy drain on village populations. The unconverted remainder in the hard-hit villages of the pagan interior might well amalgamate with the permanent renouncers of Christianity who numbered 1838 in 1802, perhaps 3000 in 1819, and ca. 6000 in 1832. For further data see Cook, 1940; Cook, N.D.

55 Although this is somewhat beside the point, it is interesting to note Bancroft's (1886, II, p. 120) description of what is clearly a messianic movement among the Chumash in 1801 notwithstanding the fact that it missed fire. Such movements are ordinarily associated with groups who seek such desperate expedients as a relief from what they consider intolerable oppression. (See Heizer, 1941a; Englehardt, 1912, II, pp. 613–614.)

56 Gifford (1926, pp. 391–392) describes such an instance and the social results of such a process for the Miwok.

57 See Bancroft, , 1884, I, pp. 584, 711–712; Englehardt, 1912, I, p. 612.Google Scholar

58 See Leonard, (1904, pp. 184, 221–223) for an excellent analysis of the significance of the horse in relation to the missions and Indians. (Cf. Simpson, 1847, p. 356; Fremont, 1887, pp. 445, 446.)Google Scholar

59 See, for example, Leonard, 1904, pp. 221, 230; Simpson, 1847, p. 356; Winther, 1935, pp. 22–23; Fremont, 1887, pp. 359, 360, 445, 446.

60 Beattie, 1929, pp. 343–344.

61 Bancroft, 1884, I, p. 586, fn. 20. See also Englehardt, 1912, I, p. 425; 1913, III, p.

62 These differences are of the same relative order as those outlined between the Stockton and Lodi areas of Schenck and Dawson (1929, pp. 399–401).

63 See pp. 123–133 of this issue American Antiquity.

64 On Site C.138, in the midst of a Phase 2 cemetery, is a restricted area where we find a concentration of burials associated with clamshell disk beads. This presumably represents the latest aspect of the Phase 2 remains in this site.

65 Du Bois, 1935, pp. 70–71, fn. 38.

66 Kroeber, 1925, p. 276. Since this was written excavation in Drake's Bay has been richly remunerative in producing a series of five sites containing sixteenth century historical remains. With further work we hope to effect a cross-dating with the Central Valley Late culture.

67 Judging from the location of sites with datable historic objects and from old maps.

68 For this period, see for example the 1849 map of the Upper Sacramento Valley by Derby (Farquhar, 1932, map opp. p. 13); Dana, 1934, map opp. p. 113 (1841); Tyson, 1851, frontispiece (as of 1849). Fremont's (1887, p. 517) statements are interesting corroborative evidence.

69 See Lillard, Heizer and Fenenga, 1939, p. 81.

70 An Indian might desert from the mission, or sometimes be granted a leave of absence by the priest. (See von Kotzebue, 1814, III, p. 45; Fremont, 1887, p. 362; Englehardt, 1912, I, pp. 264, 554, 556–557.)

71 This work would yield identifiable Spanish period historic types which could be used to differentiate more distant finds from American and Hudson's Bay Company trade materials.

72 For Hudson's Bay Company dates, see Schenck, 1926, p. 131; Leader, (N.D.). This date (182S) is supported by von Kotzebue (1830, II, p. 141) who said in 1823 that the Tschupahanes and Hulpunes used to live in the area about ten miles east of the end of Suisun Bay. He also stated that the Korekines were all gone from the region where the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers join.

73 von Langsdorff, 1814. PI. opp. p. 226.

74 See Geary (1934), James (1906), Englehardt (1913, III), and Langston (N.D.) for general information on the disestablishment of the missions.

75 See, e.g. Wilkes, 1844, pp. 172–174, 208; Simpson, 1847, pp. 318, 353; Hoopes, 1932, p. 37. The “migration” or reversion mission Indians to the Sierran foothills and “Tulares” after secularization may have numbered nearly 8000. Among these were many individuals native to the mission strip (Chumash, Salinans, Costanoans) and there must have been a wide dissemination of coastal elements in the Valley from 1834 to 1850.

76 Fremont, 1887, pp. 359, 360, 446.

77 See Farquhar, 1932, p. 257.

78 Leonard, 1904, pp. 189, 193, 230.

79 Simpson, 1847, p. 406; Farquhar, 1932, pp. 115, 260; Fremont, 1887, pp. 357–359, 443, 451; Leonard, 1904, p. 183; Gudde, 1936, pp. 86–87.

80 Hearings before the Committee on Indian Affairs, 1928, pp. 44–78. For details on these treaties and the formation of an Indian Policy by the U. S. Government, see Hoopes, 1932, pp. 35–68.

81 This is a general statement, but the best possible at this time. In isolated spots or on the peripheries of the area there may have been single villages which maintained themselves later than 1825. See the San Francisco Bulletin, Sept. 9 and March 18, 1864.

82 McLeod, 1828; Peter Skene Ogden, 1829; John Work, 1832. After 1832 there was a Hudson's Bay Company camp just south of Stockton at what is called French Camp today and appears as Campo de los Francescos on the land grant area shown on the U. S. G. S. topographic quadrangle sheet. Intensive trading and an abundance of glass trade beads in local sites probably are of post-1832 date.

83 Kroeber, 1936a, Map 1.

84 See Du Bois (1939, pp. 114–115) who has realized this situation.

85 On file at Berkeley are notes on such sites.

86 Dr. T. D. McCown is responsible for this work. The mere mass of material demanding measurement, tabulation, calculation, comparison and written analysis will require time. But it is gratifying to know that the task is begun.

87 Kroeber, 1936b, p. 115.

88 In certain areas under long historical impact, this type of problem and approach is implied. Its importance to the approach used by Barnett (1940) cannot be denied.